opinion
A Curse Of History
Long ago, girls were killed to protect them from Muslim invaders. Now, it's dowry.
punjab
Punjab has the worst sex ratio in the country. Female foeticide is at an alarming high. The worst culprits are the affluent.
Chander Suta Dogra
interview
The deputy commissioner of Nawanshahr, who has started a drive to check female foeticide, thinks it is possible to make a difference with enforcement of the law.
Outlook
Punjab has a long history of doing away with newborn girls. The preferred method today is foeticide after a sex determination test, but centuries ago, the practice was to bury them. This tradition perhaps goes back to the days of repeated invasions by Muslim armies from the northwest, who used to carry off girls as booty for their own pleasure or to be sold in the slave markets of the Middle East. Today, it is the extortionate dowries that parents of girls have to provide on her marriage.
 
 
The custom of polyandry arose. The eldest son's wife was his brothers' too.
 
 
The custom of polyandry in Punjab probably arose out of the shortage of girls—the eldest son of a family would take a wife, his younger brothers would also have access to her.

One of Guru Nanak's oft quoted hymns condemns the denigration of women: "We are born of women and nurtured by them, we fall in love with them and they bear us sons and daughters. How can you belittle women who give birth to kings?" His words had little impact—the killing of newborn girls continued as before, though practised more among the land-owning zamindars than by the common folk.

At the end of the first Sikh war, when the British annexed half of the Sikh kingdom, the Sikh zamindars of the region met John Lawrence, who had been appointed commissioner, to confirm their land holdings. He insisted on their signing pledges that they would not bury lepers alive, refrain from burning widows and stop burying newborn girls. The zamindars protested, saying Lawrence had promised that the two sides would not interfere with each others' religious customs. Lawrence agreed that he had indeed done so, adding that British religious custom was to hang anyone who followed these practices. That put an end to sati and the murder of lepers, and though female infanticide was checked, it probably continued surreptitiously.

After Independence, and the passing of the Hindu Code Bill giving equal rights to inherit ancestral property to sons and daughters, things again took a turn for the worse, with the murder of newborn girls gaining momentum, especially in propertied families. With medical science able to detect the sex of the child in the womb, the practice has become much more widespread, resulting in a situation today where the ratio of females to males in Punjab is the lowest in the country.

Religious leaders and institutions like the SGPC and the Akal Takht make only feeble attempts to put down this criminal practice, and their efforts have failed miserably. 'Kuree Maar' (daughter-killer) is a common abuse in Punjab—an abuse that those who indulge in the practice have learnt to take in their stride.
punjab
Punjab has the worst sex ratio in the country. Female foeticide is at an alarming high. The worst culprits are the affluent.
Chander Suta Dogra
interview
The deputy commissioner of Nawanshahr, who has started a drive to check female foeticide, thinks it is possible to make a difference with enforcement of the law.
Outlook
 
Daily Mail
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
Feb 25, 2006 12:00 AM
81
Forgot to mention that my prior post was addressed to that dumb ass OLD MAC.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 25, 2006 12:00 AM
80
What’s your point here, dumb ass? If you don’t have anything worth while to say on your own at least save the time of posting. You don’t have to repeat every thing I said back to me.

And yes it does take time to stoop to your level and think like you. Because unlike you, I don’t think with my dick and testicles.

It is called typo, you dim wit. Stick to the point. Who are you? A fourteen year old juvenile.
>>> you DOES take time, DOESN'T you?
>>> your is what? very least, a first rate grammar

Adam and Eve may not be siblings, but who ever came after that are. What, I have to give you lesson in common sense now?
>>> Psssst. I'm told they weren't brother and sister...unlike your situation.

No, if you sow third rate invective, then that’s what you reap. Why are you being such a cry baby anyway? Can’t take the slander back which you are so happy to throw at others.
>>> I would hate to reap carrots after sowing tomatoes
>>> Because only a closed gene pool…

Yeah in his dreams.
>>>My lawyer can beat it half asleep

Also a great source of pearls like this:
Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven: "For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12 ASV.
I guess you are one of those eunuchs waiting to be transferred to heaven. Now I see why you were so upset when I said that you should allow yourself to be ass fucked by your christist priests to go to heaven. I did not know that you have castrated yourself already to get to heaven.
>>> Perhaps. But a great source for..
>>>No amount of bible reading will save you...
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 25, 2006 12:00 AM
79
RSK writes:

>>Yeah, I does take time to stoop to your level.

you DOES take time, DOESN'T you?

>>And your is what, a first grade intellectual discourse?

your is what? very least, a first rate grammar

>>Certainly it explains your intelligence, since a whole bunch of dumb asses like you were born out of incest, from one Adam and Eve.

Psssst. I'm told they weren't brother and sister...unlike your situation.

>>What you reap is what you sow.

I would hate to reap carrots after sowing tomatoes.

>>Ignoramus like you may not know this; it is called law of Karma.

My lawyer can beat it half asleep.

>>No amount of bible reading will save you from this natural cosmic law ass hole.

Perhaps. But a great source for vivid phraseology...like sowing and reaping...douche bag.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
Feb 25, 2006 12:00 AM
78
OLD MAC,

Yeah, I does take time to stoop to your level.
>>>It took you a whole day to come up with…

And your is what, a first grade intellectual discourse?
>>>third rate invective?
>>>I will offer up my testicles to your favorite goddess.

Certainly it explains your intelligence, since a whole bunch of dumb asses like you were born out of incest, from one Adam and Eve.
>>>Because only a closed gene pool explains a retard…

What you reap is what you sow. Ignoramus like you may not know this; it is called law of Karma. No amount of bible reading will save you from this natural cosmic law ass hole.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 25, 2006 12:00 AM
77
RSK writes:

>>Since I won’t buy your twisted version of history I have....

It took you a whole day to come up with that third rate invective? Are you mom and dad first cousins? Because only a closed gene pool explains a retard like you.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
Feb 25, 2006 12:00 AM
76
Here is a graphic comparison of the “communal” Modi govt’s response and “secular” Rajiv Gandhi govt’s response. Draw your own conclusion.


http://richmond.indymed...display/10931/index.php
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 25, 2006 12:00 AM
75
OLD MAC,

Since I won’t buy your twisted version of history I have a suggestion where you can offer your testicles. Go and offer it to your white christist masters, they will happily accept it, hell they will offers theirs in return and you can merrily enjoy your way to their heaven. There you can offer the same to their God, who in turn may pardon you for being such a dumb ass.

On second thought, I think you are already doing this. Looking at the nonsense you have posted so far I see that you have no brain, it should have fallen off in your church when you got ass fucked by your white christist masters in one of your gang bang sessions.

Now I realize why you are such a dumb ass.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 24, 2006 12:00 AM
74
OLD MAC

Wow,

Bravo, wonderful points you raised here. How enlightening. You are just using the oldest weapon in the arsenal of all the idiots who walked on this planet, which is to attack the messenger, if you cannot argue with the message. Same old Christist bigots’ strategy, happily borrowed by loony Indian Commies. Also don’t forget to throw in some dicks and testicles here and there along with mentioning of some Goddesses. Bravo what’s new? Well done, your blue eyed Nazi uncle Max Muller will be delighted to see your or should I say you, a creature of Creationist Intelligent Design, intelligence. Either way, you have proved that you are a tiny weenie dumb prick.

You are right; you should keep your stupid argument with a brick wall, that’s where it belongs in the first place.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 24, 2006 12:00 AM
73
RSK writes:

>>You can play with English language all you want, but that won’t change history or reality.

The day you get a clue on either history or reality is the day I will offer up my testicles to your favorite goddess.

>>Besides I have already replied to your spin on this “integration” “identity” nonsense. By ignoring to reply to that, you have showed your true colors, a dishonest liar.

Are there honest liars in your lexicon?

