Bollywood And Propaganda

07-05-2007, 07:13 PM

QUOTE(Husky @ Jul 5 2007, 06:19 PM)....Autumn, Winter... and Spring[/url] by "devoutly Catholic director" Kim Ki-Duk - a darling of western reviewers and cinearts - which carefully twists and darkens Buddhism and gives a corrupted view.
(But it's not as overt as in the HK action film "So Close" where the eye-catching accessories tell their own story: the heroines wear crosses around their neck and have a whole sin-salvation thing going in the plot; meanwhile, the main villain(s) we're supposed to be booing at, have a Buddha statue in the background. Nice try.)
[right][snapback]70821[/snapback][/right]


True. South Korean movies and soaps covertly promote christianity .

The south korean soaps are very popular in north korea (a CNN documentary on this was recently shown). Although the south korean programs/ series are officially banned in north korea, they somehow find their way into the homes of north koreans through an underground network. The nroth koreans are hooked on to the oppulence and wealthy and glitter and glamour of the capitalistic south korea, all to be found in the soaps serials. In many of these soaps, the south korean actresses are shown wearing crosses around their neck, and very often the camera closes in on the cross.

The christians in south korean soaps are always shown as the nice guys, and the non-christian korean as the villain. THis is akin to the Indian movies in the past (and perhaps even today) that always showed the christian character/ padre as the nice, compassionate guy and the hindu as the villain, possibly of the worst kind. The same strategy is used in south korea to paint the traditional character as superstitious, backward, and mean spirited, and the christian character as most rational, compassionate, generous, etc.

The north koreans are not just given a dose of capitalism through exposure to south korean soaps, but also a strong message of christian-ism - that is the wealth and opulence (and all that glitter and glamour) of south korea can be attributed ALL to christianity. That is, if the south korean society can emerge from era of superstition and darkness into the light, and become a wealthy nation, by adopting christianity, so can, and should, the north koreans.

07-05-2007, 11:26 PM

Actually, I am watching Korean Historical/Period soaps. Recently started seeing "Hwang Jini", this mini series is about kisaeng or ginseng. All series I have seen are either before Buddhism period or early Buddhism period. I haven't seen any of series on recent era.

South Korea conversion to Christian nation was very quick. Maximum conversion took place in 80s, same happened in Singapore. Conversion was quick and covert.
Low pride, Media, communist government and greedy government officals played important role.

07-16-2007, 09:51 PM

Sonu Nigam alleges sexual harassment by male journoQUOTENew Delhi: Singer Sonu Nigam has accused a renowned film journalist of harassment after he rejected the latter's sexual advances.

In an open letter to the media, Nigam has stated that senior film journalist â Subhash K Jha â had asked him for sexual favours in return for publicity.

âHe used to harass me with his homosexual desires to an extent that my family was affected. We all know that the film industry consists of many gays and homosexuals. Even I have many gay friends but they have never tried to come close to me because they know that I am not interested in it,â news website zeenews.com quoted the singer as saying.

Nigam alleged that had Jha regularly sent him "vulgar" text messages on his mobile and talked ânonsense on the phoneâ.

âIn 2001, he proposed me and said that he loves me. He even misbehaved with me after getting drunk but later apologised in the morning. I even told him that you are Latajiâs friend and elder to me so please donât talk such things with me as Iâm not gay. But he still continued harassing me with his calls,â the singer was quoted by the website as saying.

Nigam claimed that when he did not comply with Jha's requests, Jha started fabricating reports about the singer to show him poor light.

âIâm not a fool that I donât understand his intentions. Iâm not a villager that I donât know whatever is happening. I even told him about my girlfriends but slowly and slowly when he did not get any positive response from my end, he started criticising me in his articles and his feelings got bitter towards me,â Nigam was quoted by the website as saying.

08-08-2007, 09:22 AM

Yes, educated muslims like Haneef, Kafeel and sabeel are the future. <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

QUOTEEducated Muslims are the nicest people: SRK
Mumbai: Superstar Shah Rukh Khan is all set to break some stereotypes with his role of a patriotic Muslim hockey coach in the film Chak De India which hits theatres this Friday. Here's more from the King Khan himself.

Rajeev Masand: What was your real reason for doing this film? Was it the fact that it was a great opportunity to shed light on a sport or was it a great story to tell, or was it a little of both?

Shah Rukh Khan: Neither of the two. Actually I am not so socially conscious neither do I understand stories. Very simply put is that I wanted to play some hockey after 20 years.

I keep telling my producer and director that I hope after the film is released there are five-six people who say 'oh, I haven't played hockey for a long time man!' Or a father or a mother picks up a hockey stick and tells their children go play the game. So, if people in India start doing that then it is good enough for me.

Rajeev Masand: On one level Chak De India is a patriotic film isn't it? And you play a Muslim coach of the national women's hockey team. Is that symbolic and done to destroy stereotypes?

Shah Rukh Khan: Actually, you can say it in one line that it is a destruction of stereotype â it 's a film about India, headed by a Muslim, playing a game called hockey with a team of women. So, it completely breaks all stereotypes.

I believe in the educated Islamic sect, I belong to it and educated Muslim people are the nicest people in the world. That is my religion and I would like to propagate that through my film without shoving it down your throat. I am not shoving my religion down your throat. I am trying to say that the ideology of an educated Muslim is what my ideology is â that you believe in humanity.

Shambhu · (This post was last modified: 08-08-2007, 08:17 PM by Shambhu.)

If SRK believes in humanity and stuff (see last line of post above this one), then why does he not convert to Hinduism?

I mean, it is a bit of a stretch to say you "believe in humanity" and all and then also believe that one of the biggest slaughterers and rapists is the "most perfect human being on earth". Why pray 5 times a day to a god that calls for the killing of non-Muslims (unless they "accept" His Word ie spare yourself and go kill others)?

An added bonus of conversion is that you do not have to lie and cover up for all the murders that have happened over the ages (and which continue apace to this day) for Islam. I mean, unless you don't want to use your brain and prefer to be a pseudo-secularist like Vijay Parshad, Teesta Setalwad,....

08-08-2007, 11:33 PM

Now SRK is saying uneducated Muslims are not nice people, I hope those rich and poor uneducated Muslims all over they world are listening what an enlightened educated SRK, a pure nice Muslim is saying.
So according to SRK, Osama Bin Laden, a civil engineer is a nicest person and Doctor Alzawari is another gem in SRK books, donât forget those nineteen heroes of 9/11.

08-13-2007, 09:36 AM

It is a old news but ..
QUOTEPOOJA WEDS MUNEER MAKHIJA
By Suhel Johar
Market Monitor
Bollywood actress -turned -producer Pooja Bhatt married Muneer Makhija, a 36-old hotelier at a brief ceremony in the Shiv temple in Goa. Pooja and Munir Makhija, first met on the sets of her directorial venture 'Paap', and then continued their relationship for about four months. Makhija is better known as the Channel [V] video jockey 'Udham Singh'. Pooja's mother was present at the marriage ceremony. However, her father, noted film director Mahesh Bhatt, did not attend the wedding since it was held at a temple.
QUOTEThe couple wed at a Shiva temple in Goa in the presence of Poojaâs mother Kiran Bhatt and close friends. A couple of days before the marriage, Pooja had sent an SMS to her father Mahesh Bhatt saying that Munish had proposed to her and that she was contemplating saying yes. However, Bhatt didnât attend the wedding since he said he was âa little uncomfortable attending religious 
Now we know he hates Hinduism.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 08-18-2007, 06:55 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Mudy @ Aug 13 2007, 09:36 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEPOOJA WEDS MUNEER MAKHIJA
By Suhel Johar
However, her father, noted film director Mahesh Bhatt, did not attend the wedding since it was held at a temple.
Now we know he hates Hinduism.
[right][snapback]72048[/snapback][/right]</div>I'd once read about a director Mahesh Bhatt. A transcript of an interview. Was interested since he was praised for his alleged 'insights'. This is the same director-guy whose Mum is muslim and dad is Hindu, isn't it? By the way, not blaming his mum - she took a huge chance in marrying a Hindu (could have been worse: in a dar-ul-islam, they'd have hung her from the yard up for sure, as regularly happens to unfortunate muslim women who marry kaffirs in Jordan and elsewhere). From what I'd read, she tried raising him semi-Hindu, so she's not the intolerant one.

Yes, I am certain it's the same dude: Hindu name, islamoterrorist heart. His whiny little self felt compelled to do the islamic thing, of course: vent against the kaffirs (of which his father is one and his mother became one in contracting a forbidden marriage) in any which destructive way he can. Films, in his case. That director's always hated Hinduism. In his interview his hatred was barely masked, although he tried his best to make his animosity sound - if not entirely sensible - forgiveable. To the pseculars, anyway.

Interesting that his daughter wasn't averse to marrying in a Shiva temple. Maybe she even has sympathies for Hindu Dharma - in spite of any attempts on her dad's behalf to instill hatred of it in her (as he has tried to do this with films, I doubt he would have forgone trying to brainwash any offspring). Here's hoping he has zero influence on any grand kids. Well, that's assuming Muneer Makhija is not a muslim name, but then, I am unable make anything out from the name.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 08-18-2007, 07:18 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

the real reason he didn't attend was cuz his heart broke (hriday toot gaya) wen he saw the same daughter he wanted 2 bang marry some other guy and i am serious when i say this, bhatt is a perv tht said some freaky things ....
QUOTEBollywood's Bad Girl Pooja Bhatt, notorious for lip-kissing with father Mahesh Bhatt
http://www.starswelove.com/pbhatt01.htm

08-18-2007, 08:19 AM

Mahesh Bhatt is very messed up man, his unnatural relationship with his daughter is not only sickening but for him, itâs not wrong either.

QUOTE Muneer Makhija is not a muslim name
Actually, his name is Munish Makhija

Husky · (This post was last modified: 08-19-2007, 02:38 PM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Aug 18 2007, 07:02 AM)i am serious when i say this, bhatt is a perv tht said some freaky things ....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEBollywood's Bad Girl Pooja Bhatt, notorious for lip-kissing with father Mahesh Bhatt
http://www.starswelove.com/pbhatt01.htm[right][snapback]72197[/snapback][/right]</div>Ewww.
What was he aiming for, a replay of Shah Jahan? Another such a 'glorious' incident in islami history, that. Nothing's changed, apparently.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read....4-D85A9D2B4B6A}
QUOTEThings were back to normal under Shah Jahan (1593-1666), the fifth Mogul Emperor and a grandson of Akbar the Great. Most Westerners remember him as the builder of the Taj Mahal and have no idea that he was a cruel warmonger who initiated forty-eight military campaigns against non-Moslems in less than thirty years. Taking his cue from his Ottoman co-religionists, on coming to the throne in 1628 he killed all his male relations except one who escaped to Persia. Shah Jahan had 5,000 concubines in his harem, but nevertheless indulged in incestuous sex with his daughters Chamani and Jahanara. During his reign in Benares alone 76 Hindu temples were destroyed, as well as Christian churches at Agra and Lahore. At the end of the siege of Hugh, a Portuguese enclave near Calcutta, that lasted three months, he had ten thousand inhabitants "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire." Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were offered Islam or death. Most refused and were killed, except for the younger women, who went into harems.
Like I said: Yuck, yuck. Eeeewwwwww.

Just to clarify exactly what I am disgusted at - before anyone gets angry:
It's the incest that caused the revulsion.

Otherwise I'm not averse to various people kissing each other. With that I mean I know that - in certain countries where it has long been the custom - siblings, parents and their kids, and friends kiss each other regularly on the mouth. Nothing sinister in those cases.
In NL, throughout my childhood I've seen mums kiss their children on the mouth when dropping their kids off at primary-school. I've seen mums, dads and grandparents do the same with their kids and grandkids; and this continued when the children were much older (especially when giving birthday presents, for instance).
Mums used to break-up their little sons from fighting and tell them to kiss to make-up. And here too, same thing: it was on the mouth.
Little siblings regularly kissed each other on the mouth: often when a little boy or girl hurt itself in the playground, its older sister/brother always came by, hugged it and planted one on the mouth, playing the parent in the absence of a real parent. No different from how the parents and grandparents kissed their kids there.

I never had a problem with any of this, it was the custom; when I got used to seeing it, it evoked no other feeling than that it was nice to see people cared about each other. And I'd pity anyone who'd eeewww at such a basic show of affection *in NL or a similar country*. Of course, it goes without saying, none of these had the slightest to do with any incest.

Also in that same country, I've seen the older generation of women (the generation wearing headscarves) kissing each other on the mouth. Female friends did this all throughout the war era and even after; people might have seen this in WWII movies set in mainland Europe. Today, lame US TV makes it look like females (or males) kissing each other is something that only gay people ever did. Nah. Straight women kissed each other on the mouth in NL (and DE), even though the younger generations don't generally do this anymore except in exceptional circumstances. (Possibly brainwashed by homophobic WASPy culture from across the channel and the pond? Odd how even in Europe and Russia, the alien British and more particularly American culture is unfortunately so influential these days. That reminds me of how the American media freaked out when Angelina Jolie was said to have given her brother a kiss on the mouth at some televised event or other, some years back. The US news lost it, and was rife with fears/insinuations of incest and whatnot. Didn't occur to their loser media that the Jolies might have grown up in a family that also followed European customs - after all, Jolie's parents also have French and Czech ancestry.)

And yes, I do know that in Russia men kissed each other too. At present I can only recall clips of kisses on the cheek, but I've heard that even kissing each other on the mouth was not uncommon among dear friends or colleagues.
Again, I've no problems with that. In some countries this happens to be people's way of expressing their friendship according to their old customs.
(And, before someone wants to call me a bigot: I have no problems with gay people kissing each other either. So any suits for discrimination or whatever can be directed to your local anti-civil-union US govt rather than to me. Boo them instead.)

Back to what I was 'eeeewing' at: it was obviously not about European and Russian families or friends kissing each other in this for them not unusual manner.

But, as far as I am aware it is not the custom in India for family or friends to kiss each other on the mouth. Only people romantically involved tend to do that in India (so no way M Bhatt can excuse himself with reference to the European or Russian situation) - and hence my revulsion was at the obviously incestuous situation of the Bhatts in question.

- End of explanation. Yes, I know. Life is short and this post was long; and you might now well be considering to demand your time back if you unnecessarily read all the way here. (Sorry, no refunds <!--emo& Tongue

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> )
But any psecular who might ever read this can't bay to themselves that this post is proof of 'an obscurantist intolerant Hindooooo fanatic yelling against kissing and blablabla....' No show, I'm afraid. They can keep right on looking.

08-19-2007, 07:33 PM

Husky, reg Shah-jahan's carnal exploits both incestuous and otherwise, a lot has been reported by the Christist missionaries - Portugese and Dutch - of Jesuit order, who visited/attended his court. Now, while some of it may be exaggeration because of their contempt for the Islamist ruler, but not all that they reported could be written off as completely devoid of the truth.

Some other examples of his character that can be found from those chronicles. He is said to have had a 'close' relationship with the sister of Mumtaz Mahal. Also with the wife of the brother of Mumtaz Mahal (that is wife of the famous Afzal Khan). Till almost the end of his life, even during the confinement enforsed by Awrangzeb upon him, he had plenty of female company, chief amongst the companions being of course Jahan-Ara, his daughter.

The links to the complete online books with account of the Jesuits can be found in the Mughal history thread.

08-20-2007, 06:51 AM

And yet, the Hindi films with a "historical" background continue to show the Great Mugal with a very favourable narrative - completely purging all the uncomfortable details - even developing them in the mould of generous and great rules. In the same line of 'Mugal-e-Azam', was recently made "Taj Mahal" (Did it come out?) based upon Shah-Jahan.

Director Akbar Khan says:
QUOTE'I don't believe that Shah Jahan and Jahan Ara shared an incestuous relationship,' says the director of Bollywood's costliest film.

To make a magnum opus on Taj Mahal is no joke. No one knows that better than film-maker Akbar Khan. That's precisely why Bollywood's most expensive film, Akbar Khan's Taj Mahal â An Eternal Love Story, has already taken over two years to make.

Ask Akbar Khan why he is taking so long and he immediately cites how a period film like Devdas had taken three years to be made. "Even a properly made modern-day film should take this time. Mine is a magnum opus. I will release the film only when I am sure that it has the authentic feel that I want," he said from Mumbai.

Apart from the difficulty of getting all his cast together, Khan also had a tough time deciding which historical narrative he would choose to depict Shah Jahan's love story. "I had read up historical texts including Akbarnamah, Jahangirnamah and other works by foreign scholars. Europeans have a strange way of interpreting things in their own light. They sense incest even when they are describing a father-daughter relationship between Shah Jahan and Jahan Ara. I couldn't accept this interpretation. I have shown a loving relationship between the father and the daughter. My Jahan Ara is immensely dedicated to her father and there is no room for incest in their relationship," he said.

Debunking myths was another area that Khan had to address. Stories of how Shah Jahan had got the fingers of all the 22,000 workers who had constructed the Taj amputed are widely in circulation even today. "To have their fingers amputed can only be a figment of imagination," he said.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/artic...701444.cms

Now the same Hindi film makers woud make all the efforts to show the Hindu history in the worst light. They would even invent stuff to do that.

08-20-2007, 04:13 PM

I am slightly alarmed at the anti-India and/or anti-Hindu message being propagated in recent Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khanâs movies.

e.g. Is it a mere co-incidence that the political party shown as villains in âRang De Basantiâ is a Hindutva party? Incidentally Aamir Khan for some years has been openly talking about the pan-Islamic theory.

Now take the case of Shah Rukh Khan. The movie âMain Hoon Naaâ portrays the villain as a Hindu terrorist (the movie was directed by a Muslim woman Farah Khan and had Shah Rukh playing the lead).

In the recent movie âChak De Indiaâ Shah Rukh Khan playing Kabir Khan is called a âGaddarâ (traitor) and people in the movie make comments like âshould have gone to Pakistan at partitionâ etc simply because he misses a penalty shot. Oh plzzzzzzzzzzz.

If things were so bad for Muslims in India, this idiot wouldnât have been one of the leading actors in Mumbai film Industry. And how many Indians are seen cursing Zaheer Khan, Munaf Patel etc after they donât bowl well in matches simply because âthey are Muslimsâ?

This subtle anti-India and anti-Hindu propaganda in such movies is both dangerous and alarming.

These aeirseholes like Aamir and Shah Rukh(or any other Muslim actors) donât mind marrying Hindu girls, take all the benefits while living in India, have risen to the top as actors in India yet scratch the surface and they show their true colours and leave no stone upturned to spew venom against Hindus and India. Their hatred for Hinduism and/or India starts surfacing at the first given opportunity.

I am now getting convinced that a âmoderate/liberal Muslimâ is an oxymoron and there is definitely some truth to the fact that all Muslims will always put their religion even before their country. Sad but true.

08-20-2007, 07:58 PM

Ajatshatru: Your last line is too broad a statement and certainly not true. You only have to look at people like President Abdul Kalam. Even Feroze Khan showed more spine defending India while in Pakistan than rest from majority community who were with him then. I could go on with a list here.

The problem is that some shrill voices have taken our the stage in media and movies and in name of "secularism", basic common sense has been shoved off. The goals to shove these screechers of stage and hold them accountable for their words/deeds. No point painting all with one brush. Doing so, you plan right into their hands.

08-20-2007, 08:39 PM

QUOTE(Viren @ Aug 20 2007, 03:28 PM)Ajatshatru: Your last line is too broad a statement and certainly not true. You only have to look at people like President Abdul Kalam. Even Feroze Khan showed more spine defending India while in Pakistan than rest from majority community who were with him then. I could go on with a list here.

The problem is that some shrill voices have taken our the stage in media and movies and in name of "secularism", basic common sense has been shoved off. The goals to shove these screechers of stage and hold them accountable for their words/deeds. No point painting all with one brush. Doing so, you plan right into their hands.
[right][snapback]72259[/snapback][/right]


I have heard President Kalam was raised by a Hindu Brahmin family.

It is an open secret in film industry that majority of Feroz films were financed by the underworld. Regarding Pakistan incident, you talk of 'rest from majority community'. If by rest of 'majority community' you mean Mahesh Butt, his mother is a Muslim and this man is a staunch anti-Hindu. Sometime back âButtâ even went to Assam to campaign for the Muslim party that has been primarily set up by Bangladeshi illegal immigrants.

By defending actions of certain Muslims, what makes you so sure you are not 'playing right into their hands'? Or âplaying right into handsâ of this pseudo-secular leftist lobby headed by Teestha, Arun âdhotiâ Roy, Prafool Bidwai, Shabana & gang or maybe not displaying 'Stockholm syndrome' by your posts?

You have given example of Feroz Khan. What Feroz said in Pakistan was commendable but I donât remember commenting in my last post that all Muslim are not patriotic Indians. I merely said that a âliberal Muslimâ is an oxymoron.

Also, while Muslims can definitely be patriotic, convince me that 'when push comes to shove', majority of IMs would necessarily not put their religion even before their country?

One more thing, when Jinnah started talking of two nation theory, it was MAJORITY of Muslims in states like U.P. and Bihar that backed Jinnah saying muslims cannot peacefully co-exist with Hindus so they want a seperate state. Now are you even going to whitewash history to prove Muslims are even more patriotic than the 'majority community'?

Has it occurred to you that most Muslims may think it is perfectly all right for them to put their religion even before their country and still be patriotic? Can you vouch for the fact that all Indian Muslim's idea of patriotism may be exactly similar to that of a Hindu?

And if you read Quran, the book talks of â Universal Muslim brotherhoodâ and Muslims all over the world not recognising national boundaries.

So could you point out exactly what is not true in my last post?

08-20-2007, 11:27 PM

QUOTEI have heard President Kalam was raised by a Hindu Brahmin family.
Not true. Read his book "Wings of fire" - even has pictures of his family which is fully Muslim. He had some hindu friends (including chief priest of Ramaeshwaram temple) who have been influenced him.

And I do know about Mahesh Bhatt and Ummahdom, Dal-ul-harb and Dar-ul-Islam.
Let's leave it at that for now without deviating the thread, can be discussed in other threads.

08-20-2007, 11:54 PM

In his second last post Viren writes: 'Your last line is too broad a statement and certainly not true'.

When you make such statements calling someone post as ânot trueâ perhaps it is best to substantiate your claims with concrete proof.

In his last post Viren further writes: 'Let's leave it at that for now without deviating the thread'...well, is this a tacit admission from you that you are now shying away from a discussion on this topic by talking of things like 'deviating the thread'?

Also, people tend to lose credibility if they tell another person their statements are not true but when challenged to prove what they feel is not 'true' in other persons post fail to back their own claims later with any solid proof themselves and moreover, also fail to point out what is their own idea of 'truth' ( as happened regarding the 2nd last post).

Finally in my last post, regarding Kalam, I think I used the words 'I have HEARD'....the word 'heard' means just that.... Unlike you, unless I am 100% certain (therefore I used the word 'heard' and not 'sure'), I do not first make statements with 100% certainty but later fail to come up with concrete proof to back my claims.

08-21-2007, 12:38 AM

Ajatshatru:
I think I was very clear when I stated initially:
QUOTEYour last line is too broad a statement and certainly not true

And your line in question was:
QUOTEthere is definitely some truth to the fact that all Muslims will always put their religion even before their country. Sad but true. 

So, now you "heard" this statement or your 100% certain about this?
Please clarify, then we'll pick it up.

08-21-2007, 12:52 AM

QUOTE(Viren @ Aug 20 2007, 08:08 PM)Ajatshatru:
I think I was very clear when I stated initially:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEYour last line is too broad a statement and certainly not true

And your line in question was:
QUOTEthere is definitely some truth to the fact that all Muslims will always put their religion even before their country. Sad but true. 

So, now you "heard" this statement or your 100% certain about this?
Please clarify, then we'll pick it up.
[right][snapback]72277[/snapback][/right]
</div>

In my second last post, if I made a statement and you immediately pointed a accusatory finger saying it is not true, so onus of proving whether the statement is âtrueâ or not first lies with you or me? Think about itâ¦

And one more thing, any reason you chose to highlight with red 'all' and not 'some' truth? Hmmâ¦Also while you are on your way of 'picking' it up, tell me... if, let's say, Quran asks a Muslim to put their religion above everything else, not doing so will make a Muslim go against the basic teachings of Quran. So Mr. Viren, plz clarify...will a Muslim go against the basic teachings of Quran?

Login




Remember me Lost Password?