right from horse's mouth..

" So what is there to be so worked up about? Hinduism stood in danger at the hands of Islam. Islam in the subcontinent was never threatened by Hinduism."

http://www.khaleejti....xml§ion=opinion

kumar,
"The so-called backlash only exposes a lack of spiritual depth, in those who are indulging/supporting extremist violence."

the muslims and their supporters give the same excuse for islamic terror. why do hide in your rat hole then?

"The Zakir Naik groups there
are just frightening. No wonder
there is a Hindu backlash in India"

thanks for understanding the anguish of hindus. unfortunately the so called seculars don't want to give any respect to us hindus. this is giving rise to hindu fanatism.

Murtaza sahib

In Gujrat Riots under Modi 770 Muslims died and police killed 340 Hindus .

In Bihar under Lalu's 15 yr rule 25000 Muslims died but police did not kill any Hindu.

In 1992 -93 hunderds Muslims died in Mumbai riots only 20 Hindus killed but none by police.Congress wa sthe ruler .

In 1984 Sikh masscare nearly 12000 Sikhs were butchered by Congies but Police did not kill a single Hindu .Congress was the ruler.

In Indira and other Congress plus Secu rulers times thousands Muslims died in riots .How many Hindus were killed by Police ?

So kindly LOOK IN THE MIRROR of Truth .WHAT IT SAYS ?

And you singled out Modi only in this Forum ?

Before any tag is appended upon me by Secu friends I again say that I don't approve any Indian's killing in any riot.

test

Murtuza,

You are refreshingly welcome addition to forum. I have enjoyed all no-nonsense non-hypocritical views. Looking forward to more of it.

"To be a member of CAIR, and
simulataneously bash sanghis
here is deeply hypocritical."

Well said. But I do not think it will have any impact on brainwashed hypocrites.

>> >> One might feel the ‘obligation’ when one has something to offer to begin with.

>> You're right. I'm an atheist. I have nothing "spiritual" to offer anyone.

Why believe something that has nothing to offer, one wonders. Atheism is also a thought system that responds to the fundamental questions of life. You just cant run way from fundamental philosophical questions that every thinking human being has.

>> Except that you seem to think that's a bad thing,

If you are an atheist because you think it has something of value to offer which you can share and counter those you criticize with a better answers etc, then I would not say that it is necessarily a bad thing.

>> while I don't see why mumbo-jumbo is of any value to anyone in 2010.

Now, that’s a poor trick. If you think that every philosophical system/belief/relationship etc other than atheism is "mumbo-jumbo", that’s a very narrow/superficial thinking.

>> >>If you know the difference between rabid lustfulness of a rapist, as opposed to true love

>> This is getting ridiculous. So when the Qur'an tells believers to convert or kill, that's "love"? I wonder what their "rape" is.

Now that’s a simplistic 'hit and run' approach. We were talking about what true spirituality would mean, what your understanding of 'theology' is etc. It is you started saying something about ‘theology’ – and I wanted to hear ‘theology’ from a man who sees bajrangdal qualify as spirituality. Instead of responding to my question, you jump into some alleged verse in Quran that 'tells believers to convert or kill'. I did not that say that a verse you are supposedly referring constitutes the definition of true spirituality or of theology. I may not believe in the Quran either, but the ridiculously simplistic and escapist 'hit and run' approach is just so tragic to see.

>>One might feel the ‘obligation’ when one has something to offer to begin with.

You're right. I'm an atheist.

I have nothing "spiritual" to
offer anyone. Except that you
seem to think that's a bad thing,
while I don't see why mumbo-jumbo
is of any value to anyone in 2010.

>>If you know the difference between rabid lustfulness of a rapist, as opposed to true love

This is getting ridiculous. So
when the Qur'an tells believers to
convert or kill, that's "love"?
I wonder what their "rape" is.

>> >>If you have to criticize, you should also be able to present better answers to life's fundamental questions.

>> Nonsense. Why should I?

It is not a question of 'why should I'. No one can force you. The point is, you would, if you have any. How can one 'present better answers to life's fundamental questions', if one does have anything to offer in the first place? And if you have any, you would.

>> If "spiritual depth" is interpreted to mean being a religious Hindu or a religious Muslims, I think the Bajrang Dal and SIMI both qualify.

If you know the difference between rabid lustfulness of a rapist, as opposed to true love, you would know the difference between true spirituality one hand and mere violent politicization of religion on the other.

>> Why don't you get real? Theology is the root of the problem

Really? Can you explain what you understand of 'theology' and how that is the root of the ‘problem’ (and which problem BTW)?

>> And no, I am not obligated to provide for their "spiritual" needs -- in any way.

One might feel the ‘obligation’ when one has something to offer to begin with.

>>A very poor excuse for the so called "Hindu backlash"

Scores of Indian Muslim Orkut
forums say extremely offensive
things about Hindu deities, or
run down idol worship, etc. At
least they're not as bad as
Pakistanis -- for whom the
latest online fad is making sex
stories involving Hindu deities
-- but the contempt is there.

In case you haven't noticed,
I do not defend a single brand
of violence, anywhere, anytime.

But you're fooling yourself if
you think that episodes like
the Vande Mataram flareup do
not contribute to a distancing
between Indian Muslims and the
rest of us. If most Muslims
start becoming fans of Zakir
Naik -- which, I am very sorry
to say, appears to be the case
among young Muslims on Orkut,
then our hopes for a united
society are going to be dashed.

MNIK is all about-

1. A Muslim man marries a HINDU Single mother, converts her to Islam and even the HINDU CHILD of her is not spared. Even though the HINDU CHILD is parented by two HINDUS the consent of the father is not taken, neither is consent of child relevant as he has not attained "legal age to give consent" for conversion being a minor but the child is converted and named KHAN.
2. The child gets killed in the school because of his conversion to ISLAM and name- KHAN.
3. The distort HINDU women accuses the MUSLIM MAN for the death of her son - because of conversion to ISLAM/ naming him KHAN and leaves the MUSLIM MAN to re-start life as a Hindu. Then melodrama starts- hurricane, heroism etc etc.

4. The tragedy would NOT have occurred if the MUSLIM MAN had 1-- converted to HINDUISM as the women and her child, TWO out of THREE were Hindus OR 2-- not forced the HINDU WOMEN and CHILD to convert to ISLAM OR 3-- at least NOT converted the HINDU CHILD allowing him to grow up as a good human being, teaching him about all the "fantastic" ideals of ISLAM but left the option of conversion to ISLAM to the CHILD after he becomes 21 years of age.

So the lesson learnt from MNIK is that CONVERSION to ISLAM brings unhappiness. Had the MUSLIM MAN converted to HINDUISM all the melodrama of MNIK and unnecessary controversy on a good actor like SRK could have been avioded.

>>If you have to criticize, you should also be able to present better answers to life's fundamental questions.

Nonsense. Why should I? They can
believe in their swarga or their
jannat with the houris and boys -
what business is it of mine to
give them "answers"? I am not
going to threaten them, or attack
them, or kill them -- let them do
the same with me. Unfortunately,
apostates from Islam don't have it
that easy. That's the basic point.

>>Then you have a case to talk to them.

I don't want to talk "to them".
I will talk about them, and as long
as I don't physically intimidate them,
they ought to do the same with me.

>>The so-called backlash only exposes a lack of spiritual depth

More wishy-washy stuff here. If
"spiritual depth" is interpreted
to mean being a religious Hindu
or a religious Muslims, I think the
Bajrang Dal and SIMI both qualify.

Why don't you get real? Theology
is the root of the problem. It
must be criticized. And no, I am
not obligated to provide for their
"spiritual" needs -- in any way.

>> Under a First Amendment, I could not care less how many Salafis are around me -- they are free to peddle their hate, and I am free to criticize their 'scripture'.

Good, but I think you should do more than just 'criticize their scripture'. People believe in a scripture with the hope that there is truth about life, God, soul, destiny, purpose etc in it. People need answers to life's fundamental questions. If you have to criticize, you should also be able to present better answers to life's fundamental questions. Then you have a case to talk to them.

>> a disturbing place to start is Orkut. The Zakir Naik groups there are just frightening. No wonder there is a Hindu backlash in India.

A very poor excuse for the so called "Hindu backlash". The so-called backlash only exposes a lack of spiritual depth, in those who are indulging/supporting extremist violence.

>> It's not even certain this can be said of the Hindu extremists. Take the worst of the bunch, the absolute pits: the Bajrang Dal. Even *they* do not say "Secularism is against the Hindu religion" or "We need a theocratic dictatorship, with laws based on the Manusmriti" and "people believing in any other divine expressions than those associated with the Hindu religion should be expelled or imprisoned for repeated infractions" or "We must violently liberate any Hindu majority municipality in any non-Hindu country". The equation just doesn't exist, any way you slice it.


As long as one takes up violence to violate the legitimate human rights/justice/freedom of others, you have a problem at hand. It is does not matter what exactly they say or what thier specific issues are.

>>Murtuza, perhaps one day, you could get onto a site called "Countercurrents.org"

I'm aware of the site. But, as per
internet traffic raters, hardly
anybody visits them. So, why should
I go there and increase their hits?

If you really want to see anti-Hindu
hate of the kind that some sanghis
here imagine Indian Muslims have,
then a disturbing place to start is
Orkut. The Zakir Naik groups there
are just frightening. No wonder
there is a Hindu backlash in India.

Murtuza, perhaps one day, you could get onto a site called "Countercurrents.org" and really stick it to a couple of inveterate Islamists and anti-secularists named "Indian" and "Kidwai".

In fact, it would be nice to see someone like you( an 'apostate') on the site in general, since there is an incredible amount of apologia for Islam/Moslems, misdirection, denial and anti-Hindu, anti-Jewish propaganda on the website.

" Even those who believe in hell/heaven leave it to God to ultimately decide/judge.
Kumar"

That may be the high-minded philosophical approach. But what about at the level of the masses of Moslems or Catholics? If they believe that an infidel is going to hell, that belief will impact their behaviour toward that non-believer.

"my take on this is "then all muslims should be punished for one terror act perpetrated by a muslim"
namo4"

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Moslems are constantly whining and complaining, and offering justifications for Islamic terror, using the subjects of Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Kashmir.
If they feel that an attack on one Moslem is an attack on all of them, then they should reasonably own a considerable degree of responsibility when any Moslems worldwide start acting violently.

murtuza,
"So do you want that to become
something like Islam or the
Christian religion"

that is the only left. to fight the onslaught of attacking religions like islam & christianity hinduism has to change. and the greates thing about hinduism is CHANGE. hinduism has survived for last 5000 years is because it changes from time to time. the time has come for a change. islam & christianity are taking advantage of this diversity within hinduism to create fissures within hinduism. to tackle this hinduism has to change.

"Savarkar was a bigot, pure and
simple. In his own words"

this is the version of a typical anti hindu islamic fasist. the same savarkar wanted to celebrate akbar jayanti in honour of the only muslim king to follow some sort of religious tolerance. the same savarkar denounced all the hindu rituals, even in death. savarkar was a true secularist.

>> the best place to start would be Dr. Zakir Naik.

I have been his persistent critic

it doesn't matter. this fanatic still gets a voice on NDTV, IBN and other secular channels where as the hindu voice is not heard.

">> The very statement that "there is only One GOD ---- and last messenger is ----- infringes on the freedom of others.

No, it doesn't. Hindus, (or anyone else), don't have to like it. As long as there is no violence, or threat of violence, such beliefs, and their propagation is valid

the problem is, the muslim kids from the day they are born, are brainwashed in to beliving that their religion is the only way to reach GOD. these kids become so intolerant that they easily get turned in to terrorists. only solution is to shut down all the faith based schools including madrasas, church schools etc and start secular education.

'My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist”, the clapping and cheering begins. And it doesn’t stop.'

That is the SRK's version.Realities in Pakistan are different.

'ISLAMABAD: According to figures made available to DawnNews by senior Pakistani military officials, at least 30 thousand Pakistanis have lost their lives or were injured since 2003. More Pakistanis have lost their life in the ongoing war against terror compared to two full scale wars against India in 1965 and 1971."

http://www.dawn.com/...ead-since-2003-zj-08

Strangely 3 Million East Pakistanies butchered by Pak Fauj are conviniently forgotten by Pakistanies as if those wretched ones never existed .

Now Pakistanies clap the declartions 'I am not a Terrorist'

Madam Aamna Haider kindly Check with the relatives of those butchered Bangladeshies what Pakies are .Majority of those killed were Muslims too.

>> Brother rather we should have many many problems with the scriptures and the self appointed agents of God/s

There may be similar issues with other scriptures too. e.g., lot of Hindus have issues with Manusmriti. And while I don't think that Manusmriti ever had the same place amongst most Hindus as Koran has amongst Muslims, point is that people have issues with it. The solution is not to change the scriptures themselves, but to make the literal interpretation of these sections meaningless and, if needed, against the laws.

The problem is that seculars have been pandering to the worst of the scum amongst the Mullahs for decades. They are too compromised to affect any such change, and shall willingly embrace impotency over meaningful action.

Akil,

>>>> "What interests me is that one has the freedom to believe what one believes" -
>> ONE's freedom to believe can NOT infringe on anyone else's freedom to believe.

Read my whole post. Here it is again:

"Comparisions between Islam, Hinduism and atheism do not interest me. What interests me is that one has the freedom to believe what one believes, that one does not make one's beliefs the basis of intolerance or hate of others, and that one works to adapt and reform one's belief system so that it can be the best that it can be."

>>Personally, I have no problems with the scriptures themselves. "

Brother rather we should have many many problems with the scriptures and the self appointed agents of God/s.This type of pacification and surrender that 'no problem'is the root cause of our problems .

With utmost humality and without an iota of desire to cast slur on any Religeon I say we have to acknowledge that many verses in the text books of all the Religeon have become outdate in the present age .Those Religeons which stick rigidly to 'No Questions asked' were and are the causes of strife in the past and in the present times . Religeons like Hinduism,Jainism,Budhism and other Indic Religeons allow freedom to criticise but not the Religeons of the Book.

‘Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you’ (Surah 9: ayat 123) or by saying, ‘Do not yield to the unbelievers, but fight them strenuously with this Koran’ (Surah 25: ayat 52) or by saying, ‘If you do not fight He will punish you sternly and replace you by other men’ (Surah 9: ayat 39) or by saying, ‘When the sacred months are over, slay the idol-worshippers, wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them’ (Surah 9: ayat 5)’

I quoted above as an example not to cast aspersions on Muslim brothers but to show that it is utmost becessary to question the Books .Why we should follow what was said thousands of years back and is not valid now.

God never ordained us to follow self appointed Agents like Mulla,Pandit etc !

" Ten minutes into the film, as soon as Shahrukh Khan speaks those now-famous lines, “My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist”, the clapping and cheering begins. And it doesn’t stop "

May be true for a Khan in USA .

But in lands of Khans back in Pakistan two Sikhs have been beheaded and some Kafirs are awaiting the sword if their poor reltives fail to pay Zazia amounting to Rs. three millions and also not converting.

2 "Islam as a religion of peace "

I will love to repeat it hunderds times a day. Kindly help me to say so.

>>Personally, I have no problems with the scriptures themselves.

The 'scripture' -- in Islam's case,
the plagiarized bits of Christianity
and Judaism that Muhammad regurgitated
-- is the problem. What do you think
the motivations of Islamic terrorists
in general are? Where do they get them
from? I agree that this 'edit the bad
bits out' solution is unworkable, as
Muslims consider the Qur'an to be the
final and unalterable word of their God.

The only solution is real secularism.

Under a First Amendment, I could not care
less how many Salafis are around me --
they are free to peddle their hate, and
I am free to criticize their 'scripture'.

>> The equation just doesn't exist, any way you slice it.

If you expect the seculars to agree with you, you expect them to be honest.

Good luck with that!

>> ANWAAR ONE's freedom to believe can NOT infringe on anyone else's freedom to believe.

As long as it remains to beliefs, or peaceful espousal of those beliefs, there is no infringement.

>> The very statement that "there is only One GOD ---- and last messenger is ----- infringes on the freedom of others.

No, it doesn't. Hindus, (or anyone else), don't have to like it. As long as there is no violence, or threat of violence, such beliefs, and their propagation is valid.

>> Leave aside Hindus who worship many GODS but even The AHAMMADYA MUSLIMS are being persecuted

The problem is of course the persecution, not the belief itself.

>> When a religious scripture tells its followers "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. Smite you above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them"

Such a religious scripture can be criticized.

>> and a group of extremist amongst them carryout it out (TALIBAN did that to SIKHS)

This is THE problem.

>> it is time moderates amongst them EDIT OUT such violent parts from their religious scriptures.

That's up to the followers. Personally, I have no problems with the scriptures themselves.

Must praise the high standards of the debate which is taking place on this forum .

"What interests me is that one has the freedom to believe what one believes" -

ANWAAR ONE's freedom to believe can NOT infringe on anyone else's freedom to believe. The very statement that "there is only One GOD ---- and last messenger is ----- infringes on the freedom of others. Leave aside Hindus who worship many GODS but even The AHAMMADYA MUSLIMS are being persecuted in Pakistan for exercising their FREEDOM not to agree with the above statement.

When a religious scripture tells its followers "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. Smite you above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them" and a group of extremist amongst them carryout it out (TALIBAN did that to SIKHS), it is time moderates amongst them EDIT OUT such violent parts from their religious scriptures.

Varun: Again, you're right.

I think the problem is that
political correctness too
often forces us into being
even-handed, as it were,
in cases of no equivalence,
or only limited equivalence.

"I wanted to say that the reason that is risk is less is because the hindu extremists mostly do not or can not have their way due to lack of popular support. So a person supporting these organizations cannot take credit for this."

It's not even certain this can be said of the Hindu extremists. Take the worst of the bunch, the absolute pits: the Bajrang Dal. Even *they* do not say "Secularism is against the Hindu religion" or "We need a theocratic dictatorship, with laws based on the Manusmriti" and "people believing in any other divine expressions than those associated with the Hindu religion should be expelled or imprisoned for repeated infractions" or "We must violently liberate any Hindu majority municipality in any non-Hindu country".
The equation just doesn't exist, any way you slice it.

>>Reforms in Islam will be slow and painful, as I am sure you know.

The votaries of the Prophet Muhammad
do not take kindly to ijtihad, as I
am sure you know. It is well-nigh
impossible to take head-on the idea
that perhaps the Qur'an is not the
divinely inspired revelation they
purport it to be. Future's bleak.

The trouble is while Hindus have
a tradition of some secularism,
Muslims view it as a hostile and
confrontational 'Western' import.

Anwaar:

>>Never to say that one religion is better than others. I enjoy needling the one-up-manship buffoons in this forum.

It's a quaint thing, this
Indian secularism -- with
its political correctness
and respect-all-religions
matra. However, there are
people who don't fare so
well under it -- dissenters
from religions, artists and
so on. Freedom of speech
gets little respect in India.

But, then, so does justice --
else Modi would be in jail.

Give me the U.S. model any
day -- vigorous debate and
absolute freedom of speech.

I think India will get there.

Murtuza.

>>>> Comparisions between Islam, Hinduism and atheism do not interest me.
>> But they should interest you, since
you seem to have posted hundreds of
posts on this website, on religion.

Never to say that one religion is better than others. I enjoy needling the one-up-manship buffoons in this forum.

>> the mainstream Islamic attitudes
to the kuffar.

I have repeatedly denounced all heresy laws, blasphemy laws and apostasy laws. Reforms in Islam will be slow and painful, as I am sure you know.

>>Comparisions between Islam, Hinduism and atheism do not interest me.

But they should interest you, since
you seem to have posted hundreds of
posts on this website, on religion.

Indian political correctness means
that we are frightened of honestly
discussion religion -- needs change.

In any event, I was NOT comparing
Islam and atheism. I was comparing
my attitudes to religious believers,
vs. the mainstream Islamic attitudes
to the kuffar, or to murtads like me.

Anwaar:

>>one does not make one's beliefs the basis of intolerance or hate of others

As long we all believe in something
like the First Amendment, I see no
reason why I should not 'hate' --
or not be disrespectful of your
beliefs. Your religious views
do not inspire my respect any more
than your political or sports views.

We Indians need to see religion less
as something like race and more like
an opinion -- which is what it is.

>>I have been his persistent critic.

Good. To put it clearly, he would
have someone like me sentenced to
death in his ideal world. Thug.

>> Except that some religions are happy to live and let live, and some others can't
wait until everyone else believes exactly as they do,

There is nothing wrong in hoping/wishing that others believe what you do, especially when you honestly believe that what you believe is right/good etc. Even those who hope this way, can also 'live and let live' and believe in justice, fairness, freedom, human rights etc.

Murtuza,

>> To compare the atheism of
someone like me -- or Christopher Hitchens,
say -- to Islamic proselytism is nonsense.

Comparisions between Islam, Hinduism and atheism do not interest me. What interests me is that one has the freedom to believe what one believes, that one does not make one's beliefs the basis of intolerance or hate of others, and that one works to adapt and reform one's belief system so that it can be the best that it can be.

>> the best place to start would be Dr. Zakir Naik.

I have been his persistent critic.

>> I think if you believe that someone is really going to spend forever (whatever that means) after they die in a place of horrible torment and torture -- graphically described in the Qur'an, by the way -- then yes, that affects the way you behave with that person.

But how would one know who specifically will go to hell/heaven etc and who will not, in the first place? Even those who believe in hell/heaven leave it to God to ultimately decide/judge.

>>There is a difference between all religions in what they believe as truth. That is why there are different religions.

Except that some religions
are happy to live and let
live, and some others can't
wait until everyone else
believes exactly as they do,
with adherence to every dot
and comma of their theology.

Look at how Ahmadiyya Muslims
are so ruthlessly mistreated
by the Pakistani Islamic state.

>>Again, is a belief in hell is the only statement of belief?

I think if you believe that someone is
really going to spend forever (whatever
that means) after they die in a place
of horrible torment and torture --
graphically described in the Qur'an, by
the way -- then yes, that affects the
way you behave with that person. If
you don't get this, then what can I say?

Savarkar was a bigot, pure and
simple. In his own words, only
those people who considered India
a 'matrubhoomi' and 'pitrubhoomi'
could live in India. Therefore,
according to him, all of India's
Muslims ought to be 'deported to
Arabia or the Middle East' --
again, his own words. Granted,
he was living in the heyday of
the violent Muslim League, but
his language was the language
of fascists and genocidal scum.

The only time I had any respect
for Manishankar Aiyar was when
he removed Savarkar's plaque in
the Andamans. This man deserves
no remembrance from a nation that
aspires to secularism, any more
than Maulana Mohammed Ali, who
has some road in Bombay named
after him. This guy once yelled
at Gandhi: "You are a Hindu! You
are a Jew!" -- he no more needs
a road named after him than does
the murderous fanatic Aurangzeb.

>> I have no recollection of Advaitas harping on the fact that non-Advaitas will burn in
an eternal hell.

Again, is a belief in hell is the only statement of belief? If Advaitists don’t believe in hell, does that mean that they don’t have any beliefs? Some people believe in God, hell, soul, salvation etc, while some others don’t.

>> And I'm afraid there is a clear difference between Indic and Semitic cults, apart from the Baha'i or the Zoroastrians.

There is a difference between all religions in what they believe as truth. That is why there are different religions.

>> Religion IS political. It can't separate itself from politics -- anywhere on earth.

So you mean, one cannot have a faith in that he/she believes to relate to God etc with out bringing in political identity etc?

>> The more community-based a religion is -- like Islam or Christianity -- the more it
will interfere with politics and policy.

All religions have a community based worship etc. Not sure what you mean by interfere with politics and policy. One can have a faith and also believe in and work towards justice/fairness/freedom etc to all people.

>>I do not think they are deliberate hypocrites out to deliberately deceive/mislead people etc.

Jinnah was a hypocrite because he
could not read the Urdu script,
yet fanatically insisted on it
being the only acceptable language
of Pakistan on his visit to Dacca,
1948. That sowed the seeds of the
Bengali-Urdu clash and ultimately
the genocidal war of 1971. Jinnah
was nothing more than a callous
and venal mass murderer. All that
said, I think Partition was good
for India -- Islamic intransigence
would have crippled 'Akhand Bharat'.

Kumar:

>>Does not an Advaitist believe that Advaita is true?

I have no recollection of Advaitas harping
on the fact that non-Advaitas will burn in
an eternal hell. But why go on about this?
I am not here to defend Hinduism any more
than I am here to defend my former religion
of Islam. And I'm afraid there is a clear
difference between Indic and Semitic cults,
apart from the Baha'i or the Zoroastrians.

>>They have understood/interpreted religion in political terms.

Religion IS political. It can't separate
itself from politics -- anywhere on earth.
The more community-based a religion is --
like Islam or Christianity -- the more it
will interfere with politics and policy.

>> This makes both Savarkar and Jinnah hypocrites..

I do not think they are deliberate hypocrites out to deliberately deceive/mislead people etc. The problem is that for them religion is a political identity rather than for spirituality. They have understood/interpreted religion in political terms.

>> >>So unless the violence/murder etc is on atheists/homosexuals, it cannot be called as violence?

>> Here's another one, then: name the Hindu organization that would like to ban every single non-Hindu from entering the cities of Varanasi, Mathura or Allahabad / Prayag.

The point about my previous response is that you don’t have to make a one-to-one comparison. Even among the extremist/violent organizations the issues raised are different. It’s like saying - name a single muslim organization that opposes cow slaughter or opposes ‘north Indians’ etc. Well, the issues raised are different, but as long one uses violence and violates the rights/justice/freedom of others (one way or the other) there is a problem.

>> The basic Indian/Hindu philosophy of inclusiveness, as opposed to Semitic monopoly-on-the-truth religions

Even in Hinduism, a person believes in his/her stream of thought/philosophy. Does not an Advaitist believe that Advaita is true? And there is nothing wrong in that. It is just that there are more streams in Hinduism (even in sophisticated philosophical Hinduism, leave alone the faiths of dalits, tribals etc). The idea that one has a freedom to choose ones faith is something that many people of all religions and atheists also accept.

Kumar:

>>So unless the violence/murder etc is on atheists/homosexuals, it cannot be called as violence?

No. You used the term 'Hindu Saudi Arabia'.
I was merely citing specific Saudi policies.

Here's another one, then: name the Hindu
organization that would like to ban every
single non-Hindu from entering the cities
of Varanasi, Mathura or Allahabad / Prayag.

>> One need not bother or care what his personal beliefs are. What he does/advocates to others is what matters.

Exactly. This makes both Savarkar and Jinnah
hypocrites. The point is, Jinnah could never
have led the Muslim League as an open atheist.

>>So a person supporting these organizations cannot take credit for this.

The basic Indian/Hindu philosophy of
inclusiveness, as opposed to Semitic
monopoly-on-the-truth religions, is
what should 'take credit for this',
if anything. But this is relative.

>> Please name me the Hindu organization that advocates a death penalty for a Hindu who becomes an atheist, say. Or a death penalty for homosexuals.

So unless the violence/murder etc is on atheists/homosexuals, it cannot be called as violence?

>> By the way, Savarkar - whom I dislike, but a useful example - was an atheist

One need not bother or care what his personal beliefs are. What he does/advocates to others is what matters.

>> If this organization is too obscure to name one, then why is the risk of a Hindu Saudi Arabia worth worrying about?

I did not say that there is a risk of Hindu Saudi Arabia, but I wanted to say that the reason that is risk is less is because the hindu extremists mostly do not or can not have their way due to lack of popular support. So a person supporting these organizations cannot take credit for this.

>> A criticism that could be made of the Sangh Parivar / the BJP is that they have been trying to 'semitize' Hinduism. Do you see what this means? A tolerant faith (relatively), with a great diversity of views as its basic principle -- as far as I know, that is the core of much of the Hindu tradition from its start.

>> So do you want that to become something like Islam or the Christian religion?

It so happened that hindu thought/philosophy has so many branches. There have been attempts by different branches to systematize the doctrine, philosophy etc and there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. It is not ‘diversity of views’ for the sake of it.

Kumar:

A Hindu Saudi Arabia?

Please name me the Hindu organization
that advocates a death penalty for a
Hindu who becomes an atheist, say.
Or a death penalty for homosexuals.

[By the way, Savarkar - whom I dislike,
but a useful example - was an atheist]

If this organization is too
obscure to name one, then why
is the risk of a Hindu Saudi
Arabia worth worrying about?

Sure, the VHP needs to be
opposed. But there is no
comparable risk -- at all.

Varun:

Trying to guard against mass conversions
by Islamic or Christian proselytizers is
one thing. But the Bajrang Dal does not
do anything of the kind. I have been on
the ground in Orissa and seen the murder
and mayhem unleashed by them and the VHP.

Of course, tribalism is a big factor here.
Orissa's violence was a mostly local issue.

But it is a slippery slope -- the Bajrang
Dal should be banned unless they clearly
sign a statement saying no active member
will indulge in offensive violence; that
any Bajrangite doing so will be expelled.

I agree with you, however, that Hindus
have tolerated conversions, etc., that
could never be tolerated in our western
neighbor -- the Pak government would not
allow it, and most missionaries would
meet the tragic fate of Staines there.

Varun Shekhar,

>> In India, this would not be a problem i.e renouncing Hinduism or any other religion.

That is because the extremist elements are less in number and not very popular. There are groups who wish to make India into a Hindu Saudi Arabia (if they can have their way). That they have no ability to do so is a different matter.

>> What Hindus do resent is the dishonest, unscrupulous propagation of religions like Christianity and Islam. That is an issue totally different from apostasy

That’s like saying that you have come to this forum for "dishonest, unscrupulous propagation" of your views. That is rather meaningless and irrelevant to say that.

>> People equating India with Pakistan et al, and the Hindu groups like RSS/VHP with the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc, just have no clue what they are talking about.

If agree that extremist/violent hindu groups are also on the wrong side, why do you have trouble with comparison with Taliban or whatever. Why do you even bother to defend or talk on behalf of what is wrong?

Murtuza, there's not much danger of that i.e "Semitisation" of Hinduism. Some Hindu assertion, desire for acknowledgement if not recompense, and response to awful double standards, should not be confused with making Hinduism the mirror image of fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Christianity.

Ajit: thanks.

Varun, you are right.

But let me take this further.
A criticism that could be made
of the Sangh Parivar / the BJP
is that they have been trying
to 'semitize' Hinduism. Do you
see what this means? A tolerant
faith (relatively), with a great
diversity of views as its basic
principle -- as far as I know,
that is the core of much of the
Hindu tradition from its start.

So do you want that to become
something like Islam or the
Christian religion? Do you,
too, want a cult of fatwas
or all-important holy sites
like Ayodhya? I've always
noted that it's easier for
a Hindu to be an agnostic
or an atheist than a Muslim.

Keep it that way.

Don't semitize Hinduism.

And in time most Hindus
will become agnostics.

>>New converts into a religion and new apostates out of a religion tend to be equally zealous. Well, whatever works for you!

I thought that was a presumptuous, patronizing and a downright crude, rude and cheap remark to make. But that is so characteristic of our arrogant resident pest.

George, you are wrong. All terrorists are not Muslims.

Murtuza, good to see a sane voice here. Welcome.

I would be very interested to see how long you are able to remain tolerant with 'Anwaar'.

Murtuza, as an illustration of the difference between India and the Islamic countries, like Pakistan, Saudi, Iran and Malaysia, try going to anyone of them and declaring that you have renounced Islam, and giving reasons why you have done it.
You( or anyone in a similar situation) would not likely survive; at the very least you would be arrested and imprisoned.
In India, this would not be a problem i.e renouncing Hinduism or any other religion. What Hindus do resent is the dishonest, unscrupulous propagation of religions like Christianity and Islam. That is an issue totally different from apostasy.
There was an REM video many years ago called "Losing my religion". The director of the video was an Indian. This Indian could fly into, and out of, India without any problem. Can you imagine that happening in Islamic countries, even if the 'lost' religion in question was not specifically named as Islam?
People equating India with Pakistan et al, and the Hindu groups like RSS/VHP with the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc, just have no clue what they are talking about.

