[VIDEOS] Why anti Muslim bias is so profound among Hindutva supporters?

[Stewie]

"Insistence" : how dare people exercise their constitutional rights! the horror

Damn straight. he is your prophet. not mine. you have the right to hold whoever you chose in reverence. I have the right to mock the religious fairy tales and religious character as I see fit.

Only one religions followers go around murdering people for exercising the rights in the their land.

Yup. I'm proud of those comments

How would you classify Hindus going around bursting Muslims for slaughtering cows then? Or are they not Hindus?

 

[Stewie]

By the way there is a separate thread here about the wonderful Hindus who simply get along with everyone and never force their views on anyone maybe @rpant_gabba you can visit that thread as well.

[PICTURES] Elderly Muslim man beaten up on train over suspicion of carrying beef in Maharashtra

So sad to watch , cowardly attack on an elderly person. In a video that went viral on social media shows a dozen people surrounding and assaulting the man, verbally abusing him and even hurling rape threats These RSs extremists are sick , diseased ========================================...

ppforum.pakpassion.net

 

[Technics 1210]

I think it is time to call a spade a spade.

I personally hold the opinion that Hinduism has failed humanity and has woefully underachieved as an ideology. 5000 years in existence, and yet no major influence on humanity other than introducing the concept of 'something out of nothing'. (Neo-Hinduism - look it up).

Monotheistic faiths on the other hand professed intelligent causation, which is far more logical than pulling a rabbit out of a hat from nothing. This is why Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have each in their own right contributed and shaped humanity within half the timeframe.

I think Hindutva is simply jealous of Islam. Just the Islamic riches throughout history alone has forced Hindutva to rewrite their own history. Hindus just could not compete, then you add the insult to injury, carving India into 3 pieces.

I think the partition hurts Hindutva because their motherland or homeland - whatever you want to call it - was carved by Muslims. Much like Hitler blamed the Jews for carving Germany after WW1 (Treaty of Versailles).

Sadly for the Hindutva mob, the past cannot be changed. Modi's India is mirroring 1930s Germany, blates, and it won't be long before a civil war breaks out in India.

It is true, up until 2014, India was on the ascendancy, but now, it is downhill - socially, morally, politically, and of course, economically - which explains which millions of Modi's so called supporters are desperate to flee 'incredible' India.

The funny thing is, these bailing Hindutvas will happily move to the Arab states, and abide by Muslims law. So maybe Islam is not the problem for Hindutva, but just a simple case of victimhood because even after 5000 years, India remains a mess and the first sign of victimhood is blaming others for your failures.

 

[uppercut]

. Just the Islamic riches throughout history alone has forced Hindutva to rewrite their own history.

Can you give some examples to back that?

 

[Hitman]

Can you give some examples to back that?

Just look at Pakistan.

 

[uppercut]

You know very well what I mean when I used the word insistence to have the right to insult our prophet, not just freedom of speech.


Well then be prepared for reactions from our side. Unfortunately, this is the ugly side of it. We will dig up the ugliest, deepest darkest parts of Hinduism and Hindus and shove them in your face. There is no dearth of such stuff . And no matter how much you claim to be an atheist, unfortunately you will all get lumped into it.

I know it’s ugly but that’s the world of online forums. Lol

There you go... now you know why the Hindus resort to violence when Muslims very deliberately insist on killing Cows knowing very well what it means to hindus.


Please spare me the usual nonsense that the rest of the world doesn't consider cows to be Holy.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Thank you!


This is all I have been trying to say. Everything else here is just noise!

Since secularism is inferior to islamic rules, isn't it a good thing that india is not secular?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Most of the stuff you are responding to with your post is about Hindu insistence on the right of freedom of speech and refusal to consider the respect of our Prophet. You can go back and view those comments mainly from people like @rpant_gabba

There are certain sections within Hindu/indian/so-called atheists who believe Muslims should not be extended such a courtesy. If you make claims like that of course you are going to face retaliation from Muslim posters here who love an opportunity to shove the mirror in their neighbors’ faces about claims regarding their so-called secularism.

There are also posters here such as yourself who have openly called out not just Muslims but Islam as a faith for telling its followers to go kill the non-believers. Furthermore any response by Muslims regarding the historical context of that stand is ignored by Hindus.

There are certain reasonable Indian posters here who admit there are flaws on both sides. There are also good points on both sides.

So kindly take your nonsense elsewhere and stop making blanket statements. Muslims don’t and would never claim for unreasonable things as rights. That’s another POS nonsense from you.

Insulting any religion is a criminal offence in India. What anyone says doesn't change that.

Pakistan is an Islamic republic. Non muslims are second class citizens there. Any Pakistani opinion criticizing secularism in India is just a joke to laugh at.

Show me one post where i have been critical of Islam the religion. My criticism has always been of Muslims.

Muslims have and do claim a number of unreasonable things and thats a fact.

They want laws in a secular country to be as per Sharia. That's one of the examples.

There are number of threads here with news of Muslims occupying public places to offer namaz.

I can go on and on.

You can tell all this nonsense to some westerner and he may believe you, but i have grown up in a state with 30 percent muslim population. I will not be hoodwinked.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Since secularism is inferior to islamic rules, isn't it a good thing that india is not secular?

India should be secular because Muslims are a minority here and minority rights matter.

But if Muslims are in majority, Islamic rules take precedence.

 

[Hitman]

India should be secular because Muslims are a minority here and minority rights matter.

But if Muslims are in majority, Islamic rules take precedence.

Smart people in the West are slowly waking up to it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Smart people in the West are slowly waking up to it.

We have already waken up. That's what matters.

 

[CricketCartoons]

India should be secular because Muslims are a minority here and minority rights matter.

But if Muslims are in majority, Islamic rules take precedence.

