What's new

Variyamkunnath Kunjahammed Haji, the Khilafat leader who declared an independent state

Ambedkar was Islamophobic, but that does not make him a Sanghi. Nor does it make his views sacred.


Tipu was a hero. Period.


So?

What problem do you have with an Islamic nation? especially when you already stay in one???
And have the right to shout against Muslims???



Instead of casteist Marathas, we should be able to read more about heroes like these.

These Khilafat regimes were the first to implement land distribution, social schemes and emancipated the women from behind the purdah of rich Hindu zamindars.


most of these are exaggerated and hyped by Hindus to adopt a victim complex.

No.

You were the oppressors.

Only the collaborators of the British rule suffered under his rule.

But then most of you Hindus, I mean Sanghis fit that bill (like the mercy petitioner)
The country where I live belongs to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists everyone. We ain't living on someone's mercy. We are equal citizens of this nation whether you like it or not.
 
.
CLosing the thread for clean up

Open for discussion
 
.
In fact the British that wiped those zombies for once and for all

Zombies you say. Hmm :

21swords.jpg
 
.
You asked for the proofs .I mentioned some books .You can read that if you want .Anyway I will briefly mentions what they said about 1921.
Pakistan or Partition of India .
Dr BR Ambedkar
The blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern India, a wave of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion". Any person could have said that this was too heavy a price for Hindu-Muslim unity. But Mr. Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Muslim unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats who were congratulating them. He spoke of the Mappilas as the "brave God-fearing Moplahs who were fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious ".

Later in 1924 Mahathma Gandhi regretted for what he did .

Lets see what Ms Annie Besant said

Mr. Gandhi…can he not feel a little sympathy for thousands of women left with only rags, driven from home, for little children born of the flying mothers on roads in refuge camps? The misery is beyond description. Girl wives, pretty and sweet, with eyes half blind with weeping, distraught with terror; women who have seen their husbands hacked to pieces before their eye, in the way “Moplas consider as religious”; old women tottering, whose faces become written with anguish and who cry at a gentle touch…men who have lost all, hopeless, crushed, desperate…Can you conceive of a more ghastly and inhuman crime than the murders of babies and pregnant women?…A pregnant woman carrying 7 months was cut through the abdomen by a rebel and she was seen lying dead on the way with the dead child projecting out of the womb…Another: a baby of six months was snatched away from the breast of his own mother and cut into two pieces… Are these rebels human beings or monsters?

A respectable Nayar Lady at Melatur was stripped naked by the rebels in the presence of her husband and brothers, who were made to stand close by with their hands tied behind. When they shut their eyes in abhorrence they were compelled at the point of sword to open their eyes and witness the rape committed by the brute in their presence.


None of them were your Sanghis .
There is a plenty of the historical records.
Onething is sure .This controversey really helped BJP.
Noone knows about our people .
We are actually restraining ourselves .Noone can take madness to next level like us .
This kind of political activity will definitely arise our once dormanted brute nature .



So far noone didnt expected this kind of opposition.
This moron Haji was a criminal there was a lots respectable Muslimleaders that opposed that asshole and forced the rioteers to abondon their weapons .But some Islamists in the Kerala dont want those respectable leaders and their legacy .they want this nutjob .



You Pakistanis dont have any historical relations with South Indians especially Keralites .
Even some worst Islamists in Kerala keeps formidable hate against Pakistan



Even in 1921 riot how many Britishers died .
Very few .
In fact the British that wiped those zombies for once and for all



Thuvoor Kinar aka Thuvoor well was there until recently wherethe majority PFI bought that land and destroyed that well.
Some so called worst rightwing Hindus in Kerala politics was actually from that district because they knows what their forefathers faced.



1947 partition was with help of British .
So you being a Pakistani dont need to talk to us about our independence fight



Illegal Bongs dont have anything in Kerala and doesnt concerns you .
And you dont know how many families that faced that genocide still lives in Kerala
Any fight or war before partitions was our fight which we were proud of it cuz we never surrender but the majority of people which obviously was hindu get benifited from british raj more than other community.. which later leads to sepration and we are also proud of it.. india is artificial state sooner or later it has to disolve..
 
.
THe nair sr whose language is regularly mocked by sanghis from north and seen as black fellow to be tolerated seems to get his sources from RSS. I doutb ambedkar said that but RSS is known to give false quotes to him. Moplas were the first resistence to british rule from civilians. Many have taken a bullet from brits. True fighters. Giving them a religious color and diminish them is long time play from RSS types whose founder veer savarkar made agreements with british to get out of jail.
 
.
.
THe nair sr whose language is regularly mocked by sanghis from north and seen as black fellow to be tolerated seems to get his sources from RSS. I doutb ambedkar said that but RSS is known to give false quotes to him. Moplas were the first resistence to british rule from civilians. Many have taken a bullet from brits. True fighters. Giving them a religious color and diminish them is long time play from RSS types whose founder veer savarkar made agreements with british to get out of jail.

Yes he said. Ambedkar was a sanghi himself. Ambedkar's party was in tie up with Jan Sangh to fight Nehru/Congress.
 
.
Yes he said. Ambedkar was a sanghi himself. Ambedkar's party was in tie up with Jan Sangh to fight Nehru/Congress.
Not true. Though we dont have to take every word of his as truth he is no god after all. But he gave the biggest challenge to indian hegemony along with Periyar. They are literally two gems of indian history. Two titans in every respect. I would put ambedkar with one of the great thinkers of humanity.
 
.
Not true. Though we dont have to take every word of his as truth he is no god after all. But he gave the biggest challenge to indian hegemony along with Periyar. They are literally two gems of indian history. Two titans in every respect. I would put ambedkar with one of the great thinkers of humanity.

I am afraid you are wrong my brother. Ambedkar was a sanghi. He had an option to embrace Christianity or Islam but he embraced Buddhism and encouraged his followers to follow him. He had tie up with Jan Sangh (Sanghi party pre-BJP) to fight Nehru/Congress.

Do you know RSS wanted Ambedkar to lead Jan Sangh itself?
 
.
I am afraid you are wrong my brother. Ambedkar was a sanghi. He had an option to embrace Christianity or Islam but he embraced Buddhism and encouraged his followers to follow him. He had tie up with Jan Sangh (Sanghi party pre-BJP) to fight Nehru/Congress.

Do you know RSS wanted Ambedkar to lead Jan Sangh itself?

Have you read his book anhilation of caste ?I suggest you read that instead of tidbits from here and there. It will blow your mind. He was emphatic on whats wrong with hinduism - nobody ever made a critique that devastating. Morover he was so honest in describing actual treatment of dalits. He did not chose Islam then as there were lot of caste issues in islam too - its not that prominent in pakistan but in india especially north caste was and is still a big deal.
 
.
Have you read his book anhilation of caste ?I suggest you read that instead of tidbits from here and there. It will blow your mind. He was emphatic on whats wrong with hinduism - nobody ever made a critique that devastating. Morover he was so honest in describing actual treatment of dalits. He did not chose Islam then as there were lot of caste issues in islam too - its not that prominent in pakistan but in india especially north caste was and is still a big deal.

You are reading it wrong. Yes, Ambedkar was fully against the caste system. There is no doubt about that. But It is an undeniable fact that he was a sanghi too at heart. He had choice to embrace Christianity or Islam but he picked another native dharmic religion called Buddhism instead.
 
.
You are reading it wrong. Yes, Ambedkar was fully against the caste system. There is no doubt about that. But It is an undeniable fact that he was a sanghi too at heart. He had choice to embrace Christianity or Islam but he picked another native dharmic religion called Buddhism instead.

I dont want to stretch this silly argument. WIthout caste there is no hinduism. Morover he is an atheist - he chose budhism as its atheistic not because it is "dharmic" and he did so because he felt poorer people need a religion. It is also clear to me you havent read but just relied on lot of bits you get from internet. Yes he is not a muslim so is china - are all going to be sanghis ?
 
.
He did not chose Islam then as there were lot of caste issues in islam too

This was his view on Islam:

Buddha is human, not a self-declared God
Ambedkar starts by stating that what separates Buddha from the rest of the other is his self-abnegation. “All throughout the Bible, Jesus insist(s) that he is the Son of God and that those who wish to enter the kingdom of God will fail, if they do not recognise him as the Son of God. Mohammed went a step further. Like Jesus he also claimed that he was the messenger of God. But he further insisted that he was the last messenger.

Ambedkar on Islam:

If Islam and Hinduism keep Muslims and Hindus apart in the matter of their faith, they also prevent their social assimilation. That Hinduism prohibits intermarriage between Hindus and Muslims is quite well known. This narrow-mindedness is not the vice of Hinduism only. Islam is equally narrow in its social code. It also prohibits intermarriage between Muslims and Hindus. With these social laws, there can be no social assimilation and consequently no socialisation of ways, modes and outlooks, no blunting of the edges and no modulation of age-old angularities. There are other defects in Hinduism and in Islam which are responsible for keeping the score between Hindus and Muslims open and running. Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast, Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.

I dont want to stretch this silly argument. WIthout caste there is no hinduism. Morover he is an atheist - he chose budhism as its atheistic not because it is "dharmic" and he did so because he felt poorer people need a religion. It is also clear to me you havent read but just relied on lot of bits you get from internet. Yes he is not a muslim so is china - are all going to be sanghis ?

Read above.
 
.
This was his view on Islam:

Buddha is human, not a self-declared God
Ambedkar starts by stating that what separates Buddha from the rest of the other is his self-abnegation. “All throughout the Bible, Jesus insist(s) that he is the Son of God and that those who wish to enter the kingdom of God will fail, if they do not recognise him as the Son of God. Mohammed went a step further. Like Jesus he also claimed that he was the messenger of God. But he further insisted that he was the last messenger.

Ambedkar on Islam:

If Islam and Hinduism keep Muslims and Hindus apart in the matter of their faith, they also prevent their social assimilation. That Hinduism prohibits intermarriage between Hindus and Muslims is quite well known. This narrow-mindedness is not the vice of Hinduism only. Islam is equally narrow in its social code. It also prohibits intermarriage between Muslims and Hindus. With these social laws, there can be no social assimilation and consequently no socialisation of ways, modes and outlooks, no blunting of the edges and no modulation of age-old angularities. There are other defects in Hinduism and in Islam which are responsible for keeping the score between Hindus and Muslims open and running. Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast, Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.



Read above.

Bro it doesnt matter. He is not a muslim and neither did he ever encourage muslim hatred. Most ambekarite associations and folks are generally very favourable to islam. Having said that there are caste systems among south asian muslims too. Lineage is there. You can ignore but somebody like ambedkar coming from a marginalized community cannot afford to.
The arguement is is he a sanghi ? the answer is you cant have more anti-sanghi than him.
 
.
Bro it doesnt matter. He is not a muslim and neither did he ever encourage muslim hatred. Most ambekarite associations and folks are generally very favourable to islam. Having said that there are caste systems among south asian muslims too. Lineage is there. You can ignore but somebody like ambedkar coming from a marginalized community cannot afford to.
The arguement is is he a sanghi ? the answer is you cant have more anti-sanghi than him.

Did you even read what I posted? I am quoting it again.

The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.


You can find here how Ambedkar back stabbed Muslims of Hyderabad.


upload_2020-6-30_14-21-15.png


Source:

Hyderabad, British India, and the World: Muslim Networks and Minor Sovereignty, c.1850–1950 Paperback – March 1, 2018
by Eric Beverley (Author)
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom