+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Indian Politics (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Gujarat Riots - 2 (/showthread.php?tid=731)
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-03-2005
By the way what are your solutions. let me know that???. This is an enquiring question. I want to know how do you intend to solve the problem of islamism. And as far as sermons are concerned. They were not for anybody. I am not asking people to do these things. I am just putting my views.
Abhishek
Gujarat Riots - 2 - acharya - 09-04-2005
Do not criticise elected government, minorities told
http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/04/stories/2005090402970700.htm
Special Correspondent
It will be preposterous to question the sincerity of the Government: NCM chief
JAIPUR: The Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities, Tarlochan Singh, on Saturday called upon the minority communities to discard the habit of criticising democratically elected governments with constant complaints of "perceived discrimination.'' He said the fear psychosis created among the minorities would harm them in the long run.
Mr. Singh was interacting with reporters during his visit to attend a function of the Sikh Sangat here. [/size]He said minorities had no right to denounce the elected governments as the latter had the people's mandate in their favour. "Holding the Government or the ruling party responsible for communalism in the society is improper,'' he said.[/size]
Mr. Singh â who is also a Rajya Sabha MP â pointed out that an elected government was answerable to the people at large irrespective of who voted for it and a Chief Minister was duty-bound to fulfil the aspirations of the entire population of the State. It would be preposterous to question the sincerity of the Government, he said.
The Minorities Commission chief said he had led a delegation of Muslims that met the Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, in the aftermath of violence in 2002, when Muslims had announced boycott of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Government. <b>The grievances of the community were settled in a "congenial atmosphere'' with his intervention.</b>
On the observations of the Prime Minister's high-level committee that visited Rajasthan recently to study the socio-economic and educational status of Muslims, Mr. Singh said he did not find any atmosphere of fear, distrust or terror among Muslims in the State.
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Bharatvarsh - 09-04-2005
abhishek_d you are another Gandhian and Gandhian cowards could not prevent partition or the massacre of millions of Hindus or even the expulsion of Kashmir Hindus, suggest some realistic methods to solve the problem instead of already failed methods like Gandhianism.
I suggest counter breeding mixed in with an economic boycott and shuddhi of Muslims, as long as there is Islam there will always be hatred and Muslims will always try to butcher Hindus, Islam causes hate against kaffirs so uproot Islam and you solve the problem and you do this by reconverting Muslims to Hinduism which ofcourse should be done along with counter breeding (since Muslims breed too fast to be reconverted in the time we have left) and also use an economic boycott.
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-04-2005
Well I am a gandhian no doubt about that. Definitely I am inspired by that man. Gandhi did mistakes and one among them was being not able to see the true hatred of islam(his focus was different). He was a religious man and a true hindu(in all sense) and that is why could not see that there could be anything per se wrong with islam(his mistake of khilafat movement which fueled islamism further) in the subcontinent(read the book called fatwa by Arun Shourie it will properly enunciate what is exactly wrong with islam in the subcontinent) which fueled the movement of pakistan. Though ironically he did not think that britishers were good. Because gandhi had faced racial discrimination during his young years so his method of thinking and his opposition grew against western imperialism. Every political personality can only create one focus and concentrate on one problem and his concentration was the need of time that is western imperialism, it was evident in all places and huge public support was there to oppose western imperialism. His focus was against imperialism, so i will not say that gandhi was a pacifist, that he was a coward or that he did not know how to fight. He very well knew how to fight was able to create a mass support against british policies which finally drove british empire crazy. He did not have the hindsight of the brutality of islam, as we have today after seeing it for last 60 years. Ambedkar was able to see it very properly even at that time. So it was a mistake which any political leader can do. Gandhi's mistake was that he was not able to see it. I believe that history and political opposition is created only when there is enough support for or against the cause. In gandhi's time the real issue was western imperialism so the leaders of that time had no consciousness regarding the problem that may come in future. You can say it is weakness or a mistake. Leaders of today will be taking decisions based on today's most pressing problems and in the process they maynot learn about other problems and do a mistake or should i say problems that may arise in future. By the time gandhi saw that problem it was way too late and still he did not understand the true nature of the problem. He still thought of it as a british problem(due to his focus) who divided the people of subcontinent. Gandhi was not a god. He was a normal human being who did an extraordinary effort. So I will say that gandhi's method did not fail, because he never opposed islamists(if he would have maybe we would have seen a different result). We should have the capacity to disassociate the method with the person in history(like gandhi used buddha's method of ahimsa in an entirely different context and place). Mandela did it differently and similarly Martin Luther king did it differently and the issues were also different.
