I believe it will be a violent response from Muslims all over the world. Not that I support that nor razing Mecca and Medina.
Last edited:
News Indians Are Worse Off Under Modi
- Thread starter Infowarrior
- Start date
These hypocritical statements show why Hindus and Muslims can never live with each other on equal footing unless Hindus bends their backs and become slaves of Muslims. The 3 holiest Hindus sites are Ego and emotional issue for you but if Mecca and Medina are destroyed you all will become violent.
Here is the basic point.
1. Ayodhya is an 'Ego/Emotional issue' BETWEEN Hindus and Muslims.
2. Destruction of Mecca and Median and construction of a new place of worship on top of it will also cause Ego and Emotional hurt to Muslims all over the world and hence violent response.
Both are similar in nature. Only difference is that one has occurred in past, actually twice. Both the times a lot of violence was involved. The other is hypothetical one. I will like to avoid violence. Hence just delay the issue as long as possible as there is no real solution.
Yes, keep delaying the 3 holiest sites of Kaffir spineless Hindus but don't act surprised when a generation of Hindus come who have a spine and will reclaim and rebuild their holy sites without asking permission from the Muslim Ummah.
Thats your messed up view of looking at things. I think over time people people will mature up and will come up with a less violent solution to this. May be two places will have temple and one will remain as it is or may be they will build it side by side, i do not know. I do know that over history society and people in general have found ways to avoid violence.
Last edited:
People here claiming that Muslims ruled over India for 1000 years need to recheck their facts. None of the muslim empire was able to rule all over india. Delhi sultanate occupied northern india but was countered by Vijaynagra emipre from the south and was eventually destroyed. Mughals faced constant resistance from rajputs and sikhs and were finally crushed by Marathaas.
Also most of the muslims of the subcontinent are themselves descendents of buddhists or hindus who were converted forcefully.
Also most of the muslims of the subcontinent are themselves descendents of buddhists or hindus who were converted forcefully.
I know that, I very well know that. Muslim rule influx in northern India became a thing only in 1000CE. Delhi sultnate became something in 1100-1200 CE or so.
This is a fun video to watch.
True. Its a misconception that secularism involve accommodating all religion. In fact it means giving no damn to religions( or a polite no) and do what is right to do.
When I said hindus are secular by choice, that means we are fine with state being secular in real sense. You can see that how easily you can abolish hindu customs under law and wont find much hue and cry.
So non secular states dont face such issues? Or once the whole society turn hindu, we will become utopia?
By your definition we're secular only in name .
Evidently you weren't around when the Hindu Code Bill which subsequently got split into 4 were enacted .Neither was I . Please read up on the opposition it encountered and why Dr.Ambedkar chose to quit the Union Cabinet as law minister.
Last edited:
Yes sir, existence of personal laws based on religion negate the very definition of separation of state from religion.
I am talking of now.
Even then, nothing could have enacted had majority of hindus decided to go against that. Minority opposition can only be contained. General conscience of hindus have always (last century or so) been more practical than religious.
Very True. There are laws in India which oppose open public critique of religion; very reminiscent of anti-blasphemy laws of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Then you aren't aware that the vast majority of MPs especially those belonging to the then Congress party were direly opposed to the said bill which was split into 4 and adopted over a passage of time having some provisions diluted & some deleted .
The principal opposition of the various Hindu organizations including those MPs from the Congress was that it was in contravention to the Dharmashastras itself a meandering series of laws some in contradiction to each other . After the said bills were passed , there remained little by way of structural reform in the personal laws governing Hindu religion . That should answer your statement of talking about now there being little opposition to reformist laws passed to legislate affairs of the Hindu community .
It was the personality , charisma and efforts of Pt. Nehru for the most part and his small band of reformers apart from support by the Socialists , Communists and other progressives that saw this act being passed . The reason I'm highlighting this are two fold - as a secular nation ( & I mean a nation which treats all its religions the same way and not the European model of secularism which is total separation of the state and the church apart from having a somewhat dim view of religion per se , which in my humble opinion cannot be emulated here) we need an equal law for all its citizens instead of the various personal laws we have - a pre cursor to the UCC.
However , similar Reformation in Muslim and Christian personal laws were put on the back burner by Pt Nehru under one pretext or another . It didn't help that such Reformation movements didn't spring up among the minorities especially the largest religious minority . As an aside , Goa has the UCC - their version of it which was brought into force by the Portuguese and which continued after the incorporation of that state into the Union of India .
The second reason I mention this is aimed at the current attempts at belittling the memory and the legacy of Pt Nehru in recent times including out here . There are a few things he got wrong and he deserves harsh criticism for them but there are a lot of things he did right without which the Union or the political unity or even the politics as we have the freedom to practise it apart from individual freedoms we enjoy as citizens of this nation wouldn't be . Please also remember that this was at a time when a lot of leaders of recently independent ex colonial States were turning into despots.
Last edited:
A sincere request to both @Aravind & @Shajida Khan to cool off . This is getting both ugly and personal apart from ruining the discourse out here in general and this thread in particular. If you can't help but respond to each other , please exercise the option of the ignore icon .
I'm the last person to involve the moderators who've been a bit lenient - the way I prefer it instead of having a big brotherly attitude constantly breathing down our necks forcing sanitised & politically correct opinions .
But this exchange is getting tiresome.
I already did, after Bharat requested it, I posted about Swacch bharat Abhiyaan in Hyderabad. I was called a bigot so i had to show them who was the Genocidal maniac killing people around the world .
This is true. And then there was the case of converted Hindu/xtian girls joining ISIS.
Last edited:
The evidence is all in the article i posted, read the authors mentioned, they have posted excerpts from their books.
The point is Muslims Genocided HIndus , havent apologized and still now ask for freebies,subsidies and want more from us, what kind of a people do that?
Sorry for nitpicking but Hitler was against Christianity personally. Also the motive of Nazis wasn't exactly religious conversion.
I never said they ruled all of India, but the tiny parts they did, they made sure to set a goal of killing 100k Hindu Civilians every year.
You do know that Vijayanagara Empire fell into shambles after Rama Raya was betrayed by his Muslim generals commanding Muslim soldiers in Vijayanagara Army, who started attacking the Vijayanagara Army from the back at the battle of Tallikota.Since, then people were wary of betrayal by the jihadi folk.