Ther r some hindu clowns opposing a novel by a tamil author.
-------------------------
Hindu's can handle it. It's d muslims n sikh who brook no offense to religion.
-
Depends on bande to banda.
aren't you are contradicting yourself ?
and not all muslims or sikhs are insecure about their beliefs,
only they don't make as much noise as the other type :
That was a Different Bahadur Shah.
Zafar, the last mughal was nominal leader of 1857 revolt.
I much prefer 'palam' myself, naming everything after a Gandhi is legacy of congress era.
for British India was never 'Home', barring few fanatic Mughals it wasn't too bad,
after all India was united and economic super power under mughal rule.
every religion needs update, hundred or thousands of years old philosophy can't
have much relevance today.
It could be bit off topic here but with Islam what I've found is that a lot of misinterpretetion of the religion is being delivered as what you call a Speech.-
That may b debatable. That India was nvr home to d british. If U read d history of d Raj-Bhavan, the residence
of d President of India, U will realise d lengths d british went to to get if completed. It took 30 yrs to build.
There ws pressure on England to scrap it after d first world war, but dey went ahead with it's construction,
even tho d British economy itself was under severe pressure. Dey wer building a resident for d Vice-roy of India.
They nvr had imagined dey will hv to leave India. They will building something dat will over-shadow every othr
monument of India. D Raj-Bhavan does overshadow every other monument. It's grandeur is greater thatn d Taj.
Next time U visit Dilli do visit d raj bhavan. It's open to public three days a week....
And,
I agree dat every religion needs reforms but Islam is not ready for it. D intellectuals don't find fault with it.
Dey always tend to blame others for knowing so little of Islam. They want governments to involve them in
decision making. Thats d solution they offer.
As for those followers of Muhamad who want to establish a quintessential Islamic caliphate to rule d world,
n rserve d right to do away wid anyone who happen to disbelieve or mock Islam, all dat d intellectuals hv to say
is dat dey r misinterpreting Islam, dat Islam does nt provide any sort of influence watsoever to kill non-muslims.
D truth is dat dese so called muslim intellectuals themselves do nt believe in plurality of thoughts or in
democratic principles. Dey too rely on a theocratic, monolithic version of their medieval belief system.
They talk abt plularity only where dey r a minority. Has any muslim intellectual ever spoken against
d practice of be-heading of women in Saudi-Arabia? D saudi state beheaded a woman last week..
If dey start preaching d Koran in local languages many Muslims, esp women, will want to renounce dat religion.
But d Koran is to b read only in Arabic.
-
...barring few fanatic Mughals it wasn't too bad, after all India was united and economic super power under mughal rule.
Agreed!Humans hving se-*ual organs cannot b used as a scientific reason to justify ra-ping n pi-m-ping of kafir woman,
even minors. So d scholars simpy say dat it's not Islam. It's a bad cop good cop thing.... wher d radicals terrorise
women, rape n pimp dem n then d scholars coming n telling d woman not to blame Islam n trust them....
D same cycle is repeated every few yrs. Thats whats bin happening.. chit bhi mera, patt bhi mera...
As to science, well, it says many things.
For example dis belief in god is unnecessary info dat gets passed on to children in d name of good education.
N if some-one wants to eat meat, just eat it. why get apologetic n luk for justifications??
Interesting thing is humans don't eat d dog. Do U know why??
Coz humans wer incapable of hunting dogs. With dogs d humans feared becoming d hunted.
Cowards. Dey eat only herbivores. Who can't defend themselves.
D rock python is far more courageous n noble. It doesn't even poison it's victim.
Anyway, what I want to say is that what d muslim scholars n intellectuals call misinterpretation
of Islam is not not really so. ISIS n Boko Haram hv rightly interpreted Islam. Dats wat Islam is.
-
-
That may b debatable. That India was nvr home to d british. If U read d history of d Raj-Bhavan, the residence
of d President of India, U will realise d lengths d british went to to get if completed. It took 30 yrs to build.
There ws pressure on England to scrap it after d first world war, but dey went ahead with it's construction,
even tho d British economy itself was under severe pressure. Dey wer building a resident for d Vice-roy of India.
They nvr had imagined dey will hv to leave India. They will building something dat will over-shadow every othr
monument of India. D Raj-Bhavan does overshadow every other monument. It's grandeur is greater thatn d Taj.
Next time U visit Dilli do visit d raj bhavan. It's open to public three days a week....
