Here once again, you seem to be in no mood of talking, who's playing the victim here or if I'm not being aggressive here that makes me the victim to you? Is that it? I'm genuinely asking.
Strange comment to make to someone who is replying to ALL your posts.
Second, that's the point, your use of the word 'Jihad' doesn't mean that is the only use. That's what I'm trying to show you, it means different things to different people. Does that not seem to be important for you to take into consideration?
I never claimed that is the only use of the word Jihad. My own definition provided an alternate meaning.
Why should I consider its secondary meaning when I was using that word in its primary context and reference ?
Third, obviously, everyone has a right to their opinion but as certain you are about RSS and I'm merely pointing out that that's what it has been known to do, it has been documented to do, it has been doing and I'm pointing that out and not even judging it makes you want to throw that away. Why? The culture and historical context of Hinduism is being used in a more militant and less tolerant form, by that, what it means in the most basic sense is the black and white thinking: I'm right, you're wrong mentality. Again, as I pointed out, this is a political and not a religious phenomenon. There is no debate, just perhaps your ideology coming in? (I'm questioning, not assuming and you can see I've not used any ideology in my arguments to you)
Awaiting your response, sir.
