Featured Delhi Muslims fear they will never see justice for religious riot atrocities

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

Zia ul Haq's involvement in Afghanistan was primarily because he was a supporter of the Tableeghi Jamaat.

you are mad. ask people from that generation and they will tell you Soviets were a threat to the sovereignty of Pakistan, especially the threat of a 2 front war with India and Soviets. Soviets needed to go and everyone else saw it the same way. that is why even the Gulf Arabs helped in defeating the Soviets.

Do Russia and Syria have land connection ?

no. but Syria does have warm water ports in the Mediterranean, which Russia uses. good for exerting their influence.

Then preach your hate in Pakistan against those Pakistani leftists

i hate every leftist, every liberal, every gay, and every communist. Pakistani ones more than others.

And preach for the filthy Taliban, Al Qaeda, FSA etc.

talk about a strawman. in that case go preach for Stalin. like my strawman?

muslims are talking about making a state where there was piety, opportunity, justice for all, and no poverty, like in the early decades of islamic rule when islam was fully implemented.

Lastly, may I ask your age ?

31

 

[jamahir]

biggest bullshit statement, infact a good amount of islamic literature covers how to divide war booty
and women folk of non believers lol

You should read Islamic literature on the caring of cats, on property inheritance laws, on economics and, like I posted earlier, marriage law.

Islam was 90% sword thats why its weakening day by day

What does that mean ?

read the Hindu genocide specially in the modern pakistani region and north India

The Biggest Holocaust in World History

This article is about the worst religious bigotry and persecution ever against Hindus and the large number of Hindus killed in medieval India by Muslim Rulers

www.hinduwebsite.com

The website is hardly some credible, intellectual source :

a. "Hindu genocide" is a wrong phrase because Hindu kings have killed other Hindus for 2000 years or so. Take the Mahabharata War as example, if it ever did happen. Why is Hindu-on-Hindu acceptable ?

b. Hindu kingdoms have genocided Buddhism to the extent that most of South India no longer has Buddhist artifacts and buildings. Yet the website contradictorily has a page on Buddhism.

c. The current Hindutvadi-ruled state of Uttar Pradesh has passed a law forbidding "Mass conversion", basically to prevent Dalits from converting to Buddhism.

d. The website's page on Buddhism does not mention Ambedkar and 365,000 of his followers converting to Buddhism in 1956.

e. Muslim kingdoms have attacked other Muslim kingdoms in India ( Take the Hyderabad nizam against Tipu Sultan ) and some of the Muslim kings employed Hindu generals and soldiers as well. So it is not a simplistic thing.
​

 

[jamahir]

ask people from that generation and they will tell you Soviets were a threat to the sovereignty of Pakistan, especially the threat of a 2 front war with India and Soviets.

That is a myth. A few active progressive Pakistanis fled to socialist Afghanistan during that time, including ZAB's sons. So quite a few Pakistanis, then and now, will disagree with you.

Soviets needed to go and everyone else saw it the same way.

That "everyone else" was the Western bloc and their puppets in the East and elsewhere.

that is why even the Gulf Arabs helped in defeating the Soviets.

Saudia, supposedly the "Custodian of the two holy mosques", is a puppet of USA.

no. but Syria does have warm water ports in the Mediterranean, which Russia uses. good for exerting their influence.

Russia has a military port in Tartus, not commercial and scientific. How does that exert its influence ?

i hate every leftist, every liberal, every gay, and every communist. Pakistanis ones more than others.

Do you hate leftists because you have been told to do so ? What all things do you object about leftist thought ?

muslims are talking about making a state where there was piety, opportunity, justice for all, and no poverty, like in the early decades of islamic rule when islam was fully implemented.

The Taliban rule in Afghanistan in the 90s and soon coming now, was all about piety. Certainly not about opportunity, justice for all and anti-poverty. Do you support that ?

31

Maybe you will mellow down in three or four years. Don't let the mullahs brainwash you.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

That is a myth. A few active progressive Pakistanis fled to socialist Afghanistan during that time, including ZAB's sons. So quite a few Pakistanis, then and now, will disagree with you.

sure buddy. most Pakistanis are wrong. you can hold on to the handful of Pakistani murtad liberals and their views. Soviets and communists are angels. all hail Stalin and Chairman Mao.

