Kashmir files vs The Shudra

[Maula Jatt]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1503386601015197697

 

[SuperStar20]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1503386601015197697

The number is less because all of them fled. If they stayed there, every one would have been killed.
There is no justification for driving them out from their home and region.

 

[Black Vigo]

1. "Complete rejection" are Ghulam Ahmed Pervez's words, not mine. I only speak for putting those texts to the test of reason and rationality and only then decide what to keep and what to reject. As Pervez says these works were created beginning a 100 years after the death of the Last Prophet but from them we know of nice things like the utter respect he and his comrades had for that sublime creature the cat. Yet the ritualist Tableeghi Jamaatis in my neighborhood who claim to be only spreading the words of Hazrat Muhammad will do the contradictory thing of hurrying to the mosque while five feet from them a cat is screaming because he or she is being attacked by five dogs, dogs that the TJ fellows themselves allowed to breed and gather in their neighborhood, dogs that are supposed to be haraam. Now, would Hazrat Muhammad have respected and adored the subtle cat but would not have been subtle about human rights ? Would he have tolerated dogs being around his house where his cat Muezza lived and if that cat would have ventured out of the house would have been tortured to death by the dogs ? Will those dunderhead TJ fellows think of such things ?

If those are his words why did you bother quoting him if you don't agree with that self proclaimed scholar's words? And decide what to keep and what to reject? What makes you think you disgusting creatures are allowed to accept or reject what words of our Holy prophet us Muslims should believe in? Whatever the hell those Tableeghis in India do have no affect on my thinking I sometimes even doubt you guys are Muslims at all because most of you even worship hindu idols just to prove you're loyal to India LOL, I don't know about Indian self proclaimed Muslims do but here in Pakistan anyone who is a Muslim is nice to animals be it cats or in your words the haram dogs

In case you forgot Allah forgave a vile woman just because of her once act of kindness towards a thirsty haram dog don't bark when you don't know what shit you utter from your filthy mouth

And who the hell told you I think Prophet Muhammad didn't care about human rights? He was the best humanitarian the world has ever witnessed

2. Islam does not generally need reformation, many current Muslims do. They have become misinformed and misguided through the clergy, the priests especially in a situation where Islam does not even have a clergy / priest system. Now look at the Islamic Golden Age some hundreds of years ago and which lasted for some hundreds of years and produced marvelous scientific and technological advancement not only for Muslims but for humanity. If you and I are interacting through computers it is because of technological work by the Greeks, then the Muslims and then the modern Europeans starting from the Renaissance. The Islamic Golden Age would never have occurred if all the Muslims then would have been like the TJ and the Taliban. Ritualist drones led by priests. The below picture posted in the "Islamic Golden Age" thread in the 'Technology & Science' forum section sums it up :

"generally" LOL thanks for showing your true colors go form your own religion Islam needs NO reformation your filthy brain however certainly does, and the clergy is the opposite extreme of you filthy proggies both of you are a cancer to Islam's image

There are many bright Muslims even in this day and age but yeah you filthy progressives want something to throw dirt on Islam

3. Writing "P.B.U.H" does not mean you really respect the words and ideas of that man, you simply write it because you have been imposed about it by your unthoughtful environment and you obeyed it unquestioningly. Try to be empathetic to that man and see if he was as non-subtle as you are unfortunately being.

Talk about heavy projection, just because you're a filthy person doesn't mean we are alike I write (P.B.U.H) because I love prophet Muhammad as he loved us, I am not braindead like you that I follow things blindly

You're a commie despite knowing how much of a grand failure that ideology was and how it brought death and destruction in its path yet here you are a brain dead communist shit

But if you accept one part of the verse why are you rejecting the other part ? Can you create a thread on PDF that declares your intention to bring back slavery all over the world in 2022 ?

Excuse me? I accept every verse of the Quran without question unlike you murtads who think they are above Allah's words