SRKcannot change the perception the non-muslims have about muslims,specially the pakis. All muslims are not terrorists,but all terrorists are muslims.

With reference to this topic,
I will repeat: as long as the
First Amendment is properly
upheld, the United States will
have the greatest religious
freedom on earth. That is why
MNIK is a simplistic and unfair
characterization of U.S. policy.

Of course, no one expects realism
from Bollywood or Johar anyway...

Anwaar:

>> I fight Muslim intolerance in Muslim blogs and Hindu intolerance in OUTLOOK's forum.

Good for you. Which forums are these? And are
they Indian Muslims forums or pan-Islamist ones?

>>New converts into a religion and new apostates out of a religion tend to be equally zealous. Well, whatever works for you!

I am an atheist. To compare the atheism of
someone like me -- or Christopher Hitchens,
say -- to Islamic proselytism is nonsense.

We have no death penalty for the murtad,
for starters. And nothing unites atheists
except the common non-adherence to theology.

If you are serious about combating Islamic
extremism in India, I suggest the best place
to start would be Dr. Zakir Naik -- Salafist
fanatic and growing every day in influence
among young Indian Muslims. As an example,
he strongly supports the doctrine of death
for apostates I alluded to above. He has
his own TV channel and needs to be fought
tooth and nail. Unfortunately, the mostly
craven Hindu liberal society treats him
with kid gloves -- just see Shekhar Gupta's
softball interview with him on Walk the Talk.

Murtuza,

You said, "Tolerance now rules."

I fight Muslim intolerance in Muslim blogs and Hindu intolerance in OUTLOOK's forum.

New converts into a religion and new apostates out of a religion tend to be equally zealous. Well, whatever works for you!

Anwaar:

Say that Ram or Jesus never existed
and all you'll get are mild rebukes
in most parts of the world. Poverty
and tribal warfare in Orissa may get
a Bajrang Dal / VHP thug to beat you
up -- but in the UK, EU, or US hardly
a single Hindu or Christian would go
medieval on you. Tolerance now rules.

Not so with Islam -- that's true no
matter if you're in Somalia, or the
wealthy Gulf states, or in the UK.

Any attempts to discuss Mr. Muhammad
Quraysh -- and this guy's appalling
life or deeds - is met with violence.

Grow up.

Left-wing fools at the Guardian or NYT
need some common sense too -- they have
to stop treating Muslims like children.

Muslims are just people.
They are entitled to all the
universal rights any modern
democracy provides to citizens.
They're also responsible adults.

Islam is a belief system.
It must be criticized like
any other belief system. To
insulate it from criticism
is just fear-based nonsense.

How long will it take for Muslims
to denounce -- or to repudiate --
all the hate-filled diatribes that
litter the pages of Qur'an-e-Pak?

Unless that happens, slow progress.

I am frankly tired of Islam, as an
ex-Muslim, and think that Islam,
Catholicism, and Sikhism, in that
order, need to wither away ASAP.

Religion's been the curse of India.
We need to think more as individuals,
and less as separate 'communities'.

Why bother if some Pakistanis enjoy
a masochistic ego-pleaser like MNIK?

Rather than look at the source of the
problems: Islamic theology, they love
to externalize the problems. And MNIK
is a shameful caricature of America's
treatment of Muslims, or any religion.

The First Amendment ensures that there
could never be a burka / minaret ban.

As Winston Churchill said in relation
to Islam: 'No single stronger retrograde
force exists in the world'. Still true.

The only upside I see to this Pakistani
popularity is that the Pashtuns could
get more pro-Indian than the Punjabi /
Muhajir elite, obsessively anti-Indian.

What the Pakistani censor board did just
shows the character of their nation: a
petty gang of narrow-minded Islamists.

We are most certainly not 'the same people',
as some Indian Punjabis and Muslims claim.

Varun,

>> Will this "hatred" that they (the RSS) allegedly preach result in airplanes being crashed into skyscrapers....

Not all hate groups crash airplanes into skyscrapers.

"This is because this is the safest way to show your secular credentials. The worst they can get is some idiots from SHiv sena damaging their office."

Exactly, Maha. I don't know how I missed this very obvious reason in my last post! There are no contracts put out, nor any danger of any of these 'secularists' being exiled to a foreign country. As for Hussein, the most that will happen if he returns to India, is some accosting and haranguing. Rushdie and Taslima cannot go to any Islamic country for fear of their lives. Taslima cannot even safely go out openly in India.

namo4,

" these so called seculars keep quiet when the western media abuses huinduism. and when RSS protests they are called as fanatics."

This is because this is the safest way to show your secular credentials. The worst they can get is some idiots from SHiv sena damaging their office. In fact, they will gain more publicity out of it. But at least they do not have to run for their life.
You will hear lectures from them on freedom of expression in support of MF Hussain paintings. But they will go in hiding when we have far more violent reaction to Danish cartoons.

Varun,

">> the RSS is not fanatic on a theological level.

Here is a good write-up from "The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate" folks:

http://www.stopfundi...ources/rssprimer.htm"

Will this "hatred" that they allegedly preach result in airplanes being crashed into skyscrapers, subways being bombed, hotel guests massacred in Saudi Arabia, or terrorist mercenaries going to the Hindu majority state of Bali in Moslem majority Indonesia, to carry out killings and guerrilla warfare? All in the name of responding to injustices against Hindus, of course.

" these so called seculars keep quiet when the western media abuses huinduism. and when RSS protests they are called as fanatics.
namo4"

The reasons for this are: trying to act cool and look progressive among their comrades; impress the Western media and reading public; express whatever degree of self-hatred within them. The false reason would be any deep, soulful, heartfelt concern for human beings.
Incidentally, aren't Hindus allowed to be offended? There's plenty of anti-Hindu drek out in the electronic and printed world, often in Christian propaganda sites. Also, when Hindu symbols/figures are displayed in erotic ways commercially, it's quite different than erotic depictions inside a temple, where they are part of a cosmological theme of the wholeness of life.

Maha,

>> None of political parties ( including BJP) have done anything for them (Kashmiri Pandits).

Sad but true!

Interesting article by Tarun. But he needs to understand the movies are made for making money. Making movie on muslim discrimination is a guaranteed success in large population in muslim countries where movie about flight of kashmiri pandits will be banned. None of political parties ( including BJP) have done anything for them as they are not really a big vote bank. This is unfortunate, but true.

Varun Shekhar,

The guardian published an article about 5 years ago stating the fact that muhammad was a phedophile (with references from quran). there was a huge outcry from the muslims. the indian so called seculars(pretending to be hindus) wrote letters to guardian against the article. these so called seculars keep quiet when the western media abuses huinduism. and when RSS protests they are called as fanatics.

Harsh Rai Puri,

this is the whole reason tarun vijay is called as a hindu fanatic just because he speaks for oppressed hindus.

ram prasn haryanvi,

romila thapar is hailed as a great historian. but any one tries to de-veil islam is called as a hindu fanatic or anti islamists. take the example of ayan hirsi ali who ripped thro islam in the recent rajasthan litterary festival. not a single newspaper including "secular" OUTLOOK paid any notice to her. on the other hand jihadis like zakir naik are interviewed on NDTV!!

A well written article By Tarun Vijay. An essential read because what he has stated is 100% unadulterated truth which most of us refuse to accept and find difficult to digest...........

Read on and decide for yourself

http://blogs.timesof.../my-name-is-not-khan


My name is not Khan, I am Mr Kaul

Tarun Vijay, 22 December 2009, 08:55 AM IST

I am not Khan. My name bears a different set of four letters: K A U L.
Kaul. As those who know Indian names would understand I happened to be born in a family which was called Hindu by others. Hence, we were sure, we would never get a friend like KJ to make a movie on our humiliations, and the
contemptuous and forced exile from our homeland. It's not fashionable. It's fashionable to get a Khan as a friend and portray his agony and pains and sufferings when he is asked by a US private to take off his shoes and show his socks. Natural and quite justifiable that Khan must feel insulted and enraged. Enough Masala to make a movie.

But unfortunately I am a Kaul. I am not a Khan.

Hence when my sisters and mothers were raped and killed, when six-year-old Seema was witness to the brutal slaughtering of her brother, mother and father with a butcher's knife by a Khan, nobody ever came to make a movie
on my agony, pain and anguish, and tears.

No KJ would make a movie on Kashmiri Hindus. Because we are not Khans.

We are Kauls.

When we look at our own selves as Kauls, we also see a macabre dance of leaders who people Parliament. Some of them were really concerned about us.
They got the bungalows and acres of greenery and had their portraits were worshipped by the gullible devotees of patriotism.

They made reservations in schools and colleges for us. In many many other states. But never did they try that we go back to our homes. They have other priorities and 'love your jihadi neighborhood' programmes. They get flabbier and flabbier with the passing of each year, sit on sacks of
sermons; issue instructions to live simply and follow moral principles delivered by ancestors and kept in documents treated with time-tested preservatives.

They could play with me because my name is Kaul. And not Mr Khan. I saw the trailer to this fabulous movie, which must do good business at the box office.

There was not even a hint that terror is bad and it is worse if it is perpetuated in the name of a religion that means Peace. Peace be upon all its followers and all other the creatures too.

So you make a movie on the humiliation of taking off shoes to a foreign police force which has decided not to allow another 9/11.

The humiliation of taking off the shoes and the urge to show that you are innocent is really too deep. But what about the humiliation of leaving your home and hearth and the world and the relatives and wife and mother and
father? And being forced to live in shabby tents, at the mercy of nincompoop leaders encashing your misery and bribe-seeking babus? And seeing your daughters growing up too sudden and finding no place to hide your shame?
No KJ would ever come forward to make a movie, a telling, spine-chilling narration on the celluloid, of five-year-old Seema, who saw her parents and brother being slaughtered by a butcher's knife in Doda. Because her dad was not Mr Khan. He was one Mr Kaul.

Sorry, Mr Kaul and your entire ilk. I can't help you.

It's not fashionable to side with those who are Kauls. And Rainas. And Bhatts. Dismissively called KPs. KPs means Kashmiri Pandits. They are a bunch of communalists. They were the agents of one Mr Jagmohan who planned their exodus so that Khans can be blamed falsely. In fact, a movie can be
made on how these KPs conspired their own exile to give a bad name to the loving and affectionate Khan brothers of the valley.

To voice the woes of Kauls is sinful. The right course to get counted in the lists of the Prime Minister's banquets and the President's parties is to announce from the roof top: hey, men and ladies, I am Mr Khan.

The biggest apartheid the state observes is to exclude those who cry for Kauls, wear the colours of Ayodhya, love the wisdom of the civilisational heritage, dare to assert as Hindus in a land which is known as Hindustan too and struggle to live with dignity as Kauls. They are out and exiled.
You can see any list of honours and invites to summits and late-evening gala parties to toast a new brand. All that the Kauls are allowed is a space at Jantar Mantar: shout, weep and go back to your tents after a tiring demonstration.

Mr Kaul, you have got a wrong name.

A dozen KJs would fly to take you atop the glory - posts and gardens of sympathies if you accept to wear a Khan name and love a Sunita, Pranita, Komal or a Kamini. Well, here you have a sweetheart in Mandira. That goes well with the story.

And you pegged the movie plot on autism.

I wept. It was too much. I wept as a father of a son who needed a story as an Indian. Who cares for his autistic son, his relationship with the western world, his love affair with a young sweet something as a human, as
someone whose heart goes beyond being a Hindu, a Muslim or a proselytizing Vatican-centric aggressive soul. Not the one who would declare in newspaper interviews: "I think I am an ambassador for Islam". Shah Rukh is Shah
Rukh, not because he is an ambassador for Islam. If that was true, he could have found a room in Deoband. Fine enough. But he became a heartthrob and a famousl star because he is a great actor. He owes everything he has to
Indians and not just to Muslims. We love him not because he is some Mr Khan. We love him because he has portrayed the dreams, aspirations, pains, anguish and ups and downs of our daily life. As an Indian. As one of us.

If he wants to use our goodwill and love for strengthening his image as an ambassador for Islam, will we have to think to put up an ambassador for Hindus? That, at least to me, would be unacceptable because I trust everyone: a Khan or a Kaul or a Singh or a Victor. Who represents India
represents us all too, including Hindus. My best ambassadorship would be an ambassadorship for the tricolour and not for anything else because I see my Ram and Dharma in that. I don't think even an Amitabh or a Hritik would
ever think in terms Shah Rukh has chosen for himself. But shouldn't these big, tall, successful Indians who wear Hindu names make a movie on why Kauls were ousted? Why Godhra occurred in the first place? Why nobody, yes,
not a single Muslim, comes forward to take up the cause of the exiled and killed and contemptuously marginalized Kauls whereas every Muslim complainant would have essentially a Hindu advocate to take on Hindus as fiercely as he can?

If you are Mr Khan and found dead on the railway tracks, the entire nation would be shaken. And he was also a Rizwan. May be just a coincidence that our Mr Khan in the movie is also a Rizwan.

Rizwan's death saw the police commissioner punished and cover stories written by missionary writers. But if you are a Sharma or a Kaul and happened to love an Ameena Yusuf in Srinagar, you would soon find your corpse inside the police thana and NONE, not even a small-time local paper would find it worthwhile to waste a column on you. No police constable would be asked to explain how a wrongly detained person was found dead in police custody?

Because the lover found dead inside a police thana was not Mr Khan. No KJ would ever come forward to make a movie on 'My name is Kaul. And I am terror-struck by Khans'.

Give me back my identity as an Indian, Mr Khan and I would have no problem even wearing your name and appreciating the tender love of an autistic son.

Haryanvi,

>> What type of link is this which spreads extremely bitter hatered where as it boldly proclaiming that its aim is to stop hatered and Exclusivism ?

I agree. I would not post such a link except to take a dig at someone who writes a provocative message as Varun did. BTW there have been lots of links to anti-Islamic hate literature in this forum. C'est la vie!

"Here is a good write-up from "The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate" folks : Anwaar

Jehadi terrorism funded and sponsered by Pak is the biggest threat to India.

I have gone through the articles in this Blog. They are not only anti Hinus but also themselves spread religeous hate .Not a single reference to Jehadi terror and Islamists on this site .

Example: Romila Thaper on Ram ;

'THE RAM MYTH :Romilla Thapar: shedding new light "

Romila Tahper cunningly tries to prove that Ram not existed .Isn't it spreading hate by insulting crores of Hindus who believe in Ram or stopping hatered.

What type of link is this which spreads extremely bitter hatered where as it boldly proclaiming that its aim is to stop hatered and Exclusivism ?

It is crazy Mr Anwaar .You are an intelligent poster.


There is not a single reference to jehadi kilings in India.

Varun,

>> the RSS is not fanatic on a theological level.

Here is a good write-up from "The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate" folks:

http://www.stopfundi...ources/rssprimer.htm

"Shahrukh has washed away the sins of all films that portrayed Muslims as thugs and dons in Bollywood"... what nonsense do you publish in Outlook. Use the name don and we recall only Dawood first...a moslem. The moslem men who join "Jihad" are treated as icon's in their sect across the world with exceptions overruled. That is how islamic terrorism spreads.

Notwithstanding the goodness of MNIK in these troubled times, it remains clear that the majority of Pakistanis lap up anything which appeals their sensibilities but smirk the moment anything is said contrary to what they want to hear or see as a nation. Gadar remains a clear example of a story told from Sikh-Hindu perspective which couldn’t go down their throats despite the fact that 20% plus of their non-Muslim minorities have gone up in smoke since 1947, one subject everyone in the subcontinent tends to gloss over. A lesson can be drawn by the moderates and Intellectuals in Pakistan from India where Hindu bashing stays a favorite sport and stimulant for the intellectuals and society at large.

