In certain respects Islam used to be superior to Hinduism

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:16 pm

In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

by rawemotions Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:22 pm

Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

Now we know why Islamic Supremacists thrive in India and why ordinary Muslims keep quiet. These folks never read the constitution, because their only constitution is the Koran and Hadith. These guys who shout about Secularism are themselves Islamic Supremacists.

Aurangzeb is here again.www.aurangzeb.info

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:28 pm

Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

According to Wikipedia, the Hindu widow would not be allowed to wear a blouse under her saree. Also, the saree she wore had to be of coarse cloth, preferably white.

by rawemotions Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:14 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

According to Wikipedia, the Hindu widow would not be allowed to wear a blouse under her saree. Also, the saree she wore had to be of coarse cloth, preferably white.

Islamic Supremacists in action!

by Guest Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:57 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

According to Wikipedia, the Hindu widow would not be allowed to wear a blouse under her saree. Also, the saree she wore had to be of coarse cloth, preferably white.

Sorry, should have given the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Widows'_Remarriage_Act,_1856

by Rishi Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:03 am

>>>Rashmun,

What you say most likely is correct historically. But is that how one should make decision in voting or some aspects in personal life?
If your neighbor who is a Muslim harasses you, you do not look the other way saying to yourself "in some respects, his religion is better than mine."

by Guest Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:21 am

Rishi wrote:>>>Rashmun,

What you say most likely is correct historically. But is that how one should make decision in voting or some aspects in personal life?
If your neighbor who is a Muslim harasses you, you do not look the other way saying to yourself "in some respects, his religion is better than mine."

U do not look the other way if anyone harasses u but neither do u treat Islam like it is some kind of satan worship. there is surely a lot of nonsense in Islam today but history has shown with the passage of time the nonsense in any religion keeps getting eliminated or reduced. This is true for all the major religions.

by Guest Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:51 am

Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

Correction: have a shaved head, not shave the head in her hair.

by b_A Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:26 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

According to Wikipedia, the Hindu widow would not be allowed to wear a blouse under her saree. Also, the saree she wore had to be of coarse cloth, preferably white.

and the muslim women whether widowed or married, had the freedom to wear whatever she wanted to ?
Did a muslim womenfolk have much better lifestyle than hindu widows ?
Sati was only practiced by the rajputs , a tiny fraction of Hindu population.

by b_A Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:45 am

The hindu society had and has lot of faults when it came to the treatment of women.
But never as bad as Islam at least when women's rights were concerned.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:52 am

Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

C'mon. It's silly to cherry pick societal atrocities. We are not in the medieval world. In today's modern world, Islam ranks as the most backward and regressive of religions, its core tenets and practices frozen in time.

One of the saddest stories to emerge out of the Muzaffarnagar riots was that of Muslim women gang-raped brutally by rioters, but who suffer in silence and can't even officially complain because they will be branded adulterers in the eyes of their co-religionists. It's truly shocking that in this day and age, such attitudes prevail.

by Guest Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:03 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

C'mon. It's silly to cherry pick societal atrocities. We are not in the medieval world. In today's modern world, Islam ranks as the most backward and regressive of religions, its core tenets and practices frozen in time.

One of the saddest stories to emerge out of the Muzaffarnagar riots was that of Muslim women gang-raped brutally by rioters, but who suffer in silence and can't even officially complain because they will be branded adulterers in the eyes of their co-religionists. It's truly shocking that in this day and age, such attitudes prevail.

i simply want Indian Islam to become like Turkish Islam. Hence my opposition to the burqa for instance which is in keeping with Kemal Ataturk's opposition to burqa.