Let me enlighten you what slavery really means in Islam

Islam came to find slavery existing in every part of the world. At that time, slavery was practiced through different means; people were enslaved through kidnapping and abduction, wars, and debts. Islam abolished all of these means with the exclusion of the enslavement of war prisoners. In its characteristic manner of introducing rulings, Islam did not abruptly abolish slavery but banned it by degrees to maintain social stability. The phenomenon of slavery existed in all the communities around the world and slaves were considered an important resource in the social and economic life of ancient times. Enslavement [in general] and the enslavement of prisoners of wars was legally institutionalized worldwide. Islam limited the sources of slavery with the aim of abolishing it; Islam prohibited enslaving anyone except those captured in battles when Muslims fought and defended themselves against tyrant enemies. This prohibition included the offspring of previously taken slaves. Islam allowed the enslavement of those who fought against Muslims in non-Muslim countries including women and children. However, it is only the Muslim ruler who was entitled to decide this according to what he sees as being in the best interest of Muslims. It was categorically forbidden to enslave anyone who did not fight Muslims. Enslaving a warrior is less evil than killing him. Islam prohibited the killing of female captives of war and substituted this with enslavement. In spite of this, Islam set certain ethics for the good treatment of slaves. It urged Muslims to treat them kindly and not harm them and prohibited any aggression against them. Out of its eagerness for freeing all people, Islam expanded the means for emancipating slaves by making the manumission of a slave an of sins. These include breaking the fast in the month of Ramadan, zihar (wherein a husband deems his wife as unlawful to him as his mother), involuntary manslaughter, breaking oaths and the like. At the outset, Islam urged its followers to emancipate slaves and then limited the sources of slavery to help in its abolishment. Islam commanded Muslims to treat slaves kindly until they obtained their freedom. This was stated in multiple texts of the shari'ah in which slaves were described as brothers to their masters since they shared with them the brotherhood of humanity which necessitated being merciful towards them and respecting their dignity. Mercy towards slaves was expanded and their emancipation was prescribed as an expiation for beating or abusing them. As a result of such great mercy towards slaves, people entered Islam in multitudes. Islam's stance on slavery Islam observed a noble stance towards the institution of slavery; it limited its sources, increased the means towards their freedom, and exhorted Muslims to treat them kindly and emancipate them. This differed from what prevailed worldwide at that time and [the evil practices] of slave traders in later centuries after the discovery of the new world. Slavery ended worldwide after the international treaty for the abolishment of slavery was signed in Berlin in 1860 AD. This has become a binding system that disallows anyone to enslave another. Ruling Based on the above, slavery is impermissible in the Shari'ah. By virtue of the above mentioned treaty, all humans are deemed free and cannot be bought or sold. Muslims signed international treaties to end slavery which came in accordance with Islam's desire to limit its sources and expand the means towards freedom. Thus, all people are free as God the Almighty created them. God the Almighty knows best.

Quoted from: https://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewFatwa.aspx?ID=6830

Islam actually worked towards freedom of slaves rather than reinforce slavery but yes your kind is slaves to Hindu Indians who treat you worse than dogs so it's understandable

Why are you going from one extreme to another - from total isolation / no interaction to living together ? No, I reject the "living in" concept, not because of some priest-imposed fake-moralist reasons but there has to be subtlety in gender interaction. Some days ago I posted this :

You and I both know how majority of men think and that isn't their fault either this is how Allah created humans

There is a reason why most of the marriages in the west end in divorce after a few months
There is a reason why so many single mothers and fathers exist in the west
There is a reason why so many children are robbed of a stable childhood

And even if it doesn't involve sex what you're proposing is that men should spend time with women for weeks/months/years and then decide whether they are compatible or not? Yeah nice alternative play with a girl's feeling and break her completely and leave her unable to trust any other man

I am not against relationship but it must involve her parents and a relationship should be permitted only when the man gives his word to marry the woman even then there shouldn't be anything sexual or intimate but you're that bollywood kind so this modesty will go over your head

From where did you bring this concept ? Why not bring the whole town ? What you are describing is the Western concept of the chaperon.

You said I go from one extreme to another yet you did the same thing lol
I said any of those relatives are fine a man can go with his parents and a woman has her own parents with her this ensures a safe environment and I'm not even talking about them having to talk in front of the rest of the family they can find a secluded place anywhere near their parents to get to know each other

How are the "proggies" puppets of anyone ? Who is a Communist a puppet of ? Of course I hold myself in control of Nature which is supreme. Apart from that no one.

Those who want to "reform" Islam are motivated by their masters to do so aka the west
and who is a communist a puppet of? Those who are enemies of Islam such as yourself

Who gave you the right to speak in a fear-mongering way on behalf of Allah ?

Who gave you the right to speak on behalf of women? Who gave you the right to speak on behalf of all Muslims to reform Islam? Who gave you the right to speak on what hadiths to accept or reject?

In my case it is Allah's law I am merely relaying those words but when it comes to you that's not the case

By the way you only counter my questions with other questions instead of refuting them I wonder why? If you don't have anything other than this to say don't bother saying anything at all
You'll find out soon enough where your ambitions to "reform" Islam and rejecting hadiths will lead you towards

 

[Joe Shearer]

The number is less because all of them fled. If they stayed there, every one would have been killed.
There is no justification for driving them out from their home and region.

Nor does that amount to justification of civilian deaths and the deaths of the uninvolved in Kashmir.

Deploring the harsh treatment of Kashmiri Pandits in no way prevents us from deploring breaches of human rights of other Kashmiris. These are not mutually exclusive.

what shit you utter from your filthy mouth

Please control yourself.

 

[Black Vigo]

Please control yourself.

Don't poke your nose where it does not belong mind your own business

 

[Joe Shearer]

Don't poke your nose where it does not belong mind your own business

It belongs to any public discussion. Your descending to the use of gutter language shows complete loss of self-control.

 

[Black Vigo]

It belongs to any public discussion. Your descending to the use of gutter language shows complete loss of self-control.

I will use whatever language pleases me
And yes it is gutter language perfect for dealing with gutter individuals such as yourself

 

[Joe Shearer]

I will use whatever language pleases me
And yes it is gutter language perfect for dealing with gutter individuals such as yourself

I don't mind being called a gutter individual.

My objection was to your using bad language against someone using polite, restrained language to discuss a matter with you.

 

[jamahir]

Oh man, in revolutionary societies like the USSR, ideally people like Bravo6ix are reasoned with by rationals, intellectuals and revolutionaries and when the process is unsuccessful Bravo6ix types are sent off to gulags to do things like gold mining and thus be of help to humanity for the first time in their lives and use the time there to reflect and change their misinformed, misguided, anti-human and irrational beliefs and acts. But I will reason with Bravo6ix again.

In case you forgot Allah forgave a vile woman just because of her once act of kindness towards a thirsty haram dog don't bark when you don't know what shit you utter from your filthy mouth

I know that story from the same general sources as you - one of the hadees works. Now let's be logical :

1. Was this "vile" woman any more vile than some burqa'ed stocks analyst or burqa'ed mediocre software engineer who is the one to actually help spread Capitalist oppression in the world ?

2. What if this thirsty dog once sated went to Hazrat Muhammad's house and along with its dog mates tortured to death Hazrat Muhammad's cat Muezza ?

3. Make up your mind. In your text above and in the rest of your post you are contradicting yourself by insulting me and Indian Muslims by equating us to dogs but then you are also writing volubly in favor of dogs. Question your confusion in this and in other matters.

If those are his words why did you bother quoting him if you don't agree with that self proclaimed scholar's words? And decide what to keep and what to reject? What makes you think you disgusting creatures are allowed to accept or reject what words of our Holy prophet us Muslims should believe in? Whatever the hell those Tableeghis in India do have no affect on my thinking I sometimes even doubt you guys are Muslims at all because most of you even worship hindu idols just to prove you're loyal to India LOL, I don't know about Indian self proclaimed Muslims do but here in Pakistan anyone who is a Muslim is nice to animals be it cats or in your words the haram dogs

I quoted Ghulam Ahmed Parvez's words because in other things I agree with him. He was an intellectual and a true scholar unlike that irrational mullah Maududi. What Parvez believed :

Parvez also insisted that Muslims should spend more time studying the modern sciences instead of wasting their energies on fighting out ancient sectarian conflicts or ignoring the true egalitarian and enlightening spirit of the Qu’ran by indulging in multiple rituals handed down to them by ancient ulema, clerics and compilers of the hadith.

Understandably, Parvez was right away attacked by conservative Islamic scholars and political outfits.

But this didn’t stop famous Muslim philosopher and poet, Muhammad Iqbal, to befriend the young scholar and then introduce him to the future founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Jinnah appointed Parvez to edit a magazine, Talu-e-Islam. It was set-up to propagate the creation of a separate Muslim country and to also answer the attacks that Jinnah’s All India Muslim League had begun to face from conservative Islamic parties and ulema who accused the League of being a pseudo-Muslim organisation and Jinnah for being too westernised and ‘lacking correct Islamic behavior.’

Apart from continuing to author books and commentaries on the Qu’ran, Parvez wrote a series of articles in Talu-e-Islam that propagated a more socialistic view of the holy book.

In a series of essays for the magazine he used verses from the Qu’ran, incidents from the faith’s history and insights from the writings of Muhammad Iqbal to claim:

The clergy and conservative ulema have hijacked Islam.

They are agents of the rich people and promoters of uncontrolled Capitalism.

Socialism best enforces Qur’anic dictums on property, justice and distribution of wealth.

Islam’s main mission was the eradication of all injustices and cruelties from society. It was a socio-economic movement, and the Prophet was a leader seeking to put an end to the capitalist exploitation of the Quraysh merchants and the corrupt bureaucracy of Byzantium and Persia.

According to the Qur’an, Muslims have three main responsibilities: seeing, hearing and sensing through the agency of the mind. Consequently, real knowledge is based on empirically verifiable observation, or through the role of science.

Poverty is the punishment of God and deserved by those who ignore science.

In Muslim/Islamic societies, science, as well as agrarian reform should play leading roles in developing an industrialised economy.

A socialist path is a correction of the medieval distortion of Islam through Shari’a.

Now that was was Parvez believed. What you believe in fervently is what the Taliban believe in. Give me one technological, political and socio-economic innovation that has come out from them since there emergence in the early 1990s. Like I said earlier, if Muslims were all simply the TJ and the Taliban then neither would have the Islamic Golden Age occurred nor in fact would have Islam happened. You would have been among those Quraish who opposed the emergence of early Islam.

There are many bright Muslims even in this day and age but yeah you filthy progressives want something to throw dirt on Islam

Yes there are many bright Muslims even in this day and age but you ask them if they would like to work in a natural and evolved environment maintained by us "filthy progressives" or that you Taliban types maintain.