Actually, the RSS is not fanatic on a theological level i.ebelieving only one path, that of Hinduism, is legitimate. They believe in democracy, do not denounce secularism per se( strange, isn't it, for an organisation often branded as 'fundamentalist') ,accept linguistic and ethnic pluralism, and are not engaged in relentless violence. So really, the objection to them is from the standpoint that they 1) oppose pseudo-secularism 2) strongly feel that Islamic invasions and rule were brutal and 3) one of their members, 60 years ago,shot Gandhi.
And this is the whole basis of vilifying them. Really shallow.

Varun,

>> what the graduates of RSS Shakas will do in the near future.

Spread hatred.

Nam04 and Varun ... you guys should get a room.

"worst, the US, UK media is now infested with indian secular fasists. these fasists disguise as hindus and openly ridicule hinduism. there are some hindu groups like Hindu forum UK who try to protest but then they get branded as fanatics."

And they then make the whole issue a contrast between their liberal, progressive secularism, and the "right wing Hindu fanatics".

Nice trick!

varun,
"Sad, but true to a large extent. Generally speaking, the media in places like the US, UK and Canada are either unaware or unsympathetic to Hindus,"

worst, the US, UK media is now infested with indian secular fasists. these fasists disguise as hindus and openly ridicule hinduism. there are some hindu groups like Hindu forum UK who try to protest but then they get branded as fanatics.

the seculars are adopting a typical fasists trick. tell a lie 100 times and people start beleiving that.

NAMO4
>>same thing happened in kashmir, only in reverse. only the hindu boy was murdered in the police station by his father in law who is a muslim. did any one make any noise. NO. the poor muslim girl who made the biggest mistake of converting to hinduism is going door to door for justice. have you seen any of these secular bastards taking her case?. NO. this is what i call as injustice. for this if some some one calls me a fanatic, so be it.

Well was his name KHAN?
You see this is how Muslims are oppressed.

"in the west we have to match the mentality of the muslims to survive. for this we have to think and behave just like average muslim behaves."

Sad, but true to a large extent. Generally speaking, the media in places like the US, UK and Canada are either unaware or unsympathetic to Hindus, particularly when there is a question of a clash between Hindus and Moslems. And Hindus themselves are usually unwilling to speak up or say anything.

"The Imam of Kolkata's second biggest mosque had written to SRK, appealing to scrap a commercial deal of KOLKATA KNOGHT RIDERS with a garment firm because of suspected "

same thing happened in kashmir, only in reverse. only the hindu boy was murdered in the police station by his father in law who is a muslim. did any one make any noise. NO. the poor muslim girl who made the biggest mistake of converting to hinduism is going door to door for justice. have you seen any of these secular bastards taking her case?. NO. this is what i call as injustice. for this if some some one calls me a fanatic, so be it.

" saw somebody who said that the Hindus who chose to migrate west are as fundamentalist as the jehadis"

in the west we have to match the mentality of the muslims to survive. for this we have to think and behave just like average muslim behaves. for this we are called fundamentalist so be it.

p.s i am a hindu fanatic and i do not have a problem if any body becomes a PM. be it a sikh, muslim, christian as long he/she has a merit and would follow true secularism i.e treat hinduism and hindus at par with christians and muslims.

"RSS are called often Hindu fundamentalists, they never denounce or reject secularism per se"

well said varun. RSS's concept of secularism is different from the secular fasists like OUTLOOK and the congress. RSS wants to include hinduism in the secularism where as the secular fasists like OUTLOOK wants to exclude hinduism. according to them hinduism needs to beaten, abusd, ridicluled, butchered all the time but islam and christianity should be glorified.

Namo4,

">> they (RSS Schools) do not teach wrong history in their schools nor do they preach hatred.

You are a graduate of an RSS school, and look what it did to you !
Anwaar"

I'm sure the world is terrified of what the graduates of RSS Shakas will do in the near future. Avenge injustices done to Hindus all over the world. Give me a break.

"You are a graduate of an RSS school, and look what it did to you "

if calling aurangzeb a monster makes me a hindu fanatic, be it. if i call SRK's bluff and become a hindu fanatic, so be it.

well said bharti

See Shah Rukh as a bridge between the countries. We cannot wish Pakistan away, and after all most of its citizens are innocents who just want peace like us. Just their elite misguides them. Perhaps shah rukh will make a subtle film on how the Pakistani elite misguides their people on India/Hinduism etc.

I saw somebody who said that the Hindus who chose to migrate west are as fundamentalist as the jehadis. Its probably true - I met one on my recent flight to London, a doctor who has been living in the West since 1967! He was quite upset that we have a minority PM etc. What bull! what ignorance!

Namo4,

>> they (RSS Schools) do not teach wrong history in their schools nor do they preach hatred.

You are a graduate of an RSS school, and look what it did to you !

Mention the fact that Shahrukh’s character in the film marries Mandira (Kajol), a Hindu and one who has clearly not been converted to Islam ....

what a load of bull!! even her son converted and became khan thats why he was bullied !!

Its in the flim, we are not blind.

The RSS shaka schools do not glorify violence and invasion and conversion. The Pakistani schools do all this. Interestingly, though the RSS are called often Hindu fundamentalists, they never denounce or reject secularism per se. If you look at Moslem and Christian fundamentalist organisations, they dismiss secularism right from the outset.

Fundamentalist groups never make any apologies for their hostility to secularism. They are openly, unconditionally, and permanently, anti-secular.

"Those text books in Pakistani schools as well as what is taught in RSS run schools and in shakhas are all condemnable"

So you agree that Pakistan are as hate and propaganda institution as RSS. In fact it is far more dangerous than RSS as it is govt authorized.
So why do have issue people for calling SRK traitor for calling pakistan great neighbor ? You keep calling everyone as sanghi hate monger here

Any religion without a country of its own will suffer perpetual persecution - anybody in doubts must read history of JEWS. So India has to remain "at least SECULAR". The SRK stunts, vote bank politics etc are subverting the secular character of India which is not acceptable to majority of Indians. India has to remain a safe haven for all people who follow all Indian religions- Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Parsee etc. When Sikhs are beheaded by TALIBAN in Pakistan, Indian Sikhs have requested them- on TV, to come to India and feel secure and mind you in spite of 1984. That is what India must remain.

The Imam of Kolkata's second biggest mosque had written to SRK, appealing to scrap a commercial deal of KOLKATA KNOGHT RIDERS with a garment firm because of suspected involvement of the owner of the firm in the death of a MUSLIM and SRK is re-considering the deal. So the loyalties of SRK have been further exhibited- SRK is a MUSLIM first and an INDIAN later.

"Hindus who choose to live in the West are the most fundamentalist of the lot. Their hatred if Islam is only matched by Jehadis hatred of everyone"

the islamic problem is global. as a hindu i have right to speak about the plight of hindus in india. india is going face the islamic terror more & more, thanks to the so called seculars.

we i the UK are seeing what dangerous game the muslims are playing here. they have created a country within a country and a society within society. they are a threat to UK and will soon face the backlash.

"Those text books in Pakistani schools as well as what is taught in RSS run schools and in shakhas are all condemnable"

to start with, the schools in paaki land are run by the government so what they teach is officially sanctioned by the pakis.

secondly, RSS do not runt the govt in india (wish that happens)and they do not teach wrong history in their schools nor do they preach hatread (if that is true then why can't "secular" congress ban RSS??). they only tell that aurangzeb was a muslim fanatic. now if the so called seculars have any problems with that then should be sent in to lunatic assylum

This is what SRK wanted. He wanted his film to be success and make money for himself and for his producer. For this they don't mind creating an issue and get publicity thru friendly TV and Print media

DEV RAYA- It was not ONE MUSLIM- MIR JAFFER, it was a large group of MUSLIMS under MIR JAFFER.More importantly, the BRITISH were given the first JAGIR in Bengal by MIR JAFFER thus making TRADERS the rulers of that part of India.

However the rest of India was captured by BRITISH from the MARATHAS and the SIKHS. By 1718, within 11 years of the death of AURANGI BOSS,Marathas had taken control of Delhi. The Marathas and SIKHS controlled most India for a long period till 1845 when the SIKHS were finally defeated by BRITISH. 100-125 years is a long period in History of India seldom discussed in school books. Read it up to link Mughal Era to British Era and understand how the SIS GANJ GURUDWARA is on chandini Chowk, just 800 meters from Lahor gate of RED FORT, the capital of AURANGI.

In 1761, The Indian Muslim rulers invited and joined the King of Afghns, Ahammad shah Abdali to defeat the Marathas at Third Battle of Panipat. Had the Muslim rulers of India NOT joined force with AFGHAN KING to defeat Marathas, probably BRITISH would not have subjugated India.

Taliban beheaded 2 sikh's...will SRK make a movie titled "My name is Singh" and tell Osama/Mullah Omar that "My name is Singh and I am not a Jihadi?"...

--"now you blame muslims... we are no less"

This is absolutely right but our very own Hindu fundamentalists can never see it.
Just a little warning ... you are dealing with frothing-at-the-mouth little-fascist-modis here on the forum, so be prepared to dismiss most of the radical, hindu-jehadist views you come across here. Apparently their bravery begins and ends on the keyboard. For example:

---"islam should be banned in india. " nom, London, UK.
Hindus who choose to live in the West are the most fundamentalist of the lot. Their hatred if Islam is only matched by Jehadis hatred of everyone.

or this:
"And India was sold to BRITISH by Mir Jaffer in the Battle of Plassy in 1757, certainly NOT Brahmins." - Akil

Apparently blaming one single Muslim for the capitulation of an entire Nation of Hindus and Muslims is the RSS version of History. This nonsense is passed of as truth and a horde of other idiots will repeat it till it becomes the truth !!

India has absolutely no problem with Pakistan. The present generation of Indians are thankful for the partition. There is no nostalgia for "akhand Bharat" or "Lahor ki Galian". Had the partition not occurred it would have been INDIA fighting JEHADI terrorist along Afghan boarder and the JEHADIS wouldn't require to catch a boat from KARACHI to attack Mumbai- they would have just come by the Frontier Mail from Peshawar in 1000s. Thank GOD partition happened.

Pakistan has a huge problem with India. Most PAKIS would not only cut off their nose but also "right hand and leg" to spite India. PAKIS are facing the consequence of trying to spread JEHADI TERRORISM in India. Since SRK is so popular in Pakistan and his "heart bleeds for PAKIS", he must go to Pakistan to LEAD THE STONING OF JEHADIS a la MNIK. SRK can seek the company of IMRAN KHAN too.

Varun,

>> there is a Moslem version of those things( including partition) and a Hindu version. India-Pakistan equal equal.

Those text books in Pakistani schools as well as what is taught in RSS run schools and in shakhas are all condemnable. When you can condemn all of them you may have some real high ground instead of your present pretend high ground !

- "The scene where he (SRK) pelts an Islamic jehadi with stones for misleading the public......gets a standing ovation."

That is a good thing.

- "the Muslim-Hindu marriage seems to have been dismissed as mere trivia."

That is progress!

- "Shahrukh has not just washed away the sins of all of those Bollywood films that portrayed Muslims as thugs or underworld dons....."

But Muslims can be thugs as well as heros.

But Namo, there are apologists who will merely remark, that there is a Moslem version of those things( including partition) and a Hindu version. India-Pakistan equal equal.
The fact that those are textbooks in typical schools, and that they encourage fanaticism and obscurantism, escapes their notice.

this is what the pakis teach in schools about hindus. and the so called seculars still want hindus to lick muslim a**e. this is the reason SRK thinks pakis are great, because they can openly abuse hinduism where in india SRK can't do it, openly!!

"Consider Hussain's sixth-grade Punjab provincial textbook called "Social Studies 6."
In one chapter it explains the forefathers of Hinduism "were fond of gambling, drinking and dancing ... the foundation of Hindu set up was based on injustice and cruelty."
Another textbook used by students throughout Punjab, Pakistan's most populous state, is called "Social Studies for Class V." It begins: "Islam gives women a high position of respect whereas Hinduism gives a very low place to women." The same book outlines the concept of jihad.
Texts for older students offer more of the same.
"Social Studies for Class VIII" describes how during the 19th century, "the Hindu racists were not only against Muslims but also against all other minorities ..." The book charges Hindus and Sikhs practised ethnic cleansing during partition in 1947 when India and Pakistan were carved out of British India and became independent states

http://www.thestar.c...tolerant-in-pakistan

Seshadri

"USHAS, union of subhimalayan asian states" ... strikingly optimistic ... is that your invention ?

well made film. typical of an average Muslim who hates terrorists as much as rest of the humanity for treating him/ her as a problem. Hope films like these will make non Muslims realise that average Muslim is just Human being and is not a terrorist. Hope it also helps Muslims to 'throw stones at shaitans' amongst them.
Fact is most victims of terrorism are Muslims themselves. sooner they start 'throwing stones at shitans' amongst them better for them. If Muslims really want to finish off shitans they 'should call FBI'. we all know there are only two kinds of human being. achhe aur bure but how to recognise is teh problem. when even educated turn into shitans

srk can now move over to pakisthan, utilize his popularity to become a good political leader there and even become the prime minister there. he can then work for the re-integration of the subcontinent as saarca-deSa, USHAS, union of subhimalayan asian states.

Namo4,

>> "a Hindu and one who has clearly not been converted to Islam, something the faith disallows".

I agree that this is a problem and it needs to be corrected.

>> islam should be banned in india.

Now you are the problem and you need to be put away in a mental hospital.

This is an honest writing unlike that of Saba Naqui.All our Barkhas,Rajdeeps should read this to understand the true Shah Rukh Khan, the Pathan.All these 'paid news'types,who vehemently supported SRK for his love of Pakistan are dishonest journalists.

SRK will be forgiven if after seeing MNIK the PAKIS start stoning the JEHADIS the way RIZWAN KHAN does in MNIK.

The scene where he pelts an Islamic jehadi with stones for misleading the public—an echo of a Haj ritual, in which pilgrims throw stones at the “shaitan” .

OK even if all THE KHANS in PAKISTAN or just IMRAN KHAN "stones" even one JEHADI "just once" the theory that MNIK conveys a deep routed message will be accepted. If else, "MNIK was a money making effort of SRK".

"untouchability, divide and rule and brahmin being the treacherous our country" - BHARTI BHOJKUMARI.

Brahmins did not" bread and trade" anyone like what the WHITES in USA did to BLACKS. And India was sold to BRITISH by Mir Jaffer in the Battle of Plassy in 1757, certainly NOT Brahmins.

replying to namo4
London, United Kingdom

You have forgotten the history of hindu india, the most intolerents are brahmins (Pure/Ahinsa etc..), the most cruel, because of untouchability, divide and rule and brahmin being the treacherous our country was "Gulam" for 2000 years. you have also forgotten the dowry deaths, Sati>>>
now you blame muslims... we are no less

Credit should be given to Karan Johar as well. he is the one who made the nice film. Shahrukh khan is good indian and a nice person too. He might not been able to knit the wonderful theme.
Our neighbor country on other hand is keen to pick good human values, our societies shares same human value, love, peace and harmony.

"a Hindu and one who has clearly not been converted to Islam, something the faith disallows,"

to all those muslims who write here about how great their religion is, and to all those so called seculars who say that islam is a "peacefull" religion should read the last line very carefully. "something the faith disallows". this is the root of the problem with islam. this one line clearly proves that islam is an outdated and evil religion with fasict views. islam should be banned in india. when a hindu girl is duped by a muslim boy she HAS to convert to islam. the so called seculars give this a twist saying that she has converted by her own will. the fact is she doesn't have any choice.


the same pakis blasted veer zara because in that film a muslim paki women is shown in love with a hindu SRK. now it is reverse, suddenly the pakis love him!!. this is what the paki mentyality is.

Will our film makers discover a new market -- that of Islamic countries? Forget India, there is more money to make from Muslim countries?