That "everyone else" was the Western bloc and their puppets in the East and elsewhere.



Saudia, supposedly the "Custodian of the two holy mosques", is a puppet of USA.

no. our enmity with ideas like communism and liberal thinking (anti-religion) goes way back, long before the current world order. we would have fought them whether the West helped us or not.

Russia has a military port in Tartus, not commercial and scientific. How does that exert its influence ?

you are right. Russians have a military port there because their sailors like eastern Mediterranean fish. no influence.

Do you hate leftists because you have been told to do so ? What all things do you object about leftist thought ?

leftists are apostates, and their ideology is kufr. hating leftists is an article of faith, especially communists.

The Taliban rule in Afghanistan in the 90s and soon coming now, was all about piety. Certainly not about opportunity, justice for all and anti-poverty. Do you support that ?

no. Taliban were nowhere near the ideal muslim state. they had a lot of their own local laws derived from their customs and history. however, Taliban barely ruled for a few years. Soviets ruled for a lot longer, and what the hell did they accomplish? poverty eradicated? justice for all? no, yet you still love them. nice strayman btw. i talked about the early islamic period and its principles, and you keep trying to bring me back to taliban and al qaeda. all the while you dodge talking about your heroes, Stalin and Mao.

Maybe you will mellow down in three or four years. Don't let the mullahs brainwash you.

if anything i hate leftists and communists more than i did 10 years ago. luckily there arent many such people in the muslim world. the handful you and the non-muslims love to champion are just that, a handful, with no sway on the majority.

 

[hussain0216]

No comments as of now. We hope to reverse this pseudo-nationalist trend and come back a United India again. But this time not to fight you but win against you with a charm offensive.

That was ALWAYS the threat

What Indians don't always understand, is that if Kashmir went to Pakistan in 1947 and we had no reason for open conflict, India would be the centre of South Asia now

It was conflict that ensured Pakistan became a nuclear power, a heavily armed state and a counter to India

Even as little as a few years ago, if India simply said we want open trade with Pakistan, invite all our stars, lure our corrupt money hungry business men and politicians, we would be stuck

The hindutva Extremism and poison which has ended contact, ensured hatred, justified that hatred in Pakistan continues to keep Pakistani heads clear and pushing for military capability

Hindutva is the biggest weapon Pakistan has, even bigger than nuclear warheads or our military

It's just that very few understand this, thankfully

 

[Tumba]

You should read Islamic literature on the caring of cats, on property inheritance laws, on economics and, like I posted earlier, marriage law.



What does that mean ?



The website is hardly some credible, intellectual source :

​

a. "Hindu genocide" is a wrong phrase because Hindu kings have killed other Hindus for 2000 years or so. Take the Mahabharata War as example, if it ever did happen. Why is Hindu-on-Hindu acceptable ?​

​

b. Hindu kingdoms have genocided Buddhism to the extent that most of South India no longer has Buddhist artifacts and buildings. Yet the website contradictorily has a page on Buddhism.​

​

c. The current Hindutvadi-ruled state of Uttar Pradesh has passed a law forbidding "Mass conversion", basically to prevent Dalits from converting to Buddhism.​

​

d. The website's page on Buddhism does not mention Ambedkar and 365,000 of his followers converting to Buddhism in 1956.​

​

e. Muslim kingdoms have attacked other Muslim kingdoms in India ( Take the Hyderabad nizam against Tipu Sultan ) and some of the Muslim kings employed Hindu generals and soldiers as well. So it is not a simplistic thing.​

​

see this is typical response of any islamist, nothing better was expected from you anyway..
by sword means that is how basically islam was spread in 90% of subjugated populace after that came regressive laws the sufi sect was nothing but a soft ingress before islamic barbarians came to that area
this was well documented in almost all region islam became majority...

regarding Hindu genocide its appalling how easily you dismiss this when literally a whole mountain range in pakistan is named after Hindu killing... lol

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

regarding Hindu genocide its appalling how easily you dismiss this when literally a whole mountain range in pakistan is named after Hindu killing... lol

if this is the kind of logic you are going to use, then did the Hindus kill all the Chinese in Aksai Chin? its got China's name in that title. lol

 

[Tumba]

if this is the kind of logic you are going to use, then did the Hindus kill all the Chinese in Aksai Chin? its got China's name in that title. lol

I posted whole historical recorded genocide of Hindus in modern day pakistan and India didnt you checked same
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.asp
and regarding
Aksai Chin is a relatively recent Chinese sponsored Uighur name<given by some turkish barbarian>. Ladakhis & Tibetans called it by the Sanskrit name "Gosthana"(=place of the cows). Han Chinese have no history or presence in the region. They are just recent occupiers Use original name & show them their place.

 

[peagle]

That is a myth. A few active progressive Pakistanis fled to socialist Afghanistan during that time, including ZAB's sons. So quite a few Pakistanis, then and now, will disagree with you.

Come on Jamahir, there is a difference between myth and reality,
you are basing your reality on few individuals.

But the reality is if to your East is your biggest enemy, and to your, West comes and sits the most powerful country in the world, that's also a friend of your biggest enemy, alarm bells are going to ring so loud that you'd be awakened from your grave.

let's not get stuck in self-created truths. For Pakistan, the Soviets sitting in Afghanistan was a major threat, and it needed to be dealt up, there cannot be two opinions about that fact. The Soviet had signed a defence Pack and helped India in East Pakistan just 8 years before they invaded Afghanistan.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

Come on Jamahir, there is a difference between myth and reality,
you are basing your reality on few individuals.

But the reality is if to your East is your biggest enemy, and to your, West comes and sits the most powerful country in the world, that's also a friend of your biggest enemy, alarm bells are going to ring so loud that you'd be awakened from your grave.

let's not get stuck in self-created truths. For Pakistan, the Soviets sitting in Afghanistan was a major threat, and it needed to be dealt up, there cannot be two opinions about that fact. The Soviet had signed a defence Pack and helped India in East Pakistan just 8 years before they invaded Afghanistan.

that guy is a communist apologist. he is like the hippies of yesteryear, a dreamer with no semblance of reality.

 

[peagle]

that guy is a communist apologist. he is like the hippies of yesteryear, a dreamer with no semblance of reality.

No yaar, he is OK, he's a good guy.
But, a person cant be right all the time, and there is nothing wrong with letting them know.

 

[jamahir]

see this is typical response of any islamist, nothing better was expected from you anyway..

Here are you calling me an "Islamist" and here is @PakistaniAtBahrain refusing to accept me as a Muslim.

by sword means that is how basically islam was spread in 90% of subjugated populace after that came regressive laws the sufi sect was nothing but a soft ingress before islamic barbarians came to that area

How would you compare those Islamic "barbarians" to beliefs in Hinduism like sati and caste system ?

regarding Hindu genocide its appalling how easily you dismiss this when literally a whole mountain range in pakistan is named after Hindu killing... lol

Here is the origin of that name. Find any real genocide about it :

Etymology

Hindu-Killer

Hindu Kush is generally translated as 'Killer of Hindu' or 'Hindu-Killer', due the dangerous passes located in those mountains. Boyle's Persian-English dictionary indicates that the suffix -koš [koʃ] is the present stem of the verb 'to kill' (koštan کشتن). According to linguist Francis Joseph Steingass, the suffix -kush means 'a male; (imp. of kushtan in comp.) a killer, who kills, slays, murders, oppresses as azhdaha-kush.'

The name may be a reminder of the days when slaves from the Indian subcontinent died in the harsh weather typical of the Afghan mountains while being taken from India to Turkestan. In his travel memoirs about Khorasan, the 14th-century Moroccan traveller Ibn Baṭṭuṭa mentioned crossing into India via the mountain passes of the Hindu Kush. In his Rihla, he states that the name of the mountain range translates to 'Hindu-slayer' due to slaves from India dying there:

After this I proceeded to the city of Barwan, in the road to which is a high mountain, covered with snow and exceedingly cold; they call it the Hindu Kush, that is Hindu-slayer, because most of the slaves brought thither from India die on account of the intenseness of the cold.
— Ibn Batutta, Chapter XIII, Rihla – Khorasan

Geographer Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859) states that it can be learned from his work that the name only referred to a single mountain pass upon which many Indian slaves died of the cold weather.Although the first recorded use of the name dates from 1000 CE, scholar Ervin Grötzbacht argues that the name is "missing from the accounts of the early Arab geographers and occurs for the first time in Ibn Baṭṭuṭa (ca. 1330)".

