BJP Gujarat disturbing profile picture across their all social media platforms against Muslims

[cricketjoshila]

The archeological evidence came almost 3 decades later.

Or are you claiming that people who burnt the mosque time traveled in the future for that archeological report AND THEN took the law in their own hands?? LMAOO

Already brits had carried out some archaeological works around the structure and found evidences of a hindu structure.

FYI Hindus never stopped praying at the structure even when invaders converted it to a mosque. British records state this.

The structure was called, masjid e janamsthan in mughal and British records. It means mosque of the birthplace. Whose birthplace?

 

[cricketjoshila]

If Sardar Patel would have survived long enough, Ayodhya Mathura Kashi would have had peaceful resolutions like Somnath.

But once Nehru became the sole power, he started on his sickular journey, one of the aims of which was to prove how he was better than M A Jinnah for the muslims.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Nailed you and your ilk. His post should be pinned to save time in future threads.

otcourse you’ll jump in excitement because Atleast he could reply unlike you (even if he didn’t really address all the points)

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

If Sardar Patel would have survived long enough, Ayodhya Mathura Kashi would have had peaceful resolutions like Somnath.

But once Nehru became the sole power, he started on his sickular journey, one of the aims of which was to prove how he was better than M A Jinnah for the muslims.

So give Hindus what they want, and remove/destroy mosques, without any input from Muslims? This is a peaceful resolution to you?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

1. You claimed that any terrorist act can be claimed as spontaneous response. Now don't have any event for which 2002 Godhra bombing can be claimed as spontaneous response.

2. Now you're claiming that it was response to an event in 1992, even when it is obvious that demolition wasn't a revenge act. While the method used was illegal and in an ideal world, a peace loving community would have accepted mistakes of past and returned the holy site of Hindus back to them.

3. Multiple bombing happned in 2008. Can you guess what was spontaneous response of Hindus when they were bombed? Nothing. What does it indicate? Hindus tried move forward from this even after being attacked.

So as per timelines

1. Hindus temples were destroyed some invaders and built mosques on the holy sites.
2. Hindus demolished the mosque to get liberate one of their holiest site in 1992.
3. Violence erupted in not only in India and Hindus were attacked in other countries also. Hindus also attacked other community.
4. Hindus in Mumbai were bombed in 1993 which was the spontenous response of what happened then.

This is where it could have ended.

5. 9 years later, Hindus were burnt alive in a train. -- I guess you're looking for reason of this. Why did this happen?
6. Violence erupted in Gujarat as a response.
7. Hindus got bombed all over India (2008 Ahmedabad bombing wasn't just the one).

And there was no spontaneous response.

Although the Hindus and their faith are being attacked regularly, they make attempts to live peacefully. This is where parties like BJP are able to take political advantage of the situation and constantly use fears of the community which gets amplified by such events.

BJP's biggest support are not RW people, rather people who have been constantly attacking faith of Hindus are the ones who make it easy for BJP.

1. That wasn’t my claim. I just responded in kind to a claim that babri mosque terrorist demolition was a response to some event 500 years back.

2. Lol are you 5? Does your world consist of rainbows and rivers of milk? So Muslims are supposed to give away mosques for any random site which Hindus claim without any evidence put forward? What’s to stop Hindus from doing that to evru mosque in the county if Muslims give this one mosque without any solid evidence. Btw the demolition WAS a pathetic act which you don’t seem to acknowledge.


5. Fairly stupid equivalence. The reason was that those people on the train were coming back from the illegally demolished mosque and had done an event at the officially cordoned off site to inflame sentiments. They got what they wanted but I guess being beaten up wasn’t in the plan

 

[kumjsr]

Lol talk about victim complex and fake news

So I assume that you don't have any answer to back up your claim of any terrorist activity is spontaneous response and you have no idea that why Hindus were burnt in a train in Godhra.

Which point are you referring as fake news?

You have one scenario where you don't know why Godhra happened and another scenario where there were series of bombings in 2008 even after which Hindus remained peaceful.


2008 Jaipur bombings
2008 Ahmedabad bombings
2008 Bangalore bombings
2008 Delhi bombings

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

1. What is Babri mosque massacre?
2. Babri mosque demolition was in 1992. Ahmedabad bombing happened in 2008. How is it spontaneous response?
3. Babri mosque was built after demolishing Hindu temple at one of their holiest sites? Which event trigggered this spontaneous response? Did Hindus attack and demolish any mosque on their holy sites which led to temple being destroyed and mosque being built?

Theis is evidence that their was a pre-Islamic structure at the site of the Babri Masjid, however is their any proof Muslims ,whether Babur or some other King destroyed it and then built a mosque?

Like the second Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans. Muslims built the Dome of Rock their six hundred years later when the site was covered by garbage. So if Muslims never destroyed any mandir their and built a mosque centuries later, I dont see how they did anything wrong.

 

[kumjsr]

So give Hindus what they want, and remove/destroy mosques, without any input from Muslims? This is a peaceful resolution to you?

Is it even surprising?

You will easily find people who believe that Hindus have been attacked for 100s of years, they deserve to be bombed and killed.


Perception has been built that
1. Hindus are weak. Even 1 person from other communities can take on and kill 5 Hindus.
2. It's not even a religion and idol worshipping itself makes them inferior
3. Only way they can redeem themselves is by conversion.

This is something what people believed that 500 years back and similar statements are made even today no matter how educated people are.

Who benefits most from such hate for Hindus? Parties like BJP which claim to be savior of Hindus and does very little for them.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So give Hindus what they want, and remove/destroy mosques, without any input from Muslims? This is a peaceful resolution to you?

Muslims got a country and they can run it any way they want. No? Did you take consent of the millions of Hindus who lived in that region? Did you ask them if they want a islamic rule?

Subcontinental non muslims have no rights? Only muslims have rights?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Theis is evidence that their was a pre-Islamic structure at the site of the Babri Masjid, however is their any proof Muslims ,whether Babur or some other King destroyed it and then built a mosque?

Like the second Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans. Muslims built the Dome of Rock their six hundred years later when the site was covered by garbage. So if Muslims never destroyed any mandir their and built a mosque centuries later, I dont see how they did anything wrong.

Isn't it curious that when muslim invaders invaded a place, suddenly all non islamic religious structures fell down themselves and the ground became levelled and a mosque rose in its place

Such automation.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So give Hindus what they want, and remove/destroy mosques, without any input from Muslims? This is a peaceful resolution to you?

This hypocrisy of people like you is being called out across the world.

When in majority, you want islamic rules in the name of being the majority. Non muslims are third rate citizens.

When in minority, you want to talk about secularism, right to freedom of religion, etc etc.

Once muslims had been given a country in 1947, the remaining part had every right to follow whatever way it wanted, without the input of muslims because the muslim demands had already been met.

The hindus made the mistake of trusting nehru after the demise of Gandhi and Patel and not voting the hindu mahasabha to take care of their interests. Else these issues wouldn't have lingered this long.

Muslims had their country, Hindus should have had their temples.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Muslims got a country and they can run it any way they want. No? Did you take consent of the millions of Hindus who lived in that region? Did you ask them if they want a islamic rule?

Subcontinental non muslims have no rights? Only muslims have rights?

So because Pakistan was created, Indian Muslims should not get to decide if they want to give up their mosques? Mosques which btw no Pakistani will ever use. That will be a peaceful resolution to the dispute, just do what Hindus want because Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh have an independent country?

Have you ever heard of something called Watta satta? This is what your argument sounds like.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So because Pakistan was created, Indian Muslims should not get to decide if they want to give up their mosques? Mosques which btw no Pakistani will ever use. That will be a peaceful resolution to the dispute, just do what Hindus want because Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh have an independent country?

Have you ever heard of something called Watta satta? This is what your argument sounds like.

This was 1947. Muslims all across India wanted a separate nation. They were given one. Hindus should have demanded their temples in return. Unfortunately they demanded only one at that time.

Did anyone ask Pakistani Hindus if they wanted an islamic nation in 1947?

Did Muslims ask hindus before demanding a separate nation?

After partition was agreed hindus should have made their demands. Unfortunately they fell in the Nehru trap.

There is an entire world outside Muslims and their rights. Only muslims dont have rights. Others have too. Learn to leave with that.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

This hypocrisy of people like you is being called out across the world.

When in majority, you want islamic rules in the name of being the majority. Non muslims are third rate citizens.

When in minority, you want to talk about secularism, right to freedom of religion, etc etc.

If India or Western countries are secular, its not done as a favor to Muslims. Its because the majority community did not want to be ruled by religious leaders from their own religion.

And their are about 20 secular Muslim majority countries. And had Jinnah lived longer Pakistan would be one of them.

Once muslims had been given a country in 1947, the remaining part had every right to follow whatever way it wanted, without the input of muslims because the muslim demands had already been met.

The hindus made the mistake of trusting nehru after the demise of Gandhi and Patel and not voting the hindu mahasabha to take care of their interests. Else these issues wouldn't have lingered this long.

Yes the majority in the country has a right to do what they want in their country. However for a government to take a minority's place of worship is wrong. And it deserves to be called out.

Muslims had their country, Hindus should have had their temples.

Pakistan is not the country for Indian Muslims. Neither is Bangladesh. Its India.

 

[kumjsr]

Theis is evidence that their was a pre-Islamic structure at the site of the Babri Masjid, however is their any proof Muslims ,whether Babur or some other King destroyed it and then built a mosque?

Like the second Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans. Muslims built the Dome of Rock their six hundred years later when the site was covered by garbage. So if Muslims never destroyed any mandir their and built a mosque centuries later, I dont see how they did anything wrong.

Interesting pov.

What's your opinion about Gvyanvapi mosque which was constructed after demolishing another Hindu holy site Vishweshwar temple?

And also same question about Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex where Eidgah mosque was built after destroying the temple.

Do you support the idea that the site should be given back to Hindus peacefully or do you believe that even those temples were not destroyed by mughals?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Interesting pov.

What's your opinion about Gvyanvapi mosque which was constructed after demolishing another Hindu holy site Vishweshwar temple?

And also same question about Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex where Eidgah mosque was built after destroying the temple.

Do you support the idea that the site should be given back to Hindus peacefully or do you believe that even those temples were not destroyed by mughals?

The Krishna Janamsthan temple isnt even disputed. The British courts in 1930s had ruled that the land belonged to the hindus.

 

[kumjsr]

The Krishna Janamsthan temple isnt even disputed. The British courts in 1930s had ruled that the land belonged to the hindus.

Doesn't matter what any court has said.

I was asking personal opinion of the poster.

If people believe that Hindus don't deserve their holy sites back and deserve to bombed and converted because of their weakness or inferior religion, then they should state that openly.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Interesting pov.

What's your opinion about Gvyanvapi mosque which was constructed after demolishing another Hindu holy site Vishweshwar temple?

And also same question about Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex where Eidgah mosque was built after destroying the temple.

The Gvyanvapi mosque and Eidgah mosque were definitely built over temples which were destroyed by Aurangzeb. It was wrong of Aurangzeb to destroy them. He did so for political reasons, but he should have just punished the rebels rather than destroy the mandir.

Interesting pov.

Do you support the idea that the site should be given back to Hindus peacefully or do you believe that even those temples were not destroyed by mughals?

My personal opinion is that status quo should stay to avoid conflict. Their was the Shaheedganj Mosque in Lahore which was destroyed by the Sikhs, who then built a gurdwara over it. Muslims tried to get it back during the British era, but the courts refused on statue of limitations. Then when Pakistan was created the Pakistani courts also refused to give the site back to Muslims. And its still a Gurdwara to this day.

https://scroll.in/article/693471/a-...-could-hold-lessons-for-the-babri-masjid-case

However its up to Indian Muslims to decide on how they want to handle the situation. Hindus often talk about mandirs that were destroyed by Muslim Kings. This is true, however what they dont talk about is that mosques were also destroyed by Hindu Kings. I think we should call it even.

Their is no significance to the land of either the Gvyanvapi mosque and Eidgah mosque for Muslims. The only importance of those mosques are that they are historical. So in theory if its possible to move the mosques to another location without destroying them the Muslim community of India could make a gesture and let Hindus have that land. The danger however is, today its those mosques, tomorrow it could be thousands of more.

 

[Osama Shafeeqe]

This was 1947. Muslims all across India wanted a separate nation. They were given one. Hindus should have demanded their temples in return. Unfortunately they demanded only one at that time.

Did anyone ask Pakistani Hindus if they wanted an islamic nation in 1947?

Did Muslims ask hindus before demanding a separate nation?

After partition was agreed hindus should have made their demands. Unfortunately they fell in the Nehru trap.