Will our film makers discover a new market -- that of Islamic countries? Forget India, there is more money to make from Muslim countries?

"a Hindu and one who has clearly not been converted to Islam, something the faith disallows,"

to all those muslims who write here about how great their religion is, and to all those so called seculars who say that islam is a "peacefull" religion should read the last line very carefully. "something the faith disallows". this is the root of the problem with islam. this one line clearly proves that islam is an outdated and evil religion with fasict views. islam should be banned in india. when a hindu girl is duped by a muslim boy she HAS to convert to islam. the so called seculars give this a twist saying that she has converted by her own will. the fact is she doesn't have any choice.


the same pakis blasted veer zara because in that film a muslim paki women is shown in love with a hindu SRK. now it is reverse, suddenly the pakis love him!!. this is what the paki mentyality is.

Credit should be given to Karan Johar as well. he is the one who made the nice film. Shahrukh khan is good indian and a nice person too. He might not been able to knit the wonderful theme.
Our neighbor country on other hand is keen to pick good human values, our societies shares same human value, love, peace and harmony.

replying to namo4
London, United Kingdom

You have forgotten the history of hindu india, the most intolerents are brahmins (Pure/Ahinsa etc..), the most cruel, because of untouchability, divide and rule and brahmin being the treacherous our country was "Gulam" for 2000 years. you have also forgotten the dowry deaths, Sati>>>
now you blame muslims... we are no less

SRK will be forgiven if after seeing MNIK the PAKIS start stoning the JEHADIS the way RIZWAN KHAN does in MNIK.

The scene where he pelts an Islamic jehadi with stones for misleading the public—an echo of a Haj ritual, in which pilgrims throw stones at the “shaitan” .

OK even if all THE KHANS in PAKISTAN or just IMRAN KHAN "stones" even one JEHADI "just once" the theory that MNIK conveys a deep routed message will be accepted. If else, "MNIK was a money making effort of SRK".

"untouchability, divide and rule and brahmin being the treacherous our country" - BHARTI BHOJKUMARI.

Brahmins did not" bread and trade" anyone like what the WHITES in USA did to BLACKS. And India was sold to BRITISH by Mir Jaffer in the Battle of Plassy in 1757, certainly NOT Brahmins.

This is an honest writing unlike that of Saba Naqui.All our Barkhas,Rajdeeps should read this to understand the true Shah Rukh Khan, the Pathan.All these 'paid news'types,who vehemently supported SRK for his love of Pakistan are dishonest journalists.

Namo4,

>> "a Hindu and one who has clearly not been converted to Islam, something the faith disallows".

I agree that this is a problem and it needs to be corrected.

>> islam should be banned in india.

Now you are the problem and you need to be put away in a mental hospital.

srk can now move over to pakisthan, utilize his popularity to become a good political leader there and even become the prime minister there. he can then work for the re-integration of the subcontinent as saarca-deSa, USHAS, union of subhimalayan asian states.

well made film. typical of an average Muslim who hates terrorists as much as rest of the humanity for treating him/ her as a problem. Hope films like these will make non Muslims realise that average Muslim is just Human being and is not a terrorist. Hope it also helps Muslims to 'throw stones at shaitans' amongst them.
Fact is most victims of terrorism are Muslims themselves. sooner they start 'throwing stones at shitans' amongst them better for them. If Muslims really want to finish off shitans they 'should call FBI'. we all know there are only two kinds of human being. achhe aur bure but how to recognise is teh problem. when even educated turn into shitans

Seshadri

"USHAS, union of subhimalayan asian states" ... strikingly optimistic ... is that your invention ?

this is what the pakis teach in schools about hindus. and the so called seculars still want hindus to lick muslim a**e. this is the reason SRK thinks pakis are great, because they can openly abuse hinduism where in india SRK can't do it, openly!!

"Consider Hussain's sixth-grade Punjab provincial textbook called "Social Studies 6."
In one chapter it explains the forefathers of Hinduism "were fond of gambling, drinking and dancing ... the foundation of Hindu set up was based on injustice and cruelty."
Another textbook used by students throughout Punjab, Pakistan's most populous state, is called "Social Studies for Class V." It begins: "Islam gives women a high position of respect whereas Hinduism gives a very low place to women." The same book outlines the concept of jihad.
Texts for older students offer more of the same.
"Social Studies for Class VIII" describes how during the 19th century, "the Hindu racists were not only against Muslims but also against all other minorities ..." The book charges Hindus and Sikhs practised ethnic cleansing during partition in 1947 when India and Pakistan were carved out of British India and became independent states

http://www.thestar.c...tolerant-in-pakistan

But Namo, there are apologists who will merely remark, that there is a Moslem version of those things( including partition) and a Hindu version. India-Pakistan equal equal.
The fact that those are textbooks in typical schools, and that they encourage fanaticism and obscurantism, escapes their notice.

- "The scene where he (SRK) pelts an Islamic jehadi with stones for misleading the public......gets a standing ovation."

That is a good thing.

- "the Muslim-Hindu marriage seems to have been dismissed as mere trivia."

That is progress!

- "Shahrukh has not just washed away the sins of all of those Bollywood films that portrayed Muslims as thugs or underworld dons....."

But Muslims can be thugs as well as heros.

Varun,

>> there is a Moslem version of those things( including partition) and a Hindu version. India-Pakistan equal equal.

Those text books in Pakistani schools as well as what is taught in RSS run schools and in shakhas are all condemnable. When you can condemn all of them you may have some real high ground instead of your present pretend high ground !

India has absolutely no problem with Pakistan. The present generation of Indians are thankful for the partition. There is no nostalgia for "akhand Bharat" or "Lahor ki Galian". Had the partition not occurred it would have been INDIA fighting JEHADI terrorist along Afghan boarder and the JEHADIS wouldn't require to catch a boat from KARACHI to attack Mumbai- they would have just come by the Frontier Mail from Peshawar in 1000s. Thank GOD partition happened.

Pakistan has a huge problem with India. Most PAKIS would not only cut off their nose but also "right hand and leg" to spite India. PAKIS are facing the consequence of trying to spread JEHADI TERRORISM in India. Since SRK is so popular in Pakistan and his "heart bleeds for PAKIS", he must go to Pakistan to LEAD THE STONING OF JEHADIS a la MNIK. SRK can seek the company of IMRAN KHAN too.

--"now you blame muslims... we are no less"

This is absolutely right but our very own Hindu fundamentalists can never see it.
Just a little warning ... you are dealing with frothing-at-the-mouth little-fascist-modis here on the forum, so be prepared to dismiss most of the radical, hindu-jehadist views you come across here. Apparently their bravery begins and ends on the keyboard. For example:

---"islam should be banned in india. " nom, London, UK.
Hindus who choose to live in the West are the most fundamentalist of the lot. Their hatred if Islam is only matched by Jehadis hatred of everyone.

or this:
"And India was sold to BRITISH by Mir Jaffer in the Battle of Plassy in 1757, certainly NOT Brahmins." - Akil

Apparently blaming one single Muslim for the capitulation of an entire Nation of Hindus and Muslims is the RSS version of History. This nonsense is passed of as truth and a horde of other idiots will repeat it till it becomes the truth !!

Taliban beheaded 2 sikh's...will SRK make a movie titled "My name is Singh" and tell Osama/Mullah Omar that "My name is Singh and I am not a Jihadi?"...

DEV RAYA- It was not ONE MUSLIM- MIR JAFFER, it was a large group of MUSLIMS under MIR JAFFER.More importantly, the BRITISH were given the first JAGIR in Bengal by MIR JAFFER thus making TRADERS the rulers of that part of India.

However the rest of India was captured by BRITISH from the MARATHAS and the SIKHS. By 1718, within 11 years of the death of AURANGI BOSS,Marathas had taken control of Delhi. The Marathas and SIKHS controlled most India for a long period till 1845 when the SIKHS were finally defeated by BRITISH. 100-125 years is a long period in History of India seldom discussed in school books. Read it up to link Mughal Era to British Era and understand how the SIS GANJ GURUDWARA is on chandini Chowk, just 800 meters from Lahor gate of RED FORT, the capital of AURANGI.

In 1761, The Indian Muslim rulers invited and joined the King of Afghns, Ahammad shah Abdali to defeat the Marathas at Third Battle of Panipat. Had the Muslim rulers of India NOT joined force with AFGHAN KING to defeat Marathas, probably BRITISH would not have subjugated India.

This is what SRK wanted. He wanted his film to be success and make money for himself and for his producer. For this they don't mind creating an issue and get publicity thru friendly TV and Print media

"Those text books in Pakistani schools as well as what is taught in RSS run schools and in shakhas are all condemnable"

to start with, the schools in paaki land are run by the government so what they teach is officially sanctioned by the pakis.

secondly, RSS do not runt the govt in india (wish that happens)and they do not teach wrong history in their schools nor do they preach hatread (if that is true then why can't "secular" congress ban RSS??). they only tell that aurangzeb was a muslim fanatic. now if the so called seculars have any problems with that then should be sent in to lunatic assylum

"Hindus who choose to live in the West are the most fundamentalist of the lot. Their hatred if Islam is only matched by Jehadis hatred of everyone"

the islamic problem is global. as a hindu i have right to speak about the plight of hindus in india. india is going face the islamic terror more & more, thanks to the so called seculars.

we i the UK are seeing what dangerous game the muslims are playing here. they have created a country within a country and a society within society. they are a threat to UK and will soon face the backlash.

Any religion without a country of its own will suffer perpetual persecution - anybody in doubts must read history of JEWS. So India has to remain "at least SECULAR". The SRK stunts, vote bank politics etc are subverting the secular character of India which is not acceptable to majority of Indians. India has to remain a safe haven for all people who follow all Indian religions- Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Parsee etc. When Sikhs are beheaded by TALIBAN in Pakistan, Indian Sikhs have requested them- on TV, to come to India and feel secure and mind you in spite of 1984. That is what India must remain.

The Imam of Kolkata's second biggest mosque had written to SRK, appealing to scrap a commercial deal of KOLKATA KNOGHT RIDERS with a garment firm because of suspected involvement of the owner of the firm in the death of a MUSLIM and SRK is re-considering the deal. So the loyalties of SRK have been further exhibited- SRK is a MUSLIM first and an INDIAN later.

"Those text books in Pakistani schools as well as what is taught in RSS run schools and in shakhas are all condemnable"

So you agree that Pakistan are as hate and propaganda institution as RSS. In fact it is far more dangerous than RSS as it is govt authorized.
So why do have issue people for calling SRK traitor for calling pakistan great neighbor ? You keep calling everyone as sanghi hate monger here

The RSS shaka schools do not glorify violence and invasion and conversion. The Pakistani schools do all this. Interestingly, though the RSS are called often Hindu fundamentalists, they never denounce or reject secularism per se. If you look at Moslem and Christian fundamentalist organisations, they dismiss secularism right from the outset.

Fundamentalist groups never make any apologies for their hostility to secularism. They are openly, unconditionally, and permanently, anti-secular.

Mention the fact that Shahrukh’s character in the film marries Mandira (Kajol), a Hindu and one who has clearly not been converted to Islam ....

what a load of bull!! even her son converted and became khan thats why he was bullied !!

Its in the flim, we are not blind.

Namo4,

>> they (RSS Schools) do not teach wrong history in their schools nor do they preach hatred.

You are a graduate of an RSS school, and look what it did to you !

See Shah Rukh as a bridge between the countries. We cannot wish Pakistan away, and after all most of its citizens are innocents who just want peace like us. Just their elite misguides them. Perhaps shah rukh will make a subtle film on how the Pakistani elite misguides their people on India/Hinduism etc.

I saw somebody who said that the Hindus who chose to migrate west are as fundamentalist as the jehadis. Its probably true - I met one on my recent flight to London, a doctor who has been living in the West since 1967! He was quite upset that we have a minority PM etc. What bull! what ignorance!

well said bharti

"You are a graduate of an RSS school, and look what it did to you "

if calling aurangzeb a monster makes me a hindu fanatic, be it. if i call SRK's bluff and become a hindu fanatic, so be it.

Namo4,

">> they (RSS Schools) do not teach wrong history in their schools nor do they preach hatred.

You are a graduate of an RSS school, and look what it did to you !
Anwaar"

I'm sure the world is terrified of what the graduates of RSS Shakas will do in the near future. Avenge injustices done to Hindus all over the world. Give me a break.

"RSS are called often Hindu fundamentalists, they never denounce or reject secularism per se"

well said varun. RSS's concept of secularism is different from the secular fasists like OUTLOOK and the congress. RSS wants to include hinduism in the secularism where as the secular fasists like OUTLOOK wants to exclude hinduism. according to them hinduism needs to beaten, abusd, ridicluled, butchered all the time but islam and christianity should be glorified.

" saw somebody who said that the Hindus who chose to migrate west are as fundamentalist as the jehadis"

in the west we have to match the mentality of the muslims to survive. for this we have to think and behave just like average muslim behaves. for this we are called fundamentalist so be it.

p.s i am a hindu fanatic and i do not have a problem if any body becomes a PM. be it a sikh, muslim, christian as long he/she has a merit and would follow true secularism i.e treat hinduism and hindus at par with christians and muslims.

"The Imam of Kolkata's second biggest mosque had written to SRK, appealing to scrap a commercial deal of KOLKATA KNOGHT RIDERS with a garment firm because of suspected "

same thing happened in kashmir, only in reverse. only the hindu boy was murdered in the police station by his father in law who is a muslim. did any one make any noise. NO. the poor muslim girl who made the biggest mistake of converting to hinduism is going door to door for justice. have you seen any of these secular bastards taking her case?. NO. this is what i call as injustice. for this if some some one calls me a fanatic, so be it.

"in the west we have to match the mentality of the muslims to survive. for this we have to think and behave just like average muslim behaves."

Sad, but true to a large extent. Generally speaking, the media in places like the US, UK and Canada are either unaware or unsympathetic to Hindus, particularly when there is a question of a clash between Hindus and Moslems. And Hindus themselves are usually unwilling to speak up or say anything.

NAMO4
>>same thing happened in kashmir, only in reverse. only the hindu boy was murdered in the police station by his father in law who is a muslim. did any one make any noise. NO. the poor muslim girl who made the biggest mistake of converting to hinduism is going door to door for justice. have you seen any of these secular bastards taking her case?. NO. this is what i call as injustice. for this if some some one calls me a fanatic, so be it.

Well was his name KHAN?
You see this is how Muslims are oppressed.

varun,
"Sad, but true to a large extent. Generally speaking, the media in places like the US, UK and Canada are either unaware or unsympathetic to Hindus,"

worst, the US, UK media is now infested with indian secular fasists. these fasists disguise as hindus and openly ridicule hinduism. there are some hindu groups like Hindu forum UK who try to protest but then they get branded as fanatics.

the seculars are adopting a typical fasists trick. tell a lie 100 times and people start beleiving that.

"worst, the US, UK media is now infested with indian secular fasists. these fasists disguise as hindus and openly ridicule hinduism. there are some hindu groups like Hindu forum UK who try to protest but then they get branded as fanatics."

And they then make the whole issue a contrast between their liberal, progressive secularism, and the "right wing Hindu fanatics".

Nice trick!

Nam04 and Varun ... you guys should get a room.

Varun,

>> what the graduates of RSS Shakas will do in the near future.

Spread hatred.

Actually, the RSS is not fanatic on a theological level i.ebelieving only one path, that of Hinduism, is legitimate. They believe in democracy, do not denounce secularism per se( strange, isn't it, for an organisation often branded as 'fundamentalist') ,accept linguistic and ethnic pluralism, and are not engaged in relentless violence. So really, the objection to them is from the standpoint that they 1) oppose pseudo-secularism 2) strongly feel that Islamic invasions and rule were brutal and 3) one of their members, 60 years ago,shot Gandhi.
And this is the whole basis of vilifying them. Really shallow.