And,
I agree dat every religion needs reforms but Islam is not ready for it. D intellectuals don't find fault with it.
Dey always tend to blame others for knowing so little of Islam. They want governments to involve them in
decision making. Thats d solution they offer.
As for those followers of Muhamad who want to establish a quintessential Islamic caliphate to rule d world,
n rserve d right to do away wid anyone who happen to disbelieve or mock Islam, all dat d intellectuals hv to say
is dat dey r misinterpreting Islam, dat Islam does nt provide any sort of influence watsoever to kill non-muslims.
D truth is dat dese so called muslim intellectuals themselves do nt believe in plurality of thoughts or in
democratic principles. Dey too rely on a theocratic, monolithic version of their medieval belief system.
They talk abt plularity only where dey r a minority. Has any muslim intellectual ever spoken against
d practice of be-heading of women in Saudi-Arabia? D saudi state beheaded a woman last week..
If dey start preaching d Koran in local languages many Muslims, esp women, will want to renounce dat religion.
But d Koran is to b read only in Arabic.
-
veerji j tuss eh sara kujh HINDI ja fer PUNJABI ch type kro ta jyada vdiya niga k.......te rhi gal tussi kon hunde ho kise v bande de PANTH te cmnt krn wale...ethe avda sma(time) waste krn naalo changa eh aa v tussi RAM JI nu yad krya kro te j ik gal tussi mande ho ta eda kro tussi daily swere 9.00 wje to le k 9.30 wje tak CHARDIKLA TIME TV vekhya kroji.......D right to offend is a integral part of right to free speech.
That's why Budhha happened. N nanak.
Ther r some hindu clowns opposing a novel by a tamil author.
But d writer himself is a hindu. Hindu's shud hv no proble with that.
Hindu's hv questioned even Ram.
Hindu's can handle it. It's d muslims n sikh who brook no offense to religion.
They r d only two left who take religion that seriously.
But then they always were much like each other.
Islam especially has largely been exempt from the critical scrutiny dat other religions
hv undergone to modernise them. If one wants to address this problem, one has to go
to its very roots. Preaching principles of freedom of expression alone won’t do any good.
Ppl shud b taught to distinguish between right and wrong without the help of religion..
All religions r outdated. N they all take away freedom.
-
Veer eh public forum hai and ithe freedom of speech da topic chal reha and tusi kise de views nu sun sakde ho and harek nu kehan da haq hai. oh jo vi karda kar sakda tuhade kehan na kehan naal kuch change thodi na hovegaveerji j tuss eh sara kujh HINDI ja fer PUNJABI ch type kro ta jyada vdiya niga k.......te rhi gal tussi kon hunde ho kise v bande de PANTH te cmnt krn wale...ethe avda sma(time) waste krn naalo changa eh aa v tussi RAM JI nu yad krya kro te j ik gal tussi mande ho ta eda kro tussi daily swere 9.00 wje to le k 9.30 wje tak CHARDIKLA TIME TV vekhya kroji.......
Quaran clearly Announces (in 2:256) "(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''
-
What 2:256 says is that d muslim is nt to b forced to follow anything else, n that d muslim is unbreakable.
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error.
And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold
which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
AND,
d Qur’an certainly proclaims d wen d time is appropriate, Muslims must use force to convert d unbelievers to Islam.
For d non-Muslims, the alternative to dis is to pay d humiliating protection money (Jizya) or b killed. A militarily
dominant Islam, without doubt, precludes the peaceful co-existence wid d unbelievers if d Muslims have to abide
strictly by d unalterable stipulations of d Qur’an.
Now, let us have a closer look at what the Koran says about the infidels:
9:5 - “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them,
lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to
the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish
two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid
of understanding.”
9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”
Ishaq:578 “Crushing the heads of the infidels and splitting their skulls with sharp swords, we continually thrust
and cut at the enemy. Blood gushed from their deep wounds as the battle wore them down. We conquered bearing
the Prophet’s fluttering war banner. Our cavalry was submerged in rising dust, and our spears quivered, but by us
the Prophet gained victory.”
Ishaq:587 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until
you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy
ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us
at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they
must suffer disgrace.”
-
This is d reason why we see very few “moderate” muslims coming out n speaking against d violence.
Ther is so much overwhelming evidence stacked against dem so r not able to be “moderate” because
of the fundamental belief’s of Islam.
-