>>There is no point is any further discussion with a dishonest ignoramus like you.

You are so right. I could have more interesting exchanges with a brick wall.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
Feb 23, 2006 12:00 AM
72
Hello enlightened OLD MAC,

You can speak for yourself all you want. I don’t give a damn. But before your accuse me of interpreting some nonsense you spewed, you should also stop interpreting what I write. Practice what you preach.

What you said is so dumb. How come when the Brits do something it is “political identity” but if Indians do the same it’s just “political integration”? It’s also interesting to see how you describe local Rajas as strong man, but you don’t give any such title to those Brits, are you one of those Christist terrorist English barbarians, disguised as an Indian. See I can also come up with titles. Besides my title will aptly apply to them, because they killed some 30 million Indians with their out right theft of crops and stifling economic and tax policies.

You can play with English language all you want, but that won’t change history or reality. Besides I have already replied to your spin on this “integration” “identity” nonsense. By ignoring to reply to that, you have showed your true colors, a dishonest liar. There is no point is any further discussion with a dishonest ignoramus like you.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 23, 2006 12:00 AM
71
RSK writes:

>>Your post just shows your ignorance of history. British ruled directly only one third of the so called British Raj, the rest were ruled by local Rajas and Maharajas. The two third of the British Raj ruled by the locals were not some few holdout by any stretch of your fuzzy math.

The Brits ruled the whole thing. You need some anti-formalism pills so that you can separate form and substance. The local strongmen (Rajas etc.) were only nominal rulers. Brits differentiated form from substance by throwing them a bone while firmly controlling the substance. The only ideas that ultimately liberated us were those that we borrowed from them.

>>And when you said British merged all the little fiefdoms, you were also talking about the same political integration, nothing more.

Actually, I was talking about a political identity. Besides, I can speak for myself without an obtuse interpreter like you.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
Feb 23, 2006 12:00 AM
70
Kiran writes:

>>>>Once you find a basis for unity, exactly what are those Hindu “interests”? How are those interests different in their role as Indians (unless your thinking is so sloppy that they are one and the same)? How do you reconcile them? How do their interests differ from any other Indians?

>>The basic assumption here is that interests of Hindus , Sikhs , Parsis and budhists are compatible with democracy, individual rights , and secularism. Where as muslims are not. This ofcourse may lead to your moral howls on generalization of muslims. I agree this is not a morally tenable proposition. However it has amazing practical utility.

Never mind any assumptions. You still haven’t said what those Hindu “interests” are. In what interests that only Hindus (et. al.) have in commonality? How those interests differ from their interests as “Indians” is a different question. Whether such distinctions are tolerable in a democracy is yet another question. Let me cut to the chase. You won’t be able to answer them in a satisfactory manner without exposing a desire to dominate others.

>>Why dont do yourself a favour and use your linguistic skills in some republican or evangelical forum.

Lesser lights like me must be in the presence of greater lights like you to reflect your luminescence.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
69
Naheed,

It’s good to see that you are taking some time to think and are ready to debate. Keep it up.

I see that you have gone through extraordinary pains to explain the reasons why women are given only half of their ancestor’s property. At least you are honest enough top admit this. Similarly Rajputs could also have kept justifying the practice of Sati, but they did not and abandoned it as soon as it became redundant. Similarly Muslims should also do the same, since this law, based on Sharia, does not apply in this day and age. Pakistan and Bangladesh had two women PM’s, how can you apply this law to those women and other professional Muslim women. Your explanation makes sense for 7th century Arabia not the modern world. You should also remember that many things in your book were added after Muhammad’s death. God knows what kind of idiot did those. So don’t follow it blindly, apply some logic and see if it is applicable today, if not ignore them. It’s the same thing with other laws based on Sharia, it was a rule of law propagated for 7th century law less Arabia, not for 21st century India or any place else. If Muhammad were to come back, he will laugh at those who want to implement Sharia. Also think who benefits most out of Sharia, it’s the same crazy mullahs, not Muslim common man and certainly not Muslim women.

But main point is that Muslims should come forward, re-interpret their holy book and throw out all the dumb mullahs out. These dumb mullahs and majority of the Muslims are doing exact opposite of what Muhammad (PBUH) did. See I am ready to respect your feeling, if you show some sense and respect to others. Personally I don’t want Muhammad to be at peace, I want him to come back and put all these dumb mullahs and his stupid fanatics out of business.

If you think properly Muhammad was a great reformer for his time and his culture. Some of the things he said and did could not have been done by any lay man. Mostly he was reforming the society. Even the reason he allowed polygamy was because in those days Arabic nomads were at constant war killing each other that resulted in lots of widows, so he allowed polygamy, but does this apply to this day and age?

Think what all the mullahs are doing, they are doing exact opposite of what Muhammad’s intention was. Muhammad intention was to reform the Arabic society and move it forward and bring some sense to them. If you apply modern day thoughts on his tactics, then it will look barbaric, but in those days and the society he lived in, it was all common. But his intention was reform and bring some kind of sense to those nomads. Current mullahs are doing exact opposite of Muhammad’s intention. These crazy loonies completely forgot Muhammad’s intention, but stuck to his tactics. This is where the conflict arises. These mullahs want to take back the society to 7th century, while Muhammad who lived in 7th century reformed the society and wanted to move them forward. If Muhammad were to come back today, his first order of business will be to put all these crazy and dumb mullahs out of business, I am sure of it.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
68
daer Naheed I must appreciate your deep knowledge of your faith but that wont help with the present situation.I am sure the meaning of jihad in those days may be a war for killing of the non believers or kaffirs.But these days jihadis are killing both believers as well as non believers and in most cases these are simple and innocent human beings who have nothing to do with the war of jihad on the west.I think allaha will never forgive those who kill the innocents.I am sure you will agree with me.Two wrongs do not make one right so whats the use in accusing the USA for revenge or the reason.If you are aware of a muslim thinker called asghar ali engineer in one of his articles said"all muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims".That explains in a nutshell.
I wish all the muslim counties must follow thier fellow muslim country Malayasia who have progressed remarkably being muslim but not being fanatic.I am sure you will agree with me that had there been no wealth from pertoleum then there would not have been islamic terrorism of the present kind.And in such a scenario as we find the state of Palestine where people are illiterate.jobless and are easy targets for the jehadi membereship either take to arms or have to sell only the desrt apple"DATES"fruit on a platter .Look at afghanistana - a similar story.
Islamic countries can pose a serious challenge to any country that interferes in thier affairs by stopping the oil supplies/But will they is the million dollar question.
rajdeep
Bangalore, India
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
67
OLD MAC

May be you should also read some history about your British masters before you judge the manner in which Indians built their country. In fact the Brits built their country in a far more feeble manner than the Indians. The Scots and the English were constantly fighting and slaughtering each other. It was the marriage of two heirs to thrones of Scotland and England that brought the two countries, at constant war with each other, together and laid the foundation for Britain and they managed to stay together and build their country as one for some hundreds of years now.

So even if what you said about the reason for Indians coming together and forming a union is true, still your argument that it is some how not right is so juvenile and stupid. Do some hard thinking before you spout nonsense again.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
66
By the way your one ass of an analogy that Sardar Patel united modern India and the Hindus agreed for the union just for some better bargain and generating a political identity can be said of pretty much any country in the world. According to your logic then the most glaring example would be the US, not even India, where thirteen colonies came together for no other reason than to fight the British.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
65
OLD MAC

Your post just shows your ignorance of history. British ruled directly only one third of the so called British Raj, the rest were ruled by local Rajas and Maharajas. The two third of the British Raj ruled by the locals were not some few holdout by any stretch of your fuzzy math.

And when you said British merged all the little fiefdoms, you were also talking about the same political integration, nothing more.