Coming to Hinduism, there have been reforms within Hinduism in India. For instance there were reforms which led to hindu widows re-marrying and living lives of dignity. Similar reforms unfortunately did not take place in mainstream Indian Islam. But can there be any doubt that Indian Islam will start looking like Turkish Islam in the not too distant future? Everything that history teaches us says that Turkish Islam is the future of Islam in India and elsewhere. Now, hindus can either claim to be secular and adopt a detached perspective towards reforms in Indian Islam or they can do their bit by siding with progressive and liberal muslims in India and helping such people be the Indian Kemal Ataturks of the future.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:33 am

Rashmun wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

C'mon. It's silly to cherry pick societal atrocities. We are not in the medieval world. In today's modern world, Islam ranks as the most backward and regressive of religions, its core tenets and practices frozen in time.

One of the saddest stories to emerge out of the Muzaffarnagar riots was that of Muslim women gang-raped brutally by rioters, but who suffer in silence and can't even officially complain because they will be branded adulterers in the eyes of their co-religionists. It's truly shocking that in this day and age, such attitudes prevail.

i simply want Indian Islam to become like Turkish Islam. Hence my opposition to the burqa for instance which is in keeping with Kemal Ataturk's opposition to burqa.

Coming to Hinduism, there have been reforms within Hinduism in India. For instance there were reforms which led to hindu widows re-marrying and living lives of dignity. Similar reforms unfortunately did not take place in mainstream Indian Islam. But can there be any doubt that Indian Islam will start looking like Turkish Islam in the not too distant future? Everything that history teaches us says that Turkish Islam is the future of Islam in India and elsewhere. Now, hindus can either claim to be secular and adopt a detached perspective towards reforms in Indian Islam or they can do their bit by siding with progressive and liberal muslims in India and helping such people be the Indian Kemal Ataturks of the future.

Really?? I don't see any evidence of that in India. If anything, Turkey itself appears too be slipping back to the standards of its backward neighborhood.

by Guest Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:56 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

C'mon. It's silly to cherry pick societal atrocities. We are not in the medieval world. In today's modern world, Islam ranks as the most backward and regressive of religions, its core tenets and practices frozen in time.

One of the saddest stories to emerge out of the Muzaffarnagar riots was that of Muslim women gang-raped brutally by rioters, but who suffer in silence and can't even officially complain because they will be branded adulterers in the eyes of their co-religionists. It's truly shocking that in this day and age, such attitudes prevail.

i simply want Indian Islam to become like Turkish Islam. Hence my opposition to the burqa for instance which is in keeping with Kemal Ataturk's opposition to burqa.

Coming to Hinduism, there have been reforms within Hinduism in India. For instance there were reforms which led to hindu widows re-marrying and living lives of dignity. Similar reforms unfortunately did not take place in mainstream Indian Islam. But can there be any doubt that Indian Islam will start looking like Turkish Islam in the not too distant future? Everything that history teaches us says that Turkish Islam is the future of Islam in India and elsewhere. Now, hindus can either claim to be secular and adopt a detached perspective towards reforms in Indian Islam or they can do their bit by siding with progressive and liberal muslims in India and helping such people be the Indian Kemal Ataturks of the future.

Really?? I don't see any evidence of that in India. If anything, Turkey itself appears too be slipping back to the standards of its backward neighborhood.

on the issue of religious freedom, the way it works is: 10 steps forward, then 5 steps backward, then again 10 steps forward and maybe a few steps backward. So its not progress all the time; sometimes there is negative progress or reaction (to progress). But you have to faith in the fact that the wheel of history always moves in the forward direction. reaction or negative progress can retard progress temporarily, but not permanently. A good model for understanding how this works is studying how the battle for religious freedom was won against christianity in europe.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:02 am

The Middle eastern model has been the exact opposite. A freethinking, intellectually advanced civilization ceded to religious dogma and obscurantism, and stayed that way. They are now using the bounty under their feet to spread their medieval outlook to other nations. I don't see any grounds to share your optimism.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:24 pm

Rashmun: your Aurangazebish thinking is alien even to the Muslim youth today. They, like anyone else, want to get educated, get a job and own a house. Hindu or Muslim, the enlightened youth aren't interested in suppressing women.

