Rashmun wrote:http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/the-real-truth/entry/comedy-nights-with-narendra-modi

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/the-real-truth/entry/comedy-nights-with-narendra-modi

Modi ji has learnt well from the CONmen that when a lie is repeated over and over it becomes a fact. That is how CONmen continuously labeled BJP as communal - despite records, stats, and facts point out that it is the CONGRESS which is communal.

Hey..why are CONmen suddenly complaining about half facts and lies ?

They are the ones who taught the Indian voters that "Facts are for Farts."


P.S. Have you found evidence to your "Factful claim" that muslims made up 15% of the population in 1951?  Since you are so very worried about lies...

Rashmun wrote:
No, but I found some evidence that according to the latest stats Muslims comprise only 13.5% of the Indian population. I wish to know why the Muslim population in India is shrinking relative to the total population. Earlier I had given a graph depicting this.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
No, but I found some evidence that according to the latest stats Muslims comprise only 13.5% of the Indian population. I wish to know why the Muslim population in India is shrinking relative to the total population. Earlier I had given a graph depicting this.

You just demonstrated how to "establish" facts.

goodcitizn wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
No, but I found some evidence that according to the latest stats Muslims comprise only 13.5% of the Indian population. I wish to know why the Muslim population in India is shrinking relative to the total population. Earlier I had given a graph depicting this.

You just demonstrated how to "establish" facts.

Wiki doesn't support Rashmun's claim.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
No, but I found some evidence that according to the latest stats Muslims comprise only 13.5% of the Indian population. I wish to know why the Muslim population in India is shrinking relative to the total population. Earlier I had given a graph depicting this.

You just demonstrated how to "establish" facts.

Wiki doesn't support Rashmun's claim.

Rashmunullah "claimed" some super-farting facts, to which I cited the wikilink  you just gave.  He said he was SURE of the 15% and when challenged to show evidence he promised to FIND it - saying it might take 1 week, 1 month or 1 year. Of course he is sure of his fact about 1951. Now, that Rashmunullah conviction. It is like his PhD.. "I know the conclusion"  but, I will show proof and methodology in 2, 5, 10, 25 years....

Now you know my about humble daily reminder to him...

Rashmun wrote:Wikipedia cannot be the last word on any contentious issue. Any Wikipedia article concerning Hindu-Muslim issues cannot be trusted now that we know that an army of more than 2,000 IT professionals is working on behalf of Modi ( presumably to vitiate and polarize the atmosphere in the cyber world).

This recent article blows the myth of high growth rate amongst Muslims:

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cursor/entry/muslim-population-myths

Note this graph ( from the article whose link I give) in particular:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Wikipedia cannot be the last word on any contentious issue. Any Wikipedia article concerning Hindu-Muslim issues cannot be trusted now that we know that an army of more than 2,000 IT professionals is working on behalf of Modi ( presumably to vitiate and polarize the atmosphere in the cyber world).

This recent article blows the myth of high growth rate amongst Muslims:

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cursor/entry/muslim-population-myths

Note this graph ( from the article whose link I give) in particular:

If Wiki is unreliable and Modied in your view, do you trust the Economist? Excerpt from March, 2013 article:

Higher fertility rates among Muslims might be seen as politically sensitive. Private studies guess that India has about 177m Muslims, comprising 14.6% of the total population. It marks a rise of nearly 40m, or a percentage point, on a decade before. Higher fertility will ensure the upward trend continues. Overall, India’s fertility rate is falling, but among Muslims it is dropping most slowly. Old habits persist. Few Muslim women work outside the home. Contraception is not much used.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21572785-steadily-rising-muslim-population-continues-fall-behind-growing-and-neglected

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Wikipedia cannot be the last word on any contentious issue. Any Wikipedia article concerning Hindu-Muslim issues cannot be trusted now that we know that an army of more than 2,000 IT professionals is working on behalf of Modi ( presumably to vitiate and polarize the atmosphere in the cyber world).