You're a commie despite knowing how much of a grand failure that ideology was and how it brought death and destruction in its path yet here you are a brain dead communist shit

Modern Communism's description from Google is a simple one and goes thus :

Communism is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of property and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. Wikipedia

What is your objection to such a wonderful bunch of thoughts ? Do you want humanity to remain oppressed by the traditional, thousands-of-years-old Capitalist money system ? Or by rule of the State which is against democracy ? Or by people making profit from selling even basic human necessities like housing, food, water, healthcare, education and telecom ? Have you even once made a thread about the huge private housing construction companies in Pakistan, Bahria for example ? Have you ever questioned why your president or village elders or military chief or your father have authority automatically and you as a citizen do not even if you have some sensible point to make ?

Talk about heavy projection, just because you're a filthy person doesn't mean we are alike I write (P.B.U.H) because I love prophet Muhammad as he loved us, I am not braindead like you that I follow things blindly

But you are the one fanatically following things without understanding the context and import.

Excuse me? I accept every verse of the Quran without question unlike you murtads who think they are above Allah's words

Let me enlighten you what slavery really means in Islam

Islam came to find slavery existing in every part of the world. At that time, slavery was practiced through different means; people were enslaved through kidnapping and abduction, wars, and debts. Islam abolished all of these means with the exclusion of the enslavement of war prisoners. In its characteristic manner of introducing rulings, Islam did not abruptly abolish slavery but banned it by degrees to maintain social stability. The phenomenon of slavery existed in all the communities around the world and slaves were considered an important resource in the social and economic life of ancient times. Enslavement [in general] and the enslavement of prisoners of wars was legally institutionalized worldwide. Islam limited the sources of slavery with the aim of abolishing it; Islam prohibited enslaving anyone except those captured in battles when Muslims fought and defended themselves against tyrant enemies. This prohibition included the offspring of previously taken slaves. Islam allowed the enslavement of those who fought against Muslims in non-Muslim countries including women and children. However, it is only the Muslim ruler who was entitled to decide this according to what he sees as being in the best interest of Muslims. It was categorically forbidden to enslave anyone who did not fight Muslims. Enslaving a warrior is less evil than killing him. Islam prohibited the killing of female captives of war and substituted this with enslavement. In spite of this, Islam set certain ethics for the good treatment of slaves. It urged Muslims to treat them kindly and not harm them and prohibited any aggression against them. Out of its eagerness for freeing all people, Islam expanded the means for emancipating slaves by making the manumission of a slave an of sins. These include breaking the fast in the month of Ramadan, zihar (wherein a husband deems his wife as unlawful to him as his mother), involuntary manslaughter, breaking oaths and the like. At the outset, Islam urged its followers to emancipate slaves and then limited the sources of slavery to help in its abolishment. Islam commanded Muslims to treat slaves kindly until they obtained their freedom. This was stated in multiple texts of the shari'ah in which slaves were described as brothers to their masters since they shared with them the brotherhood of humanity which necessitated being merciful towards them and respecting their dignity. Mercy towards slaves was expanded and their emancipation was prescribed as an expiation for beating or abusing them. As a result of such great mercy towards slaves, people entered Islam in multitudes. Islam's stance on slavery Islam observed a noble stance towards the institution of slavery; it limited its sources, increased the means towards their freedom, and exhorted Muslims to treat them kindly and emancipate them. This differed from what prevailed worldwide at that time and [the evil practices] of slave traders in later centuries after the discovery of the new world. Slavery ended worldwide after the international treaty for the abolishment of slavery was signed in Berlin in 1860 AD. This has become a binding system that disallows anyone to enslave another. Ruling Based on the above, slavery is impermissible in the Shari'ah. By virtue of the above mentioned treaty, all humans are deemed free and cannot be bought or sold. Muslims signed international treaties to end slavery which came in accordance with Islam's desire to limit its sources and expand the means towards freedom. Thus, all people are free as God the Almighty created them. God the Almighty knows best.

Quoted from: https://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewFatwa.aspx?ID=6830

Islam actually worked towards freedom of slaves rather than reinforce slavery but yes your kind is slaves to Hindu Indians who treat you worse than dogs so it's understandable

You are a bunch of contradictions including in you trying to explain the presence of slavery system in Islam. Why can't you just say that that was an unfortunate inclusion ? You are being a one-track fanatic.

You and I both know how majority of men think and that isn't their fault either this is how Allah created humans

No, explain to me how men think and how females think.

There is a reason why most of the marriages in the west end in divorce after a few months

So you don't know that divorce as a codified law was introduced in Islam :

When we examine marriage laws in their historic context, it is interesting to note that the universally accepted notion that marriages are contractual rather than sacramental originates in Muslim law, which was accepted by the French law only in the 1800s and incorporated into the English law in the 1850s and became part of codified Hindu law as late as 1955. Today it appears to be the most practical way of dealing with the institution of marriage. Treating marriage as a sacrament which binds the parties for life has resulted in some of the most discriminatory practices against women such as sati and denial of right to divorce and remarriage, even in the most adverse conditions.