Ya i do have my doubts, but one thing i am sure about is that violence is not the answer. It can be something different, but definitely not violence.
He did mistakes when it came to pakistan. Pakistan is a state which cannot reconcile with india until and unless its islamist core is not defeated. It is a clash of idealogy. When it comes to pakistan i am the most hardline person you will ever see. It is a country which has to be brought down if indian security has to be secured(if gandhi did not believe in that then so be it, i admire gandhi and his methods and i dont worship him like god or i am not a gandhian).
And regarding your methods. Well you have your views. Is it practical??? Further my humble words. I dont accept those methods. There are better hindu ways of defeating islamists. I am an enemy of islamists and not normal human beings who follow islam as there faith.
I believe that if a concerted effort and continued campaign is put to expose the brutal nature of islam, it will make the islamists to come out of there holes and start crying islam khatre mein hain and that will be good enough to create enough public opinion against the hatred filled islamic tendencies.
To start with the first thing that should be attacked is triple talaq(a very brutal form of divorce), then polygamy, then matrimonial issues like equal rights. These islamists attack hindus behind the support of such social structure. It is a very unique way of hiding behind normal muslims and fire from there shoulders. Take that support aside and then you will see the islamic structure falling down.
Why do you think institutions like AIMPLB are there in india. They are there to support such brutal islamic methods of living. Institutions like AIMPLB support jihadi madarssas which create enough hatred for generations. If the support structure of institutions like AIMPLB and jama masjid is taken away like matrimonial problem adjudication or patriarchal system then there strength will competely go away and there power to sway the normal people will be diminished.
But if you actually attack normal muslims directly by trying to do shuddi or some kind of economic sanctions against normal muslims. The support to AIMPLB and there claim of islam khatre mein hain will become real. There support will swell and they will become powerful like anything and then there will be a war as simple as that. A war which is not going to do any hindu leave aside india any good. I believe that normal muslims can live a normal indian life. It will take a very long effort and will and can happen. We have some very good examples. Our president, Azim Premji, Sania Mirza, shahrukh khan. They have done india and hindus proud.
The post has become long. I have tried to be more practical in this post, instead of saying vague things. Would like to get response.
Abhishek
Gujarat Riots - 2 - shamu - 09-04-2005
I would recomend the following
* Acknowledge publicly that Islamists pose a serious threat to India. Stop all bull craps like Islam is peaceful religion etc.
* Stop all special treatments for them, like special personal laws, haj subsidy, polygamy etc.
* Release their women from the clutches of maulvis, who get them married to arabs, encourage child marriage, encourage mass breeding and make their divorce laws as difficult as others'.
* Encourage education among all muslims, especially women.
* Do everything to reduce their interactions with Saudi and Pakistan. Reducing number of people going for Haj and cultural exchanges with Pakistan should help.
* Identify their trouble maker leaders and be bold to put them behind bars
* Reform their madrasa syllabus. Make it mandatory that what they teach at madrasas need approval from government
* Do what ever possible to avoid creation of muslim vote bank.
* Stop their political patronage. Make sure other leaders who support Islamic underworld or terrorist leaders are exposed and can even go to jail.
* Shudhi
* Counter breeding by Hindus
* Give preference to Indian native religions in India
Frankly speaking, I don't know how many of the above ones are possible in the given political situation in India.
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-04-2005
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There support will swell and they will become powerful like anything and then there will be a war as simple as that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of logic is this ?
If anything Guj riots have shown that hindus wont take such butchery as Godhra lightly - threats like above are not going to be given any currency. Its high time that "normal muslims" (ask abhishek for definition) start reforming from within and stop lending their shoulders to terrorists. Nobody is going to give them ideas as to how they are going to go about it. Its their problem and they have to fix it. Foolish threats like -> "alienated muslims will lead to war and you better not let this happen" is just not going to be tolerated anymore.
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Bharatvarsh - 09-04-2005
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He was a religious man and a true hindu(in all sense) and that is why could not see that there could be anything per se wrong with islam<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have not been able to see what is Hindu about Gandhi so far, all his ideas were of Christian persuation which he cloaked in Hindu garb to fool the masses and what does being religious have anything to do with not being able to see the problem with Islam?, are you saying that true Hindus should not see anything wrong with Islam. Sri Aurobindo a much more religious person and perhaps the greatest Hindu of the last century saw the problem with Islam and here is what he had to say about Islam:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is âI will not tolerate youâ? How are you going to have unity with these people? Certainly, Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be arrived at on the basis that the Muslims will go on converting Hindus while the Hindus shall not convert any Mahomedan. You canât build unity on such a basis. Perhaps the only way of making the Mahomedans harmless is to make them lose their fanatic faith in their religion....
http://voi.org/books/ir/IR_part3.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here is his opinion of Gandhi:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes. When the Europeans say that he is more Christian than many Christians (some even say that he is âChrist of the modern timesâ) they are perfectly right. All his preaching is derived from Christianity, and though the garb is Indian the essential spirit is Christian. He may not be Christ, but at any rate he comes in continuation of the same impulsion. He is largely influenced by Tolstoy, the Bible, and has a strong Jain tinge in his teachings; at any rate more than by the Indian scripturesâthe Upanishads or the Gita which he interprets in the light of his own ideas.
http://voi.org/books/ir/IR_part3.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In gandhi's time the real issue was western imperialism so the leaders of that time had no consciousness regarding the problem that may come in future.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are wrong again, there were plenty of leaders who fought the British and were at the same time aware of the problem of Islam, some of them were:
1) Veer Savarkar
2) Lala Lajapati Rai
3) Lala Hardayal
4) Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya
5) Sri Aurobindo
6) Swami Shraddananda
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So I will say that gandhi's method did not fail, because he never opposed islamists(if he would have maybe we would have seen a different result).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again if he was not opposing the islamists then why did he say that partition would only be over his dead body?, he opposed the islamists but his methods were total failure before the ruthlessness of Jinnah and Muslims which you are trying to excuse.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a very unique way of hiding behind normal muslims and fire from there shoulders. Take that support aside and then you will see the islamic structure falling down.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More nonsense, what is this crap about normal muslims?, a normal Muslim can obviously practice triple talaq, polygamy etc according to the Quran and the Hadiths so what exactly is the difference between the Islamists and the normal muslims I do not know.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There support will swell and they will become powerful like anything and then there will be a war as simple as that. A war which is not going to do any hindu leave aside india any good.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More coward talk, Hindus are sick of this, always urging Hindus to not do anything on the pretext that it will alienate Muslims when infact Muslims already voluntarily separated themselves from Hindus and are waging war upon us daily. Again here is what Sri Aurobindo had to say about this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise, we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it.
http://voi.org/books/ir/IR_part3.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hindus are no longer afraid of a war and we will fight a war if needed, the Gandhians can all committ suicide and I would rejoice about it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Our president, Azim Premji, Sania Mirza, shahrukh khan<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sania Mirza is not a true Muslim because she wears immodest clothes when playing tennis and does not wear the Hijab. Abdul Kalam is a vegeterian and reads the Bhagavad Gita so he is also not a Muslim (infact he would probably get death penalty for reading the Gita in an Islamic country), sharukh khan is married to a Hindu woman whom he did not convert and according to Islam a kaffir must convert before marrying a Muslim so he is also not a true Muslim according to the Quran.
The methods you suggest already failed, time we Hindutvavadis had our chance to solve the problem since Gandhian methods are already a dismal failure.
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-04-2005
Abhishek, How about converting to the 'Religion of Peace', have you give a tought . Will that solve the problem ;-).
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-05-2005
Well Mr Bharatvarsha your approach and my approach is different. You believe that a war has to be fought brutally. I believe that the war will be fought slowly(and a just war has to be fought, like dharmayudh) so that india as a nation does not drown down the aisle. Muslims constitute 15% of indian population, so they are an integral part of india, i accept it. There are several problems inside islam and with islamists and they have to be handled forcefully and the true problem shown out.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have not been able to see what is Hindu about Gandhi so far, all his ideas were of Christian persuation which he cloaked in Hindu garb to fool the masses and what does being religious have anything to do with not being able to see the problem with Islam?, are you saying that true Hindus should not see anything wrong with Islam. Sri Aurobindo a much more religious person and perhaps the greatest Hindu of the last century saw the problem with Islam and here is what he had to say about Islam:<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aurobindo was a great hindu and a great scholar, i have read several of his readings and have been very impressed. Regarding gandhi. He cloaked christian values. Wow. He had firm belief in indian social system. He stopped the partition of hindu society. The person you guys may respect a lot like ambedkar was going to break hindu society and we dont know if we would have a dalistan in subcontinent along with pakistan during indian independence. Gandhi brought the whole hindu society together and made them a fighting unit. Gandhi developed methods of satyagraha(satya ke liye agraha) from the most basic principles of ahimsa which are the most basic tenets of hinduism. I can start a discussion on hinduism and it will never finish. Your hinduism and my hinduism maybe different. I belief in gandhi's hinduism. Gandhi was a rambhakt and died saying hey ram. He embodied all the values of hinduism and definitely he imbibed several values of christanity and it is in the true principles of hinduism.
Svetasvatara upanishad quotes the description of rudra. The origin of god and the ruler of all, the greatest seer which describes rudra as one supreme entity who can be realised by any path(again you will say equal equal) but this is hinduism for me. Gandhi believed in learning and being a true hindu he imbibed those values. His methods of ansan and penance are all hindu methods. I can keep on going on this thing and it will become too long.
I understand you dont consider gandhi as a role model or oppose him or maybe even hate him for partition(which strangely was not his fault, this notion that gandhi did not do anything is wrong, what did any of your below mentioned people did, if they had the nationalism in them why did they not stop it). You have your view. But to say that gandhi was not a hindu is like talking like islamists who at the drop at the hat call other people kafir who donot agree with them. Lets agree to disagree on gandhi. You dont like him you are welcome. But to call gandhi's methods as some kind of copying seems going way beyond the curve, atleast accept the person's contribution.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You are wrong again, there were plenty of leaders who fought the British and were at the same time aware of the problem of Islam, some of them were:
1) Veer Savarkar
2) Lala Lajapati Rai
3) Lala Hardayal
4) Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya
5) Sri Aurobindo
6) Swami Shraddananda
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry in your list i dont know anything about lala hardayal and swami shraddananda.(have not ever heard about them, now you will talk about indian history writing and its congress centric approach) About savarkar i know about him and lala lajpat rai was a great nationalist.
Sri Aurobindo worked a lot and had great devotion but he did not explicitly work towards political movement. His effort was more directed towards working with hindu society.
As for knowing the problem with islam as you say then what did they do???. Gandhi knew the problem of western imperialism and worked against them and became successful. If these people as you claim knew the problem then why were they not able to create public opinion against islamists. Veer Savarkar knew the problem always. What did he do???. Where was he in 1947. Where was he ??? Gandhi failed. Did not Veer savarkar fail. Why did he not launch a movement???. Blaming gandhi is way too easy. Where were all these people.
Gandhi worked against britishers and made them piss in there paints. Within 10 years of his start of movement india was out of control from british. By 1935 india virtually had everything in its control. He made them come to table with concrete proposals. Where were all the leaders who were opposing muslims league. Why were they not able to create public opinion and make islamists piss in there pants.
I can go on and on, on the total failure of hindu right to arrest the developments of partitions. The hindu right did not do anything to create public opinion. It could not bring pressure on congress party or on britishers or anything like that. So shall i put the blame on veer savarkar also, for not stopping the partition. He clearly knew the problem and indeed asked hindus to join the indian army also during second world war knowing what jinnah was doing.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sania Mirza is not a true Muslim because she wears immodest clothes when playing tennis and does not wear the Hijab. Abdul Kalam is a vegeterian and reads the Bhagavad Gita so he is also not a Muslim (infact he would probably get death penalty for reading the Gita in an Islamic country), sharukh khan is married to a Hindu woman whom he did not convert and according to Islam a kaffir must convert before marrying a Muslim so he is also not a true Muslim according to the Quran.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now this is a classic case of making an image in your mind about islam and then when that description does not fit somebody like sania mirza then just tell that she is not muslim. Where does sania mirza go. She is neither muslim for the islamists and nor for those who are opposing the islamists.
If you will say to our president that he is not muslim enough how hurt he will feel i dont know. That man gave all his life for the nation, did not even marry and he is a devout muslim.
Anyways. I know that we are on very different plane. I am a coward. Definitely when it comes to violence i am one. But when it will come to opposing hatred and especially hatred by islamists i am not and will never be, to accept hatred is something that i can never do.
I know that you will not accept my points, like i will not accept your points. So just lets agree to disagree. You have your views. I have mine. I gave my response just to put the point that i am not a hit and run guy. I believe in certain things and can back it up as you also can. I understand the position from where you come. Maybe i can make you understand my view of hinduism and hindu way of life. I am a proud hindu and believe in my religion.
As regarding somebody's assertion that i convert to religion of peace. I already am in the religion of peace. Hinduism is the greatest religion which has always talked about happiness, meditation and peace.
As regards the main topic of this thread. people are talking about the fight that has to be given to islamists and i am also talking about the fight. Ya the difference is in the method.
Abhishek
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Bharatvarsh - 09-06-2005
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Veer Savarkar knew the problem always. What did he do???. Where was he in 1947. Where was he ??? Gandhi failed. Did not Veer savarkar fail. Why did he not launch a movement???. Blaming gandhi is way too easy. Where were all these people. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Veer Savarkar personally helped recruit 2 million Hindus into the British Army and helped deislamisise it and he along with other Hindu right leaders and Sikh leader Master Tara Singh salvaged West Bengal, East Punjab and Assam from the clutches of Muslims (the Muslim league wanted all those parts for Pakistan) and you are asking what they did, Savarkar did not have a large following among Hindus at that time which was why he could not prevent partition but atleast he helped save millions of Hindus which is atleast better than what Gandhi was able to achieve, again I could have forgiven Gandhi for not preventing partition if he atleast advocated total population exchange but he didn't even do that and now we are paying the price.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now this is a classic case of making an image in your mind about islam <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not making up any image out of my own fantasies, go consult your local mullah and ask him if Sania Mirza would be considered a true Muslim according to the Quran and then come back and talk.
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-06-2005
Please use sports thread to discuss Sania Mirza. Or 'Islam' thread to discuss Islamisim/Islamist. Use Gandhi thread to discuss Gandhisim/Gandhi. Hindutva thread to discuss hindutva. There are colonial history threads to discuss British Raj.
I'll be starting to prune posts not relevant to Gujarat riots from this thread.
Gujarat Riots - 2 - agnivayu - 09-06-2005
I see good points from all sides here.
Indian Muslims are more moderate than muslim minorities in other countries (example : west). This is primarily because the Hindus always retaliate against when any act of extremisism takes place. However, Europeans are perceived as weak by the muslim minority in those countries.
But, at the end of the day, the token moderated muslims aside, the muslims in India (and anywhere in the world for that matter) are a ticking time bomb. They are breeding fast, and their percentage is going up.
If even the status quo could be maintained (demographic percentages), there could be some room for gandhian suffering. But, with the clock ticking down, the next few years will be critical. Sterilizing/ encouraging emigration can also be humane solutions to the demographic problem [ Aerial spraying of muslim ghetto's for mass sterilizing ?]
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-06-2005
I agree with the administrator. The topic has gone too far. So I will further not post on gandhi.
Abhishek
Gujarat Riots - 2 - agnivayu - 09-06-2005
islam is a beautiful religion, and a religion of peace. Being surrounded by infidels in India prevents muslims from living their full potential, and that is why they should leave.
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-06-2005
Admin,
Sorry for posting under this topic. I wanted to reply to Abhishek on what he said. Please move it to different topic later on.
Thanks
Abhishek,
I am impressed with your loyalty to your views and your belief that "war against islam thru peaceful means" would succeed. Unfortunately it is also foolhardy. I think you need to know the origin and beliefs of islam to understand that there is nothing peaceful about islam.
I would like to highlight some of the salient points in the origin of islam:
1) Islam was started by Muhamad who supposedly received revelation from God himself. Mohamad says that his only miracle is the koran, whose language is very complicated and beyond the scope of a commoner like himself and therefore should have been of divine origin. Actually, Mohamad was of royal lineage, not any commoner. His grandfather was from the Hashim family which was one of the tribes that ruled Mecca area. Mohamad, after his father's death was brought up by his grandfather who had considerable influence in Mecca. (I would say that it was not inconceivable that Muhamad was well educated and could have very well composed the koran himself. for the time being we will accept the divinity at face value.)
2) Initially there were only about 100 converts in Mecca, who mostly were youths belonging to the rich families of Mecca. After the death of Muhamad's grandfather, the muslims lost support in Mecca and were driven out and took refuge in Medina. Mohamad was invited by prominent people in Medina (called Yathrib at that time), to mediate between various tribes in Medina. Even in those days Mecca was a major pilgrim and economic center. During the festive season, to fecilitate pilgrimage, there used to be ceasefire amongst the tribes. As the early muslims did not have any money or property after moving to Medina, they started raiding and looting merchants during the ceasefire period. Gradually as the military power of the muslims increased, more and more tribes allied with Mohamad and became muslims. Most of these conversions were military alliances to buy peace.
3) During one such pilgrim season, muhamad negotiated with the Meccans to allow him and his fellow muslims to visit the Mecca temple (it is the same Kaaba temple that people visit during Haj) as a gesture of goodwill. The Meccans allowed the muslims believing that muslims want to co-exist. But immediately after muslims gained control of Mecca, muhamad banned all other religions in Mecca. So much for peaceful co-existance.
4) During these raids, muslims looted property and brought back women belonging to non-muslims. In order to coerce more people to convert and to prevent in-fighting, muhamad came up with a new rule. A muslim should not take other muslim's women, but can keep non-muslim's women by paying them a fixed monetary amount. (I think this rule alone would have caused lot of non-muslims to convert. Who would want their wife and daughters become properties of these raiding muslims. Many non-muslims converted to get their women back!)
5) Mecca was finally taken over when Meccans surrendered to Muhamad. The meccans laid down their weopons and take prisoner and were told that their lived would be spared. but the next day, muhamad said that god came in his dream told him that meccans must be punished. muhamad then ordered the execution of the 3000 Prisoners of war! That takes care of the concept of mercy towards enemies!
6) In order to prevent re-conversions, muhamad made apostasy punishable by death. Islam is the only religion that has this provision.
As you can see, peaceful co-existance is the last thing that a true muslim wants. If muslims are not openly forcing people to convert, it would mostly be because they do not have the numbers, Like the initial muslims were peaceful in Medina, ofcourse they were raiding caravans outside medina. That is the case with indian muslims too. Anywhere they become majority, they start killing and forcible conversions. Recent examples: Kashmir, Bangaladesh, Pakistan. The hindus in kashmir were driven out. Hindus were over 30% in Pakistan and Bangaladesh, now they are less that 5%. Wonder what happened to them? They probably converted to stay alive and to keep their wives and daughters. As for Sania mirza, abdul kalam and other progressive muslims, if and when muslims gain enough numbers to dominate, these progressive sections will be suppressed or eliminated!
Gandhi was wrong in believing that all religions, including islam and christianity (very similar to islam, but only try to convert thru currency, not sword!) are equals. This one belief led him to oppose partition and allow muslims to stay in india. Unless hindus understand that islam is a violent religion, we will continue to repeat gandhi's past mistakes.
Gujarat Riots - 2 - agnivayu - 09-07-2005
I agree, Hindus need to show Muslims what hindu muscle is capable of. A few kicks in the behind can cure any desert madness, even 1000 year ones.
<!--QuoteBegin-LSrini+Sep 6 2005, 11:26 PM-->QUOTE(LSrini @ Sep 6 2005, 11:26 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Admin,
Sorry for posting under this topic. I wanted to reply to Abhishek on what he said. Please move it to different topic later on.
Thanks
Abhishek,
I am impressed with your loyalty to your views and your belief that "war against islam thru peaceful means" would succeed. Unfortunately it is also foolhardy. I think you need to know the origin and beliefs of islam to understand that there is nothing peaceful about islam.
...........................
[right][snapback]38388[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-07-2005
I agree with you srini whatever you have written. I have no problem with it.
I know the brutal history of islam.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for Sania mirza, abdul kalam and other progressive muslims, if and when muslims gain enough numbers to dominate, these progressive sections will be suppressed or eliminated!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with the above statement also. What they have done to Salman Rushdie totally drives the point home. Looking at the state of pakistan or bangladesh, i have no doubt that muslims as a majority are the worst thing to happen, especially in the subcontinent.
I have no issues with that. The problem is with the solution.
Some of the people here are talking about sterilizing, or sometimes even killing indiscriminately. What is the difference then. Mohammad made every person in medina either to forcibly convert to islam, he made medinan woman get raped, killed or taken as property. He put economic sanctions so that arab people convert to islam. I think some of the suggestions in this forum are similar. Are we hindus taking the cultist attitude of islam to fight it. If we have to do that then why fight it. Join them, become a muslim then you have religious sanctity to do it and then you dont have a problem also
The difference of being a hindu is the values. If in retaliation to islam i imbibe islamic values then it is the victory of islam and not the victory of hinduism and hindu way of life. Hindu way of life means peace, love, fulfilment and happiness and not fear pyschosis.
By acting on suggestions like shuddi or killing, rioting, indiscriminate violence are we creating the same history that you have so vehemently opposed. Are we creating a mohammad in hinduism. I have strong belief in the concept of love. Hinduism means love. Islam does not mean love, it means seperations, believer and kafir concept. Are we going to create kafirs of hinduism(who have always to be hated). It is easy to get carried away in the moment of history and the exigency of present politics. Hinduism(sanatan dharma) has been sanatan because of the primacy of love. It is sanatan because the concept of love as explained in vedas and upanishads.
The biggest delimma is how do you fight hatred without spreading hatred.
As for fighting islam and most importantly i dont say islam but the qualities of islam that srini has so very well manifested. There is a two pronged approach. Regarding pakistan and bangladesh. We dont have to do anything, just crush them. The islamic idealogy of that country will always be an inspiring force for islamists of india. A crushing defeat of them will leave islamists in this country with no feet to stand.
Another thing is acceptance of islam. Islam has been in india for 1000 years. It has become subcontinental islam. It has a very virulent strain as we all agree on. But as i have said there have been significant contribution to india by its muslim citizens. I believe that if a situation is allowed to go towards fight then it will leave everybody damaged and if a situation made to work towards a system of better understanding then it will leave everybody happy.
How does it matter if a muslim he lives comfortably without creating problem for me. I believe that being a hindu it is importantly to know that everybody has a way of living and if he does not create problem for me he has all the right to do whatever he does. As for islamists.
I had said earlier take away there support. Expose them. Take away the social structure which is hiding them and making them attack hindus in the grab of liberalism.
Some people had suggested on this that hindus are not cowards, they can fight. We can and should fight but only after it is necessary. Bhagwan krishna started mahabharat after finding all possible avenues for peace. He went with a peace sandhi also. We are ready for fight. I will be the first person standing, right in front to fight. I will not accept injustice and hatred. But there is a whole lot of difference between fighting and killing.
The muslims who were killed in gujrat was no fighting. It was a coward's response. Just knee jerk anger. We are hindus we can do better, we are no barbaric muslims who on the drop of hat start killing.
And for those muslims who kill. Create a system that they even fear to do it ever again. Gujrat is a brutal method which will ultimately create the history which we so love to hate. We will convert muslims to hinduism by treating them as second class people and hence doing what mohammad's followers could just have dreamt of and could not do it in 1000 years in this country, making the subcontinent islamic, though the name will be different.
Hindus took there gods to there homes when there temples were destroyed. Do you want to take that god out of that home and bring barbarism. Do you want to drive my Ram and Krishna out of my home and my mind and instill violence, hatred and anger, then i wont remain a hindu anymore. It will be a dharma bhastrachar for me. I cannot do it. I simply cannot. Being a hindu i cannot do it. And as for fighting islamists. Keep fighting them through hindu methods. Keep fighting them. Always, never say no, never appease them or buy there propoganda. Always, relentlessly and continuously keep on saying no, just like gandhi did. Ultimately those muslims will become hindu in values(though they will be muslims religiously like our beloved president, thought there will be people like Bhukari and mullahs still there) and that will be the victory of hinduism and vedas and hindu way of life. That is the strength of love and compassion and hinduism. A hindu conquers the mind, body and soul and not the physical existence. Jo bhi yahan aaya hain kahin se yahin ka hokar reh gaya hain.
And i agree with agni vayu. Hindus need to show muslims we dont accept your hatred. We are not ready to negotiate hatred. It is despicable and we will show them our muscles and fight them all the way.
Abhishek
Gujarat Riots - 2 - agnivayu - 09-08-2005
Why do you think sterilizing is inhumane?
It's a lot nicer than killing people. At least sterlize them after 1 kid, so that they are below replacement level fertility, and slowly over a 100 years their percentage comes down. It's a good solution to the problem.
<!--QuoteBegin-abhishek_d+Sep 7 2005, 11:50 AM-->QUOTE(abhishek_d @ Sep 7 2005, 11:50 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree with you srini whatever you have written. I have no problem with it.
I know the brutal history of islam.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for Sania mirza, abdul kalam and other progressive muslims, if and when muslims gain enough numbers to dominate, these progressive sections will be suppressed or eliminated!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with the above statement also. What they have done to Salman Rushdie totally drives the point home. Looking at the state of pakistan or bangladesh, i have no doubt that muslims as a majority are the worst thing to happen, especially in the subcontinent.
...................
Abhishek
[right][snapback]38419[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-08-2005
Can we please stop comedy on this thread ?
Gujarat Riots - 2 - Guest - 09-13-2005
<img src='http://www.intellibriefs.com/images/godhra.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<b>'Post-Godhra toll: 254 Hindus, 790 Muslims' </b>