This recent article blows the myth of high growth rate amongst Muslims:

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cursor/entry/muslim-population-myths

Note this graph ( from the article whose link I give) in particular:

If Wiki is unreliable and Modied in your view, do you trust the Economist? Excerpt from March, 2013 article:

Higher fertility rates among Muslims might be seen as politically sensitive. Private studies guess that India has about 177m Muslims, comprising 14.6% of the total population. It marks a rise of nearly 40m, or a percentage point, on a decade before. Higher fertility will ensure the upward trend continues. Overall, India’s fertility rate is falling, but among Muslims it is dropping most slowly. Old habits persist. Few Muslim women work outside the home. Contraception is not much used.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21572785-steadily-rising-muslim-population-continues-fall-behind-growing-and-neglected

The Economist is quoting outdated data. Just google for "falling fertility rates of Muslims in India".

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Wikipedia cannot be the last word on any contentious issue. Any Wikipedia article concerning Hindu-Muslim issues cannot be trusted now that we know that an army of more than 2,000 IT professionals is working on behalf of Modi ( presumably to vitiate and polarize the atmosphere in the cyber world).

This recent article blows the myth of high growth rate amongst Muslims:

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cursor/entry/muslim-population-myths

Note this graph ( from the article whose link I give) in particular:

If Wiki is unreliable and Modied in your view, do you trust the Economist? Excerpt from March, 2013 article:

Higher fertility rates among Muslims might be seen as politically sensitive. Private studies guess that India has about 177m Muslims, comprising 14.6% of the total population. It marks a rise of nearly 40m, or a percentage point, on a decade before. Higher fertility will ensure the upward trend continues. Overall, India’s fertility rate is falling, but among Muslims it is dropping most slowly. Old habits persist. Few Muslim women work outside the home. Contraception is not much used.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21572785-steadily-rising-muslim-population-continues-fall-behind-growing-and-neglected

The Economist is quoting outdated data. Just google for "falling fertility rates of Muslims in India".

So the Economist is outdated and you rely on some blog. Show me proof that the muslim population growth rate is slower than the rest of India's population growth. At the very least show me proof that the percentage of muslim population to the total is dropping over the last decade. I have nothing against the muslims. Pointing out the growth trend of muslims isn't being pro-Modi either.

Rashmun wrote:This is from 2002 but still worth reading:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/11/10/stories/2002111000610300.htm

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:This is from 2002 but still worth reading:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/11/10/stories/2002111000610300.htm

You continue to sidestep the real facts. It is one thing to say that the fertility rate of muslims is falling but quite another when, despite the falling rates, their growth rate outpaces that of the rest of the Indians. Even the link you posted does NOT deny that the muslim population is ahead in growth, just that the gap has narrowed. Why is an increase from 9.8% in 1961 to 13.8% in 2011 a small increase? One way is to say it is only 4%. But the right way is to say that it is 41% over the base.

Of course I don't buy into the ridiculous claim that India will have more muslims than hindus by 2050 as some articles claim. However that population will be significantly higher.

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:This is from 2002 but still worth reading:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/11/10/stories/2002111000610300.htm

You continue to sidestep the real facts. It is one thing to say that the fertility rate of muslims is falling but quite another when, despite the falling rates, their growth rate outpaces that of the rest of the Indians. Even the link you posted does NOT deny that the muslim population is ahead in growth, just that the gap has narrowed. Why is an increase from 9.8% in 1961 to 13.8% in 2011 a small increase? One way is to say it is only 4%. But the right way is to say that it is 41% over the base.

Of course I don't buy into the ridiculous claim that India will have more muslims than hindus by 2050 as some articles claim. However that population will be significantly higher.

Here you go:

Arokiasamy said growth rate of Muslims in Kerala and J&K is lower than the average Hindu community growth. “It is attributed to their better education and socio-economic status in these states. For similar reasons, the fertility rate among Hindus in the less developed states of UP and Bihar, among others, is higher.”

Professor at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Abdul Shaban said, “The 2001 census affirms that decline in the growth rate of Muslims is faster than the majority community’s.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:This is from 2002 but still worth reading:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/11/10/stories/2002111000610300.htm

You continue to sidestep the real facts. It is one thing to say that the fertility rate of muslims is falling but quite another when, despite the falling rates, their growth rate outpaces that of the rest of the Indians. Even the link you posted does NOT deny that the muslim population is ahead in growth, just that the gap has narrowed. Why is an increase from 9.8% in 1961 to 13.8% in 2011 a small increase? One way is to say it is only 4%. But the right way is to say that it is 41% over the base.

Of course I don't buy into the ridiculous claim that India will have more muslims than hindus by 2050 as some articles claim. However that population will be significantly higher.