And who wrote the article of the above text ?

Married Muslim women, we find, are often on a higher and more secure footing than their counterparts from other religions. In fact, as a Christian marrying a Muslim, I chose to marry under the Muslim personal law, even over the seemingly modern Special Marriage Act, 1954, to better secure my economic rights. My mehr was a house in my name and my nikahnama includes necessary clauses to safeguard my and my children’s rights. My husband’s family members were witness to this document, which is registered and enforceable by law.

There is a reason why so many children are robbed of a stable childhood

Most of the criminals and psychopaths in human history will have been children from "stable childhoods".

And even if it doesn't involve sex what you're proposing is that men should spend time with women for weeks/months/years and then decide whether they are compatible or not? Yeah nice alternative play with a girl's feeling and break her completely and leave her unable to trust any other man

How are you deciding if the girl is not being in the relationship voluntarily ? You are just trying to impose your own regressive, religio-patriarchal view upon a girl who may have other ideas about this than you. You are talking just like Yogi Adityanath, the Hindutvadi monk / chief minister of Uttar Pradesh state in India. Here are some of Yogi's misogynist and suffocating views about females :

He believes women need male protection from birth to death and their ‘energy/power’ should be regulated or controlled, lest it become worthless and destructive.

He adds the shastras say that a woman is protected in her childhood by her father, by her husband in her youth and by her son in her old age — so that way a woman is not capable of being left free or independent.

You religious / fake-religious right-wing fanatics think alike.

I am not against relationship but it must involve her parents and a relationship should be permitted only when the man gives his word to marry the woman even then there shouldn't be anything sexual or intimate but you're that bollywood kind so this modesty will go over your head

You don't know this but an Islamic wedding need have only five people attending : the bride and groom, the officiating qazi and two witnesses and this wedding will be done with or without the consent of her parents. What is compulsory in an Islamic wedding is the consent of the bride. To continue from the previous article :

The cornerstone of a Muslim marriage is consent, ejab-o-qubul (proposal and acceptance) and requires the bride to accept the marriage proposal on her own free will. This freedom to consent (or refuse), which was given to Muslim women 1,400 years ago, is still not available under Hindu law since sacramental rituals such as saptapadi and kanya dan (seven steps round the nuptial fire and gifting of the bride to the groom) still form essential ceremonies of a Hindu marriage. Even after the codification of Hindu law, the notion of consent is not built into the marriage ceremonies.

So who are you talking like ? And read the article for more things that the friendly neighborhood mullah doesn't tell you.

You said I go from one extreme to another yet you did the same thing lol
I said any of those relatives are fine a man can go with his parents and a woman has her own parents with her this ensures a safe environment and I'm not even talking about them having to talk in front of the rest of the family they can find a secluded place anywhere near their parents to get to know each other

Instead of micro-managing this safe environment for the couple and imposing fake morality on them why don't you make the effort of creating a harmonious society where the female feels safe ? What you are proposing is as ridiculous as NGOs and state governments in India establishing martial arts for the females to protect themselves instead of the governments doing the real work to make the entire society harmonious and free of criminal tendencies.

Those who want to "reform" Islam are motivated by their masters to do so aka the west

LOL, huzoor, like I said it is you mullah types who have their masters based in the Western governments.

and who is a communist a puppet of? Those who are enemies of Islam such as yourself

LOL, that makes no sense. What you wrote is like what in computer programming is called recursive code.

Who gave you the right to speak on behalf of women?

Because I understand not all females are the chooi-mooi touch-me-not types that you imagine them to be.

Who gave you the right to speak on behalf of all Muslims to reform Islam? Who gave you the right to speak on what hadiths to accept or reject?

And if not me who, you a misinformed and misguided mullah-adoring boy ?

In my case it is Allah's law I am merely relaying those words but when it comes to you that's not the case

Again "It is Allah's law". You simply don't understand Islam. All you know is to repeat what some misguiding website like islamqa.info says.

By the way you only counter my questions with other questions instead of refuting them I wonder why? If you don't have anything other than this to say don't bother saying anything at all

I have countered you enough and given you Quranic verses towards that. And everyone has the right to question what is wrong and inform what is right.

You'll find out soon enough where your ambitions to "reform" Islam and rejecting hadiths will lead you towards

Ah, the lynch mob solution like what happened with Mashal Khan in a Pakistani college in 2017. A lynch mob is what irrational people like you are capable of. In return, what people like me recommend for your types is a rigorous round of gulag. If in Pakistan in 1951 Faiz Ahmed Faiz and his Socialist and Communist comrades had succeeded in bringing Socialist governance in Pakistan then you instead of being arrogant and irrational on this thread would have been working in the pink salt mine gulag in Khewra.