Your Arab friend from Oman who recently tried to screw two underage girls in Hyderabad (marry!?!?!) was sent to Krishna's janmasthaan.

by Guest Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:26 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun: your Aurangazebish thinking is alien even to the Muslim youth today. They, like anyone else, want to get educated, get a job and own a house. Hindu or Muslim, the enlightened youth aren't interested in suppressing women.

Your Arab friend from Oman who recently tried to screw two underage girls in Hyderabad (marry!?!?!) was sent to Krishna's janmasthaan.

I am openly saying i admire Kemal Ataturk and Turkish Islam and you are accusing me of Aurangzebish thinking. Do u think your behavior is because of the saffron chaddi you are wearing?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:31 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun: your Aurangazebish thinking is alien even to the Muslim youth today. They, like anyone else, want to get educated, get a job and own a house. Hindu or Muslim, the enlightened youth aren't interested in suppressing women.

Your Arab friend from Oman who recently tried to screw two underage girls in Hyderabad (marry!?!?!) was sent to Krishna's janmasthaan.

I am openly saying i admire Kemal Ataturk and Turkish Islam and you are accusing me of Aurangzebish thinking. Do u think your behavior is because of the saffron chaddi you are wearing?

Ataturk is dead. So was Dr. PBUH.

You don't know what the average Turk does in his bedroom.

Your friends Togadia, Bhookari, Sonia and Giriraj are super sikular like you.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:38 pm

Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

Many a time the widows were not interested in marrying again, but were forcibly made to marry. Some women even committed suicide (including by sati) when their husbands died so they would not have to marry again, especially the killers of their husbands. In Rajasthan, several women (numbering in thousands and including the queen) immolated themselves when their husbands (soldiers and the king) lost the battle and were killed by the invading Muslims, to avoid being taken prisoners and marry the husbands of their killers.

Moreover, the practice of randomly marrying the widowed women led Jehangir to kill Sher Afgan and marry his widow Nur Jehan, the news about whose charm and beauty had infactuated Jehangir so much.

by southindian Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:40 pm

Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

by Guest Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:44 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

Many a time the widows were not interested in marrying again, but were forcibly made to marry. Some women even committed suicide (including by sati) when their husbands died so they would not have to marry again, especially the killers of their husbands. In Rajasthan, several women (numbering in thousands and including the queen) immolated themselves when their husbands (soldiers and the king) lost the battle and were killed by the invading Muslims, to avoid being taken prisoners and marry the husbands of their killers.

Moreover, the practice of randomly marrying the widowed women led Jehangir to kill Sher Afgan and marry his widow Nur Jehan, the news about whose charm and beauty had infactuated Jehangir so much.

the story about jahangir killing noor jahan's husband is pure fiction; it is not recorded in any contemporary literature and comes into history being a long time after jahangir's death. this story is considered fiction by modern historians. see, for instance, Bamber Gascoigne's 'The Great Moghuls' for more on this.

When Ajatashatru slaughtered the Vajjian tribes and Vidudabha slaughtered the Sakya tribe (the Budha's tribe) i am sure the soldiers must have kept the women of their dead enemies as personal companions. but that is war, things become different in times of war.

i am talking about times of peace. in peace, the muslim widow could remarry the man of her choice or her family's choice; while the hindu widow was treated like an outcaste, considered inauspicious, and often had to subsist as a beggar or a prostitute.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:54 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

Many a time the widows were not interested in marrying again, but were forcibly made to marry. Some women even committed suicide (including by sati) when their husbands died so they would not have to marry again, especially the killers of their husbands. In Rajasthan, several women (numbering in thousands and including the queen) immolated themselves when their husbands (soldiers and the king) lost the battle and were killed by the invading Muslims, to avoid being taken prisoners and marry the husbands of their killers.

Moreover, the practice of randomly marrying the widowed women led Jehangir to kill Sher Afgan and marry his widow Nur Jehan, the news about whose charm and beauty had infactuated Jehangir so much.

the story about jahangir killing noor jahan's husband is pure fiction; it is not recorded in any contemporary literature and comes into history being a long time after jahangir's death. this story is considered fiction by modern historians.