You may not be interested in Hindus and their history, but India is nothing without Hindus and other Indic religions. It will be just another piece of real estate without its ancient Rishis and Sages. It will be just another country like Philippines or Papua New Guinea aping to be whipped by white Christian masters. Who knows, may be that’s what you want.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
64
Old mAc :
"Once you find a basis for unity, exactly what are those Hindu “interests”? How are those interests different in their role as Indians (unless your thinking is so sloppy that they are one and the same)? How do you reconcile them? How do their interests differ from any other Indians?
"
The basic assumption here is that interests of Hindus , Sikhs , Parsis and budhists are compatible with democracy, individual rights , and secularism. Where as muslims are not.

This ofcourse may lead to your moral howls on generalization of muslims. I agree this is not a morally tenable proposition. However it has amazing practical utility.
Kiran
Hyderabad, India
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
63
old mac :
"The Brits merged all the little fiefdoms (which never identified with any other fiefdom) and gave India an identity it lacked. After they left, it's all inertia....like a child staying on the bicycle after an adult gives it a push"

RIght! There was never anything called Indian freedom sturggle , no Gandhi no IRA no struggle nothing. The british merged a passive India and left.

And India now manages 14 offical laungages and 761 dialects with a voracously active democratic participation in a sedated zombie like manner. Why dont do yourself a favour and use your linguistic skills in some republican or evangelical forum.
Kiran
Hyderabad, India
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
62
RSK writes:

>>So OLD MAC, you should get your facts straight before you pass judgment on Hindus and their history.

That you can't tell the difference between political integration of a few holdouts for a better bargain and generating a political identity where none existed before is unsurprising.

I am not interested in Hindus or their history. I am interested in Indians and their history. If you deem them the same, then that is your problem.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
61
And by the way the last time I checked, Sardar Patel was a Hindu. A Hindu who united India for Hindus. It’s another matter that Hindus let the barbaric Mussalmans and the sundry vultures of all the soul harvesting Christists and the useful idiot Commies to stay in India. As a result Hindus are paying through their nose for this blunder.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
60
OLD MAC,

Not only your interpretation, but your facts are also wrong. When the Britishers left there were 750 kingdoms, small and big. They were given the option by the Britishers either to join the Indian union or about to be formed new nation of Pakistan or remain independent. It was never their intention to unite India, if anything their intention was exact opposite, divide and conquer.

It was free India’s first Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhai Patel, who persuaded all these rulers, with his carrot and stick policy, to join the Indian union. This is the reason he is called as Sardar, iron man of India, the Bismarck of India etc.

One kingdom, whose annexation was left to be handled by that idiot Nehru was Kashmir and Indians are still paying the price. Nehru personally requested the Sardar to hand over the dealings of Kashmir to him, because Kashmir was that idiot’s native state, and as usual, he messed it up.

So OLD MAC, you should get your facts straight before you pass judgment on Hindus and their history.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
59
Kiran writes:

>>Oh yeah ? then how do you account for the nation of India if Hindus cannot unite?

The Brits merged all the little fiefdoms (which never identified with any other fiefdom) and gave India an identity it lacked. After they left, it's all inertia....like a child staying on the bicycle after an adult gives it a push.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
58
old mac :
"Besides, the notion that all Hindus can unite on anything has no historical precedent. In street parlance, it’s known as a wet dream. Remember, a medium size city in the U.S. with 30 Gujarati families needs 4 Gujju Associations for the congenital sport of boasting and showing up each other"

Oh yeah ? then how do you account for the nation of India if Hindus cannot unite ?
Kiran
Hyderabad, India
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
57
Rajiv writes:

>>My message got a bit garbled, but I think it is obvious enough. Essentailly, if Hindus don't unite, they will soon lose their majority in India.

It’s not the garbled message--but the garbled thought behind it--that is the problem. First, what would be the basis for this unity? Around what compelling idea/ideas that they would rally around submerging their centrifugal tendencies? Second, is Hindu majority in India a moral imperative or a moral mandate? If so, on what theory?

>>If Hindus are unable to unite to protect THEIR interests, if the Dalit and Tibals are pushed by selfish caste Hindus into Christian and Muslim hands…..

Once you find a basis for unity, exactly what are those Hindu “interests”? How are those interests different in their role as Indians (unless your thinking is so sloppy that they are one and the same)? How do you reconcile them? How do their interests differ from any other Indians?

>>I don't buy your tale about the basic moderation of Muslims in India. In North India hey have a proverb: WWhen the Muslims have few numbers they are as sweet as lambs; when they have a substantial number they become like wolves; and when they are anything like a majority, they become crocodiles. We are at a stage between the wolf and the crocodile in India.

Proverbs aside, if you can vilify the Muslims (as a group) as “the Other,” you have no principled standing to castigate the caste Hindus from vilifying Dalits/Tribals (as a group) as their “Other.” While I agree that caste Hindu treat Dalits inhumanely, your argument rests on their status as (supposedly) Hindus rather than as Human Being. You are several notches better than the Chaddis in moral callousness. Something is better than nothing.

Besides, the notion that all Hindus can unite on anything has no historical precedent. In street parlance, it’s known as a wet dream. Remember, a medium size city in the U.S. with 30 Gujarati families needs 4 Gujju Associations for the congenital sport of boasting and showing up each other.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
56
Mr.Kumar the genius:
"The perceived western dominance and attack, constant demonization is probably pushing Islam to a defensive position where some reforms which are long due are not coming forth."
Really? So it is the West's fault that Muslims don't treat non-muslims like humans? Can't they see for themselves how secular western governments treat their citizens, granting rights irrespective of faith? Don't muslims have brains? Isn't that a little racist from you to assume that of "1.3 billion" people?
" Certainly, most of the "1.3 billion Muslims" are normal law-abiding citizens - otherwise, the world not be as it is today if the 1.3 billion muslims are terrorists. "
They may not be terrorists but they certainly do nothing about the terrorists as long as they are merrily murdering away others. In my book, that makes them passive supporters or terror at best and complicit in the commonsensical view. Lecture us when one muslim majority country guarantees equal religious rights of non-muslim citizens.
Adi
XXXXX, USA
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
55
Ghulam:

My message got a bit garbled, but I think it is obvious enough. Essentailly, if Hindus don't unite, they will soon lose their majority in India.
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
54
Ghulam Faruki:

I take it your message is addressed to me, and the "Thomas Nile" bit is a joke.

I don't share your optimistic view of today's Hinduism, needless to say. Hinduism, you say, survived 4000 years. Not a very intelligent argument on any count. After all, you would not say there is no need to worry about the future of the tiger as it has survived hundreds of thousands of years? A few centuries of Islamic rule in India was enough to ensure that Hinduism was reduced to nothing in two huge previously Hindu territoris, Afghanistan and what is now Pkistan; and to become a apidly dwindling minority in another largish area, Bangladesh. Assam is alreading heading the same way today, and so are large parts of Kerala. If Hindus are unable to unite to protect THEIR interests, if the Dalit and Tibals are pushed by selfish caste Hindus into Christian and Muslim hands, Hinduism as a majority religion in India few numbers they are like lambs; when there is a largish number of them they are like foxes; and when they are anywhere near half the population they become crocodiles." We are at the stage of transition from the fox to the crocodile.

I don't buy your tale about the basic moderation of Muslims in India. In North India hey have a proverb: WWhen the Muslims have few numbers
they are as sweet as lambs; when they have a substantial number they become like wolves; and when they are anything like a majority, they become crocodiles. We are at a stage between the wolf and the crocodile in India.
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 22, 2006 12:00 AM
53
Rajiv Sandhu/Thomas Nile,

You have been raising the bugaboo of India becoming a Muslim country too too often. Some reality check would not hurt. Conversions of Dalits are bound to decline since greater efforts have been made not only to improve their economic lot, but also their social status. If they were also allowed to conduct puja, marriage ceremonies etc, it would be another major step foreward. Higher Muslim birth rate is a temporary blip as historical time frames go, and would be ameliorated as the education and employment situation of Muslims improve. I do not know any Muslims who are comtemplating a take over of India; all they seem to be talking about is getting a job or better schooling for their children. I have nothing against your using the "Muslim India" bugaboo as an argument to speed up the uplift of the Dalits, but Hinduism has survived for 4000 years, and is probably stronger at this time than ever before.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
52
Kumar:

Many thanks. I will be using your piece to read myself to sleep.

Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
51
Rajiv Sandhu,

>> Great stuff!! Just explain to Osama Bin Laden and 1.3 billion Muslim fanatics and we are up up and away!!!!

Islam is a set of beliefs like any other religion. All religions, at some point in history tried to base the rule of law based on religious teachings - christianity being a prime example. Faced wth critique and improved/evolved articulation by scholars, theologians and philosophers, the religions have changed their attitude towards people with differing views/beliefs. They have come to terms with the idea that one may or may not agree with a differing view but all have equal rights and dignity; that all religions are free to proclaim and practice any religion of one's choice etc - even as they retained their right to believe their theology in the fullest. Somehow this change is a bit slow to come in Islam (the reasons for the same is interesting to debate). The perceived western dominance and attack, constant demonization is probably pushing Islam to a defensive position where some reforms which are long due are not coming forth. The humanist principle is that all humans are good/innocent unless proved guilty. Certainly, most of the "1.3 billion Muslims" are normal law-abiding citizens - otherwise, the world not be as it is today if the 1.3 billion muslims are terrorists. It may be possible that several of them sympathize and agree with the view that the west is constantly attacking and demonizing Islam. As for hinduism, it has changed its articulation several times in the past and it should happen again to align with humanist values of liberty, equality, faternity and basic human dignity/rights. It has to be left to the individuals what they want to accept and what they want to reject.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
50
Useful Idiot Kumar,

I am not here to enlighten you. If you want to learn more about how vile Islime is I can provide you one good website. It is www.faithfreedom.org

The moderator of this web site has promised that he will shut down the site if anybody can prove him that he is wrong. There are lot of on going debate there, go and debate if you want. This place is too small and cramped for that.

Before you judge my comment as meaningless rhetoric, visit the above site and learn and if know some thing about Islime that is portrayed there as wrong, then debate there. Otherwise hold your peace.

You ignoramus are in position to judge me whether my example is incorrect or not or whether it can be broadly applied or not. You don’t have any tool or knowledge to judge me. First learn something and then start judging others, will you?
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
49
RSK,

>> I am disgusted because of what your book says about how I should be treated because I don’t believe in your god’s baloney

For a religion that talks about universal brotherhood the most, it is unfortunate that Islam yet to accept the idea of temporal law/law of the land based on consensus. But as Ghulam Farukhi says, the change/reform may be in the offing (being the largest growing religion in the world, I certainly hope this change happens in mainstream Islamic articulation)

>> As I said before stop spinning about the virtues of your religion. Every body who can read, write and understand knows how evil it is

Everyone is entitled to provide their view of virtues of what they believe. Obviously, there are many well educated scholars who adopted Islam, so your claim that "anyone who can read, write and understand knows how evil it is" is meaningless rhetoric.

>> let me see how that barbarian Mohammed Gazni treated Prtithivi Raj Chauhan
>> See how an Mahamad Mussalman repays his debt.

It is incorrect and bad logic to criticize Islam based on what Mohammed Gazni did. Provide your criticism of Islam based on what Islam actually stands for. Only then, the criticism will be effective and meaningful to anyone.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
48
Kumar:

Graters, old boy !! Great stuff!! Just explain to Osama Bin Laden and 1.3 billion Muslim fanatics and we are up up and away!!!!
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
47
Rajiv Sandu,
>> I meant that Hindus should do what they usually do in their brave history when confronted by difficult situations: bury their wise heads in the sand. then nothing is guaranteed to happen.

I think, first a serious attempt needs to be made to articulate hindu philosophy in a way that accommodates and accepts all humanity as equal and that all humanity is entitled to basic human dignity/respect/rights. This articulation should become so well spread and become the mainstream understanding of what hinduism stands for. This, along with other fine aspects of hindu philosophy needs to be presnetd to the entire world and let the people decide what they want to accept or reject. As for muslims, advocate and bring awareness among the masses that the temporal law cannot be solely derived out of Quran - it should rather be based on consesnus; and that any religion is meaniless with a freedom of choose and reject a religion.

BTW, a small clarification to you, Ghulam Faruki, Srinivas: I have conversed with you yesterday with the id "pradeep" which I created due to some confusion about my old id (which I am using currently). My apologies.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
46
Azar,

For your previous response to my comment, “I’m amused by your outburst RSK….”

I don’t see you condemning your other co-religionist for his insult against Hinduism. This shows that your are just another dishonest Mussalman always preaching others but not following any of those himself.

If you want to stop female infanticide as a human, do it. No body is stopping you. And by the way there is nothing for me to avoid anything here. I am just responding to one of your co-religionist’s slander against Hinduism. Again you are acting as if you talked genuinely as a human about the problem of female infanticide. You never did that either, you dishonest liar.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
45
Azar:

As I advised before: cheer up. When I point out to a Muslim and a Hindu that India in a few edecades will be Muslim, the Hindu goes into deep depression while the Muslim looks worried. I ask what the worry is. The Muslim says: Well, it makes me think Hindus should not be told this truth, lest it upset them. I then tell him his own community can look forward to a bright future in India, anyway. He smiles. Meanwhile the Hindu is still depressed. I tell him that as he is not a Muslim he does not deserve to be happy. I suggest that his alternatives are to convert to Islam or emigrate to Outer mongolia. He cheers up. Both invite me to stay and eat biriani.
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
44
Idiot Azar,

Don’t try to pull wool over my eyes here. The reason Muslims are compared to Shoddy Arabia and Pukistan is because you yourself are identifying with them always. What is that Ummah thing, chitti chitti bang bang uh. Don’t try to have it both ways. When you want help from other Mussalmans, then you will say Ummah, Ummah and when you want something to be done in India through the useful idiot Commies, then you are Indian. I guess honesty and Islime are mutually exclusive terms.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
43
he is suggesting that you kill anybody and everybody you can identify as muslim. dont leave any behind or they might convert you!all of you,rsk, rajiv, and now kumar...hatred,violence and murder is what you are preaching. kumar why do you sound so hloier than thou? what is the source of your info about the arab nations? do you know expatriot communities form as much as 70% of total populations of some of these countries. why would people go there if things were as bad as you would like them to be? equality? sir what do you know about equality? try and step into the shoes of those who you wish would 'reform' themselves and then we'll talk of inequality. besides why are you asking naheed about arabia? just because a person is muslim doesnt mean he's or she's got something to do with saudi arabia and pakistan. this is india and all who live in it are indians and there's nothing you can do about that. except murder and rape that you and your bedfellows here seem to propagate.
azar zaidi
new delhi, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
42
Kaffir = A disbeleiver in Allah. I dont know Why u r so disgusted by this term. If you dont like it then start beleiving in Allah.

This is very good one, a clever spin. Thanks but no thanks, I don’t want to become a 7th century idiot. I am disgusted because of what your book says about how I should be treated because I don’t believe in your god’s baloney.

As I said before stop spinning about the virtues of your religion. Every body who can read, write and understand knows how evil it is. Of course all the barbarian in the past and the current ones like OBL and others interpret your religious text differently. Even he is not buying your baloney that Jihad is not holy war. If a religious text is so ambiguous then that has to be re-interpreted and established properly. Until then no body will buy your baloney.

Arun Shourie is not misquoting any of your garbage, he doesn’t have to. All he has to do is look back and see last thousand years of the barbaric rule of Mussalmans, how they interpreted your religion and acted upon it. They just applied this strategy every where they went. Arun Shourie was on the mark here.