@Stewie is using "india is not secular" as a get out of jail card for all his failed arguments and beatings. Western secularism is only separation of state and church, indian secularism is giving benefits to each religions. The community which is most against true secularism in india are the indian muslims, because if the state starts treating every religion equally, muslims have much to lose. They have so many exceptions and privileges which are not only denied to hindus, they are denied to other minority religions as well. Muslims are a state within a state, where they pick and choose which indian law should apply to them, enjoying privileges while also playing perennial victims. Only they should be allowed polygamy, only they should have a special property act which allows them to claim any land, they should be exempt from allowing dalits in their colleges, despite getting central govt funds, and after that they want muslim taste buds to have more rights than the religious rights of hindus. Yes @Stewie india is not secular. It is a quasi islamic state opposing secular laws.

 

[RexRex]

At the fundamental level they are a belief system, and every belief system should be held to the same level of accountability if its believers commit violence motivated by it.

The important word you mention here is 'motivated by'.

A belief system is judged by what it requires its followers to believe. If a Christian (say Anders Breivik) commits an act of violence and that act is a direct contradiction to what his religion teaches him, how on earth do you hold the religion itself accountable here ? You can't. I can't believe your lack of ability to grasp this simple piece of logic.

Now .. take the belief system of Hindutva. Its primary feature is hindu vigilantism i.e taking the law in your own hands. So if a follower of hindutva engages in vigilantism (beating old man on train), he is essentially following the principles of his belief system .. he is not acting in contradiction to his belief system. So you can absolutely blame Hindutva here for the train incident !

See the difference ?

 

[Hitman]

We have already waken up. That's what matters.

I feel bad about those Western countries. They are slowly waking up but the damage has already been done. There's no recovery from this. The disease has already spread.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

@Stewie is using "india is not secular" as a get out of jail card for all his failed arguments and beatings. Western secularism is only separation of state and church, indian secularism is giving benefits to each religions. The community which is most against true secularism in india are the indian muslims, because if the state starts treating every religion equally, muslims have much to lose. They have so many exceptions and privileges which are not only denied to hindus, they are denied to other minority religions as well. Muslims are a state within a state, where they pick and choose which indian law should apply to them, enjoying privileges while also playing perennial victims. Only they should be allowed polygamy, only they should have a special property act which allows them to claim any land, they should be exempt from allowing dalits in their colleges, despite getting central govt funds, and after that they want muslim taste buds to have more rights than the religious rights of hindus. Yes @Stewie india is not secular. It is a quasi islamic state opposing secular laws.

They are not the community most against it.

They are the second community.

First community appears to be the Hindu liberals.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The important word you mention here is 'motivated by'.

A belief system is judged by what it requires its followers to believe. If a Christian (say Anders Breivik) commits an act of violence and that act is a direct contradiction to what his religion teaches him, how on earth do you hold the religion itself accountable here ? You can't. I can't believe your lack of ability to grasp this simple piece of logic.

Now .. take the belief system of Hindutva. Its primary feature is hindu vigilantism i.e taking the law in your own hands. So if a follower of hindutva engages in vigilantism (beating old man on train), he is essentially following the principles of his belief system .. he is not acting in contradiction to his belief system. So you can absolutely blame Hindutva here for the train incident !

See the difference ?

LOL. So much somersault to protect when it comes to your own.

Crusades happened under the banner of Christianity, approved by the church, led by christians. Doesn't matter that Jesus Christ asked his followers to turn the other cheek, or the NT also doesn't approve of it (except some debatable verses). Christians cannot disown crusades or the inquisitions, saying that this is not what Jesus taught us. Breivik was a self declared crusader. Christians, despite the teachings of Jesus Christ, have shed blood and killed FOR RELIGION. No amount of gynastics can change that.

Coming to Hindutva, which written word by any hindutva ideologue asks to assault elderly? (not rhetorical, means you should answer). Every belief system has bad apples, and some hindutva followers may be bad. But hindutva only stands for cultural nationalism, inclusiveness, women rights and loyalty to the nation first, irrespective of your religion.

Read all headlines of Mohan Bhagwat, you will think he is some leftist.

PS: Why did you mock my faith that day and came to cause me pain while expressing glee? Would Jesus be proud of it?

 

[CricketCartoons]

They are not the community most against it.

They are the second community.

First community appears to be the Hindu liberals.

There are very few hindu liberals. Maybe communist hindus who are actually fascists, and don't show any liberal quality. They believe in suppression of opinions they don't like. They don't believe in democracy when the outcome is not to their liking.

 

[RexRex]

LOL. So much somersault to protect when it comes to your own.

Crusades happened under the banner of Christianity, approved by the church, led by christians. Doesn't matter that Jesus Christ asked his followers to turn the other cheek, or the NT also doesn't approve of it (except some debatable verses). Christians cannot disown crusades or the inquisitions, saying that this is not what Jesus taught us. Breivik was a self declared crusader. Christians, despite the teachings of Jesus Christ, have shed blood and killed FOR RELIGION. No amount of gynastics can change that.

Crusades were a movement to counter the expansion of Islamic conquests into Christian lands, it was political act .. not one that was demanded by the religion of Christianity. This is not gymnastics .. just pointing out to you that u cannot draw a direct path of logic from the Crusades to the teachings of Christianity i.e what Jesus taught.

Coming to Hindutva, which written word by any hindutva ideologue asks to assault elderly? (not rhetorical, means you should answer). Every belief system has bad apples, and some hindutva followers may be bad. But hindutva only stands for cultural nationalism, inclusiveness, women rights and loyalty to the nation first, irrespective of your religion.

Were the people who brought down the Babri Masjid considered bad apples ? Not at all. They were considered heroes by the Hindutva movement .. because vigilantism is what defines Hindutva. Those depraved people in the train engaged in what their belief system required them to.