When did they delete this story from the history books ... probably happened in the past few decades of "secular" India.
There was even the footnote in the history books to this story that Nur Jehan loved Sher Afgan (her first husband) a lot and never forgave Jehangir (the king) for getting Sher Afgan (a brave soldier / officer in the Muslim army) killed and forcing her to marry him (which she did quite relunctantly after a while).

by Guest Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:01 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

Many a time the widows were not interested in marrying again, but were forcibly made to marry. Some women even committed suicide (including by sati) when their husbands died so they would not have to marry again, especially the killers of their husbands. In Rajasthan, several women (numbering in thousands and including the queen) immolated themselves when their husbands (soldiers and the king) lost the battle and were killed by the invading Muslims, to avoid being taken prisoners and marry the husbands of their killers.

Moreover, the practice of randomly marrying the widowed women led Jehangir to kill Sher Afgan and marry his widow Nur Jehan, the news about whose charm and beauty had infactuated Jehangir so much.

the story about jahangir killing noor jahan's husband is pure fiction; it is not recorded in any contemporary literature and comes into history being a long time after jahangir's death. this story is considered fiction by modern historians.

When did they delete this story from the history books ... probably happened in the past few decades of "secular" India.
There was even the footnote in the history books to this story that Nur Jehan loved Sher Afgan (her first husband) a lot amd never forgave Jehangir (the king) for getting Sher Afgan (a brave soldier / officer in the Muslim army) killed and forcing her to marry her (which she did quite relunctantly after a while).

as i mentioned, jahangir killing noor jahan's husband is considered mythology. he did no such thing. noor jahan was already a widow when she met jahangir. this story of jahangir killing noor's husband came into existence several decades after jahangir's death. also, noor jahan was devoted to jahangir and in fact saved jahangir when he was held captive by his general Mahabat Khan.

this is actually similar to the story of jahangir and anarkali. there is only one piece of evidence about anarkali. it is an inscription of jahangir that for the sake of anarkali he would have given up everything in the world. (J may have been in love with anarkali before he met noor and anarkali may have have died of some natural cause.) But from this one inscription a lot of mythology has been built up like what is depicted in the movie Mughal-e-Azam. Similarly we saw Jodha Bai in action in the movie Jodha Akbar but in reality we do not know anything about the personal life of the real Jodha.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:09 pm

"as i mentioned, jahangir killing noor jahan's husband is considered mythology. he did no such thing. noor jahan was already a widow when she met jahangir. this story of jahangir killing noor's husband came into existence several decades after jahangir's death. also, noor jahan was devoted to jahangir and in fact saved jahangir when he was held captive by his general Mahabat Khan. " ... Rashmun

>>> Your whitewashed history version notwithstanding, Nur Jehan was said to have gotten even with Jehangir for killing her first husband and forcing her to marry him, by turning Jehangir later (after being forced into the marriage with him) into a heavy user (druggie) of alcohol and opium by feeding these things to him regularly.

by Guest Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:20 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"as i mentioned, jahangir killing noor jahan's husband is considered mythology. he did no such thing. noor jahan was already a widow when she met jahangir. this story of jahangir killing noor's husband came into existence several decades after jahangir's death. also, noor jahan was devoted to jahangir and in fact saved jahangir when he was held captive by his general Mahabat Khan. " ... Rashmun

>>> Your whitewashed history version notwithstanding, Nur Jehan was said to have gotten even with Jehangir for killing her first husband and forcing her to marry him, by turning Jehangir later (after being forced into the marriage with him) into a heavy user (druggie) of alcohol and opium by feeding these things to him regularly.

he had become a heavy consumer of alcohol at a young age (before his marriage to noor jahan). he writes in his autobiography that he was drinking twenty cups of double distilled spirits every day and that his hands used to shiver as he would bring the cup near his mouth. the doctors told him he had six months to live at this rate, and when he heard this he claims he came to his senses and henceforth restricted his alcohol intake to eight cups of a mixture of wine and spirit to be taken thrice a week. in other words, he assures us that he had sufficient will power to overcome his alcoholism.