For your second example let me see how that barbarian Mohammed Gazni treated Prtithivi Raj Chauhan. Chauhan, following the Dharmic rule of war let go of the barbarian after the barbarian was defeated 16 times. On the 17th time when Chauhan lost, he was promptly arrested and his eyes were gouged out. This is Islimic mercy, because he was not killed, only his eyes were gouged out. The reason he was not killed was because, Chauhan spared the barbarian life sixteen times. See how an Mahamad Mussalman repays his debt. So your argument that enemies should be escorted to safety does not hold any water.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
41
Azar:

I did not create Islamic intolerance. It is a religion with a huge following and such intolerance has serious consequences. I merely pointed out what these were for India. As an individual I am no more against you than you are against me. But individuals count for nothing in the face of mass movements like Islam. If I were an Indian Muslim, in any case, I would be pretty upbeat and optimistic. Things are going your way. In thirty to forty years practically all Indians will be Muslim by choice or by force. So cheer up.
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
40
Kumar:

I meant that Hindus should do what they usually do in their brave history when confronted by difficult situations: bury their wise heads in the sand. then nothing is guaranteed to happen. I hope you understand now, "Kumar".
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
39
Rajiv Sandhu,

>> People are terrified of Muslim violence and increasing numbers. So they feel they have no future except to fight Islam tooth and nail or to flee or to convert.

What do you mean by fighting tooth and nail?


>> Indians are now waking up to this reality. That is all. All I am saying is that unless Hindus unite and get ready to fight, they are doomed. Period.

Not sure if I understood you correctly. what exactly are you suggesting?
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
38
Naheed,

First it’s good to see that you are writing like a civilized person. May be its true that Muslims understand only one language, violence and in this case abuse. Anyway good that you took one step forward from moving away from your 7th century behavior. Do stop, keep walking you will get to 21st century at least before it becomes 22nd.

My response to your first reply.

I just pasted your explanation of how Muslim women is treated and followed it up with my take. Go and read it properly you idiot.

Hence both men & women are prohibited from marrying polytheists according to Islam
This is exactly what I am talking about when I said bigotry and discrimination are institutionalized in your religion, if you don’t remove this kind of garbage from your book you will never get respect from others.

Stop spinning about the virtues of your religion. Every body who can read, write and understand knows how evil it is. Of course all the barbarian in the past and the current ones like OBL and others interpret your religious text differently. If a religious text is so ambiguous then that has to re-interpreted and established properly. Until then no body will buy your baloney.

Some of your post are self contradictory itself. Go back and read them and do some hard thinking before your post again. Let me site one example:

On your first post you said:
First man, is the person solely responsible for the complete maintenance of his wife, his family and any other needy relations. It is his duty by Law to assume all financial responsibilities and maintain his dependents adequately. It is also his duty to contribute financially to all good causes in his society. All financial burdens are borne by him alone. Secondly, in contrast, woman has no financial responsibilities whatsoever except very little of her personal expenses, the high luxurious things that she likes to have…..

On your second post:
She is free to retain, after marriage, whatever she possessed before it, and the husband has no right whatsoever to any of her belongings. As a daughter or sister she is entitled to security and provision by the father and brother respectively. That is her privilege

If she doesn’t have any financial responsibility then why does she have to keep her ancestors property to herself, why not share it with her current family and reduce the burden of her men folk. See how illogical your argument is?
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
37
Naheed,

>> kaffir = A disbeleiver in Allah. I dont know Why u r so disgusted by this term. If you dont like it then start beleiving in Allah.


It does not really matter what you can call the non-believers in Allah. You may even suggest/believe that all non-believers in Alh (as described in Quran) will be punished. But let me ask you, a few questions that all right thinking Muslims need to ponder upon. You should probably spend your time and energy on these things. As human beings created equally by God, is not everyone entitld to equal rigts and laws? Why do the Islamic nations do not provide such equal rights? (while every nation provides such equal rights and laws based on consensus to all including muslims). Is everyone in thos world entitled to believe a Bible or a Gita or any book as God's word as much as you believe in Quran? (you may disagree with them, that is a different matter) Are others entiltled to preach and believe the same? Why is it not allowed in Islamic nations (while Islamic scholars and clerics enjoy protected freedom everywhere in the world). As a responsible citizen of the country and the world, please spend some time in advocating such reforms. As a truly believing muslim, if people like you raise these issues, they will probably be heard.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
36
whats the point yaar? what will you get out of talking like that? when i mean watch what you say i dont mean you'll be killed by a suicide bomber, i mean you are offending a lot of people who may agree with about certain issues you have brought up, by what you are saying. again, this is about female infanticide not islam or hinduism. you ar ein no position to judge a religion no matter what you use as your example. because where saudi arabia prohibits somethings, other places do others. do you see the futility of what you are saying? its a never ending spiral in which people are ready to die and kill but not listen. i know you'll say that is exactly what you are saying about the muslims, but this happens everywhere. its really crazy the way you insist on picking up on things that may not actually be condoned in islam to paint it in horrific language. by this you are committing a more horrific crime because a seemingly educated person like you should not perpetuate hatred.how many muslims do you actually know? what is the basis for your allegations? have you ever stopped to think about the implication of what you are saying? you have with a single stroke of your pen condemned millions of people who share the same concerns as you, for whom being muslim is a private affair, for whom life is made a lot more difficult because some one brought down the wtc in new york, as 'muslims'. i put it within inverted commas because its an identity that is being pushed on to the muslims. think, research, read and more over go and make friends with people you have so unanimously condemned as barbarians. you will see that they are human beings first, just like you.
azar zaidi
new delhi, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
35
Azar:

Many thanks for the warning about Muslim violence. I am aware of it. That is how Muslims silence people: through sheer terror....

By the way, no-one in England has called me a Paki. Some coloured people do suffer racist taunts, but all of us know that England is a billion times better for minorities than any Muslim country. In Saudi Arabia, heartland of your "faith", it is illegal to import any religious text other than Muslim ones authorised by the Saudi government ! To hold any non-Muslim religious function is strictly illegal.
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
34
rajiv, so its true then.you've been called a paki. sorry mate.and nothing you say or do will convince me of what you have to say.period. but i will advice you to be careful with what you say. you never know who's reading your twisted rantings and what may come of it. take care.
azar zaidi
new delhi, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
33
Azar:

Just get one thing into your head and keep it there: we non-Muslims, all over the world, KNOW that under Muslim rule no-one of any other faith can hope for better than third-class status. And your numbers are booming in India. People are terrified of Muslim violence and increasing numbers. So they feel they have no future except to fight Islam tooth and nail or to flee or to convert. Indians are now waking up to this reality. That is all. All I am saying is that unless Hindus unite and get ready to fight, they are doomed. Period.
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
32
rajdeep, a clarification.the crusades were the crusades alone, not jihad. in retrospection you can, though, even call it world war one but they were the crusades alone. second, the whole world had nothing to do with it, it was fought primarily in west asia, the land known as levant or modern palestine, turkey and lebanon. the sack of constantinople by the crusaders was the highlight of this conflict. jihad is a fluid concept, which is why it is largely misconstrued. and dont be surprised if muslims dont support bin laden, they are the community which has suffered most by 9/11. infact the extent to which the protest against the cartoons have reached is also alarming. there are more pressing issues.
azar zaidi
new delhi, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
31
dear Naheed,no use explaining to the forum the greatness of islam or for that matter any other relegion by anybody as we are all aware that alll relegions have contributed for the better of mankind.Problems come when one tries to offend othrs faith,hurts others feelings.While I must appreciate the rigid stand of Islam that it will not interfere in the affairs of others faiths and at the same time will not tolerate others interference in islam./Very fair and democratic too after all any reform if needed has to come from within.So people belonging to other faith expect from islam that the way it enjoys the relegious freedom in non muslim countries are also reciprocated as its not interfereing.What makes them stop that.
Regarding the jihad its known historically how the christian crusade and islams jihad ruined the world earlier killing so many innocents.But its good that the entire community does not subscribe to the kind of jihad perpetrated by Osama bin laden or pakistan.
I also stand by our muslim brothers against the way the christian west offending non christian relegions in the name of free speech.let there be protest everywhere but peaceful and non voilent.
rajdeep
Bangalore, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
30
rajiv, i agree lets not kid ourselves. i guess you dont want to show your wounds in public but lets face it you've been subjected to racial hatred. your anger arises from the fact that you've been called a 'paki' and not because any muslim did anything against you. which is why you think if you clarified that you were infact not a muslim, the brits would pat you on the back and buy you a beer. well, they'll beat the shit out of you anyway. anyway what i was trying to demonstrate is the futility of talking about 'muslims wanting india'.the quicker you realise it the better it is-muslims are as much indians as you are, not because they fought for independence, but because they have been fighting for freedom alongside even after that, but simply because they were born here. poor? sir you dont sound poor to me, in fact someone who has a lot to lose and hence rolling in cash. and dont get carried away by ideas like secessionist and separatist, there you are displaying your own anxiety. in fact everyone here who has a problem with islam is anxious because you are the 'majority' and the muslims a 'minority' and you dont seem to be able to control the buggers! people have the right to control their own destiny. if the kashmiris want kashmir independent, if the north east wants independence they'll have it no matter how much you rave and rant behind your computers in la or london or princeton or wherever you are. live and let live. i wont even get into the issue of muslims disrespecting hindu religion and hindus disrespecting islam because its irrelevant to this discussion.
azar zaidi
new delhi, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
29
i'm amused by your outburst RSK. dont know what your personal vendetta is but i dont want to drawn into your abuse hurling.i would like to point out that the degree of your hate surprises me and is definately getting the better of you. you will learn with time that such crimes know no religion. thats what i have been trying to say. and frankly speaking the merits and demerits of hunduism and islam are beyond you and me, and all others who have written as part of this discussion. if you want to tackle female infanticide or rather murder of the girl child then you have to do it as a human being, not as a hindu or muslim. you've very nicely avoided the problem till now. use your passion a little more creatively and you'll be a happier person. and by the way i might just be the only azar zaidi in delhi. any way thats irrelevant. peace! dont hate so passionately. it wont do you or any of us any good.
azar zaidi
new delhi, India
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
28
AZAR ZAIDI

Go and read what one of your co-religionist wrote about Hinduism before you get all uppity about me being rude to your Islime. I am just responding to his comment. Why should I give respect to a religion that does not respect any other religion? Tolerance, respect and courtesy are two way street and its time you 7th century barbarians realize that. You won’t get respect unless you respect others.

What difference does it make if I give my full name or not, you on the other hand did not give full details either, you act as if there is just one Azar in Delhi.

You don’t have to wonder why I said Islime, just go and read your piece of shit called “holy” Koran; you will see why I said so. All the barbarism in the world are institutionalized in your book. Disgusting and revolting terms like kaffir, infidel, jihad, jizya, slavery, oppression of women and so on and so forth. Go and remove all this garbage from your book and you will automatically get respect from others. Stop procreating like rabbit, you will get respect. Stop blowing up yourself so that you can go to Allah’s whore house, you will get respect. Respect is not something you get by intimidating others; its something you earn based on your actions. Respect is something you get out of goodwill you earned, not fear and intimidation.

By the way “uncle” Narendra Bhai Modi will be thousand times saner and a better human on his worst day compared to your desert barbarian Mahamad can be on his best possible day.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
27
Azar:

Let's not kid ourselves. No Brit will come after me with a cricket bat because I am after England - he will know that unless I am a Muslim I am highly likely to be a poor peaceful citizen. (He may, to be sure, beat me up just because he knows I won't be able to retaliate. But that is another story. Non-Muslim minorities are not feared in England.)

Muslims are a different matter. In the past they ruled India, and showed scant respect for other religions. When they grown in numbers, people in any country fear them, for they know that a lare prpotion of Muslims mean either a secessionist movement like Jinnah's or eventual ruthless Muslim domination with all other religions as third-class.

You know that; I know it; all God's children know it. Hence the panic about Islam. If Hindus lose their majority by killing off girls, it means the victory of Islam in India.
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 21, 2006 12:00 AM
26
rajiv thats the pity isnt it. you are talking to me about hindu-muslim when the issue at hand is female infanticide. in the end it doesnt matter whether you're hindu or muslim, because none of them preach the kind of hatred that spills onto this page. and why are you so paraniod? you are based in south hall. how about a brit coming at you with a cricket bat saying you are after england? and i will be shocked, at all this hatred, and also because who have become acustomed to this hatred.
azar zaidi
new delhi, India
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
25
Azar:

Don't be shocked. These caste Hindu guys know inwardly that their domination of India is doomed to end in a few decades at most. All their vices are catching up with them; they are even killing off their own women....! What is in doubt is not really the Islamic takeover of India, but what kind of Islam it will be. What scares me is the prospect that India, by passing from Hindu to Muslim rule, will merely exchange one oppressive order for another. I don't see much reason to be optimistic about liberalism in Islam. Do you?
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
24
i'm really shocked at the amount of venom that has showed itself in this discussion.RSK...you are one brave person to hid behind that abbreviation.i'm wondering exactly how twisted are you and others who approve of your usage of 'islime' and 'mahamad'!dont worry i wont issue a fatwa against you. what i' thinking is how an 'educated'(i'm sure you claim you are educated...)person like you treats women...on the road, in the bus...at home. not to well. simply because you cant come to terms with the fact that its people like you whoever you are and whatever ideology you subscribe to, that are committing the worst possible crimes against women.day in and day out.besides non-muslims are more polygamous than muslims in india. so go back to uncle narendra modi who taught you 'hum panch, hamare pachees' and ask him to whip you, because you deserve no better.
azar zaidi
new delhi, India
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
23
"There is no need for Muslims to fight to get India. The Hindus and Sikhs seem bent on sucide. The Muslims just need to wait, continue breeding fast, spilling over from Bangladesh and laugh. "

Aptly put!
shreya
London, United Kingdom
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
22
There is no need for Muslims to fight to get India. The Hindus and Sikhs seem bent on sucide. The Muslims just need to wait, continue breeding fast, spilling over from Bangladesh and laugh.
Rajiv Sandhu
SOUTHALL, United Kingdom
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
21

It will be nice if you practice what you preach and stop blaming RSS for pointing out the stupidity and brute ness of mussalmans.

>>>

Well said RSK. Very much to the point. Try to point out that Sati became a culture within hindus due the barbarity if muslim invasion they start crying. Try to say that woman got disenfrancised due to land holding power being given to men by britishers they start crying.

I guess we have forgotten Rani Laxmi Bai whose kingdom was snatched by britishers because she did not have nay male heir and they say that britishers were a good influence in the subcontinent.

We hindus are determined to remove these abarasion and are doing so earnestly. We will remove all these social evils in due time.

Abhishek
Abhishek Drolia
Raipur, India
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
20
Yeah, it may be death penalty if one can prove that a rape did take place. How you prove it in Islime is more interesting, and this guy conveniently left out that part.

Let me explain how it is done in Islime.

A woman has to provide four MALE witnesses, mind you not just any four witnesses but four MALE witnesses. How can this be possible, if there were four male witnesses available in the first place then the crime wouldn’t have happened or this four males would have been a willing partner in the crime itself.

See how twisted and irrational Islime is and all these mad Mussalmans want to enforce this barbaric rule of law called as Sharia on the Mussalmans of India. Anyone opposes this is communal but who wants this barbarism in place is called secular in India. This beats any commonsense what so
ever.