Alternate theories

Several other theories have been propounded as to the origins of the name Hindu Kush. According to Hobson-Jobson, the name might be a corruption of Indicus Caucasus, with another explanation mentioned first by Ibn Batuta remaining popular despite doubts upon it, and the modification of the name by some later writers into Hindu Koh is factitious and reveals nothing on the name's origin.

According to Nigel Allan, the term Hindu Kush has been commonly seen to mean 'Hindu killer', but two alternate meanings are 'sparkling snows of India' and 'mountains of India', with Kush possibly being a soft variant of the Persian Kuh ('mountain'). Another theory suggests the word 'Hindu' in Hindu Kush is derived from the same root as sindhu, meaning 'river', while Kush is a variant of the Persian word for mountain. Allan states that, to Arab geographers, Hindu Kush was the frontier boundary where Hindustan started. Another possibility is that the name may be from the ancient Avestan language, with the meaning 'water mountain'.

Some 19th century encyclopaedias and gazetteers state that the term Hindu Kush originally applied only to the peak in the area of the Kushan Pass, which had become a centre of the Kushan Empire by the first century.

But we really should name something in India after the Buddhist genocide, because it really occured.

Soviets ruled for a lot longer, and what the hell did they accomplish?

Among others things :

a. Ideological influence among sensitive and empathetic people around the world. Like Carlos ( the Jackal ) who was a Venezuelan but found the Palestine cause worth agitating for.

b. The Soviets had a manned Mars program started in the early 70s and planned to be executed in the 80s. The legacy of its knowledge in space operations is now being used even by the West.

What did Zia ul Haq achieve, other than destroy Afghanistan ?

we would have fought them whether the West helped us or not.

1. Who is this "we" ?

2. Get those "we" ( like Al Qaeda ) to fight the Syrian government ( which you hate ) without West-provided armaments and political support.

leftists are apostates, and their ideology is kufr. hating leftists is an article of faith, especially communists.

You seem to think that Islam is all about prayer, ritual, festival and dress code. If so how is it different from say, Jainism and Hinduism ?

For Pakistan, the Soviets sitting in Afghanistan was a major threat, and it needed to be dealt up, there cannot be two opinions about that fact. The Soviet had signed a defence Pack and helped India in East Pakistan just 8 years before they invaded Afghanistan.

Defence pact notwithstanding, why didn't Zia ul Haq just do a brave thing and patched up with the USSR ?

that guy is a communist apologist. he is like the hippies of yesteryear, a dreamer with no semblance of reality.

Nothing wrong in dreaming. Someone dreamed up the internet ( which you are using ) and others like Elon Musk are dreaming up Mars settlements.

I dream of a world where, among other things, lack of money will not keep you blind or let you die of cancers or keep you hungry and homeless.

What is your dream ?

 

[magra]

You have corrected described the complicated political system followed by India ( as also other such "democracies" ). All this parties, the drama of five-yearly-elections, non-strategic goals, the demagogy etc. it's been almost 74 years since India's Independence yet India has so many ills which have not be eradicated by the country's political, economic and social systems.

What we should instead have is Direct Democracy guided by leftist thought. Like Libya before 2011. Or what Hugo Chavez adapted that system for his Venezuela. Even Elon Musk speaks for Direct Democracy for near-future Mars settlements.

I tried to read through and understand what Direct Democracy is. It was too complicated for me to understand. Can you please explain to me in simple terms.
Changing the form of democracy would require a significant revamp and probably 2/3rd majority vote in Parliament. Hence it is unlikely to happen.
What I proposed - about carefully analyzing and choosing the best candidate irrespective of party - can be done individually by the voting public without any change in the law. What are your thoughts on that?