 

[RexRex]

PS: Why did you mock my faith that day and came to cause me pain while expressing glee? Would Jesus be proud of it?

When did I mock your faith ? Don't remember.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Crusades were a movement to counter the expansion of Islamic conquests into Christian lands, it was political act .. not one that was demanded by the religion of Christianity. This is not gymnastics .. just pointing out to you that u cannot draw a direct path of logic from the Crusades to the teachings of Christianity i.e what Jesus taught.



Were the people who brought down the Babri Masjid considered bad apples ? Not at all. They were considered heroes by the Hindutva movement .. because vigilantism is what defines Hindutva. Those depraved people in the train engaged in what their belief system required them to.

I am not drawing a path from Jesus to Crusades and Inquisition. I am saying "DESPITE" what Jesus preached, the violence done on the name of Christianity is owned by Christians only. It cannot be wished or washed away by saying Jesus did not teach this. Crusades and Inquisition is totally owned by christian society. Breivik was inspired by the concept of crusades. You cannot show me a single hindutva follower who can be compared to Breivik. But you will deny that crusades had nothing to do with crhstianity, and some people assaulting an elderly has everything to do with hindutva.


The people who brought down the masjid-e-jasmasthan are our heroes. They didn't kill or wound anyone. In fact they got killed by the police. This was revolution. Every revolution breaks law. Even Jesus Christ broke laws of his time.

Show me any primary quote by hindutva ideologue which asks to assault elderly.

PS: Did you make Jesus proud of you when you came to hurt my religious feelings by taunting about beef?

 

[RexRex]

Show me any primary quote by hindutva ideologue which asks to assault elderly.

They don't need to be a specific quote. There are a million scenarios of evil out there for which hindutva ideologues haven't made 'quotes'.

Violence/force/intimidation (instead of using the law) is a intrinsic part of the hindutva movement. The logical extension of that is we have a holy mosque torn down illegaly. Another logical extension is that an old man got beaten for hurting hindu sentiments - again an illegal act.

 

[RexRex]

Did you make Jesus proud of you when you came to hurt my religious feelings by taunting about beef?

Why where you offended ? I was having a jar of siamese pickled beef and enjoyed it so much that I invited you try it out some day. Why did that hurt your feelings ?

 

[CricketCartoons]

They don't need to be a specific quote. There are a million scenarios of evil out there for which hindutva ideologues haven't made 'quotes'.

Violence/force/intimidation (instead of using the law) is a intrinsic part of the hindutva movement. The logical extension of that is we have a holy mosque torn down illegaly. Another logical extension is that an old man got beaten for hurting hindu sentiments - again an illegal act.

Every revolution breaks laws. So stop using this weak excuse, unless it is murder and assault.

So you concede you have no specific quote by hindutva ideologues. Thank you.

Jesus Christ also broke laws of his time. Since you think something is evil because it is illegal, what do you have to say about that?

Every revolution is illegal. The debate should be on its morality or immorality, not on legality. I am used to teaching basics to you now, so don't mind.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why where you offended ? I was having a jar of siamese pickled beef and enjoyed it so much that I invited you try it out some day. Why did that hurt your feelings ?

Did you make Jesus Christ proud by asking a hindu to try out beef?

 

[RexRex]

Every revolution breaks laws. So stop using this weak excuse, unless it is murder and assault.

Why not 'murder and assault' ?

lol .. I like how you arbitrarily sneaked in that qualifier.

If I remember correctly, the king of France had his head chopped by his countrymen with a guillotine; countrymen who were engaged in what is called French revolution (round about the 18th century)

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why not 'murder and assault' ?

lol .. I like how you arbitrarily sneaked in that qualifier.

If I remember correctly, the king of France had his head chopped with a guilotine by his countrymen, who were engaged in what is called French revolution (round about the 18th century)

What is so sneaky about it? You cannot club vandalism and murder together.

Every revolution breaks laws. Jesus Christ was a revolutionary who broke laws, but he did not murder or assault anyone.

Illegality is not the way to judge revolutions. Morality is.

You lack basic knowledge. But I don't mind educating you. If you think illegality makes something wrong, then you think Jesus Christ was wrong. So update your views otherwise you will end up being handcuffed by your own logic.

 

[RexRex]

Did you make Jesus Christ proud by asking a hindu to try out beef?

Why were you offended ? It is not like I tied you to a pole and then forced meat down your throat. It was an invitation to taste the sumptuous texture of vinegar laced angus beef. Mmmm.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why were you offended ? It is not like I tied you to a pole and then forced meat down your throat. It was an invitation to taste the sumptuous texture of vinegar laced angus beef. Mmmm.

Proudly say that you were following teachings of Christ and He would be proud of you.

 

[RexRex]

You lack basic knowledge. But I don't mind educating you. If you think illegality makes something wrong, then you think Jesus Christ was wrong. So update your views otherwise you will end up being handcuffed by your own logic.

Jesus Christ broke the laws yes .. so ? What does that have to do with anything I've said so far ?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Jesus Christ broke the laws yes .. so ? What does that have to do with anything I've said so far ?

Because so far you were bringing illegality to judge Hindutva. So now you see why illegality is not the right yardstick to judge? Or I need to take you for another lesson?

 

[RexRex]

Proudly say that you were following teachings of Christ and He would be proud of you.

I have a bit of a track record on this; I've invited numerous hindu friends of mine to try out beef and they absolutely loved it .. they are beef addicts now and pester me for recipes. Those who didn't want it .. politely declined. They didn't whinge about hurt feelings lol.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I have a bit of a track record on this; I've invited numerous hindu friends of mine to try out beef and they absolutely loved it .. they are beef addicts now and pester me for recipes. Those who didn't want it .. politely declined. They didn't whinge about hurt feelings lol.

So you claiming innocence that you didn't know it can be hurtful to practicing hindus?

