Rushdie cancels trip; Deoband calls it victory of democracy

[DESERT FIGHTER]

1) already answered by harpoon....the local populace never gave the invaders any time to concentrate on conversion...there were always rebellions, revolts, unruly brothers etc to be taken care off....so only a minority of the people could be converted and the rest proved spiritually too strong to be converted...

Ok ... if u say so il accept tht south india was mostly ruled by hindus.. what about northern india... which is like 72+% of india? wasnt it ruled by muslims for 1000 years? except rajputana which paid tribute to mughals?heck even there are many muslims there.
As for minority being converted spiritually... does tht mean invaders converted like almost 40 crore people to islam? thts a laughable figure... considerin muslims of north india are/were mostly rich n from upper caste.

2) that was already rebutted by another sikh i guess..was it jatt+gatts or some one else....

Actually indian jatt... proved my pointed not rebutted it... by saying tht sikhism took stuff from every islam and sufi poetry..

3)exceptions are always tere...and he was not a tamil...so anyway that was wrong...

Actually it was built by south indians... go through the history.

4) wht has that got to do here....tajmahal is not an islamic shrine...it was a monument of love built by a king for his wife in a mix of indian/persian style..moreover its a good source of foreign exchange...

Lol... its classical "muslim" arcitechure.

5) so ..? it was rana sanga who fought babur and the pashtuns always hated babur..not because they loved this country but because they were the rulers of north western parts of India and did not want to lose it to babur....also because babur did a massacre of the pashtuns on his way to india..

I talked specifically about a MUSLIM RAJPUT CHIEF FROM RAJHISTAN OR RAPUTANA ... who converted him if not the mughals?

FAIL

Yup you sure are..

FACE PALM!

Just do same when Indians stop MF hussain ......

Isnt he dead?lol........ what he did was wrong though!

 

[Uchiha]

Congrats to the indian Muslims - who have fought to stop rushdie the dog from coming to india.

We're better than him, he blasphemed, it's up to Allah SWT to give punishment but not up to us to call him dog

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

in 2 lines you have made as many mistakes....first what bout northern india..? do you know what is the extent of north india..? it sure aint 72%...the mughal rule first of all did not effectively cross the narmada river....it did not work well east of bengal where the ahoms thrashed their arse many times over...it the upper north the jats were like rebelling when they felt like...even in rajputana only the rajputs of mewar/chittor were like vassals...some or the other rajputs were always rebelling..central indian tribals again were unruly....in effect the mughla rule only nominally extended over their areas..in ground it was the local rajas who ran the show..

secondly where did you get the crap 1000 years from..? the delhi sultanate started in 1206 and the mughal rule ended in the 1750s when the marathas confined the mughal emperor to his palace in delhi..so thats about 550 years..unless in madarsa maths its 1000 years
read my post and understand what i said....I said only the spiritually weak were able to convert to islam for the fear of sword..the spiritually strong retained our native faith - hnduism,buddhism and jainism.



dude you said tamil...thats wrong... accept that and move on...no need for lame strawman arguments...
not...its a fusion of indian and persian styles...



the mughals were NOT the first muslim rulers in india..knock knock...


no..a triple mullah facepalm....

What a retard... heck this creature frm bajrang dals ashram doesnt even deserve a reply.

 

[scrumpy]

What's more important.? A third class bigot writer or wishes of millions of Indian Muslims. You decide.

Indians(Hindus) always like to irritate us by encouraging Bay-emaan muslims(Murtid) because they depict Islam in negative ways. India has done some crime by sheltering and pampering another murtid tawaeef Taslima Nasrin. Another reason why we dislike Indians(Hindus).

Thanks

Even in the minority of one, the truth is still the truth. - Gandhi

Just because you have millions of people wanting to persecute him, it doesn't make it right.

 

[Marwari]

Even in the minority of one, the truth is still the truth. - Gandhi

Just because you have millions of people wanting to persecute him, it doesn't make it right.

Islam the religion of "peace". These guys bring such a bad name to Muslims, making it harder for those living abroad. Encouraging killings, nice to know what these monkeys learn in their madrassas.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Islam the religion of "peace". These guys bring such a bad name to Muslims, making it harder for those living abroad. Encouraging killings, nice to know what these monkeys learn in their madrassas.

I wonder what the monkeys involved in giving death threats to MF Hussain and those involved in gujrat,orissa,punjab massacres learnt in their ashrams... as for ur signature... all i can say is tht its childish.

 

[EjazR]

All I will say is that some of the Hindu extremist groups might not have read the book in its entirety but with themes like "Here was a lecherous, drunken Rama and a flighty Sita; while Ravana, the demon-king, was depicted as an upright and honest man." ( yes its a direct quote), you would have an MF Hussain like situation with Hindu groups demanding his exile as well.

In any case, he is still coming to the JLF via video link. So the "trip" is not cancelled, its just virtual now. And as long as PEACEFUL demonstrations are held, there is nothing wrong with that. That is part of democracy.

But I am against any sort of violence, shoe throwing or these fabricated assasination attempts. There is no justification for that.

 

[EjazR]

The point is why can't some Hindus understand (because there are many that do understand this) when a book that satirises the wives of the prophet as prostititues is offensive to Muslims.

I can understand if someone says, yes the book is offensive to Muslims and we condemn the book, but lets have that freedom of speech.

What I can't understand is people who say there is nothing offensive about the book. Espicially when it is being satirised so offensively.

Try to look at it in this perspective if some ones wives or the wives or companions of Hindu Gods were satirised as prostitutes. Would that not be offensive?

Just do same when Indians stop MF hussain ......

I think no orthodox muslims supported MF Hussain. A lot of muslim groups themselves condemened it because it was understood to be offensive to Hindu sentiments,

 

[scrumpy]

The point is why can't some Hindus understand (because there are many that do understand this) when a book that satirises the wives of the prophet as prostititues is offensive to Muslims.

I can understand if someone says, yes the book is offensive to Muslims and we condemn the book, but lets have that freedom of speech.

What I can't understand is people who say there is nothing offensive about the book. Espicially when it is being satirised so offensively.

Try to look at it in this perspective if some ones wives or the wives or companions of Hindu Gods were satirised as prostitutes. Would that not be offensive?



I think no orthodox muslims supported MF Hussain. A lot of muslim groups themselves condemened it because it was understood to be offensive to Hindu sentiments,

Most people here are not arguing that the book is right or wrong. We are arguing for the author's right to live and express himself without the threat of violence.

Unfortunately some Muslims have taken it upon themselves to protect their religion by killing everyone who doesn't agree with it. This seems to have the endorsement of the clerics within the Muslim faith such as the Iranian Ayatollah. What is alarming to the world that a large number of seemingly moderate muslims appear to endorse the message that this man deserves to die.

My country is a secular democratic republic. It saddens me that my government appears to be spineless on these issues and bows down to these fanatics because of the threat of violence.

Hussain had a large amount of support among the general population of the country. Apart from a small fringe group who were of no consequence, no one actually physically threatened him. The reason he stayed away was not the threat of physical violence but legal cases which had sprung up all over the place. He decided to stay away to avoid getting involved with these court cases.

 

[Zabaniyah]

why do muslims get their panties in a bunch over a work most of them have not even read and which can be widely interpreted...? c'mon if it was pretty straight forward then i can understand the outrage..but an author of rushdie's calibre rarely writes something direct and his midnight's children..that was pretty fuckin awesome..

majority of these mullas and their supporters , real and online, are still stuck in the 7th century ...

Ask that to those Persian mullahs.

I like many have absolutely no problem with Rushdie as a person. Although, we do have our right to express our criticism of The Satanic Verses as per freedom of speech. And in no way does it justify issuing a bounty on his head.

The Iranian mullahs are not Islam, and they alone do not represent Islam as a whole.

My opinion of Rushdie? Man's weird

 

[LaBong]

Peaceful demonstration is okay, but I'm disappointed at the spineless pandering of congress to anyone and everyone. It reminds me of what Hussain once said, that he will return to india only when bjp comes to power.

 

[RazPaK]

My country is a secular democratic republic. It saddens me that my government appears to be spineless on these issues and bows down to these fanatics because of the threat of violence.

Lmao. Actions speak louder than words.

India is the selective secularist. You can't have it both ways.

 

[LaBong]

The point is why can't some Hindus understand (because there are many that do understand this) when a book that satirises the wives of the prophet as prostititues is offensive to Muslims.

I can understand if someone says, yes the book is offensive to Muslims and we condemn the book, but lets have that freedom of speech.

What I can't understand is people who say there is nothing offensive about the book. Espicially when it is being satirised so offensively.

Try to look at it in this perspective if some ones wives or the wives or companions of Hindu Gods were satirised as prostitutes. Would that not be offensive?



I think no orthodox muslims supported MF Hussain. A lot of muslim groups themselves condemened it because it was understood to be offensive to Hindu sentiments,

If I'm right, in the story some prostitutes assumed the identity of Prophet's wives when a poet went into hiding in underground brothel. It doesn't depict Prophet's wives as prostitutes.

About the verses which are Satanic, they were there long before Rushdie, he didn't invent those.

 

[harpoon]

Lmao. Actions speak louder than words.

India is the selective secularist. You can't have it both ways.

Yeah whatever..atleast we don't jail and execute anyone for offending Hinduism or any religion for that matter.

 

[harpoon]

Peaceful demonstration is okay, but I'm disappointed at the spineless pandering of congress to anyone and everyone. It reminds me of what Hussain once said, that he will return to india only when bjp comes to power.

If I am not wrong Rushdie hold Indian passport..either GoI should have the 'balls' to cancel the citizenship or should give protection to the citizens as any Govt do.