Here you go:

Arokiasamy said growth rate of Muslims in Kerala and J&K is lower than the average Hindu community growth. “It is attributed to their better education and socio-economic status in these states. For similar reasons, the fertility rate among Hindus in the less developed states of UP and Bihar, among others, is higher.”

Professor at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Abdul Shaban said, “The 2001 census affirms that decline in the growth rate of Muslims is faster than the majority community’s.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

Just listen to yourself. The decline in growth rate of muslims is faster as compared to other communities is not the same as saying that the muslim community growth rate is lower compared to the rest.

Cherry picking two or more states as evidence of your overall argument that the muslim growth rate is less than the rest of India is equally ridiculous.

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:This is from 2002 but still worth reading:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/11/10/stories/2002111000610300.htm

You continue to sidestep the real facts. It is one thing to say that the fertility rate of muslims is falling but quite another when, despite the falling rates, their growth rate outpaces that of the rest of the Indians. Even the link you posted does NOT deny that the muslim population is ahead in growth, just that the gap has narrowed. Why is an increase from 9.8% in 1961 to 13.8% in 2011 a small increase? One way is to say it is only 4%. But the right way is to say that it is 41% over the base.

Of course I don't buy into the ridiculous claim that India will have more muslims than hindus by 2050 as some articles claim. However that population will be significantly higher.

Here you go:

Arokiasamy said growth rate of Muslims in Kerala and J&K is lower than the average Hindu community growth. “It is attributed to their better education and socio-economic status in these states. For similar reasons, the fertility rate among Hindus in the less developed states of UP and Bihar, among others, is higher.”

Professor at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Abdul Shaban said, “The 2001 census affirms that decline in the growth rate of Muslims is faster than the majority community’s.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

Just listen to yourself. The decline in growth rate of muslims is faster as compared to other communities is not the same as saying that the muslim community growth rate is lower compared to the rest.

Cherry picking two or more states as evidence of your overall argument that the muslim growth rate is less than the rest of India is equally ridiculous.

Do you agree that according to the article the Muslim growth rate in Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is lower than the Hindu growth rate?

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Do you agree that according to the article the Muslim growth rate in Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is lower than the Hindu growth rate?

Assuming that you believe in making well-researched conclusions, is it prudent of you to take a select few statistical samples to hypothesize on the entire population when the statistics on the entire population themselves are to the contrary?

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:You continue to sidestep the real facts. It is one thing to say that the fertility rate of muslims is falling but quite another when, despite the falling rates, their growth rate outpaces that of the rest of the Indians. Even the link you posted does NOT deny that the muslim population is ahead in growth, just that the gap has narrowed. Why is an increase from 9.8% in 1961 to 13.8% in 2011 a small increase? One way is to say it is only 4%. But the right way is to say that it is 41% over the base.

Of course I don't buy into the ridiculous claim that India will have more muslims than hindus by 2050 as some articles claim. However that population will be significantly higher.

Here you go:

Arokiasamy said growth rate of Muslims in Kerala and J&K is lower than the average Hindu community growth. “It is attributed to their better education and socio-economic status in these states. For similar reasons, the fertility rate among Hindus in the less developed states of UP and Bihar, among others, is higher.”

Professor at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Abdul Shaban said, “The 2001 census affirms that decline in the growth rate of Muslims is faster than the majority community’s.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

Just listen to yourself. The decline in growth rate of muslims is faster as compared to other communities is not the same as saying that the muslim community growth rate is lower compared to the rest.

Cherry picking two or more states as evidence of your overall argument that the muslim growth rate is less than the rest of India is equally ridiculous.

Do you agree that according to the article the Muslim growth rate in Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is lower than the Hindu growth rate?

Assuming that you believe in making well-researched conclusions, is it prudent of you to take a select few statistical samples to hypothesize on the entire population when the statistics on the entire population themselves are to the contrary?

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Here you go:

Arokiasamy said growth rate of Muslims in Kerala and J&K is lower than the average Hindu community growth. “It is attributed to their better education and socio-economic status in these states. For similar reasons, the fertility rate among Hindus in the less developed states of UP and Bihar, among others, is higher.”

Professor at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Abdul Shaban said, “The 2001 census affirms that decline in the growth rate of Muslims is faster than the majority community’s.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

Just listen to yourself. The decline in growth rate of muslims is faster as compared to other communities is not the same as saying that the muslim community growth rate is lower compared to the rest.

Cherry picking two or more states as evidence of your overall argument that the muslim growth rate is less than the rest of India is equally ridiculous.

Do you agree that according to the article the Muslim growth rate in Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is lower than the Hindu growth rate?

Assuming that you believe in making well-researched conclusions, is it prudent of you to take a select few statistical samples to hypothesize on the entire population when the statistics on the entire population themselves are to the contrary?

Two things to consider. UP and Bihar by themselves constitute more than 30% of the Indian population. Second, the population growth rate of these two states is the highest in all of India ( and by a significant margin). So the fact that Hindus have a higher growth rate than Muslims in these two states is something I consider significant.

Rashmun wrote:Besides Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the growth rate of Muslims is also lower than hindus in the state of Tamil Nadu. For the reference see here:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/hum-do-hamare-do-concept-catching-up-among-muslims/article4414697.ece

Rashmun wrote:A senior official from the United Nations Population Fund also junked the RSS idea. “Population growth rate has been higher in rural, tribal and poor families irrespective of their religion. Besides, rich from all communities have lesser children,” the official said.


http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:A senior official from the United Nations Population Fund also junked the RSS idea. “Population growth rate has been higher in rural, tribal and poor families irrespective of their religion. Besides, rich from all communities have lesser children,” the official said.


http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

Illogical, irrelevant and immaterial.

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:A senior official from the United Nations Population Fund also junked the RSS idea. “Population growth rate has been higher in rural, tribal and poor families irrespective of their religion. Besides, rich from all communities have lesser children,” the official said.


http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

Illogical, irrelevant and immaterial.

GC you're no Perry Mason.

goodcitizn wrote:Rashmun:

Here's where it's at.

You have not shown any evidence so far to support your claim that the muslim population growth rate in India is lower than the overall Indian population growth rate. The answer is simple - there is no census data to support your claim.

All you have done is to show:

The TFR (total fertility rate) of the muslim population has fallen over the years. That's fine.

The Indian muslim population growth rate is lower than the general Indian population in a handful of states. No problem there.

But the fundamental claim of yours is just plain bogus.

FYI I am not a supporter of BJP or Modi. Nor am I against muslims. Nor do I buy into the idiotic theory that the muslim population would outnumber the rest in India in the next 20 or 30 years.

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:Rashman:

Here's where it's at.

You have not shown any evidence so far to support your claim that the muslim population growth rate in India is lower than the overall Indian population growth rate. The answer is simple - there is no census data to support your claim.

All you have done is to show:

The TFR (total fertility rate) of the muslim population has fallen over the years. That's fine.

The Indian muslim population growth rate is lower than the general Indian population in a handful of states. No problem there.

But the fundamental claim of yours is just plain bogus.

FYI I am not a supporter of BJP or Modi. Nor am I against muslims. Nor do I buy into the idiotic theory that the muslim population would outnumber the rest in India in the next 20 or 30 years.

Ham Burger,
I have shown that the Muslim population growth rate is lower than the corresponding growth rate of the general population in the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu. Furthermore this list of states is not exhaustive.

Arokiasamy said growth rate of Muslims in Kerala and J&K is lower than the average Hindu community growth. “It is attributed to their better education and socio-economic status in these states. For similar reasons, the fertility rate among Hindus in the less developed states of UP and Bihar, among others, is higher.”

Professor at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Abdul Shaban said, “The 2001 census affirms that decline in the growth rate of Muslims is faster than the majority community’s.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:Rashman:

Here's where it's at.

You have not shown any evidence so far to support your claim that the muslim population growth rate in India is lower than the overall Indian population growth rate. The answer is simple - there is no census data to support your claim.

All you have done is to show:

The TFR (total fertility rate) of the muslim population has fallen over the years. That's fine.

The Indian muslim population growth rate is lower than the general Indian population in a handful of states. No problem there.

But the fundamental claim of yours is just plain bogus.

FYI I am not a supporter of BJP or Modi. Nor am I against muslims. Nor do I buy into the idiotic theory that the muslim population would outnumber the rest in India in the next 20 or 30 years.

Ham Burger,
I have shown that the Muslim population growth rate is lower than the corresponding growth rate of the general population in the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu. Furthermore this list of states is not exhaustive.

Arokiasamy said growth rate of Muslims in Kerala and J&K is lower than the average Hindu community growth. “It is attributed to their better education and socio-economic status in these states. For similar reasons, the fertility rate among Hindus in the less developed states of UP and Bihar, among others, is higher.”