There is an entire world outside Muslims and their rights. Only muslims dont have rights. Others have too. Learn to leave with that.

I think you need revise your brainwashed Hindutva history. Many Muslims were against a separate Muslim state and one of the biggest Unified India supporters was Jinnah himself but he was made aware of the deep rage many Right Wing Hindus had against Muslims and understood a separate state was the only way to insure Muslim had a voice in their own governance. History has vindicated him with present day state of India, where Indian Muslims were promised a State that would consider them an equal participants but are now having to prove themselves Indian (literally) and are watching away as their rights of practicing their religion fades away. Not long after this Hijab ban, there will be a beard ban and a skull cap ban but don't worry things like having turban and a beard on as a Sikh and carrying a weapon will always be legal in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

If India or Western countries are secular, its not done as a favor to Muslims. Its because the majority community did not want to be ruled by religious leaders from their own religion.

And their are about 20 secular Muslim majority countries. And had Jinnah lived longer Pakistan would be one of them.




Yes the majority in the country has a right to do what they want in their country. However for a government to take a minority's place of worship is wrong. And it deserves to be called out.



Pakistan is not the country for Indian Muslims. Neither is Bangladesh. Its India.

1. Dont know about others but India was made secular because
A. Gandhi favoured secularism.
B. Hinduism as such doesn't consider itself superior to other religions and hence equal rights was not a problem.

But once Gandhi passed away and then Patel. Ambedkar resigned from the Nehru cabinet due to Nehru hijacking the constitution and the party and parliament equal eights became a dream. Muslim personal laws were retained while the rest were brought under a codified law in the constitution.

While invoking Gandhi to declare India secular, Nehru refused to honour other wishes of Gandhi like cow protection.

Hindus also were betrayed regards to their temples. Patel and Gandhi had supported the retaking of important hindu places of worship and shifting the mosques to a near by site. The same was done in Somnath. And the proposal was to do the same in Ayodhya Kashi and Mathura. But after Patel and Gandhi's demise Nehru refused to follow through on this.

Infact in 1960s the then congress government took over the land in Mathura, which had been given to Hindus in 1930s by the British courts and made a trust. This trust was then asked to sign an agreement with muslims giving the land to mosque as a lease in perpetuity.



It is ok for muslims to declare an entire country as islamic but another majority cant even ask for a few places of worship that were forcibly taken to be given back to them?

In 1947, pakistan was created as the homeland for all muslims of the subcontinent. All.

 

[kumjsr]

The Gvyanvapi mosque and Eidgah mosque were definitely built over temples which were destroyed by Aurangzeb. It was wrong of Aurangzeb to destroy them. He did so for political reasons, but he should have just punished the rebels rather than destroy the mandir.



My personal opinion is that status quo should stay to avoid conflict. Their was the Shaheedganj Mosque in Lahore which was destroyed by the Sikhs, who then built a gurdwara over it. Muslims tried to get it back during the British era, but the courts refused on statue of limitations. Then when Pakistan was created the Pakistani courts also refused to give the site back to Muslims. And its still a Gurdwara to this day.

https://scroll.in/article/693471/a-...-could-hold-lessons-for-the-babri-masjid-case

However its up to Indian Muslims to decide on how they want to handle the situation. Hindus often talk about mandirs that were destroyed by Muslim Kings. This is true, however what they dont talk about is that mosques were also destroyed by Hindu Kings. I think we should call it even.

Their is no significance to the land of either the Gvyanvapi mosque and Eidgah mosque for Muslims. The only importance of those mosques are that they are historical. So in theory if its possible to move the mosques to another location without destroying them the Muslim community of India could make a gesture and let Hindus have that land. The danger however is, today its those mosques, tomorrow it could be thousands of more.

Why should there be a conflict at all?

There lies a difference between these being just another temple and a mosque being constructed over those places.

Ayoydhya and Mathura cities are considered birthplaces of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna respectively

Kashi Vishwanath temple is one of 12 jyotirlingas.

 

[KingKhanWC]

To display their faith would mean their faith was behind their actions.

No Hindu extremist or BJP politician has proved this to be the case.

If it is only confirming who these people were, I will make a cartoon of the Dehli bus rapists dressed as Hindus. I assume this will be be the same, confirming some factual information of the disgusting rape?