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------BR>According to Islam the punishment of rape is death penalty if committed by a married person.
If the correct Islamic ruling would have been implemented such a problem (like imrana or gudiya) would not have arisen.
The problem is that many Muslims are being misled by mad mullahs who are being blindly followed by the ignorant
masses.
---------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
---------
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
19
My bias is not against another religion but against the tendency to blame Muslims and the British for all that afflicts Hinduism. All religions have problems, and all religions should address them without playing the blame game.

It will be nice if you practice what you preach and stop blaming RSS for pointing out the stupidity and brute ness of mussalmans.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
18
Now let us see how the Muslim women are treated in Islime.

1. The Muslim woman has the same right as the Muslim man in all matters, including divorce.
This is a lie, at best they have only half the same right as men. Contemporary example, the barbaric practice of blood money in S Arabia prescribes exact half the compensation for a women victim as against male victim.

2. She enjoys property and inheritance rights. (Which other religion grants women these rights?). She can also conduct her own separate business.
Again a lie, at best Muslim women get only half the property against his male sibling, not equal.

3. She can marry any Muslim of her choice. If her parents choose a partner for her, her consent has to be taken.
No, no, no, liar. If a Muslim woman marries a non Muslim, she can and is, killed by her own father or brother or any other male barbarian from his family.

For your fourth question you yourself have said it is not true and for the rest, every Tom, Dick and Harry is doing it, no big deal.

So do some hard thinking, with your brain of course, not with your dick, before you spout any more nonsense again
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
17
Naheed,

Now let’s go over your examples one by one and see whether any one of them hold any water.

1. The Hindu woman has no right to divorce her husband.
Neither does the husband, divorce is a new practice altogether for Indian society. So divorce rights, either to men or women, do not apply to ancient or even the current Indian society at large.

2. She has no property or inheritance rights.
On the one hand you say women are given dowry at the time of marriage and on the other you say they don’t have property rights. Pick a side and argue, you are all over the place.

3. Choice of partner is limited because she can only marry within her own caste; moreover her horoscope must match that of the intending bridegroom/family.
That is why divorce rate is less than 2% in India. Also I don’t see anything wrong in what you said above. Also in ancient Hindu society women chose men, not the other way around and it was called Suyamvaram, I guess you never heard about this, huh. May be you should read Ramayanam at least once, the one that was not interpreted by a loonie Commie, to learn something about ancient Hindu society.

4. The family of the girl has to offer an enormous dowry to the bridegroom/family.
Go back to answer two and pick a side.

5. If her husband dies she should commit Sati (being cremated with her dead husband). Since today's law forbids Sati, society mainly punishes her in other "holy" ways (see below).
Wo, wo, wo, take it easy Naheed. Let me clarify one thing for you. Sati is NOT practiced through out India. In fact it was practiced only by one community and that is the warrior community of the brave Rajputs. And why did they practice Sati anyway? Which barbaric invaders were they fighting constantly? What did the barbarian’s religion say about war booty which forced the brave Rajputs to start the most tragic practice of Sati?
One simple answer is Islime and Mahamads. These Mahamad Mohammedans constantly invaded the western frontiers of India and took as war booty, women of defeated Rajput soldiers. To stop this inhuman, barbaric torture of the brave Rajput women, Sati came into practice. When this practice became redundant Hindus themselves stopped it. The man who was in the fore front to stop it was Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the last time I checked, he was a Hindu.

7. The widow is considered to be a curse and must not be seen in public. She cannot wear jewellery or colourful clothes. (She should not even take part in her children's marriage!)
At least in India only a widowed woman is not seen in public, even it is not so now. Let us see how women dress in S Arabia and other Islamic countries. They all dress in black bee keeper suites. No color what so ever. Even if they show their eyes, that will arouse the Islamic Mahamads. This shows that the Mussalmans think with their dicks, not with their brains. So before you point a finger at Hindus and their religion, turn around and see how disgusting yours is.

8. Child and infant marriage is encouraged.
This is very easy to counter. Your so called prophet, when he was fifty something, married a six year old Ayesha and had sex with her when she was nine years old. How disgusting and revolting this is. At least Hindu child marriage involves two children whereas yours involves a grown up pedophile barbarian of fifty years old and a six year old infant. So shut the fuck up. To learn more about other barbaric practices of Islime, go to faithfreedom.org
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
16
Now to Naheed,

Who is this Chatterjee guy you are quoting? A paid hack or the usual useful idiot loonie Commie from Waste Bengal.

Your analysis and also Chatterjee’s are full of crap, a deliberate twisting of the Sanskrit language to arrive at your pre conceived judgment. The Vedas did not prescribe to give dowry nor did it say any of the other things you quoted here. At best it might have just explained about the practices of those days. It DOES NOT command any one to do anything you quoted here.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 20, 2006 12:00 AM
15
What is wrong with this Kushwant Singh guy,

Before he gives credit to some white guy for trying to stop ill treatment of Indian women by Indian men, he should turn back and see how white men and his church were treating their women folk of the same period. They were burning them alive at stake, after extensive torture, because the white Christian ministers suspected them to be witches. Some estimate says that up to six million women were burned alive like this. Also these same white men practiced barbaric slave trade, put up sign that said dogs and Indians are not allowed and were responsible for some 30 million deaths of Indians due to their plundering of crops and their stifling economic and tax policies that resulted in famines. So his argument that some Lawrence guy tried to bring justice to Indian women, while his compatriots themselves were not following it, doesn’t hold water.

By his slavish writing, this guy is bringing disrepute to all other Sikh Sardarji’s who fought bravely from the frontline to defend our mother land. This Lawrence guy should be ROTFLHAO from his grave. I hope Kushwant Singh reads this and makes some hard thinking.
RSK
LA, United States
Feb 19, 2006 12:00 AM
14
dear Naheed,what you are trying to tell me is what is that in islam which i am not contrdicting since I have not read it.I am only reffering to humanity aspect of it.The rape of IMrana was committed by a married man and in this case her own father in law.But the punishment of such kinds are given in a islamic country and not in a democratic and secular country.Here there is nothing to be mislead by anybody.
rajdeep
Bangalore, India
Feb 19, 2006 12:00 AM
13
sabena i think you had a hand in the writing of this column. maybe we shouldn't blame ks for his reckless views after all. all he did was put in words what a majority of people in this country and abroad like to believe in, inspite of little historical data to back it. i hope you realise that men have been dominant, whether muslim, hindu or sikh!whether here or in princeton, united states. even the 'effeminate bengali babu'used the body of 'his' woman to exercise control that was missing in the political domain outside his home.
azar zaidi
new delhi, India
Feb 19, 2006 12:00 AM
12
Islam's male dominance brought this problem into Indian culture. This is why the girl ratio is worst in Punjab, especially among sikhs, where Islam's influence was highest.

Sasriyakal, sardarji
Sabena Dhingra
princeton, United States
Feb 19, 2006 12:00 AM
11
>> "Your rather silly use of " oh it is a sales pitch" defence as reason enough to dispel the theory is really lame and only exposes your bias and prejudice against another religion"

SC,

My bias is not against another religion but against the tendency to blame Muslims and the British for all that afflicts Hinduism. All religions have problems, and all religions should address them without playing the blame game.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Feb 19, 2006 12:00 AM
10
"SC's link to Amazon on Veena Talwar's book is not a real book review, but a sales pitch."

Quit being inane, all you need to do is google to find a gazillion reviews!!
The editorial I listed gave a gist of the theory she has proposed, even if it is a sales pitch ( whihc in no way it is), it does not negate the importance of the theory itself ( By all accounts a scholarly one)!!

Your rather silly use of " oh it is a sales pitch" defence as reason enough to dispel the theory is really lame and only exposes your bias and prejudice against another religion.

if you had come up with something substantial to contradict the theory, that would have indeed made a fine defence. All you have is "sales pitch"...