Professor at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Abdul Shaban said, “The 2001 census affirms that decline in the growth rate of Muslims is faster than the majority community’s.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

I have seen this copy paste before. Enough of this nonsense already. Just show me proof that backs up your claim that the overall growth rate of muslims in India is lower than the rest of India.

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:Rashman:

Here's where it's at.

You have not shown any evidence so far to support your claim that the muslim population growth rate in India is lower than the overall Indian population growth rate. The answer is simple - there is no census data to support your claim.

All you have done is to show:

The TFR (total fertility rate) of the muslim population has fallen over the years. That's fine.

The Indian muslim population growth rate is lower than the general Indian population in a handful of states. No problem there.

But the fundamental claim of yours is just plain bogus.

FYI I am not a supporter of BJP or Modi. Nor am I against muslims. Nor do I buy into the idiotic theory that the muslim population would outnumber the rest in India in the next 20 or 30 years.

Ham Burger,
I have shown that the Muslim population growth rate is lower than the corresponding growth rate of the general population in the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu. Furthermore this list of states is not exhaustive.

Arokiasamy said growth rate of Muslims in Kerala and J&K is lower than the average Hindu community growth. “It is attributed to their better education and socio-economic status in these states. For similar reasons, the fertility rate among Hindus in the less developed states of UP and Bihar, among others, is higher.”

Professor at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Abdul Shaban said, “The 2001 census affirms that decline in the growth rate of Muslims is faster than the majority community’s.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-exaggerated-fear-of-demographic-imbalance-experts-1910512

I have seen this copy paste before. Enough of this nonsense already. Just show me proof that backs up your claim that the overall growth rate of muslims in India is lower than the rest of India.

The short answer is that the overall growth rate of Muslims in India is slightly greater than the overall growth rate of the total Indian population. But the gap is rapidly reducing. This article has more details:

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/the-real-truth/entry/muslim-fertility-rate-drops-blunts-bjp-s-charge-against-community

Rashmun wrote:

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?282269

So, the Muslim fertility rate is about the same as the fertility rates of SC/ST people.

Rashmun wrote:

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?282269

So, the Muslim fertility rate is about the same as the fertility rates of SC/ST people.

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?282269

So, the Muslim fertility rate is about the same as the fertility rates of SC/ST people.

Interesting graph. This is another subject altogether.

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?282269

So, the Muslim fertility rate is about the same as the fertility rates of SC/ST people.

Interesting graph. This is another subject altogether.

Come on. It is not a totally different subject. It is a related subject. If SC/ST's are experiencing a growth rate almost equal to the Muslim growth rate and if muslim growth rate has been undergoing a greater rate of decline over the years then there is no reason for Sanghis to fear that by 2050 India will have a Muslim majority.

Rashmun wrote:

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?282269

So, the Muslim fertility rate is about the same as the fertility rates of SC/ST people.

bw wrote:who/what is a "ham burger"?

thx.

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:who/what is a "ham burger"?

thx.

Have you read any Perry Mason book ?

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:who/what is a "ham burger"?

thx.

Have you read any Perry Mason book ?

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:who/what is a "ham burger"?

thx.

Have you read any Perry Mason book ?

i read a few a long time ago - only remember della street now. is that a character from those books?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:who/what is a "ham burger"?

thx.

Have you read any Perry Mason book ?

But...but...but....  Have you found evidence to support your "factual, and 100% truthful statement" that Muslims were 15% of the Indian population in 1951?

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?282269

So, the Muslim fertility rate is about the same as the fertility rates of SC/ST people.

Interesting graph. This is another subject altogether.

Come on. It is not a totally different subject. It is a related subject. If SC/ST's are experiencing a growth rate almost equal to the Muslim growth rate and if muslim growth rate has been undergoing a greater rate of decline over the years then there is no reason for Sanghis to fear that by 2050 India will have a Muslim majority.

You are preaching to the choir. I told you already that it is an idiotic theory that muslims would be the majority in Indian population in the next 30 or so years.

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:who/what is a "ham burger"?

thx.

Have you read any Perry Mason book ?

i read a few a long time ago - only remember della street now. is that a character from those books?

Yes. She is Mason's secretary. In most of these books, Mason is the defense attorney and Hamilton Burger ( Ham Burger) is the district attorney.