There can be an NGO which can upload this information (education, criminal record, past performance, 5 year plan for the constituency) about each candidate on a website. Voters can go through this info and make up their mind. Such an NGO can also send questionaire to each candidate asking various questions related to agenda. Answers to these can be posted on the site as well.
We need to assess them like we choose the best candidate out of available in a job interview. MNCs dont care about your gender, financial background, region, religion, caste etc. They check your criminal background, assess you on your competence and past record, assess your suitability and passion for the role, ask you questions about your future plans and hire you based on that.

 

[magra]

its got nothing to do with education and birth rate. as hindutva grows, muslims will congregate and become majorities in some states.

good. we are counting on it. balkanisation of india needs the sort of crackdown on muslim majority states like what you people are doing in Kashmir. this helps us out massively. carry on.

Keeping firm does not necessarily mean cracking down. If the muslims want to congregate into majority zones just for their own security and do not have the agenda to break off, then cracking down wont be needed. If they do intend to breakoff, then the state will have to sadly crack down.

hilarious assessment. India's interference in East Pakistan long before 71 shows India's true colours. proxy war and dirty tactics were always initiated by India.

The issue was created by Pakistan doing Operation Searchlight and causing mass exodus of millions of East Pakistanis into India. India was forced to intervene then to alleviate the problem. If Bangladesh was strong enough today, they would have probably done the same with Myanmar to solve Rohingya issue.

then Junagarh belongs to Pakistan. but the will of the people was with India. so we have no issue with it being part of India, despite the legalities. people of Kashmir want Pakistan, but India doesnt care about the will of the people. they are only interested in what puppets like sheikh abdullah think.

How many times will you ask the same question. I have already replied to you earlier.
Junagarh is surrounded completely by Indian territory. You would have lost it anyways the same way you lost Bangladesh. We did hold a plebiscite in Junagarh where 99% voted for India. We could have done similar plebiscite in J&K had Pakistan followed the 1948 UN resolution. As per UN resolution, first step was for Pakistan to withdraw all its regular and irregular forces from all parts of J&K. Pakistan never did that. This is because you were only interested in grabbing land.

Bangladesh wont want to fight. but it will happen. history is nothing but geography on wheels.

So you are not sure, but hoping it will happen. Inshallah?

fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan was a must. if they settled down there then there would have been a front war against Pakistan, with Soviets in the West and India in the East. Soviets have also always wanted ports and access to warm waters, such as Karachi, and one of the reasons why Russia supports Assad in Syria.

I am not going to debate whether you should or should not have fought with Soviets. However, as per my opinion, the way you indoctrinated a large section of your youth, handed them arms and sent them to fight in Afg, that is the problem. It changed Pakistan from a moderate Muslim nation to a more extremist version. You should have used your army to fight for nationalistic reasons instead of making it some kind of Islamic jihadi war and using irregular forces.

 

[magra]

That was ALWAYS the threat

What Indians don't always understand, is that if Kashmir went to Pakistan in 1947 and we had no reason for open conflict, India would be the centre of South Asia now

It was conflict that ensured Pakistan became a nuclear power, a heavily armed state and a counter to India

Even as little as a few years ago, if India simply said we want open trade with Pakistan, invite all our stars, lure our corrupt money hungry business men and politicians, we would be stuck

The hindutva Extremism and poison which has ended contact, ensured hatred, justified that hatred in Pakistan continues to keep Pakistani heads clear and pushing for military capability

Hindutva is the biggest weapon Pakistan has, even bigger than nuclear warheads or our military

It's just that very few understand this, thankfully

I agree with you apart from your first statement regarding Kashmir.
Hari Singh wanted to remain independent and signed stand-still agreements with both India and Pak.
It was only after Pakistan lost its patience and tried to force merge by sending its irregular forces sneakily that Hari Singh had to appeal India for help and acceded the state to India.
Even after that, when India approached UN for solution and UN gave its non-binding resolution in 1948, we could have achieved peace had Pakistan followed it. 1st step in the resolution asked for Pakistan to withdraw all its regular and irregular forces from the entirety of J&K. That never happened.