Notwithstanding the goodness of MNIK in these troubled times, it remains clear that the majority of Pakistanis lap up anything which appeals their sensibilities but smirk the moment anything is said contrary to what they want to hear or see as a nation. Gadar remains a clear example of a story told from Sikh-Hindu perspective which couldn’t go down their throats despite the fact that 20% plus of their non-Muslim minorities have gone up in smoke since 1947, one subject everyone in the subcontinent tends to gloss over. A lesson can be drawn by the moderates and Intellectuals in Pakistan from India where Hindu bashing stays a favorite sport and stimulant for the intellectuals and society at large.

"Shahrukh has washed away the sins of all films that portrayed Muslims as thugs and dons in Bollywood"... what nonsense do you publish in Outlook. Use the name don and we recall only Dawood first...a moslem. The moslem men who join "Jihad" are treated as icon's in their sect across the world with exceptions overruled. That is how islamic terrorism spreads.

Varun,

>> the RSS is not fanatic on a theological level.

Here is a good write-up from "The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate" folks:

http://www.stopfundi...ources/rssprimer.htm

"Here is a good write-up from "The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate" folks : Anwaar

Jehadi terrorism funded and sponsered by Pak is the biggest threat to India.

I have gone through the articles in this Blog. They are not only anti Hinus but also themselves spread religeous hate .Not a single reference to Jehadi terror and Islamists on this site .

Example: Romila Thaper on Ram ;

'THE RAM MYTH :Romilla Thapar: shedding new light "

Romila Tahper cunningly tries to prove that Ram not existed .Isn't it spreading hate by insulting crores of Hindus who believe in Ram or stopping hatered.

What type of link is this which spreads extremely bitter hatered where as it boldly proclaiming that its aim is to stop hatered and Exclusivism ?

It is crazy Mr Anwaar .You are an intelligent poster.


There is not a single reference to jehadi kilings in India.

Haryanvi,

>> What type of link is this which spreads extremely bitter hatered where as it boldly proclaiming that its aim is to stop hatered and Exclusivism ?

I agree. I would not post such a link except to take a dig at someone who writes a provocative message as Varun did. BTW there have been lots of links to anti-Islamic hate literature in this forum. C'est la vie!

A well written article By Tarun Vijay. An essential read because what he has stated is 100% unadulterated truth which most of us refuse to accept and find difficult to digest...........

Read on and decide for yourself

http://blogs.timesof.../my-name-is-not-khan


My name is not Khan, I am Mr Kaul

Tarun Vijay, 22 December 2009, 08:55 AM IST

I am not Khan. My name bears a different set of four letters: K A U L.
Kaul. As those who know Indian names would understand I happened to be born in a family which was called Hindu by others. Hence, we were sure, we would never get a friend like KJ to make a movie on our humiliations, and the
contemptuous and forced exile from our homeland. It's not fashionable. It's fashionable to get a Khan as a friend and portray his agony and pains and sufferings when he is asked by a US private to take off his shoes and show his socks. Natural and quite justifiable that Khan must feel insulted and enraged. Enough Masala to make a movie.

But unfortunately I am a Kaul. I am not a Khan.

Hence when my sisters and mothers were raped and killed, when six-year-old Seema was witness to the brutal slaughtering of her brother, mother and father with a butcher's knife by a Khan, nobody ever came to make a movie
on my agony, pain and anguish, and tears.

No KJ would make a movie on Kashmiri Hindus. Because we are not Khans.

We are Kauls.

When we look at our own selves as Kauls, we also see a macabre dance of leaders who people Parliament. Some of them were really concerned about us.
They got the bungalows and acres of greenery and had their portraits were worshipped by the gullible devotees of patriotism.

They made reservations in schools and colleges for us. In many many other states. But never did they try that we go back to our homes. They have other priorities and 'love your jihadi neighborhood' programmes. They get flabbier and flabbier with the passing of each year, sit on sacks of
sermons; issue instructions to live simply and follow moral principles delivered by ancestors and kept in documents treated with time-tested preservatives.

They could play with me because my name is Kaul. And not Mr Khan. I saw the trailer to this fabulous movie, which must do good business at the box office.

There was not even a hint that terror is bad and it is worse if it is perpetuated in the name of a religion that means Peace. Peace be upon all its followers and all other the creatures too.

So you make a movie on the humiliation of taking off shoes to a foreign police force which has decided not to allow another 9/11.

The humiliation of taking off the shoes and the urge to show that you are innocent is really too deep. But what about the humiliation of leaving your home and hearth and the world and the relatives and wife and mother and
father? And being forced to live in shabby tents, at the mercy of nincompoop leaders encashing your misery and bribe-seeking babus? And seeing your daughters growing up too sudden and finding no place to hide your shame?
No KJ would ever come forward to make a movie, a telling, spine-chilling narration on the celluloid, of five-year-old Seema, who saw her parents and brother being slaughtered by a butcher's knife in Doda. Because her dad was not Mr Khan. He was one Mr Kaul.

Sorry, Mr Kaul and your entire ilk. I can't help you.

It's not fashionable to side with those who are Kauls. And Rainas. And Bhatts. Dismissively called KPs. KPs means Kashmiri Pandits. They are a bunch of communalists. They were the agents of one Mr Jagmohan who planned their exodus so that Khans can be blamed falsely. In fact, a movie can be
made on how these KPs conspired their own exile to give a bad name to the loving and affectionate Khan brothers of the valley.

To voice the woes of Kauls is sinful. The right course to get counted in the lists of the Prime Minister's banquets and the President's parties is to announce from the roof top: hey, men and ladies, I am Mr Khan.

The biggest apartheid the state observes is to exclude those who cry for Kauls, wear the colours of Ayodhya, love the wisdom of the civilisational heritage, dare to assert as Hindus in a land which is known as Hindustan too and struggle to live with dignity as Kauls. They are out and exiled.
You can see any list of honours and invites to summits and late-evening gala parties to toast a new brand. All that the Kauls are allowed is a space at Jantar Mantar: shout, weep and go back to your tents after a tiring demonstration.

Mr Kaul, you have got a wrong name.

A dozen KJs would fly to take you atop the glory - posts and gardens of sympathies if you accept to wear a Khan name and love a Sunita, Pranita, Komal or a Kamini. Well, here you have a sweetheart in Mandira. That goes well with the story.

And you pegged the movie plot on autism.

I wept. It was too much. I wept as a father of a son who needed a story as an Indian. Who cares for his autistic son, his relationship with the western world, his love affair with a young sweet something as a human, as
someone whose heart goes beyond being a Hindu, a Muslim or a proselytizing Vatican-centric aggressive soul. Not the one who would declare in newspaper interviews: "I think I am an ambassador for Islam". Shah Rukh is Shah
Rukh, not because he is an ambassador for Islam. If that was true, he could have found a room in Deoband. Fine enough. But he became a heartthrob and a famousl star because he is a great actor. He owes everything he has to
Indians and not just to Muslims. We love him not because he is some Mr Khan. We love him because he has portrayed the dreams, aspirations, pains, anguish and ups and downs of our daily life. As an Indian. As one of us.

If he wants to use our goodwill and love for strengthening his image as an ambassador for Islam, will we have to think to put up an ambassador for Hindus? That, at least to me, would be unacceptable because I trust everyone: a Khan or a Kaul or a Singh or a Victor. Who represents India
represents us all too, including Hindus. My best ambassadorship would be an ambassadorship for the tricolour and not for anything else because I see my Ram and Dharma in that. I don't think even an Amitabh or a Hritik would
ever think in terms Shah Rukh has chosen for himself. But shouldn't these big, tall, successful Indians who wear Hindu names make a movie on why Kauls were ousted? Why Godhra occurred in the first place? Why nobody, yes,
not a single Muslim, comes forward to take up the cause of the exiled and killed and contemptuously marginalized Kauls whereas every Muslim complainant would have essentially a Hindu advocate to take on Hindus as fiercely as he can?

If you are Mr Khan and found dead on the railway tracks, the entire nation would be shaken. And he was also a Rizwan. May be just a coincidence that our Mr Khan in the movie is also a Rizwan.

Rizwan's death saw the police commissioner punished and cover stories written by missionary writers. But if you are a Sharma or a Kaul and happened to love an Ameena Yusuf in Srinagar, you would soon find your corpse inside the police thana and NONE, not even a small-time local paper would find it worthwhile to waste a column on you. No police constable would be asked to explain how a wrongly detained person was found dead in police custody?

Because the lover found dead inside a police thana was not Mr Khan. No KJ would ever come forward to make a movie on 'My name is Kaul. And I am terror-struck by Khans'.

Give me back my identity as an Indian, Mr Khan and I would have no problem even wearing your name and appreciating the tender love of an autistic son.

ram prasn haryanvi,

romila thapar is hailed as a great historian. but any one tries to de-veil islam is called as a hindu fanatic or anti islamists. take the example of ayan hirsi ali who ripped thro islam in the recent rajasthan litterary festival. not a single newspaper including "secular" OUTLOOK paid any notice to her. on the other hand jihadis like zakir naik are interviewed on NDTV!!

Harsh Rai Puri,

this is the whole reason tarun vijay is called as a hindu fanatic just because he speaks for oppressed hindus.

Varun Shekhar,

The guardian published an article about 5 years ago stating the fact that muhammad was a phedophile (with references from quran). there was a huge outcry from the muslims. the indian so called seculars(pretending to be hindus) wrote letters to guardian against the article. these so called seculars keep quiet when the western media abuses huinduism. and when RSS protests they are called as fanatics.

Interesting article by Tarun. But he needs to understand the movies are made for making money. Making movie on muslim discrimination is a guaranteed success in large population in muslim countries where movie about flight of kashmiri pandits will be banned. None of political parties ( including BJP) have done anything for them as they are not really a big vote bank. This is unfortunate, but true.

Maha,

>> None of political parties ( including BJP) have done anything for them (Kashmiri Pandits).

Sad but true!

" these so called seculars keep quiet when the western media abuses huinduism. and when RSS protests they are called as fanatics.
namo4"

The reasons for this are: trying to act cool and look progressive among their comrades; impress the Western media and reading public; express whatever degree of self-hatred within them. The false reason would be any deep, soulful, heartfelt concern for human beings.
Incidentally, aren't Hindus allowed to be offended? There's plenty of anti-Hindu drek out in the electronic and printed world, often in Christian propaganda sites. Also, when Hindu symbols/figures are displayed in erotic ways commercially, it's quite different than erotic depictions inside a temple, where they are part of a cosmological theme of the wholeness of life.

Varun,

">> the RSS is not fanatic on a theological level.

Here is a good write-up from "The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate" folks:

http://www.stopfundi...ources/rssprimer.htm"

Will this "hatred" that they allegedly preach result in airplanes being crashed into skyscrapers, subways being bombed, hotel guests massacred in Saudi Arabia, or terrorist mercenaries going to the Hindu majority state of Bali in Moslem majority Indonesia, to carry out killings and guerrilla warfare? All in the name of responding to injustices against Hindus, of course.

namo4,

" these so called seculars keep quiet when the western media abuses huinduism. and when RSS protests they are called as fanatics."

This is because this is the safest way to show your secular credentials. The worst they can get is some idiots from SHiv sena damaging their office. In fact, they will gain more publicity out of it. But at least they do not have to run for their life.
You will hear lectures from them on freedom of expression in support of MF Hussain paintings. But they will go in hiding when we have far more violent reaction to Danish cartoons.

"This is because this is the safest way to show your secular credentials. The worst they can get is some idiots from SHiv sena damaging their office."

Exactly, Maha. I don't know how I missed this very obvious reason in my last post! There are no contracts put out, nor any danger of any of these 'secularists' being exiled to a foreign country. As for Hussein, the most that will happen if he returns to India, is some accosting and haranguing. Rushdie and Taslima cannot go to any Islamic country for fear of their lives. Taslima cannot even safely go out openly in India.

Varun,

>> Will this "hatred" that they (the RSS) allegedly preach result in airplanes being crashed into skyscrapers....

Not all hate groups crash airplanes into skyscrapers.

Why bother if some Pakistanis enjoy
a masochistic ego-pleaser like MNIK?

Rather than look at the source of the
problems: Islamic theology, they love
to externalize the problems. And MNIK
is a shameful caricature of America's
treatment of Muslims, or any religion.

The First Amendment ensures that there
could never be a burka / minaret ban.

As Winston Churchill said in relation
to Islam: 'No single stronger retrograde
force exists in the world'. Still true.

The only upside I see to this Pakistani
popularity is that the Pashtuns could
get more pro-Indian than the Punjabi /
Muhajir elite, obsessively anti-Indian.

What the Pakistani censor board did just
shows the character of their nation: a
petty gang of narrow-minded Islamists.

We are most certainly not 'the same people',
as some Indian Punjabis and Muslims claim.

How long will it take for Muslims
to denounce -- or to repudiate --
all the hate-filled diatribes that
litter the pages of Qur'an-e-Pak?

Unless that happens, slow progress.

I am frankly tired of Islam, as an
ex-Muslim, and think that Islam,
Catholicism, and Sikhism, in that
order, need to wither away ASAP.

Religion's been the curse of India.
We need to think more as individuals,
and less as separate 'communities'.

Anwaar:

Say that Ram or Jesus never existed
and all you'll get are mild rebukes
in most parts of the world. Poverty
and tribal warfare in Orissa may get
a Bajrang Dal / VHP thug to beat you
up -- but in the UK, EU, or US hardly
a single Hindu or Christian would go
medieval on you. Tolerance now rules.

Not so with Islam -- that's true no
matter if you're in Somalia, or the
wealthy Gulf states, or in the UK.

Any attempts to discuss Mr. Muhammad
Quraysh -- and this guy's appalling
life or deeds - is met with violence.

Grow up.

Left-wing fools at the Guardian or NYT
need some common sense too -- they have
to stop treating Muslims like children.

Muslims are just people.
They are entitled to all the
universal rights any modern
democracy provides to citizens.
They're also responsible adults.

Islam is a belief system.
It must be criticized like
any other belief system. To
insulate it from criticism
is just fear-based nonsense.

Murtuza,

You said, "Tolerance now rules."

I fight Muslim intolerance in Muslim blogs and Hindu intolerance in OUTLOOK's forum.

New converts into a religion and new apostates out of a religion tend to be equally zealous. Well, whatever works for you!

Anwaar:

>> I fight Muslim intolerance in Muslim blogs and Hindu intolerance in OUTLOOK's forum.

Good for you. Which forums are these? And are
they Indian Muslims forums or pan-Islamist ones?

>>New converts into a religion and new apostates out of a religion tend to be equally zealous. Well, whatever works for you!

I am an atheist. To compare the atheism of
someone like me -- or Christopher Hitchens,
say -- to Islamic proselytism is nonsense.

We have no death penalty for the murtad,
for starters. And nothing unites atheists
except the common non-adherence to theology.

If you are serious about combating Islamic
extremism in India, I suggest the best place
to start would be Dr. Zakir Naik -- Salafist
fanatic and growing every day in influence
among young Indian Muslims. As an example,
he strongly supports the doctrine of death
for apostates I alluded to above. He has
his own TV channel and needs to be fought
tooth and nail. Unfortunately, the mostly
craven Hindu liberal society treats him
with kid gloves -- just see Shekhar Gupta's
softball interview with him on Walk the Talk.

With reference to this topic,
I will repeat: as long as the
First Amendment is properly
upheld, the United States will
have the greatest religious
freedom on earth. That is why
MNIK is a simplistic and unfair
characterization of U.S. policy.

Of course, no one expects realism
from Bollywood or Johar anyway...

SRKcannot change the perception the non-muslims have about muslims,specially the pakis. All muslims are not terrorists,but all terrorists are muslims.