 

[kumjsr]

To display their faith would mean their faith was behind their actions.

No Hindu extremist or BJP politician has proved this to be the case.

If it is only confirming who these people were, I will make a cartoon of the Dehli bus rapists dressed as Hindus. I assume this will be be the same, confirming some factual information of the disgusting rape?

Yes, Indian Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami are non-religous social welfare NGOs.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes, Indian Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami are non-religous social welfare NGOs.

Any terrorist organisation worth it's salt wouldn't display their faith openly. That's why the alleged 911 bombers were clean shaven supposedly. Targetting the Muslim population in general by appearance is disturbing in that it reflects the worst times of partition where pulling down of pants to check for circumsion was the MO.

 

[chrismatt83]

Modi hai tu mumkin hai. Single handedly destroying the fabric of India. A thousand ISI agents cannot achieve what this guy is achieving on his own. May he rule for next two decades Inshallah.

This is the sad truth. The sooner we can just rid of this guy and his party the better off India will be. Unfortunately I don’t see that happening any time soon because the majority are either delusional and see no wrong in it, and then there’s a select few that definitely believe in what he does especially with discriminating against the minorities and then a select few are too scared to do anything about it and have just accepted it as the status quo.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This is the sad truth. The sooner we can just rid of this guy and his party the better off India will be. Unfortunately I don’t see that happening any time soon because the majority are either delusional and see no wrong in it, and then there’s a select few that definitely believe in what he does especially with discriminating against the minorities and then a select few are too scared to do anything about it and have just accepted it as the status quo.

How is it that you have the right to your views but millions who vote for Modi are all delusional or scared or bigoted?

 

[IMMY69]

How is it that you have the right to your views but millions who vote for Modi are all delusional or scared or bigoted?

I can't speak for others but I form my opinion by reading and discussing with BJP supporters. Just reading your posts over the last few years has been eye opening.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

If Modi personally murdered some 90 year old woman and this was caught on video, I think his supporters will still defend it and find twisted ways to justify it. I’ve never seen such blind devotion to a living being asides from perhaps Ismailis with Aga Khan. I think even there Modi shades it .

 

[MP2011]

If Modi personally murdered some 90 year old woman and this was caught on video, I think his supporters will still defend it and find twisted ways to justify it. I’ve never seen such blind devotion to a living being asides from perhaps Ismailis with Aga Khan. I think even there Modi shades it .

Have never seen them even remotely criticizing anything what feku does. For them even national disasters like demonetization are ok since it was brought in by the feku.

Even highest ever petrol prices can't deter them from their blind bhakti of their god. If he has brought them, it must be for something good. That's how blind they're, nation may go to hell however their feku's reign must be held high in all circumstances.

Even god could be wrong but not feku for these guys.

 

[kumjsr]

Any terrorist organisation worth it's salt wouldn't display their faith openly. That's why the alleged 911 bombers were clean shaven supposedly. Targetting the Muslim population in general by appearance is disturbing in that it reflects the worst times of partition where pulling down of pants to check for circumsion was the MO.

Are those terrorist organisations non-religious social welfare organizations?

 

[kumjsr]

If Modi personally murdered some 90 year old woman and this was caught on video, I think his supporters will still defend it and find twisted ways to justify it. I’ve never seen such blind devotion to a living being asides from perhaps Ismailis with Aga Khan. I think even there Modi shades it .

Because of many people who support bombers who have been convicted for attacking and killing innocent Hindus, people like Modi gain relevance.

Only way to stop Modi (and leaders like him) is to stop attacking Hindus, stop bombing them because of their different faith, stop supporting terrorists, which unfortunately doesn't look like happening in anytime in near future because there are lot people who openly want to kill Hindus, many who support such acts (even here) and don't want them to live with their faith peacefully.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Because of many people who support bombers who have been convicted for attacking and killing innocent Hindus, people like Modi gain relevance.

Only way to stop Modi (and leaders like him) is to stop attacking Hindus, stop bombing them because of their different faith, stop supporting terrorists, which unfortunately doesn't look like happening in anytime in near future because there are lot people who openly want to kill Hindus, many who support such acts (even here) and don't want them to live with their faith peacefully.

Seems like Indian Muslims are a terrible lot. I keep hearing how proud Indian Muslims are of being Indian, but seems like they aren't loved much by the majority in return.