I will use whatever language pleases me
And yes it is gutter language perfect for dealing with gutter individuals such as yourself

Gutter individuals ? @Joe Shearer has had a long sensible life. You did not. You are just a teen taking hormone change advise from mullahs.

 

[INDIAPOSITIVE]

Half-Day For Assam Government Employees To Watch "The Kashmir Files"​

Half-Day For Assam Government Employees To Watch "The Kashmir Files"

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Tuesday announcedthat state government employees can avail a half-day leave to watch the recently released movie "Kashmir Files".

www.ndtv.com

The Kashmir Files now tax-free in Uttar Pradesh, announces Yogi Adityanath​

The Kashmir Files now tax-free in Uttar Pradesh, announces Yogi Adityanath

The film, which is at the center of a growing controversy, is based on mass killings and the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s. The movie has so far generated ₹42.20 crores at the box office within just four days of its release.

www.hindustantimes.com

The Kashmir Files Box Office Day 5 (Early Trends): Continues Its Record-Breaking Run Even On A Hot Tuesday!​

The Kashmir Files Box Office Day 5 (Early Trends): Continues Its Record-Breaking Run Even On A Hot Tuesday!

Vivek Agnihotri's film was initially touted to have a niche appeal and secured a limited screening of just 500 screens nationwide

www.koimoi.com

 

[fitpOsitive]

So it has become a formula in India to associate anything with Muslims, and get lot of thumbs ups.
Kashmir files, another flop story, is in a process of making big profits with same formula.
Here is glimpse on how bollywood is dying anyway.

@jamahir @Mentee @LeGenD

 

[hussain0216]

The number is less because all of them fled. If they stayed there, every one would have been killed.
There is no justification for driving them out from their home and region.

They betrayed Kashmir by siding with Indians against Kashmiri, how could they stay

 

[jamahir]

So it has become a formula in India to associate anything with Muslims, and get lot of thumbs ups.
Kashmir files, another flop story, is in a process of making big profits with same formula.
Here is glimpse on how bollywood is dying anyway.

@jamahir @Mentee @LeGenD

I don't think Bollywood is dying. It is just that any political references in its films have become crassly pro-Hindutva, whether in the tri-star film Sooryavanshi which has Bombay police officers battling against Muslim "terrorists" including Love Jihadis even if the entire country has Hindutvadi terrorists running riot, or the film Kesari which is set in 1897 and is funnily about Sikh soldiers in the colonizing British army, battling against Afghan raiders when the same Sikh soldiers should have been battling against the Britishers, or this latest film Kashmir Files which just in the last five days of its run has earned 60+ crores. All these are popular films which shows the change in the thinking of the masses.

In late 2014 was released the film Haider which was again about Kashmir but from the POV of those living under the military occupation. Some regular Hindi film masala elements were there but the film was a good attempt in trying to bring the Kashmir issue to the masses and because of that the pseudo nationalists / fake patriots / Hindutvadis called the film and its makers and the writer as "anti-nationals" as any sensible Indian is generally called. Listen to this nice song from that film - Aao na - which is set in a graveyard and is sardonic. I couldn't find the song's visuals of the gravediggers digging in the snowed ground. Modi had taken rule that year and there were threats to that film from his admirers. This is a nice background article for the film :

One post said on Twitter: “Any movie that sympathizes with terrorists, glorifies them; insults Indian Army & justifies ethnic cleansing, goes to the bin. #BoycottHaider.” The campaign’s Facebook page includes a photo of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a conservative whose election this year has emboldened Indians who advocate a muscular, unapologetic nationalism.

Journalists in India’s national media, however, greeted the movie with rapturous praise. The columnist Mukul Kesavan, writing in The Telegraph newspaper in Kolkata, said its “great achievement is to bring Kashmir out of the closet.” The Mint newspaper called it an “immensely effective reimagination of Shakespeare.”

The Hindu Front for Justice, a group of rightist lawyers, petitioned India’s Allahabad High Court to seek a ban on screenings of the film, arguing that “Haider” was against the “national interest.” Mr. Bhardwaj and Mr. Peer have until Nov. 15 to reply. The movie is likely to complete its theatrical run in India by mid-November, in any case.

Please read the rest of the article. And those in the media who had welcomed Haider in 2014 will be drowned out today in the shouts and lies of so-called journalists Arnab Goswami, Shweta Singh and their like. I watched Haider in the cinema when it was released and there were watchers despite the controversy.

In the 1950s however, as your vid says the theme of Bollywood was Socialism maybe because of the recent independence of the country in which Communist and Socialist idealism was somewhat more popular among the masses and the film crews than the crass right-wing turn of now. In 2019 I posted this thread which included references to Bollywood films of those times including Mother India many of which had Socialist themes :

Sukhi Lala generically was the moneylender-land grabber in the 1950s movie Mother India. He also appears as the land shark-zamindar in Bimal Roy’s Do Beegha Zameen, and as decadent Hari Babu in Ganga Jamuna. Sukhi Lala played the stock markets in Raj Kapoor’s Shri 420, and sold adulterated medicines in Nutan’s Anari. In Zia Sarhadi’s Footpath, Dilip Kumar underscored the evil of stock markets, derisively called satta bazaar in Nehru’s India. Indian peasants suffered Sukhi Lala’s greed and occasionally revolted violently against the excesses. Dilip Kumar’s Ganga and Sunil Dutt’s Birju would be jailed or killed in India today as Maoists [ Jamahir : the Communist Naxal guerrillas fighting the Indian State since the 1960s ].

Manmohan Singh called Maoists his biggest security threat, but offered no comment about why the peasants were committing suicide in thousands following his pro-Sukhi Lala economic policies in 1991. India’s finance minister recently flaunted the bahi-khata cover, the moneylender’s cash register, perhaps signalling who rules India today.

Another 1950s Socialist-themed film was Shree 420 :

A country boy, Raj (Raj Kapoor), from Allahabad, travels to the big city, Bombay, by walking, to earn a living. He falls in love with the poor but virtuous Vidya (Nargis), but is soon seduced by the riches of a freewheeling and unethical lifestyle presented to him by an unscrupulous and dishonest businessman, Seth Sonachand Dharmanand (Nemo) and the sultry temptress Maya (Nadira). He eventually becomes a confidence trickster, or "420," who even cheats in card gambling. Vidya tries hard to make Raj a good man, but fails.

Meanwhile, Sonachand comes up with a Ponzi scheme to exploit poor people, whereby he promises permanent homes to them at just Rs. 100. The scheme pays off, as people start hoarding money for a home, even at the cost of other important things. Vidya's contempt for Raj increases even more. Raj becomes wealthy but soon realizes that he paid a very high price for it. When Raj discovers that Sonachand has no plans to fulfill his promises, he decides to make wrongs right.

Raj takes all the bond papers of the people's homes and tries to flee Sonachand's home, only to be caught by Sonachand and his cronies. In a scuffle that occurs, Sonachand shoots Raj and he falls unconscious. When people hear the shooting, they come and see Raj nearly dead. Sonachand tells police that Raj was trying to flee after stealing money from his safe, hence Sonachand shot him.

Upon this, the "dead" Raj springs back to life, and using pure logic, proves Sonachand's guilt. Sonachand and his partners are arrested, while Vidya happily forgives Raj. The film ends with Raj saying "Yeh 420 Nahin, Shree 420 Hain" ("These are not simply con men, they are respectable con men").

The film had a famous song which probably predicted the non-aligned stance of the Nehru government :
"Mera joota hai Japani
Ye patloon Englistani
Sar pe laal topi Rusi
Phir bhi dil hai Hindustani"

Shree 420 and other such Socialist-themed Bollywood films especially of Raj Kapoor were popular in the USSR.

And then from the 60s to the 80s there were escapist films like your vid says whose themes were either unrealistic romances or religion, though there were a few films which depicted social issues like women's rights or urban criminality or political corruption. About the last theme there was the wonderful satire Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro that has Naseeruddin Shah, Satish Shah and others ( you should watch it - part 1, part 2, part 3. You will enjoy a lot and think of society ). Though in the 1970s too there were some very good Bollywood films by the director Basu Chatterjee which were essentially social satires many a time about the middle class like Chhoti Si Baat. In the recent times I have watched very few Bollywood films including Rocket Singh : Salesman of the Year ( trailer ) which is about corporate greed and also the film is an inspiration to anyone who wants to start a company that too of what can be called a Communist type.

@Joe Shearer @DrJekyll, your choices ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't think Bollywood is dying. It is just that any political references in its films have become crassly pro-Hindutva, whether in the tri-star film Sooryavanshi which has Bombay police officers battling against Muslim "terrorists" including Love Jihadis even if the entire country has Hindutvadi terrorists running riot, or the film Kesari which is set in 1897 and is funnily about Sikh soldiers in the colonizing British army, battling against Afghan raiders when the same Sikh soldiers should have been battling against the Britishers, or this latest film Kashmir Files which just in the last five days of its run has earned 60+ crores. All these are popular films which shows the change in the thinking of the masses.

In late 2014 was released the film Haider which was again about Kashmir but from the POV of those living under the military occupation. Some regular Hindi film masala elements were there but the film was a good attempt in trying to bring the Kashmir issue to the masses and because of that the pseudo nationalists / fake patriots / Hindutvadis called the film and its makers and the writer as "anti-nationals" as any sensible Indian is generally called. Listen to this nice song from that film - Aao na - which is set in a graveyard and is sardonic. I couldn't find the song's visuals of the gravediggers digging in the snowed ground. Modi had taken rule that year and there were threats to that film from his admirers. This is a nice background article for the film :


Please read the rest of the article. And those in the media who had welcomed Haider in 2014 will be drowned out today in the shouts and lies of so-called journalists Arnab Goswami, Shweta Singh and their like. I watched Haider in the cinema when it was released and there were watchers despite the controversy.

In the 1950s however, as your vid says the theme of Bollywood was Socialism maybe because of the recent independence of the country in which Communist and Socialist idealism was somewhat more popular among the masses and the film crews than the crass right-wing turn of now. In 2019 I posted this thread which included references to Bollywood films of those times including Mother India many of which had Socialist themes :

Another 1950s Socialist-themed film was Shree 420 :

The film had a famous song which probably predicted the non-aligned stance of the Nehru government :
"Mera joota hai Japani
Ye patloon Englistani
Sar pe laal topi Rusi
Phir bhi dil hai Hindustani"

Shree 420 and other such Socialist-themed Bollywood films especially of Raj Kapoor were popular in the USSR.

And then from the 60s to the 80s there were escapist films like your vid says whose themes were either unrealistic romances or religion, though there were a few films which depicted social issues like women's rights or urban criminality or political corruption. About the last theme there was the wonderful satire Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro that has Naseeruddin Shah, Satish Shah and others ( you should watch it - part 1, part 2, part 3. You will enjoy a lot and think of society ). Though in the 1970s too there were some very good Bollywood films by the director Basu Chatterjee which were essentially social satires many a time about the middle class like Chhoti Si Baat. In the recent times I have watched very few Bollywood films including Rocket Singh : Salesman of the Year ( promo ) which is about corporate greed and also the film is an inspiration to anyone who wants to start a company that too of what can be called a Communist type.

@Joe Shearer @DrJekyll, your choices ?

A little later, perhaps in the evening. I have a lot of errands to run. But this is a fascinating outline.

 

[fitpOsitive]

I don't think Bollywood is dying. It is just that any political references in its films have become crassly pro-Hindutva, whether in the tri-star film Sooryavanshi which has Bombay police officers battling against Muslim "terrorists" including Love Jihadis even if the entire country has Hindutvadi terrorists running riot, or the film Kesari which is set in 1897 and is funnily about Sikh soldiers in the colonizing British army, battling against Afghan raiders when the same Sikh soldiers should have been battling against the Britishers, or this latest film Kashmir Files which just in the last five days of its run has earned 60+ crores. All these are popular films which shows the change in the thinking of the masses.

In late 2014 was released the film Haider which was again about Kashmir but from the POV of those living under the military occupation. Some regular Hindi film masala elements were there but the film was a good attempt in trying to bring the Kashmir issue to the masses and because of that the pseudo nationalists / fake patriots / Hindutvadis called the film and its makers and the writer as "anti-nationals" as any sensible Indian is generally called. Listen to this nice song from that film - Aao na - which is set in a graveyard and is sardonic. I couldn't find the song's visuals of the gravediggers digging in the snowed ground. Modi had taken rule that year and there were threats to that film from his admirers. This is a nice background article for the film :


Please read the rest of the article. And those in the media who had welcomed Haider in 2014 will be drowned out today in the shouts and lies of so-called journalists Arnab Goswami, Shweta Singh and their like. I watched Haider in the cinema when it was released and there were watchers despite the controversy.

In the 1950s however, as your vid says the theme of Bollywood was Socialism maybe because of the recent independence of the country in which Communist and Socialist idealism was somewhat more popular among the masses and the film crews than the crass right-wing turn of now. In 2019 I posted this thread which included references to Bollywood films of those times including Mother India many of which had Socialist themes :

Another 1950s Socialist-themed film was Shree 420 :

The film had a famous song which probably predicted the non-aligned stance of the Nehru government :
"Mera joota hai Japani
Ye patloon Englistani
Sar pe laal topi Rusi
Phir bhi dil hai Hindustani"

Shree 420 and other such Socialist-themed Bollywood films especially of Raj Kapoor were popular in the USSR.

And then from the 60s to the 80s there were escapist films like your vid says whose themes were either unrealistic romances or religion, though there were a few films which depicted social issues like women's rights or urban criminality or political corruption. About the last theme there was the wonderful satire Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro that has Naseeruddin Shah, Satish Shah and others ( you should watch it - part 1, part 2, part 3. You will enjoy a lot and think of society ). Though in the 1970s too there were some very good Bollywood films by the director Basu Chatterjee which were essentially social satires many a time about the middle class like Chhoti Si Baat. In the recent times I have watched very few Bollywood films including Rocket Singh : Salesman of the Year ( trailer ) which is about corporate greed and also the film is an inspiration to anyone who wants to start a company that too of what can be called a Communist type.

@Joe Shearer @DrJekyll, your choices ?

Let's have a pledge today on the hands of the soul of Carl Marks:
O Carl Marks the great, I promise from today, I will not write a post longer than one or two paragraphs. I also promise that I will not include dense and deep historical knowledge about bollywood in any of posts.
And if I ever violated my pledge, I should be sent to Africa and get married to 4 Nigerian women.
Amen.