 

[RexRex]

Because so far you were bringing illegality to judge Hindutva. So now you see why illegality is not the right yardstick to judge?

Yes it is the right yardstick .. because it is the only yardstick we have as a diverse nation, India is a country of laws. There are milliions of people in India with their own idea of what morality is, not just you ... you can't cater to them all. Hence we have hashed out a proxy compromise which is what we commonly call the law aka the Constitution. I thought you were taught all this stuff in Civics class ? Or did you bunk classes and go to RSS meetings.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yes it is the right yardstick .. because it is the only yardstick we have as a diverse nation, India is a country of laws. There are milliions of people in India with their own idea of what morality is, not just you ... you can't cater to them all. Hence we have hashed out a proxy compromise which is what we commonly call the law aka the Constitution. I thought you were taught all this stuff in Civics class ? Or did you bunk classes and go to RSS meetings.

Fine. So Jesus Christ acts were also illegal. Please judge him by the same yardstick.

This is like indulging a kid and watching him get tied up.

 

[RexRex]

So you claiming innocence that you didn't know it can be hurtful to practicing hindus?

You are obviously pretending to be hurt; but if you really are .. I'd strongly urge you to check into a psych ward. It is highly abnormal to be upset about such trivial things .. particularly a good faith effort at inviting you to the heavenly pleasure that is tenderloin beef marinated with dollops of gochujang sauce. Yumm!

 

[RexRex]

Fine. So Jesus Christ acts were also illegal. Please judge him by the same yardstick.

This is like indulging a kid and watching him get tied up.

Yes what he did was illegal by the laws of that time. I never said otherwise. What is your point lol.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yes what he did was illegal by the laws of that time. I never said otherwise. What is your point lol.

Demolishing Masjid-e-Janmasthan was also illegal by the laws of the time. No one was killed or assaulted.

Advani is our Bharat Ratna. Supreme Court has approved what we stood for. That it was a place of our temple. We were proved right.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You are obviously pretending to be hurt; but if you really are .. I'd strongly urge you to check into a psych ward. It is highly abnormal to be upset about such trivial things .. particularly a good faith effort at inviting you to the heavenly pleasure that is tenderloin beef marinated with dollops of gochujang sauce. Yumm!

Jesus said "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
What would he say for those, who KNOW what they are doing. Any guesses?

 

[RexRex]

Demolishing Masjid-e-Janmasthan was also illegal by the laws of the time. No one was killed or assaulted.

Advani is our Bharat Ratna. Supreme Court has approved what we stood for. That it was a place of our temple. We were proved right.

See ya later in the day. I gotta go, work calls

 

[CricketCartoons]

See ya later in the day. I gotta go, work calls

Pro tip: Don't let the person know you are taking a break. Let the other person keep refreshing waiting for a reply.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India should be secular because Muslims are a minority here and minority rights matter.

But if Muslims are in majority, Islamic rules take precedence.

Smart people in the West are slowly waking up to it.

India should be secular because that is what it claims to be. No one has forced India to adopt a secular constitution, but if you claim it, then at least stand by it.

If Muslims are in majority they can make their constitution secular, communist or theocratic, that depends on each individual nation. You are lumping them altogether as if there was no independent nations, only one all encompassing ummah.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

India should be secular because that is what it claims to be. No one has forced India to adopt a secular constitution, but if you claim it, then at least stand by it.

If Muslims are in majority they can make their constitution secular, communist or theocratic, that depends on each individual nation. You are lumping them altogether as if there was no independent nations, only one all encompassing ummah.

You are expecting a lot of nuance from people that refer to Muslims as a disease.

 

[CricketCartoons]

India should be secular because that is what it claims to be. No one has forced India to adopt a secular constitution, but if you claim it, then at least stand by it.

If Muslims are in majority they can make their constitution secular, communist or theocratic, that depends on each individual nation. You are lumping them altogether as if there was no independent nations, only one all encompassing ummah.

India's secularism is not same as western secularism. The montrosity which we call secularism in India, is giving benefits to religions based on how useful it is for election. Since muslims vote en bloc, they have got the most privileges and exemptions. Only section of hindus vote en bloc, otherwise most hindus have other considerations, that is why hindus have not been able to wrest more concessions and excemptions that their numbers warrant. Real minorities like jains, parsis, buddhists have no concession because their numbers are not useful.

Muslim nations cannot have secular constitution, unless it is ruled by a brutal dictator. This is because Islam doesn't have concept of secularism.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India's secularism is not same as western secularism. The montrosity which we call secularism in India, is giving benefits to religions based on how useful it is for election. Since muslims vote en bloc, they have got the most privileges and exemptions. Only section of hindus vote en bloc, otherwise most hindus have other considerations, that is why hindus have not been able to wrest more concessions and excemptions that their numbers warrant. Real minorities like jains, parsis, buddhists have no concession because their numbers are not useful.

Muslim nations cannot have secular constitution, unless it is ruled by a brutal dictator. This is because Islam doesn't have concept of secularism.

Seems like Hinduism doesna't have concept of secularism either if it is a western import. Perhaps India should just adopt Islam if they want to do away with secularism and confusion.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You are expecting a lot of nuance from people that refer to Muslims as a disease.

Most people may think @Bhaijaan @cricketjoshila and yours truly can be lumped together, as proponents of hindutva, but I disagree a lot with both of them. This nuance will be missed, and rightly so, by someone watching from a distance where we all look the same.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Seems like Hinduism doesna't have concept of secularism either if it is a western import. Perhaps India should just adopt Islam if they want to do away with secularism and confusion.

Hinduism doesn't have the concept of secularism (separation of church and state), because the hindu equivalent of church was never powerful than the state. They minded their own business and were under the patronage of the state.

The separation of church and state is a uniquely western concept, because the church was stronger that the state, that is why the state wanted separation.