Murtuza, as an illustration of the difference between India and the Islamic countries, like Pakistan, Saudi, Iran and Malaysia, try going to anyone of them and declaring that you have renounced Islam, and giving reasons why you have done it.
You( or anyone in a similar situation) would not likely survive; at the very least you would be arrested and imprisoned.
In India, this would not be a problem i.e renouncing Hinduism or any other religion. What Hindus do resent is the dishonest, unscrupulous propagation of religions like Christianity and Islam. That is an issue totally different from apostasy.
There was an REM video many years ago called "Losing my religion". The director of the video was an Indian. This Indian could fly into, and out of, India without any problem. Can you imagine that happening in Islamic countries, even if the 'lost' religion in question was not specifically named as Islam?
People equating India with Pakistan et al, and the Hindu groups like RSS/VHP with the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc, just have no clue what they are talking about.

George, you are wrong. All terrorists are not Muslims.

Murtuza, good to see a sane voice here. Welcome.

I would be very interested to see how long you are able to remain tolerant with 'Anwaar'.

>>New converts into a religion and new apostates out of a religion tend to be equally zealous. Well, whatever works for you!

I thought that was a presumptuous, patronizing and a downright crude, rude and cheap remark to make. But that is so characteristic of our arrogant resident pest.

Ajit: thanks.

Varun, you are right.

But let me take this further.
A criticism that could be made
of the Sangh Parivar / the BJP
is that they have been trying
to 'semitize' Hinduism. Do you
see what this means? A tolerant
faith (relatively), with a great
diversity of views as its basic
principle -- as far as I know,
that is the core of much of the
Hindu tradition from its start.

So do you want that to become
something like Islam or the
Christian religion? Do you,
too, want a cult of fatwas
or all-important holy sites
like Ayodhya? I've always
noted that it's easier for
a Hindu to be an agnostic
or an atheist than a Muslim.

Keep it that way.

Don't semitize Hinduism.

And in time most Hindus
will become agnostics.

Murtuza, there's not much danger of that i.e "Semitisation" of Hinduism. Some Hindu assertion, desire for acknowledgement if not recompense, and response to awful double standards, should not be confused with making Hinduism the mirror image of fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Christianity.

Varun Shekhar,

>> In India, this would not be a problem i.e renouncing Hinduism or any other religion.

That is because the extremist elements are less in number and not very popular. There are groups who wish to make India into a Hindu Saudi Arabia (if they can have their way). That they have no ability to do so is a different matter.

>> What Hindus do resent is the dishonest, unscrupulous propagation of religions like Christianity and Islam. That is an issue totally different from apostasy

That’s like saying that you have come to this forum for "dishonest, unscrupulous propagation" of your views. That is rather meaningless and irrelevant to say that.

>> People equating India with Pakistan et al, and the Hindu groups like RSS/VHP with the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc, just have no clue what they are talking about.

If agree that extremist/violent hindu groups are also on the wrong side, why do you have trouble with comparison with Taliban or whatever. Why do you even bother to defend or talk on behalf of what is wrong?

Varun:

Trying to guard against mass conversions
by Islamic or Christian proselytizers is
one thing. But the Bajrang Dal does not
do anything of the kind. I have been on
the ground in Orissa and seen the murder
and mayhem unleashed by them and the VHP.

Of course, tribalism is a big factor here.
Orissa's violence was a mostly local issue.

But it is a slippery slope -- the Bajrang
Dal should be banned unless they clearly
sign a statement saying no active member
will indulge in offensive violence; that
any Bajrangite doing so will be expelled.

I agree with you, however, that Hindus
have tolerated conversions, etc., that
could never be tolerated in our western
neighbor -- the Pak government would not
allow it, and most missionaries would
meet the tragic fate of Staines there.

Kumar:

A Hindu Saudi Arabia?

Please name me the Hindu organization
that advocates a death penalty for a
Hindu who becomes an atheist, say.
Or a death penalty for homosexuals.

[By the way, Savarkar - whom I dislike,
but a useful example - was an atheist]

If this organization is too
obscure to name one, then why
is the risk of a Hindu Saudi
Arabia worth worrying about?

Sure, the VHP needs to be
opposed. But there is no
comparable risk -- at all.

>> A criticism that could be made of the Sangh Parivar / the BJP is that they have been trying to 'semitize' Hinduism. Do you see what this means? A tolerant faith (relatively), with a great diversity of views as its basic principle -- as far as I know, that is the core of much of the Hindu tradition from its start.

>> So do you want that to become something like Islam or the Christian religion?

It so happened that hindu thought/philosophy has so many branches. There have been attempts by different branches to systematize the doctrine, philosophy etc and there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. It is not ‘diversity of views’ for the sake of it.

>> Please name me the Hindu organization that advocates a death penalty for a Hindu who becomes an atheist, say. Or a death penalty for homosexuals.

So unless the violence/murder etc is on atheists/homosexuals, it cannot be called as violence?

>> By the way, Savarkar - whom I dislike, but a useful example - was an atheist

One need not bother or care what his personal beliefs are. What he does/advocates to others is what matters.

>> If this organization is too obscure to name one, then why is the risk of a Hindu Saudi Arabia worth worrying about?

I did not say that there is a risk of Hindu Saudi Arabia, but I wanted to say that the reason that is risk is less is because the hindu extremists mostly do not or can not have their way due to lack of popular support. So a person supporting these organizations cannot take credit for this.

Kumar:

>>So unless the violence/murder etc is on atheists/homosexuals, it cannot be called as violence?

No. You used the term 'Hindu Saudi Arabia'.
I was merely citing specific Saudi policies.

Here's another one, then: name the Hindu
organization that would like to ban every
single non-Hindu from entering the cities
of Varanasi, Mathura or Allahabad / Prayag.

>> One need not bother or care what his personal beliefs are. What he does/advocates to others is what matters.

Exactly. This makes both Savarkar and Jinnah
hypocrites. The point is, Jinnah could never
have led the Muslim League as an open atheist.

>>So a person supporting these organizations cannot take credit for this.

The basic Indian/Hindu philosophy of
inclusiveness, as opposed to Semitic
monopoly-on-the-truth religions, is
what should 'take credit for this',
if anything. But this is relative.

>> >>So unless the violence/murder etc is on atheists/homosexuals, it cannot be called as violence?

>> Here's another one, then: name the Hindu organization that would like to ban every single non-Hindu from entering the cities of Varanasi, Mathura or Allahabad / Prayag.

The point about my previous response is that you don’t have to make a one-to-one comparison. Even among the extremist/violent organizations the issues raised are different. It’s like saying - name a single muslim organization that opposes cow slaughter or opposes ‘north Indians’ etc. Well, the issues raised are different, but as long one uses violence and violates the rights/justice/freedom of others (one way or the other) there is a problem.

>> The basic Indian/Hindu philosophy of inclusiveness, as opposed to Semitic monopoly-on-the-truth religions

Even in Hinduism, a person believes in his/her stream of thought/philosophy. Does not an Advaitist believe that Advaita is true? And there is nothing wrong in that. It is just that there are more streams in Hinduism (even in sophisticated philosophical Hinduism, leave alone the faiths of dalits, tribals etc). The idea that one has a freedom to choose ones faith is something that many people of all religions and atheists also accept.

>> This makes both Savarkar and Jinnah hypocrites..

I do not think they are deliberate hypocrites out to deliberately deceive/mislead people etc. The problem is that for them religion is a political identity rather than for spirituality. They have understood/interpreted religion in political terms.

Kumar:

>>Does not an Advaitist believe that Advaita is true?

I have no recollection of Advaitas harping
on the fact that non-Advaitas will burn in
an eternal hell. But why go on about this?
I am not here to defend Hinduism any more
than I am here to defend my former religion
of Islam. And I'm afraid there is a clear
difference between Indic and Semitic cults,
apart from the Baha'i or the Zoroastrians.

>>They have understood/interpreted religion in political terms.

Religion IS political. It can't separate
itself from politics -- anywhere on earth.
The more community-based a religion is --
like Islam or Christianity -- the more it
will interfere with politics and policy.

>>I do not think they are deliberate hypocrites out to deliberately deceive/mislead people etc.

Jinnah was a hypocrite because he
could not read the Urdu script,
yet fanatically insisted on it
being the only acceptable language
of Pakistan on his visit to Dacca,
1948. That sowed the seeds of the
Bengali-Urdu clash and ultimately
the genocidal war of 1971. Jinnah
was nothing more than a callous
and venal mass murderer. All that
said, I think Partition was good
for India -- Islamic intransigence
would have crippled 'Akhand Bharat'.

>> I have no recollection of Advaitas harping on the fact that non-Advaitas will burn in
an eternal hell.

Again, is a belief in hell is the only statement of belief? If Advaitists don’t believe in hell, does that mean that they don’t have any beliefs? Some people believe in God, hell, soul, salvation etc, while some others don’t.

>> And I'm afraid there is a clear difference between Indic and Semitic cults, apart from the Baha'i or the Zoroastrians.

There is a difference between all religions in what they believe as truth. That is why there are different religions.

>> Religion IS political. It can't separate itself from politics -- anywhere on earth.

So you mean, one cannot have a faith in that he/she believes to relate to God etc with out bringing in political identity etc?

>> The more community-based a religion is -- like Islam or Christianity -- the more it
will interfere with politics and policy.

All religions have a community based worship etc. Not sure what you mean by interfere with politics and policy. One can have a faith and also believe in and work towards justice/fairness/freedom etc to all people.

Savarkar was a bigot, pure and
simple. In his own words, only
those people who considered India
a 'matrubhoomi' and 'pitrubhoomi'
could live in India. Therefore,
according to him, all of India's
Muslims ought to be 'deported to
Arabia or the Middle East' --
again, his own words. Granted,
he was living in the heyday of
the violent Muslim League, but
his language was the language
of fascists and genocidal scum.

The only time I had any respect
for Manishankar Aiyar was when
he removed Savarkar's plaque in
the Andamans. This man deserves
no remembrance from a nation that
aspires to secularism, any more
than Maulana Mohammed Ali, who
has some road in Bombay named
after him. This guy once yelled
at Gandhi: "You are a Hindu! You
are a Jew!" -- he no more needs
a road named after him than does
the murderous fanatic Aurangzeb.

>>Again, is a belief in hell is the only statement of belief?

I think if you believe that someone is
really going to spend forever (whatever
that means) after they die in a place
of horrible torment and torture --
graphically described in the Qur'an, by
the way -- then yes, that affects the
way you behave with that person. If
you don't get this, then what can I say?

>>There is a difference between all religions in what they believe as truth. That is why there are different religions.

Except that some religions
are happy to live and let
live, and some others can't
wait until everyone else
believes exactly as they do,
with adherence to every dot
and comma of their theology.

Look at how Ahmadiyya Muslims
are so ruthlessly mistreated
by the Pakistani Islamic state.

>> I think if you believe that someone is really going to spend forever (whatever that means) after they die in a place of horrible torment and torture -- graphically described in the Qur'an, by the way -- then yes, that affects the way you behave with that person.

But how would one know who specifically will go to hell/heaven etc and who will not, in the first place? Even those who believe in hell/heaven leave it to God to ultimately decide/judge.

Murtuza,

>> To compare the atheism of
someone like me -- or Christopher Hitchens,
say -- to Islamic proselytism is nonsense.

Comparisions between Islam, Hinduism and atheism do not interest me. What interests me is that one has the freedom to believe what one believes, that one does not make one's beliefs the basis of intolerance or hate of others, and that one works to adapt and reform one's belief system so that it can be the best that it can be.

>> the best place to start would be Dr. Zakir Naik.

I have been his persistent critic.

>> Except that some religions are happy to live and let live, and some others can't
wait until everyone else believes exactly as they do,

There is nothing wrong in hoping/wishing that others believe what you do, especially when you honestly believe that what you believe is right/good etc. Even those who hope this way, can also 'live and let live' and believe in justice, fairness, freedom, human rights etc.

Anwaar:

>>one does not make one's beliefs the basis of intolerance or hate of others

As long we all believe in something
like the First Amendment, I see no
reason why I should not 'hate' --
or not be disrespectful of your
beliefs. Your religious views
do not inspire my respect any more
than your political or sports views.

We Indians need to see religion less
as something like race and more like
an opinion -- which is what it is.

>>I have been his persistent critic.

Good. To put it clearly, he would
have someone like me sentenced to
death in his ideal world. Thug.

>>Comparisions between Islam, Hinduism and atheism do not interest me.

But they should interest you, since
you seem to have posted hundreds of
posts on this website, on religion.

Indian political correctness means
that we are frightened of honestly
discussion religion -- needs change.

In any event, I was NOT comparing
Islam and atheism. I was comparing
my attitudes to religious believers,
vs. the mainstream Islamic attitudes
to the kuffar, or to murtads like me.

Murtuza.

>>>> Comparisions between Islam, Hinduism and atheism do not interest me.
>> But they should interest you, since
you seem to have posted hundreds of
posts on this website, on religion.

Never to say that one religion is better than others. I enjoy needling the one-up-manship buffoons in this forum.

>> the mainstream Islamic attitudes
to the kuffar.

I have repeatedly denounced all heresy laws, blasphemy laws and apostasy laws. Reforms in Islam will be slow and painful, as I am sure you know.

Anwaar:

>>Never to say that one religion is better than others. I enjoy needling the one-up-manship buffoons in this forum.

It's a quaint thing, this
Indian secularism -- with
its political correctness
and respect-all-religions
matra. However, there are
people who don't fare so
well under it -- dissenters
from religions, artists and
so on. Freedom of speech
gets little respect in India.

But, then, so does justice --
else Modi would be in jail.

Give me the U.S. model any
day -- vigorous debate and
absolute freedom of speech.

I think India will get there.

>>Reforms in Islam will be slow and painful, as I am sure you know.

The votaries of the Prophet Muhammad
do not take kindly to ijtihad, as I
am sure you know. It is well-nigh
impossible to take head-on the idea
that perhaps the Qur'an is not the
divinely inspired revelation they
purport it to be. Future's bleak.

The trouble is while Hindus have
a tradition of some secularism,
Muslims view it as a hostile and
confrontational 'Western' import.

"I wanted to say that the reason that is risk is less is because the hindu extremists mostly do not or can not have their way due to lack of popular support. So a person supporting these organizations cannot take credit for this."

It's not even certain this can be said of the Hindu extremists. Take the worst of the bunch, the absolute pits: the Bajrang Dal. Even *they* do not say "Secularism is against the Hindu religion" or "We need a theocratic dictatorship, with laws based on the Manusmriti" and "people believing in any other divine expressions than those associated with the Hindu religion should be expelled or imprisoned for repeated infractions" or "We must violently liberate any Hindu majority municipality in any non-Hindu country".
The equation just doesn't exist, any way you slice it.

Varun: Again, you're right.

I think the problem is that
political correctness too
often forces us into being
even-handed, as it were,
in cases of no equivalence,
or only limited equivalence.

"What interests me is that one has the freedom to believe what one believes" -

ANWAAR ONE's freedom to believe can NOT infringe on anyone else's freedom to believe. The very statement that "there is only One GOD ---- and last messenger is ----- infringes on the freedom of others. Leave aside Hindus who worship many GODS but even The AHAMMADYA MUSLIMS are being persecuted in Pakistan for exercising their FREEDOM not to agree with the above statement.

When a religious scripture tells its followers "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. Smite you above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them" and a group of extremist amongst them carryout it out (TALIBAN did that to SIKHS), it is time moderates amongst them EDIT OUT such violent parts from their religious scriptures.

Must praise the high standards of the debate which is taking place on this forum .

>> ANWAAR ONE's freedom to believe can NOT infringe on anyone else's freedom to believe.

As long as it remains to beliefs, or peaceful espousal of those beliefs, there is no infringement.

>> The very statement that "there is only One GOD ---- and last messenger is ----- infringes on the freedom of others.

No, it doesn't. Hindus, (or anyone else), don't have to like it. As long as there is no violence, or threat of violence, such beliefs, and their propagation is valid.

>> Leave aside Hindus who worship many GODS but even The AHAMMADYA MUSLIMS are being persecuted

The problem is of course the persecution, not the belief itself.

>> When a religious scripture tells its followers "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. Smite you above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them"

Such a religious scripture can be criticized.

>> and a group of extremist amongst them carryout it out (TALIBAN did that to SIKHS)

This is THE problem.

>> it is time moderates amongst them EDIT OUT such violent parts from their religious scriptures.

That's up to the followers. Personally, I have no problems with the scriptures themselves.

>> The equation just doesn't exist, any way you slice it.

If you expect the seculars to agree with you, you expect them to be honest.

Good luck with that!

>>Personally, I have no problems with the scriptures themselves.

The 'scripture' -- in Islam's case,
the plagiarized bits of Christianity
and Judaism that Muhammad regurgitated
-- is the problem. What do you think
the motivations of Islamic terrorists
in general are? Where do they get them
from? I agree that this 'edit the bad
bits out' solution is unworkable, as
Muslims consider the Qur'an to be the
final and unalterable word of their God.

The only solution is real secularism.

Under a First Amendment, I could not care
less how many Salafis are around me --
they are free to peddle their hate, and
I am free to criticize their 'scripture'.

" Ten minutes into the film, as soon as Shahrukh Khan speaks those now-famous lines, “My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist”, the clapping and cheering begins. And it doesn’t stop "

May be true for a Khan in USA .

But in lands of Khans back in Pakistan two Sikhs have been beheaded and some Kafirs are awaiting the sword if their poor reltives fail to pay Zazia amounting to Rs. three millions and also not converting.

2 "Islam as a religion of peace "

I will love to repeat it hunderds times a day. Kindly help me to say so.

>>Personally, I have no problems with the scriptures themselves. "

Brother rather we should have many many problems with the scriptures and the self appointed agents of God/s.This type of pacification and surrender that 'no problem'is the root cause of our problems .

With utmost humality and without an iota of desire to cast slur on any Religeon I say we have to acknowledge that many verses in the text books of all the Religeon have become outdate in the present age .Those Religeons which stick rigidly to 'No Questions asked' were and are the causes of strife in the past and in the present times . Religeons like Hinduism,Jainism,Budhism and other Indic Religeons allow freedom to criticise but not the Religeons of the Book.

‘Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you’ (Surah 9: ayat 123) or by saying, ‘Do not yield to the unbelievers, but fight them strenuously with this Koran’ (Surah 25: ayat 52) or by saying, ‘If you do not fight He will punish you sternly and replace you by other men’ (Surah 9: ayat 39) or by saying, ‘When the sacred months are over, slay the idol-worshippers, wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them’ (Surah 9: ayat 5)’

I quoted above as an example not to cast aspersions on Muslim brothers but to show that it is utmost becessary to question the Books .Why we should follow what was said thousands of years back and is not valid now.

God never ordained us to follow self appointed Agents like Mulla,Pandit etc !

Akil,

>>>> "What interests me is that one has the freedom to believe what one believes" -
>> ONE's freedom to believe can NOT infringe on anyone else's freedom to believe.

Read my whole post. Here it is again:

"Comparisions between Islam, Hinduism and atheism do not interest me. What interests me is that one has the freedom to believe what one believes, that one does not make one's beliefs the basis of intolerance or hate of others, and that one works to adapt and reform one's belief system so that it can be the best that it can be."

>> Brother rather we should have many many problems with the scriptures and the self appointed agents of God/s

There may be similar issues with other scriptures too. e.g., lot of Hindus have issues with Manusmriti. And while I don't think that Manusmriti ever had the same place amongst most Hindus as Koran has amongst Muslims, point is that people have issues with it. The solution is not to change the scriptures themselves, but to make the literal interpretation of these sections meaningless and, if needed, against the laws.

The problem is that seculars have been pandering to the worst of the scum amongst the Mullahs for decades. They are too compromised to affect any such change, and shall willingly embrace impotency over meaningful action.

'My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist”, the clapping and cheering begins. And it doesn’t stop.'

That is the SRK's version.Realities in Pakistan are different.

'ISLAMABAD: According to figures made available to DawnNews by senior Pakistani military officials, at least 30 thousand Pakistanis have lost their lives or were injured since 2003. More Pakistanis have lost their life in the ongoing war against terror compared to two full scale wars against India in 1965 and 1971."

http://www.dawn.com/...ead-since-2003-zj-08

Strangely 3 Million East Pakistanies butchered by Pak Fauj are conviniently forgotten by Pakistanies as if those wretched ones never existed .

Now Pakistanies clap the declartions 'I am not a Terrorist'

Madam Aamna Haider kindly Check with the relatives of those butchered Bangladeshies what Pakies are .Majority of those killed were Muslims too.

">> The very statement that "there is only One GOD ---- and last messenger is ----- infringes on the freedom of others.

No, it doesn't. Hindus, (or anyone else), don't have to like it. As long as there is no violence, or threat of violence, such beliefs, and their propagation is valid

the problem is, the muslim kids from the day they are born, are brainwashed in to beliving that their religion is the only way to reach GOD. these kids become so intolerant that they easily get turned in to terrorists. only solution is to shut down all the faith based schools including madrasas, church schools etc and start secular education.

>> the best place to start would be Dr. Zakir Naik.

I have been his persistent critic

it doesn't matter. this fanatic still gets a voice on NDTV, IBN and other secular channels where as the hindu voice is not heard.

"Savarkar was a bigot, pure and
simple. In his own words"

this is the version of a typical anti hindu islamic fasist. the same savarkar wanted to celebrate akbar jayanti in honour of the only muslim king to follow some sort of religious tolerance. the same savarkar denounced all the hindu rituals, even in death. savarkar was a true secularist.

murtuza,
"So do you want that to become
something like Islam or the
Christian religion"

that is the only left. to fight the onslaught of attacking religions like islam & christianity hinduism has to change. and the greates thing about hinduism is CHANGE. hinduism has survived for last 5000 years is because it changes from time to time. the time has come for a change. islam & christianity are taking advantage of this diversity within hinduism to create fissures within hinduism. to tackle this hinduism has to change.

"my take on this is "then all muslims should be punished for one terror act perpetrated by a muslim"
namo4"

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Moslems are constantly whining and complaining, and offering justifications for Islamic terror, using the subjects of Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Kashmir.
If they feel that an attack on one Moslem is an attack on all of them, then they should reasonably own a considerable degree of responsibility when any Moslems worldwide start acting violently.

" Even those who believe in hell/heaven leave it to God to ultimately decide/judge.
Kumar"

That may be the high-minded philosophical approach. But what about at the level of the masses of Moslems or Catholics? If they believe that an infidel is going to hell, that belief will impact their behaviour toward that non-believer.

Murtuza, perhaps one day, you could get onto a site called "Countercurrents.org" and really stick it to a couple of inveterate Islamists and anti-secularists named "Indian" and "Kidwai".

In fact, it would be nice to see someone like you( an 'apostate') on the site in general, since there is an incredible amount of apologia for Islam/Moslems, misdirection, denial and anti-Hindu, anti-Jewish propaganda on the website.

>>Murtuza, perhaps one day, you could get onto a site called "Countercurrents.org"

I'm aware of the site. But, as per
internet traffic raters, hardly
anybody visits them. So, why should
I go there and increase their hits?

If you really want to see anti-Hindu
hate of the kind that some sanghis
here imagine Indian Muslims have,
then a disturbing place to start is
Orkut. The Zakir Naik groups there
are just frightening. No wonder
there is a Hindu backlash in India.

>> It's not even certain this can be said of the Hindu extremists. Take the worst of the bunch, the absolute pits: the Bajrang Dal. Even *they* do not say "Secularism is against the Hindu religion" or "We need a theocratic dictatorship, with laws based on the Manusmriti" and "people believing in any other divine expressions than those associated with the Hindu religion should be expelled or imprisoned for repeated infractions" or "We must violently liberate any Hindu majority municipality in any non-Hindu country". The equation just doesn't exist, any way you slice it.


As long as one takes up violence to violate the legitimate human rights/justice/freedom of others, you have a problem at hand. It is does not matter what exactly they say or what thier specific issues are.

>> a disturbing place to start is Orkut. The Zakir Naik groups there are just frightening. No wonder there is a Hindu backlash in India.

A very poor excuse for the so called "Hindu backlash". The so-called backlash only exposes a lack of spiritual depth, in those who are indulging/supporting extremist violence.

>> Under a First Amendment, I could not care less how many Salafis are around me -- they are free to peddle their hate, and I am free to criticize their 'scripture'.

Good, but I think you should do more than just 'criticize their scripture'. People believe in a scripture with the hope that there is truth about life, God, soul, destiny, purpose etc in it. People need answers to life's fundamental questions. If you have to criticize, you should also be able to present better answers to life's fundamental questions. Then you have a case to talk to them.

>>If you have to criticize, you should also be able to present better answers to life's fundamental questions.

Nonsense. Why should I? They can
believe in their swarga or their
jannat with the houris and boys -
what business is it of mine to
give them "answers"? I am not
going to threaten them, or attack
them, or kill them -- let them do
the same with me. Unfortunately,
apostates from Islam don't have it
that easy. That's the basic point.

>>Then you have a case to talk to them.

I don't want to talk "to them".
I will talk about them, and as long
as I don't physically intimidate them,
they ought to do the same with me.

>>The so-called backlash only exposes a lack of spiritual depth

More wishy-washy stuff here. If
"spiritual depth" is interpreted
to mean being a religious Hindu
or a religious Muslims, I think the
Bajrang Dal and SIMI both qualify.

Why don't you get real? Theology
is the root of the problem. It
must be criticized. And no, I am
not obligated to provide for their
"spiritual" needs -- in any way.

MNIK is all about-

1. A Muslim man marries a HINDU Single mother, converts her to Islam and even the HINDU CHILD of her is not spared. Even though the HINDU CHILD is parented by two HINDUS the consent of the father is not taken, neither is consent of child relevant as he has not attained "legal age to give consent" for conversion being a minor but the child is converted and named KHAN.
2. The child gets killed in the school because of his conversion to ISLAM and name- KHAN.
3. The distort HINDU women accuses the MUSLIM MAN for the death of her son - because of conversion to ISLAM/ naming him KHAN and leaves the MUSLIM MAN to re-start life as a Hindu. Then melodrama starts- hurricane, heroism etc etc.

4. The tragedy would NOT have occurred if the MUSLIM MAN had 1-- converted to HINDUISM as the women and her child, TWO out of THREE were Hindus OR 2-- not forced the HINDU WOMEN and CHILD to convert to ISLAM OR 3-- at least NOT converted the HINDU CHILD allowing him to grow up as a good human being, teaching him about all the "fantastic" ideals of ISLAM but left the option of conversion to ISLAM to the CHILD after he becomes 21 years of age.

So the lesson learnt from MNIK is that CONVERSION to ISLAM brings unhappiness. Had the MUSLIM MAN converted to HINDUISM all the melodrama of MNIK and unnecessary controversy on a good actor like SRK could have been avioded.

>>A very poor excuse for the so called "Hindu backlash"

Scores of Indian Muslim Orkut
forums say extremely offensive
things about Hindu deities, or
run down idol worship, etc. At
least they're not as bad as
Pakistanis -- for whom the
latest online fad is making sex
stories involving Hindu deities
-- but the contempt is there.

In case you haven't noticed,
I do not defend a single brand
of violence, anywhere, anytime.

But you're fooling yourself if
you think that episodes like
the Vande Mataram flareup do
not contribute to a distancing
between Indian Muslims and the
rest of us. If most Muslims
start becoming fans of Zakir
Naik -- which, I am very sorry
to say, appears to be the case
among young Muslims on Orkut,
then our hopes for a united
society are going to be dashed.

>> >>If you have to criticize, you should also be able to present better answers to life's fundamental questions.

>> Nonsense. Why should I?

It is not a question of 'why should I'. No one can force you. The point is, you would, if you have any. How can one 'present better answers to life's fundamental questions', if one does have anything to offer in the first place? And if you have any, you would.

>> If "spiritual depth" is interpreted to mean being a religious Hindu or a religious Muslims, I think the Bajrang Dal and SIMI both qualify.

If you know the difference between rabid lustfulness of a rapist, as opposed to true love, you would know the difference between true spirituality one hand and mere violent politicization of religion on the other.

>> Why don't you get real? Theology is the root of the problem

Really? Can you explain what you understand of 'theology' and how that is the root of the ‘problem’ (and which problem BTW)?

>> And no, I am not obligated to provide for their "spiritual" needs -- in any way.

One might feel the ‘obligation’ when one has something to offer to begin with.

>>One might feel the ‘obligation’ when one has something to offer to begin with.

You're right. I'm an atheist.

I have nothing "spiritual" to
offer anyone. Except that you
seem to think that's a bad thing,
while I don't see why mumbo-jumbo
is of any value to anyone in 2010.

>>If you know the difference between rabid lustfulness of a rapist, as opposed to true love

This is getting ridiculous. So
when the Qur'an tells believers to
convert or kill, that's "love"?
I wonder what their "rape" is.

>> >> One might feel the ‘obligation’ when one has something to offer to begin with.

>> You're right. I'm an atheist. I have nothing "spiritual" to offer anyone.

Why believe something that has nothing to offer, one wonders. Atheism is also a thought system that responds to the fundamental questions of life. You just cant run way from fundamental philosophical questions that every thinking human being has.

>> Except that you seem to think that's a bad thing,

If you are an atheist because you think it has something of value to offer which you can share and counter those you criticize with a better answers etc, then I would not say that it is necessarily a bad thing.

>> while I don't see why mumbo-jumbo is of any value to anyone in 2010.

Now, that’s a poor trick. If you think that every philosophical system/belief/relationship etc other than atheism is "mumbo-jumbo", that’s a very narrow/superficial thinking.

>> >>If you know the difference between rabid lustfulness of a rapist, as opposed to true love

>> This is getting ridiculous. So when the Qur'an tells believers to convert or kill, that's "love"? I wonder what their "rape" is.

Now that’s a simplistic 'hit and run' approach. We were talking about what true spirituality would mean, what your understanding of 'theology' is etc. It is you started saying something about ‘theology’ – and I wanted to hear ‘theology’ from a man who sees bajrangdal qualify as spirituality. Instead of responding to my question, you jump into some alleged verse in Quran that 'tells believers to convert or kill'. I did not that say that a verse you are supposedly referring constitutes the definition of true spirituality or of theology. I may not believe in the Quran either, but the ridiculously simplistic and escapist 'hit and run' approach is just so tragic to see.

Murtuza,

You are refreshingly welcome addition to forum. I have enjoyed all no-nonsense non-hypocritical views. Looking forward to more of it.

"To be a member of CAIR, and
simulataneously bash sanghis
here is deeply hypocritical."

Well said. But I do not think it will have any impact on brainwashed hypocrites.

test

Murtaza sahib

In Gujrat Riots under Modi 770 Muslims died and police killed 340 Hindus .

In Bihar under Lalu's 15 yr rule 25000 Muslims died but police did not kill any Hindu.

In 1992 -93 hunderds Muslims died in Mumbai riots only 20 Hindus killed but none by police.Congress wa sthe ruler .

In 1984 Sikh masscare nearly 12000 Sikhs were butchered by Congies but Police did not kill a single Hindu .Congress was the ruler.

In Indira and other Congress plus Secu rulers times thousands Muslims died in riots .How many Hindus were killed by Police ?

So kindly LOOK IN THE MIRROR of Truth .WHAT IT SAYS ?

And you singled out Modi only in this Forum ?

Before any tag is appended upon me by Secu friends I again say that I don't approve any Indian's killing in any riot.

"The Zakir Naik groups there
are just frightening. No wonder
there is a Hindu backlash in India"

thanks for understanding the anguish of hindus. unfortunately the so called seculars don't want to give any respect to us hindus. this is giving rise to hindu fanatism.

kumar,
"The so-called backlash only exposes a lack of spiritual depth, in those who are indulging/supporting extremist violence."

the muslims and their supporters give the same excuse for islamic terror. why do hide in your rat hole then?

right from horse's mouth..

" So what is there to be so worked up about? Hinduism stood in danger at the hands of Islam. Islam in the subcontinent was never threatened by Hinduism."

http://www.khaleejti....xml§ion=opinion