Post 163:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Husky @ Apr 16 2007, 10:43 AM)
Why do these people's narratives count at all in the Hindu narrative and if they have to, why should their versions contribute equally to it? Why should all Hindu narratives be weighted equally?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not easy questions to answer.
The only way I can rephrase your question is "Why should I not show hate and contempt for these despicable turncoats and traitors?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wah? My suggestion wasn't that Hindus go and hate the frauds. Don't know where you got that from.
(1) I was trying to suggest that <b>pretenders' versions</b> should be ignored in the Hindu narrative you wish to get constructed because they are <i>not</i> Hindu. They are often not even self-confessed Hindus, except on the rare occasions when they choose to claim the label to use it as a passcard to speak against Hinduism in favour of christoislamicterrorism.
Teesta Seetalvad is a 'psecular' Indian officially (she has Hindu parentage, but I don't think she admits to being a Hindu). Unofficially, she's an undeclared muslimah. Whether islamics and the mullah accept her or not is not my problem. She's a muslimah in her private view.
(2) Also, I suggested that Hindu <b>dhimmis' versions</b> be not accorded equal weight in the overall narrative.
Going back to the frauds and posers of <b>(1)</b>, many pseculars today are officially not Hindu: Rahul Bose does not say he's Hindu, nor do many another. They declare themselves as secular (though quite a few of them are christoislamics, like the christian Arundhati Roy). Why should their views count at all in the overall Hindu narrative? Then we might as well let in all the world's ummah and missionaries and converted sheep to tell the Hindu story again.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The only thing they have in their favor is that they still choose to use Hindu names and describe themselves as Hindu.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You lost me. Arundhati Roy, for example, doesn't officially wear her real name on her sleeve (Suzanne), but we must still all accept her as a Hindu because she still subtly pretends to be? Many psecular Indians choose to (ab)use their names in a similar manner precisely for this reason and do so far more overtly.
Reminds me of the christoterrorists in Korea who go around preaching they had been Buddhist monks who then saw the light of jeebus and converted to saving christianity (e.g. look for occurrences of the word 'monk at http://www.buddhapia.com/eng/tedesco/2.html ). Or the Chinese communists who dress up like Tibetan monks and then do all kinds of criminal activities to bring ill-fame to real monks in Tibet - do they counts as Tibetan Buddhists?
My point was, authentic Hindu voices deserve to be heard. Pretenders to Hinduism should be ignored. Hindu perspective according to dhimmis (Hrithik Roshan for instance) should be weighted less than knowledgeable Hindus' versions.
Never mind. Go ahead, construct the narrative - minus mine. I'm curious to see how it turns out any different from what the christoislamics have so far projected Hindu Dharma as.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Whose narrative is more damaging to sharia, the very foundation of Islam? Yours or Teestas?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Mine o'course. Teesta is a heretic muslim. I'm an infidel. She's already converted, just needs to be restrained. People like myself can't be converted.
Sharia isn't the foundation of islam, sharia is merely the islamic law to govern <i>muslims in their lands</i>.
According to mohammed, allah has plans to make the entire world islamic. We, infidels, are in the way of their allah's plan. There's no bigger thorn in the eye of the ummah and their alleged allah than an infidel.
We'll be kafirs to the end and are keeping ('delaying' as they see it) the world from becoming an islamic 'pardees'/hell-hole. Just like our mere existence peeves the christians because we stand in the way of the christian promise/threat of the second-coming.
Heretic muslims/christians are a secondary problem to the christoislamic ideology, first problem is the unsaved kafir. Of course, local problems are dealt with first, because they're easier to deal with: hence TSP and Afghanistan terrorise their 'errant' womenfolk. But they never let off intending to (and indeed, carrying out) j-hading dar-ul-harb nations.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Husky @ Apr 16 2007, 10:43 AM)
Why do these people's narratives count at all in the Hindu narrative and if they have to, why should their versions contribute equally to it? Why should all Hindu narratives be weighted equally?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not easy questions to answer.
The only way I can rephrase your question is "Why should I not show hate and contempt for these despicable turncoats and traitors?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wah? My suggestion wasn't that Hindus go and hate the frauds. Don't know where you got that from.
(1) I was trying to suggest that <b>pretenders' versions</b> should be ignored in the Hindu narrative you wish to get constructed because they are <i>not</i> Hindu. They are often not even self-confessed Hindus, except on the rare occasions when they choose to claim the label to use it as a passcard to speak against Hinduism in favour of christoislamicterrorism.
Teesta Seetalvad is a 'psecular' Indian officially (she has Hindu parentage, but I don't think she admits to being a Hindu). Unofficially, she's an undeclared muslimah. Whether islamics and the mullah accept her or not is not my problem. She's a muslimah in her private view.
(2) Also, I suggested that Hindu <b>dhimmis' versions</b> be not accorded equal weight in the overall narrative.
Going back to the frauds and posers of <b>(1)</b>, many pseculars today are officially not Hindu: Rahul Bose does not say he's Hindu, nor do many another. They declare themselves as secular (though quite a few of them are christoislamics, like the christian Arundhati Roy). Why should their views count at all in the overall Hindu narrative? Then we might as well let in all the world's ummah and missionaries and converted sheep to tell the Hindu story again.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The only thing they have in their favor is that they still choose to use Hindu names and describe themselves as Hindu.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You lost me. Arundhati Roy, for example, doesn't officially wear her real name on her sleeve (Suzanne), but we must still all accept her as a Hindu because she still subtly pretends to be? Many psecular Indians choose to (ab)use their names in a similar manner precisely for this reason and do so far more overtly.
Reminds me of the christoterrorists in Korea who go around preaching they had been Buddhist monks who then saw the light of jeebus and converted to saving christianity (e.g. look for occurrences of the word 'monk at http://www.buddhapia.com/eng/tedesco/2.html ). Or the Chinese communists who dress up like Tibetan monks and then do all kinds of criminal activities to bring ill-fame to real monks in Tibet - do they counts as Tibetan Buddhists?
My point was, authentic Hindu voices deserve to be heard. Pretenders to Hinduism should be ignored. Hindu perspective according to dhimmis (Hrithik Roshan for instance) should be weighted less than knowledgeable Hindus' versions.
Never mind. Go ahead, construct the narrative - minus mine. I'm curious to see how it turns out any different from what the christoislamics have so far projected Hindu Dharma as.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Whose narrative is more damaging to sharia, the very foundation of Islam? Yours or Teestas?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Mine o'course. Teesta is a heretic muslim. I'm an infidel. She's already converted, just needs to be restrained. People like myself can't be converted.
Sharia isn't the foundation of islam, sharia is merely the islamic law to govern <i>muslims in their lands</i>.
According to mohammed, allah has plans to make the entire world islamic. We, infidels, are in the way of their allah's plan. There's no bigger thorn in the eye of the ummah and their alleged allah than an infidel.
We'll be kafirs to the end and are keeping ('delaying' as they see it) the world from becoming an islamic 'pardees'/hell-hole. Just like our mere existence peeves the christians because we stand in the way of the christian promise/threat of the second-coming.
Heretic muslims/christians are a secondary problem to the christoislamic ideology, first problem is the unsaved kafir. Of course, local problems are dealt with first, because they're easier to deal with: hence TSP and Afghanistan terrorise their 'errant' womenfolk. But they never let off intending to (and indeed, carrying out) j-hading dar-ul-harb nations.