Islam doesnt have secularism, because state and church are the same in Islam.

In Hinduism, the are separate, but separation was not needed because the hindu church was not antagonistic, or superior to the state.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I think it is time to call a spade a spade.

I personally hold the opinion that Hinduism has failed humanity and has woefully underachieved as an ideology. 5000 years in existence, and yet no major influence on humanity other than introducing the concept of 'something out of nothing'. (Neo-Hinduism - look it up).

Monotheistic faiths on the other hand professed intelligent causation, which is far more logical than pulling a rabbit out of a hat from nothing. This is why Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have each in their own right contributed and shaped humanity within half the timeframe.

I think Hindutva is simply jealous of Islam. Just the Islamic riches throughout history alone has forced Hindutva to rewrite their own history. Hindus just could not compete, then you add the insult to injury, carving India into 3 pieces.

I think the partition hurts Hindutva because their motherland or homeland - whatever you want to call it - was carved by Muslims. Much like Hitler blamed the Jews for carving Germany after WW1 (Treaty of Versailles).

Sadly for the Hindutva mob, the past cannot be changed. Modi's India is mirroring 1930s Germany, blates, and it won't be long before a civil war breaks out in India.

It is true, up until 2014, India was on the ascendancy, but now, it is downhill - socially, morally, politically, and of course, economically - which explains which millions of Modi's so called supporters are desperate to flee 'incredible' India.

The funny thing is, these bailing Hindutvas will happily move to the Arab states, and abide by Muslims law. So maybe Islam is not the problem for Hindutva, but just a simple case of victimhood because even after 5000 years, India remains a mess and the first sign of victimhood is blaming others for your failures.

Abrahamic religions offer nothing but misery. They will not leave you alone until you convert. Brutal wars were fought and millions killed all in the. And of spreading the word of their single God.

It’s funny that they criticize the polytheists and animists all day. But when you show them the mirror, they cannot handle it.

Since you claimed the 5000 yrs of Hinduism existence, what about your favorite religion which is much existed since the first human who according to science existed about 250,000 yrs ago. What has Islam achieved? They built empires over human skulls.

It wasn’t until Industrial Revolution and modern tech that humans saw real progress and improvements in the society. All the progress we made has nothing to do with your favorite make believe power up in the sky.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Seems like Hinduism doesna't have concept of secularism either if it is a western import. Perhaps India should just adopt Islam if they want to do away with secularism and confusion.

All polytheistic religions are inherently secular.
Polytheistic gods don’t get angry and condemn you to hell fires if you pray to some other god and make him or her your favorite.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

All polytheistic religions are inherently secular.
Polytheistic gods don’t get angry and condemn you to hell fires if you pray to some other god and make him or her your favorite.

Then why did you and your ideologue Savarkar need to create a separate hindutva identity rejecting many of the beliefs of Hindu scriptures and declaring yourselves atheists?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Then why did you and your ideologue Savarkar need to create a separate hindutva identity rejecting many of the beliefs of Hindu scriptures and declaring yourselves atheists?

Every cult has its drawbacks. You have to address them and fix them with time.
Something doesn’t make sense, chuck it out. Hanging onto age old beliefs that lack common sense is detrimental in the modern times. If science says otherwise, religion must adopt.

 

[cricketjoshila]

India should be secular because that is what it claims to be. No one has forced India to adopt a secular constitution, but if you claim it, then at least stand by it.

If Muslims are in majority they can make their constitution secular, communist or theocratic, that depends on each individual nation. You are lumping them altogether as if there was no independent nations, only one all encompassing ummah.

Pakistan should become secular before pakistanis go about talking secularism with others.

No use talking secularism with people who made an Islamic republic.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Then why did you and your ideologue Savarkar need to create a separate hindutva identity rejecting many of the beliefs of Hindu scriptures and declaring yourselves atheists?

Separate hindutva identity?

Rejecting hindu scriptures?

 

[RexRex]

Pro tip: Don't let the person know you are taking a break. Let the other person keep refreshing waiting for a reply.

Pro tip: You should use the notification feature instead of refreshing. A popup window opens anytime you get quoted or tagged on PP while you are engaged in other work on your laptop.

 

[deltexas]

Every cult has its drawbacks. You have to address them and fix them with time.
Something doesn’t make sense, chuck it out. Hanging onto age old beliefs that lack common sense is detrimental in the modern times. If science says otherwise, religion must adopt.

And thats the difference b/w Islam and the other religions (C, H , B etc ) All other religions reform things with time and agree that they need to be adopted to modern society. Unlike Islam which believes the holy gospel in a book that was written 1000s of years back and that is assumed to be perfect for eternity .

 

[Stewie]

Insulting any religion is a criminal offence in India. What anyone says doesn't change that.

Pakistan is an Islamic republic. Non muslims are second class citizens there. Any Pakistani opinion criticizing secularism in India is just a joke to laugh at.

Show me one post where i have been critical of Islam the religion. My criticism has always been of Muslims.

Muslims have and do claim a number of unreasonable things and thats a fact.

They want laws in a secular country to be as per Sharia. That's one of the examples.

There are number of threads here with news of Muslims occupying public places to offer namaz.

I can go on and on.

You can tell all this nonsense to some westerner and he may believe you, but i have grown up in a state with 30 percent muslim population. I will not be hoodwinked.

I don’t want sharia law in a secular country. How would it be secular if there is sharia law?

Sharia law is only for Muslim majority countries. Anyone can easily call you out on your BS. You are the most anti Muslim poster here. I dare you to post a poll here or anywhere and prove it to me that your claims are true. When it comes to others you act like a girl asking for prof well now it’s time for you to prove your own insipid claims. Give us all a proof or apologize for such rants.

Muslims occupying public places to offer namaz is legal in some places and some places it’s not. I would like you to post threads here where illegal instances have taken place and we can all review and give you that you sorely need right now.