You share the same prejudices as those Hindu thugs who blame muslims for everything from the weather to the pimples on their faces!!

Face it, the muslim Invasions weren't benign ones. There is no reason to shirk from an honest appraisal of it's impact on Indian society.
SC
TN, USA
Feb 18, 2006 12:00 AM
9
While the Vivekanand/Gandhi reforms in Hinduism were tremendous steps forward, the RSS inspired Hindu revivalism is based on nothing but blaming Muslims and the British for all the ills in Hinduism, including sati and female infanticide. When these RSS "scholars" find themselves in positions where they can revise history books, it is bad for all of us. Even someone like Khushwant Singh can be influenced by such bilge.

Female circumcision is an African tribal custom, much older than Islam. All Muslim scholars have condemned it. SC's link to Amazon on Veena Talwar's book is not a real book review, but a sales pitch. Good to see Naheed back in his new avatar, a scholar in Hinduism.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Feb 18, 2006 12:00 AM
8
dear naheedbhai,its foolish to compare the merrits of relegions or its practises.All relegions have good as well as not that good virtues.If hindus are accused for dowry systems then we find in Islam the divorce is looked upon as though just a formality and like stone age life a rape victim is being forced to live with the perpetrator of the very crime and that happened in one recent case of Imrana, a married woman raped none other than by her father in law and the mullahas issue fathwas to that effect.I agree that the dowry system is not fair but as the time goes it will have to diminish when the women come as equal to men in all respects.There are differences in the city and rural life amongst the hindus.IN the cities it has become a fashion to divorce only to remarry again some one.Its no big deal now.Rural areas it might still be difficult for the widows remarriage.And regarding the infanticide,in these days of high cost and competitive life people are looking for small families particularly the hindus,and if some one opts for abortion it cannot be called as infanticide.Its good that people are allowed as in the west to live as they wish unlike the rigid islamic rules where the relegion just promotes more issues per couple.
rajdeep
Bangalore, India
Feb 18, 2006 12:00 AM
7
"What a logic to defend dowry !!!
your logic is like this :
dowry = insurance cover for women in case her husband dies.
Women cant arrange dowry hence can't get married.
If they cant get married then they would not have husbands.
If they would not have husband then the question of husbands death does not arise.
But unmarried women = burden on girls parents.
So kill the root cause of the problem i.e the women"

Naheed:
What are you saying man? lol!! Thanks for all the laughs, We will talk when you have something coherent and intelligent to say....lol
Take a good look at your "logic", I bet it would make it to Ripley's believe it or not!!
SC
TN, USA
Feb 18, 2006 12:00 AM
6
Naheed:
You didn't get it. Far from agreeing to anything unreasonable you have to say, I was being sarcastic. Sarcasm apparently is not on your radar. Go back and slowly read what i wrote earlier.

Besides, You haven't provided me any proofs or studies Like I cited that demolish any notion that dowry has to do with culture, caste or the vedas. I only have to take your word that Islam does not preach female circumcision or islamic attitudes don't lead to the horrific practises of female circumcision!!

SC
TN, USA
Feb 18, 2006 12:00 AM
5
For everybody's benefit here is the editorial review of the book:

"Dowry Murder : The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime

The Hindu custom of dowry has long been blamed for the murder of wives and female infants in India. In this highly provocative book, Veena Oldenburg argues that these killings are neither about dowry nor reflective of an Indian culture or caste system that encourages violence against women.
Rather, such killings can be traced directly to the influences of the British colonial era. In the precolonial period, dowry was an institution managed by women, for women, to enable them to establish their status and have recourse in an emergency. As a consequence of the massive economic and
societal upheaval brought on by British rule, women's entitlements to the precious resources obtained from land were erased and their control of the system diminished, ultimately resulting in a devaluing of their very lives. Taking us on a journey into the colonial Punjab, Veena Oldenburg skillfully
follows the paper trail left by British bureaucrats to indict them for interpreting these crimes against women as the inherent defects of Hindu caste culture. The British, Oldenburg claims, publicized their "civilizing mission" and blamed the caste system in order to cover up the devastation their
own agrarian policies had wrought on the Indian countryside. A forceful demystification of contemporary bride burning concludes this remarkably original book. Deploying her own experiences and memories and her research at a women's shelter with "dowry cases" for almost a year in the mid-eighties,
the author looks at the contemporary violence against wives and daughters-in-law in modern India. Oldenburg seamlessly weaves the contemporary with the historical, the personal with the political, and strips the layers of exoticism off an ancient practice to show how an invaluable safety net was
twisted into a deadly noose. She brings us startlingly close to the worsening treatment of modern Indian women as she challenges us to rethink basic assumptions about women's human and economic rights. Combining rigorous research with impassioned analysis and a nuanced treatment of a complex, deeply
controversial subject, this book critiques colonialism while holding a mirror to gender discrimination in modern India. "

Buy her book to read as how she proves her theory!!
source:

http://www.amazon.com/g...344058?%5Fencoding=UTF8

SC
TN, USA
Feb 18, 2006 12:00 AM
4
"Hindu girls were not killed to prevent them from Muslim armies, rather Female infanticide arose from the general Vedic attitude towards women."

Sure, just as female circumcision ( where they cut the clitoris off with glass) is a direct result of Islamic attitudes towards women.

The "dowry system" in india was meant to give the woman an insurance in case she lost her husband. That the system deteriorated and after english invasions beause of widespread economic upheavel is well documented by the work of Veena Oldenburg ( A professor of History at baruch college, NYC).

You can buy her book and read an editorial review here:

http://www.amazon.com/g...344058?%5Fencoding=UTF8


So Naheed,
Don't fart through your mouth without a proper understanding of things.
SC
TN, USA
Feb 18, 2006 12:00 AM
3
i think mr khushwant singh has let his embarrasment get the best of him. he should realise that through his rather careless inference to 'muslim' armies not only is he denying the gravity of a crime that knows no religion, he's also very conveniently putting the blame on everybody's favourite scape goat of late. is he sure that female infanticide by whatever means started only with the coming of the muslims? just like sati, jouhar and the parda?
i think not. and for somebody who likes to assume the serious business of being the spokesperson of a community, he should think before he commits blunders like this
azar zaidi
new delhi, India
Feb 18, 2006 12:00 AM
2
dear shivkumar.it will be foolish to hold one relegion which is a way of life and withstood all the onslaughts of the invaders and evengelisers as responsible for all the ills.Why take refference from the mythology to comare what is said to be good today.If we have to go by your logic then there is no refference to any demoralised men and women of today compared to then civilisation.we have not heard from the mythology that children being raped and molested,gay and lesbian culture being glorified,no quarrels among the caste if it all exixsted then.Atheists who think its thier right to offend the beleivers,etc.No doubt todays women are treated equally as men but then the reason for the crimes on women are partly due to men and women as well.It was not necessary to bring in the name of Ram and Sitha here.Take whats good which was definitely more in Ram than Ravan
rajdeep
Bangalore, India
Feb 18, 2006 12:00 AM
1
Not only muslim invaders even the hindu mindset is also responsible for the plight of woman. We can find lot of stupid things in vedas regarding woman. Men always treated woman as secondary citizens since time immemorial. Men only introduced the word virginity, that also for woman only. The truth is most of the men were incapable of satisfying a woman, so they created some artificial control measures and created sitahood and satisavitrihood. You can even see how the Imaginary avtaar Rama treated Sita asking her to take fire bath. Finally it is because of male superiority complex, all our woman, irrespective of any religion, caste or counry suffered enormously in the hands of brute males. But now in the modern age in the last 50 years woman are improving like anything, it is a good sign. If men can't treat woman as Mother Shakthi atleast treat them as equal beings, who are better than men in every kind.
shivkumar
Mumbai, India
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY