Search results

nope read the text of your ancestors like baburname, ghori nama, timur nama etc. and then tell. women were liberated before that.

do not digress. criminals are there everywhere.. this seems to be a staged thing. newspaper reporter was the cause of the problem

you forgot the recent and probably most important branch ahmdis

only muslms.. so its only a shame for men from that community

they will get 27% reservation and lead a royal life at govt expense.

today its an issue with these guys because, they learnt it after 1000 ad. before that it was not an issue.

what you are sayying even dawood and his whole gang from india are in pak with pak citizenship.

the fate that awaited ravans and duryodhans was the reason that indian women were safe till abut 1000ad. those kind of men are in india because they learnt well from the invaders from the west that nothing can happen to them paks are mistaking govt and institutional discrimantion with some...

doesnt mean much.. but if you look at the big pictuer in terms of centuries what i say is true

thats bcos they are kidnaped at gunpoint with a whole hood of blood sucking lecers cheering conversion.

ghoonghat was invented to keep women from the lecheros sight if invaders frm the west,

india has a long history of taking in refugees .. from parsis to brahmins centuries back to kashmiris and sindhis now.

the only way a fello hindu can get you is he runs over you in an accident

fair enough... i shall rephrase.. i just meant that even tho india is hindu majority muslims are not ill treated

feel sorry for them. mulims of india should feel thankful at the royal treatment they get here and the arrognat atitude they been allowed to develop. look at ajtr for instance.

someone told religion is personal connection between u and god, and now you saw its a public thing?

in your whole life you had only 1 teacher? not as persecuted as pak's minorities

then wht is real islam, sunnism, shiaism, ahmadism, wahbi, salafi, sufi deobandi.. they are all just different mistures naik is wrong.. krishna is not a prophet, he is god himself in an avatar of krishna. also wrong in saying qran has not changed. qoran has also changed, in the original...

if religion is a personal relationship why get it into politics as it happens in muslim majority countries? I see it just as a form of imperialism.

All my kashmiri friends call themselves Indian, I have at least 6 of them in regular touch and through them many more that I know of plebiscite no possible because if kashmir should belong to pakistan, then even bangladesh should get a share. how will that be managed?