I hope these comments will open the eyes of everyone to your agenda filled nonsense

 

[Stewie]

There you go... now you know why the Hindus resort to violence when Muslims very deliberately insist on killing Cows knowing very well what it means to hindus.


Please spare me the usual nonsense that the rest of the world doesn't consider cows to be Holy.

So now it’s nonsense? Are you saying the rest of the world doesn’t believe that?

 

[Stewie]

India should be secular because Muslims are a minority here and minority rights matter.

But if Muslims are in majority, Islamic rules take precedence.

That’s what democracy is. You can try spread your chump philosophy but if it’s majority Muslims and they want whatever then that’s what goes. If they are in minority and can’t form the government they abide by and respect the majority view (or at least they should)

Or are you saying majority rule of democracy is BS?

 

[Champ_Pal]

I don’t want sharia law in a secular country. How would it be secular if there is sharia law?

Sharia law is only for Muslim majority countries. Anyone can easily call you out on your BS. You are the most anti Muslim poster here. I dare you to post a poll here or anywhere and prove it to me that your claims are true. When it comes to others you act like a girl asking for prof well now it’s time for you to prove your own insipid claims. Give us all a proof or apologize for such rants.

Muslims occupying public places to offer namaz is legal in some places and some places it’s not. I would like you to post threads here where illegal instances have taken place and we can all review and give you that W you sorely need right now.


I hope these comments will open the eyes of everyone to your agenda filled nonsense you have been posting here for years.

You do not represent Entire Ummah. A large chunk of Muslims want Sharia in the lands where they live.

Holy Quran clearly says, obey Allah and obey the Prophet. You cannot obey the Prophet until you follow the rules set by the Prophet. The law that enforces those rules is Sharia. Now don't tell me all the Muslims around the world wanting Sharia are not real Muslims.

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Champ_Pal]

That’s what democracy is. You can try spread your chump philosophy but if it’s majority Muslims and they want whatever then that’s what goes. If they are in minority and can’t form the government they abide by and respect the majority view (or at least they should)

Or are you saying majority rule of democracy is BS?

So you okay with Muslims(when in majority) replacing democracy using democracy.

 

[uppercut]

So now it’s nonsense? Are you saying the rest of the world doesn’t believe that?

Doesn't matter what the rest of the world believes in. If its holy to YOUR belief/religion thats all that matters.


Here are some examples that you might identify and recognize:

1. Alcohol
2. Polygamy
3. Idol worship
....
....

Get it ?

 

[uppercut]

PS: Why did you mock my faith that day ...

Could you please quote that post ?

 

[big_gamer007]

If you are not here to defend someone else then why do you jump in the debate to rescue others or comment at their behalf.

Coming back on thread topic you yourself are a epitome of anti Muslim bias as you criticize them for being rigid and unwilling for introspection without any proof while you beg other to amend their posts even when they are stating facts backed by stats.

Also you consider Hinduism to be flexible but at the same time don't condemn those guys who equate eating of cow meat to some cardinal crime. Also before lecturing others to read different books read Quran first because if you would have ever, you wouldn't have come with such misleading, ignorant posts about Muslims and Islam

I wrote in one of the other threads, I’ll reiterate for you.

Any humans opinion on any individual/group of individuals/community etc are decided by their experiences with the said people.

You have been gaslighting Indians for better part of a year now, starting random agenda based threads everyday where the same posters mostly from Britain pop up and post derogatory posts against Indians.
You and your ilk have already changed atleast 5 posters from PP itself who were quite liberal and accommodating towards Muslims to now questioning themselves and their leniency.

I’ll bet you will never even think this deep about your own actions and introspect what you have been doing. You will just blame others or delete this post.
Whatever you choose to do, still remember you are one of the reasons why Muslims are getting a bad reputation around the world.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I wrote in one of the other threads, I’ll reiterate for you.

Any humans opinion on any individual/group of individuals/community etc are decided by their experiences with the said people.

You have been gaslighting Indians for better part of a year now, starting random agenda based threads everyday where the same posters mostly from Britain pop up and post derogatory posts against Indians.
You and your ilk have already changed atleast 5 posters from PP itself who were quite liberal and accommodating towards Muslims to now questioning themselves and their leniency.

I’ll bet you will never even think this deep about your own actions and introspect what you have been doing. You will just blame others or delete this post.
Whatever you choose to do, still remember you are one of the reasons why Muslims are getting a bad reputation around the world.

According to your thesis the BJP government and the people slapping old men on trains must be on PP. Which posters are these?

 

[big_gamer007]

Because they are probably at loggerheads with Muslims as Muslim League proceeded Hindu Mahasabha.

Credit to Hindutva supporters though, unlike Muslim League that easily got Pakistan and wins in Kerala thanks to British and Congress, Hindutva went from being banned to actually moving up at grass root levels, it’s not surprising that so many of the Hindutva leaders are doctors and professors remember what makes them strong and are patient enough to bring about change and power.

There is a reason Muslim League’s countries (BD and Pak) are bankrupt, and Hindutva leaders like N Rao, Vajpayee, Modi have stabilised the ship because patience helped.

@big_gamer007 Am i completely right wing now justifying their anti-abrahamic stance.

This is not being right wing.

Words like Hindutva, Right wing, Liberal, Left wing, centrist etc are just words coined by Media/politicians to justify/shame someone.

In reality, any individual will have varying ideologies based on circumstances, topic in question etc.

From being quite open and accommodating towards Muslims 5-6 years ago now you have changed and started questioning your own beliefs from 5-6 years ago because in the last 5-6 years your experiences have been different from what you thought they ought to be while dealing with Muslims.

It’s just human nature and there is no problem with it, the problem starts when your opinions turn so sour and filled with hatred that you start worshipping/justifying people who echo your views for their own political/selfish goals (political parties).

 

[big_gamer007]

According to your thesis the BJP government and the people slapping old men on trains must be on PP. Which posters are these?

You are a sensible poster, why are you resorting to such posts?

Whatever I said in my post which you quoted holds true for the other side as well. I.e. troll posters from India who have been spreading hate/troll against Islam/Pakistan might have changed the view of some Pakistanis who might have had a favourable/neutral view about Indians before.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I wrote in one of the other threads, I’ll reiterate for you.

Any humans opinion on any individual/group of individuals/community etc are decided by their experiences with the said people.

You have been gaslighting Indians for better part of a year now, starting random agenda based threads everyday where the same posters mostly from Britain pop up and post derogatory posts against Indians.
You and your ilk have already changed atleast 5 posters from PP itself who were quite liberal and accommodating towards Muslims to now questioning themselves and their leniency.

I’ll bet you will never even think this deep about your own actions and introspect what you have been doing. You will just blame others or delete this post.
Whatever you choose to do, still remember you are one of the reasons why Muslims are getting a bad reputation around the world.

Only time will tell this, truth is sometimes bitter but it must be told backed by facts. Otherwise you are right it appears to be some agenda

 

[DeadlyVenom]

You are a sensible poster, why are you resorting to such posts?

Whatever I said in my post which you quoted holds true for the other side as well. I.e. troll posters from India who have been spreading hate/troll against Islam/Pakistan might have changed the view of some Pakistanis who might have had a favourable/neutral view about Indians before.

You are attributing the movement to the right solely on interactions here. My point is that what you are saying is being simplistic.

For example cricket cartoons had an epiphany after CAA incidents, Rajdeep had epiphany after hearing Rudolph the Red nose Reindeer.

I believe most posters are sensible enough to look past troll posts and it doesn't have an impact on their politics.

 

[anikrc1]

That’s what democracy is. You can try spread your chump philosophy but if it’s majority Muslims and they want whatever then that’s what goes. If they are in minority and can’t form the government they abide by and respect the majority view (or at least they should)

Or are you saying majority rule of democracy is BS?

Democracy is not just majority rule, it also has to produce equal opportunity regardless of the faith of a citizen, which Sharia does not provide.
Mob lynching can also be a form of majority wish. Democracy has no place for them.

 

[HalBass9]

No of course not. But I'd support them banning the drawing of such cartoons.

However let's be honest when Charlie Hedbo happened some in our community just said meh and shrugged their shoulders too.

In this thread it seems many have even denied Hindus the right to feel offended and tried to paint our own views on what is/isn't offensive and then ask them to abide by it. I don't think any Hindu has said they are happy that people are killed if they eat beef. They have just tried to show us how important the issue is to them.

While no one can deny their right to feel offended, just as no one can deny my right to feel offended, this does not and should not justify the act of lynching or defending violence against others. Likewise, I should not impose restrictions on what others can eat simply because it might offend my religious beliefs.

As a Muslim, I find cartoon drawings and the burning of the Qur'an deeply offensive. However, taking a life over my beliefs is far more offensive to me. I could never justify such actions with statements like 'it is very important to me.' Nor would I want to impose any restrictions on non-Muslims’ right to 'disrespect' my beliefs. In fact, I would encourage their freedom of expression, as it ultimately strengthens the significance of Islam in the Western world.

 

[CricketCartoons]

While no one can deny their right to feel offended, just as no one can deny my right to feel offended, this does not and should not justify the act of lynching or defending violence against others. Likewise, I should not impose restrictions on what others can eat simply because it might offend my religious beliefs.

As a Muslim, I find cartoon drawings and the burning of the Qur'an deeply offensive. However, taking a life over my beliefs is far more offensive to me. I could never justify such actions with statements like 'it is very important to me.' Nor would I want to impose any restrictions on non-Muslims’ right to 'disrespect' my beliefs. In fact, I would encourage their freedom of expression, as it ultimately strengthens the significance of Islam in the Western world.

If Hindus cannot live according to their traditions and practices, no matter how irrational they seem to you, in a country where they are majority, then where can they have their religious rights protected? Should someones tastebuds have more rights than someones deeply held religious beliefs?

 

[Stewie]

Democracy is not just majority rule, it also has to produce equal opportunity regardless of the faith of a citizen, which Sharia does not provide.
Mob lynching can also be a form of majority wish. Democracy has no place for them.

You do not represent Entire Ummah. A large chunk of Muslims want Sharia in the lands where they live.

Holy Quran clearly says, obey Allah and obey the Prophet. You cannot obey the Prophet until you follow the rules set by the Prophet. The law that enforces those rules is Sharia. Now don't tell me all the Muslims around the world wanting Sharia are not real Muslims.

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of

www.pewresearch.org

So here are my thoughts on the last few posts, where my original views were responded to.

1. As has been stated here multiple times by me after a reasonable discussion where @Red-Indian made a good point is that pragmatically as an individual since we don't have a decent implementation of Shariat anywhere in the world (that I know of) we go by what's available to us which is a democracy driven by separation of church and state (not the secular mode India has at the moment)

2. Hindus/Athiests views on Sharia is based on a pre-concieved notion that it is "negative" or "bad". Their whole argument thus far is, "oh your views are not good because you back Shariat". What you fail to understand is, if a Muslim truly believes in his/her faith, we have to side with God's prescribed mode of governance .. once again for "majority Muslim states". There are no ifs and buts about it. As Muslims we wont be any good if we say "yeah that's not good, lets go with alternative x or y or z" .. No sorry! We wont accept that in theory, but yes practically and pragmatically speaking, please refer to #1.

3. This one is for @Champ_Pal, you keep citing sources or whatever blaming Muslims for wanting or favoring Shariat or posing highly unlikely scenarios where "if given the choice, will Muslims choose Shariat over secularism?" followed by the poll up there as proof. The answer to that is hiding for you in plain sight, these are majority Muslim countries to begin with where you have a high percentage of "yes". Muslims will choose the option that aligns with their faith more often that others because of our strong belief in that we have been given this mode of governance by a divine force. So why would we not pick it?

But is it for everyone? of course not. Do Muslims living in lands where they are in minority understand that they might be ok with it but non Muslims wont be? Probably and probably not. Which is why you have inconsistent numbers across the board.

4. Do muslims want to "impose" Shariat over an existing mode of governance that believes in the separation of church and state, while living in countries where they are not in majority? I would say most likely "NO". a view that be backed by the poll above, although there will be some outliers like Thailand and Kenya, etc.

But more importantly, regarding the poll above, there are too many questions or factors that can throw the whole conclusion @Champ_Pal is deriving off the board. How did the respondents of the poll actually define "favor"? it can mean anything. I might favor an option but does that mean I would like it enforced on everyone regardless of their consent and preference? Is the question asking them to consider the fact they live in a country where a vast majority will be non muslims? Too many moving parts there to use the results of this poll as a definitive conclusion in the context of this debate.


With that all being said, a word of advice to Hindus is: blame your bad experiences on practitioners of a faith and not the actual faith. Islam and Shariat is not like hinduism which is very fluid, malleable and flexible. Islam is rigid and well defined. You can easily educate yourself about Shariat laws rather than believing what you are told. I know you will read it from a non Muslim perspective but try to understand from a Muslim's perspective too. For instance, why would I not prefer a flat tax of 2.5% (zakat) on my savings and property and zero income and sales tax? Why would I not prefer interest free housing and other facilities? Zakat is only applicable on Muslims. Non Muslims pay jaziyah tax, which can or cannot be lower than 2.5%.
Shariat law REQUIRES that the state provide safe places for worship and practicing of non muslim faiths. They are also held to same criminal standards of law as Muslims, from what I understand. Obviously a non Muslim cannot be the "caliph" or head of state but apart from that there is no restriction of holding any other government office. These are just some of the postulates I can think of off the top of my head.

But yes, I can fully understand if non Muslims don't agree with it. But it is also a very skewed view of Muslims' psyche if their preference for Sharia is considered a negative, as I have previously stated.


Thanks for reading!

 

[RexRex]

Should someones tastebuds have more rights than someones deeply held religious beliefs?

Why should your deeply held religious beliefs take priority over my deeply held culinary beliefs ? It shouldn't.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why should your deeply held religious beliefs take priority over my deeply held culinary beliefs ? It shouldn't.

Of course, hindus are only sub humans, and your toe nail should have more right than dindoos.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Every cult has its drawbacks. You have to address them and fix them with time.
Something doesn’t make sense, chuck it out. Hanging onto age old beliefs that lack common sense is detrimental in the modern times. If science says otherwise, religion must adopt.

Religion did adapt, In India those who rejected the detrimental hindu beliefs of caste, sati, etc., became Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, Muslims and atheists.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Pakistan should become secular before pakistanis go about talking secularism with others.

No use talking secularism with people who made an Islamic republic.

Does everybody refrain from commenting on others business? Why do we have international law then? Do you think US presidents shouldn't comment on Iran or Russia? This is your belief not mine, so why should you comment on my comments?

 

[RexRex]

Of course, hindus are only sub humans, and your toe nail should have more right than dindoos.

I feel sad that you are relegating my deeply held culinary beliefs to a discardable human waste part like toenail. May a thousand poxes descend upon you, sir.

 

[Stewie]

Does everybody refrain from commenting on others business? Why do we have international law then? Do you think US presidents shouldn't comment on Iran or Russia? This is your belief not mine, so why should you comment on my comments?

Technically the definition of "secular" Indians use is one where all the religions have rights. Pakistan is secular too then except for one case which is the head of state cannot be a non Muslim. apart from that non Muslims pay the same tax, they get the same state benefits, they get their places of worship, etc.

So on principle and based on the constitution of the country Pakistan is as secular as India. Now its a different story that it does not happen practically, due to a lack of law and order and enforcement that affects Muslims and non Muslims like.

Now if you want to use the definition of secular as being a form of governance divorced from religion, well that we can hardly find anywhere. In that sense of the word, even India is not secular thanks to their whole cow slaughter ban amongst other things.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I feel sad that you are relegating my deeply held culinary beliefs to a discardable human waste part like toenail. May a thousand poxes descend upon you, sir.

No, I meant even your toe nail should have more rights than a dindoo like me. We dindoos are savage sub humans who sometimes don't know how to write proper english.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Technically the definition of "secular" Indians use is one where all the religions have rights. Pakistan is secular too then except for one case which is the head of state cannot be a non Muslim. apart from that non Muslims pay the same tax, they get the same state benefits, they get their places of worship, etc.

So on principle and based on the constitution of the country Pakistan is as secular as India. Now its a different story that it does not happen practically, due to a lack of law and order and enforcement that affects Muslims and non Muslims like.

Now if you want to use the definition of secular as being a form of governance divorced from religion, well that we can hardly find anywhere. In that sense of the word, even India is not secular thanks to their whole cow slaughter ban amongst other things.

I'm sure there are a few different interpretations of secularism, all of them might have merit. I just find this concept that one shouldn't comment on a subject unless one is actually practising it, whatever "it" is perplexing. That doesn't happen in real life, or you would never get people from other countries participating in forums like this one.

 

[Stewie]

I'm sure there are a few different interpretations of secularism, all of them might have merit. I just find this concept that one shouldn't comment on a subject unless one is actually practising it, whatever "it" is perplexing. That doesn't happen in real life, or you would never get people from other countries participating in forums like this one.

that's just the joshila logic which in other words is just nonsense. Don't pay any attention to it.