he would also consume opium occasionally. in those days it was customary for high society people in India and China to consume opium. the Rajputs in particular are also said to have consumed opium in large quantities.

the claim that Jahangir was an alcoholic and a drug addict and a wastrel has no basis in history. Mughal Painting reached its zenith at the time of Jahangir since he was a connoisseur of paintings. Also, he was very fond of science and scientific experiments and has given details of these in his autobiography. According to his biographer Bamber Gascoigne, the Royal Society of England was established in England at the time of Jahangir and Jahangir being so fond of science would have felt at ease in the company of the scientists in the Royal Society.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"as i mentioned, jahangir killing noor jahan's husband is considered mythology. he did no such thing. noor jahan was already a widow when she met jahangir. this story of jahangir killing noor's husband came into existence several decades after jahangir's death. also, noor jahan was devoted to jahangir and in fact saved jahangir when he was held captive by his general Mahabat Khan. " ... Rashmun

>>> Your whitewashed history version notwithstanding, Nur Jehan was said to have gotten even with Jehangir for killing her first husband and forcing her to marry him, by turning Jehangir later (after being forced into the marriage with him) into a heavy user (druggie) of alcohol and opium by feeding these things to him regularly.

he had become a heavy consumer of alcohol at a young age (before his marriage to noor jahan). he writes in his autobiography that he was drinking twenty cups of double distilled spirits every day and that his hands used to shiver as he would bring the cup near his mouth. the doctors told him he had six months to live at this rate, and when he heard this he claims he came to his senses and henceforth restricted his alcohol intake to eight cups of a mixture of wine and spirit to be taken thrice a week. in other words, he assures us that he had sufficient will power to overcome his alcoholism.

he would also consume opium occasionally. in those days it was customary for high society people in India and China to consume opium. the Rajputs in particular are also said to have consumed opium in large quantities.

the claim that Jahangir was an alcoholic and a drug addict and a wastrel has no basis in history. Mughal Painting reached its zenith at the time of Jahangir since he was a connoisseur of paintings. Also, he was very fond of science and scientific experiments and has given details of these in his autobiography. According to his biographer Bamber Gascoigne, the Royal Society of England was established in England at the time of Jahangir and Jahangir being so fond of science would have felt at ease in the company of the scientists in the Royal Society.

Yes, Jehangir was a connoisseur of paintings, arts and beauty, so much so that he even had an innocent man Sher Afgan get killed for having an exquisitely beautiful wife (the news of her beauty was known all around) so that he himself (a king) could marry her after her first husband's "death".

by Guest Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:30 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"as i mentioned, jahangir killing noor jahan's husband is considered mythology. he did no such thing. noor jahan was already a widow when she met jahangir. this story of jahangir killing noor's husband came into existence several decades after jahangir's death. also, noor jahan was devoted to jahangir and in fact saved jahangir when he was held captive by his general Mahabat Khan. " ... Rashmun

>>> Your whitewashed history version notwithstanding, Nur Jehan was said to have gotten even with Jehangir for killing her first husband and forcing her to marry him, by turning Jehangir later (after being forced into the marriage with him) into a heavy user (druggie) of alcohol and opium by feeding these things to him regularly.

he had become a heavy consumer of alcohol at a young age (before his marriage to noor jahan). he writes in his autobiography that he was drinking twenty cups of double distilled spirits every day and that his hands used to shiver as he would bring the cup near his mouth. the doctors told him he had six months to live at this rate, and when he heard this he claims he came to his senses and henceforth restricted his alcohol intake to eight cups of a mixture of wine and spirit to be taken thrice a week. in other words, he assures us that he had sufficient will power to overcome his alcoholism.

he would also consume opium occasionally. in those days it was customary for high society people in India and China to consume opium. the Rajputs in particular are also said to have consumed opium in large quantities.

the claim that Jahangir was an alcoholic and a drug addict and a wastrel has no basis in history. Mughal Painting reached its zenith at the time of Jahangir since he was a connoisseur of paintings. Also, he was very fond of science and scientific experiments and has given details of these in his autobiography. According to his biographer Bamber Gascoigne, the Royal Society of England was established in England at the time of Jahangir and Jahangir being so fond of science would have felt at ease in the company of the scientists in the Royal Society.

Yes, Jehangir was a connoisseur of paintings, arts and beauty, so much so that he even had an innocent man Sher Afgan get killed for having an exquisitely beautiful wife (the news of her beauty was known all around) so that he himself (a king) could marry her after her first husband's "death".

if you wish to accept mythology to be historical fact who can stop you.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:16 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"as i mentioned, jahangir killing noor jahan's husband is considered mythology. he did no such thing. noor jahan was already a widow when she met jahangir. this story of jahangir killing noor's husband came into existence several decades after jahangir's death. also, noor jahan was devoted to jahangir and in fact saved jahangir when he was held captive by his general Mahabat Khan. " ... Rashmun

>>> Your whitewashed history version notwithstanding, Nur Jehan was said to have gotten even with Jehangir for killing her first husband and forcing her to marry him, by turning Jehangir later (after being forced into the marriage with him) into a heavy user (druggie) of alcohol and opium by feeding these things to him regularly.

he had become a heavy consumer of alcohol at a young age (before his marriage to noor jahan). he writes in his autobiography that he was drinking twenty cups of double distilled spirits every day and that his hands used to shiver as he would bring the cup near his mouth. the doctors told him he had six months to live at this rate, and when he heard this he claims he came to his senses and henceforth restricted his alcohol intake to eight cups of a mixture of wine and spirit to be taken thrice a week. in other words, he assures us that he had sufficient will power to overcome his alcoholism.

he would also consume opium occasionally. in those days it was customary for high society people in India and China to consume opium. the Rajputs in particular are also said to have consumed opium in large quantities.

the claim that Jahangir was an alcoholic and a drug addict and a wastrel has no basis in history. Mughal Painting reached its zenith at the time of Jahangir since he was a connoisseur of paintings. Also, he was very fond of science and scientific experiments and has given details of these in his autobiography. According to his biographer Bamber Gascoigne, the Royal Society of England was established in England at the time of Jahangir and Jahangir being so fond of science would have felt at ease in the company of the scientists in the Royal Society.

Yes, Jehangir was a connoisseur of paintings, arts and beauty, so much so that he even had an innocent man Sher Afgan get killed for having an exquisitely beautiful wife (the news of her beauty was known all around) so that he himself (a king) could marry her after her first husband's "death".

if you wish to accept mythology to be historical fact who can stop you.

So, you think that the stuff in the 7th century book is all BS?

Be careful and don't tell your Swat friends! They have been reciting it since childhood and "taking care" of those who question the content.

by Guest Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:24 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"as i mentioned, jahangir killing noor jahan's husband is considered mythology. he did no such thing. noor jahan was already a widow when she met jahangir. this story of jahangir killing noor's husband came into existence several decades after jahangir's death. also, noor jahan was devoted to jahangir and in fact saved jahangir when he was held captive by his general Mahabat Khan. " ... Rashmun

>>> Your whitewashed history version notwithstanding, Nur Jehan was said to have gotten even with Jehangir for killing her first husband and forcing her to marry him, by turning Jehangir later (after being forced into the marriage with him) into a heavy user (druggie) of alcohol and opium by feeding these things to him regularly.

he had become a heavy consumer of alcohol at a young age (before his marriage to noor jahan). he writes in his autobiography that he was drinking twenty cups of double distilled spirits every day and that his hands used to shiver as he would bring the cup near his mouth. the doctors told him he had six months to live at this rate, and when he heard this he claims he came to his senses and henceforth restricted his alcohol intake to eight cups of a mixture of wine and spirit to be taken thrice a week. in other words, he assures us that he had sufficient will power to overcome his alcoholism.

he would also consume opium occasionally. in those days it was customary for high society people in India and China to consume opium. the Rajputs in particular are also said to have consumed opium in large quantities.

the claim that Jahangir was an alcoholic and a drug addict and a wastrel has no basis in history. Mughal Painting reached its zenith at the time of Jahangir since he was a connoisseur of paintings. Also, he was very fond of science and scientific experiments and has given details of these in his autobiography. According to his biographer Bamber Gascoigne, the Royal Society of England was established in England at the time of Jahangir and Jahangir being so fond of science would have felt at ease in the company of the scientists in the Royal Society.

Yes, Jehangir was a connoisseur of paintings, arts and beauty, so much so that he even had an innocent man Sher Afgan get killed for having an exquisitely beautiful wife (the news of her beauty was known all around) so that he himself (a king) could marry her after her first husband's "death".

if you wish to accept mythology to be historical fact who can stop you.
So, you think that the stuff in the 7th century book is all BS?

Be careful and don't tell your Swat friends! They have been reciting it since childhood and "taking care" of those who question the content.

my understanding is that the 7th century book concerns itself with ethics, being good as a person, serving others who are less fortunate, etc. Swami Sivananda, Swami Chidananda, and several other renowned and learned hindu saints have praised the 7th century book. i recall sharing Sivananda's writings with you on the subject and i remember you had expressed disappointment when you read what Sivananda had to say on the 7th century book and its author.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:50 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

he had become a heavy consumer of alcohol at a young age (before his marriage to noor jahan). he writes in his autobiography that he was drinking twenty cups of double distilled spirits every day and that his hands used to shiver as he would bring the cup near his mouth. the doctors told him he had six months to live at this rate, and when he heard this he claims he came to his senses and henceforth restricted his alcohol intake to eight cups of a mixture of wine and spirit to be taken thrice a week. in other words, he assures us that he had sufficient will power to overcome his alcoholism.

he would also consume opium occasionally. in those days it was customary for high society people in India and China to consume opium. the Rajputs in particular are also said to have consumed opium in large quantities.

the claim that Jahangir was an alcoholic and a drug addict and a wastrel has no basis in history. Mughal Painting reached its zenith at the time of Jahangir since he was a connoisseur of paintings. Also, he was very fond of science and scientific experiments and has given details of these in his autobiography. According to his biographer Bamber Gascoigne, the Royal Society of England was established in England at the time of Jahangir and Jahangir being so fond of science would have felt at ease in the company of the scientists in the Royal Society.

Yes, Jehangir was a connoisseur of paintings, arts and beauty, so much so that he even had an innocent man Sher Afgan get killed for having an exquisitely beautiful wife (the news of her beauty was known all around) so that he himself (a king) could marry her after her first husband's "death".

if you wish to accept mythology to be historical fact who can stop you.
So, you think that the stuff in the 7th century book is all BS?

Be careful and don't tell your Swat friends! They have been reciting it since childhood and "taking care" of those who question the content.

my understanding is that the 7th century book concerns itself with ethics, being good as a person, serving others who are less fortunate, etc. Swami Sivananda, Swami Chidananda, and several other renowned and learned hindu saints have praised the 7th century book. i recall sharing Sivananda's writings with you on the subject and i remember you had expressed disappointment when you read what Sivananda had to say on the 7th century book and its author.

Hindu saints praising the 7th century book only shows their sainthood. No true believer will agree with a kafir saint if he says that all faiths lead to the same God. Sivananda was lucky that he didn't say what he said in Swat valley. At least Gandhi said that sitting in India (Jinnah, however, didn't agree).

by pravalika nanda Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:08 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In medieval India and right until modern times the Hindu widow was prohibited from marrying again. She had to wear spartan clothes, eat minimal food, shave the head in her hair and she was considered inauspicious. Often she would be kicked out of the house and sometimes taken to religious places like Benaras or Vrindavan to live which would usually result in the woman becoming either a beggar or a prostitute.

In contrast, the Muslim widow was always free to marry again.

And let us not even go into sati.

C'mon. It's silly to cherry pick societal atrocities. We are not in the medieval world. In today's modern world, Islam ranks as the most backward and regressive of religions, its core tenets and practices frozen in time.

One of the saddest stories to emerge out of the Muzaffarnagar riots was that of Muslim women gang-raped brutally by rioters, but who suffer in silence and can't even officially complain because they will be branded adulterers in the eyes of their co-religionists. It's truly shocking that in this day and age, such attitudes prevail.

** yeah, we know, we've been hearing all the intricate details from the misty-eyed secular elites and secular media. otoh in the train incident secular-elites trivialized the crime and so we can't even be sure who was on the train other than the bs and half-truths we have to endure. and if the secular-elites acknowledged the truth and spoke up "chaddis" would not have to go hysterical. the only reason they do that is they can't deal with your half-truths and selective justice. we've had enough of your sanctimony.

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:28 pm

pravalika nanda wrote:
** yeah, we know, we've been hearing all the intricate details from the misty-eyed secular elites and secular media. otoh in the train incident secular-elites trivialized the crime and so we can't even be sure who was on the train other than the bs and half-truths we have to endure. and if the secular-elites acknowledged the truth and spoke up "chaddis" would not have to go hysterical. the only reason they do that is they can't deal with your half-truths and selective justice. we've had enough of your sanctimony.

That must be a figment of your imagination. Nobody is holding Modi responsible for train incident rather he is blamed for supporting the massacre that took place later as a retaliation.

by Kris Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:40 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
** yeah, we know, we've been hearing all the intricate details from the misty-eyed secular elites and secular media. otoh in the train incident secular-elites trivialized the crime and so we can't even be sure who was on the train other than the bs and half-truths we have to endure. and if the secular-elites acknowledged the truth and spoke up "chaddis" would not have to go hysterical. the only reason they do that is they can't deal with your half-truths and selective justice. we've had enough of your sanctimony.
That must be a figment of your imagination. Nobody is holding Modi responsible for train incident rather he is blamed for supporting the massacre that took place later as a retaliation.

>>.She is not saying that. She is talking about the secular elites trivializing it and not acknowledging it. Check the section I have bolded in her post.

by Guest Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:46 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
** yeah, we know, we've been hearing all the intricate details from the misty-eyed secular elites and secular media. otoh in the train incident secular-elites trivialized the crime and so we can't even be sure who was on the train other than the bs and half-truths we have to endure. and if the secular-elites acknowledged the truth and spoke up "chaddis" would not have to go hysterical. the only reason they do that is they can't deal with your half-truths and selective justice. we've had enough of your sanctimony.
That must be a figment of your imagination. Nobody is holding Modi responsible for train incident rather he is blamed for supporting the massacre that took place later as a retaliation.

>>.She is not saying that. She is talking about the secular elites trivializing it and not acknowledging it. Check the section I have bolded in her post.

whatever happened in Godhra should have been confined to Godhra. The series of mistakes Modi made as CM--starting from allowing the bodies to be brought to Ahmedabad and handed over to the VHP who paraded the bodies around--was simply criminal. it allowed the violence to spread to other parts of Gujarat. either Modi was complicit in the violence, or if he was not then he was an incompetent CM.

Secondly, Sidhartha Varadarajan has pointed out that even in Godhra there remained some unidentified bodies amongst the victims in the Godhra train violence. Varadarajan speculates that these unidentified victims must have been muslims for two reasons. First, the families of these people did not claim the bodies out of fear that they would be targeted if they drew attention to the fact that they were muslims and went about in public at that time. I forget the other reason Varadarajan gives in his book.

by smArtha Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:04 pm

Rashmun wrote:

whatever happened in Godhra should have been confined to Godhra. The series of mistakes Modi made as CM--starting from allowing the bodies to be brought to Ahmedabad and handed over to the VHP who paraded the bodies around--was simply criminal. it allowed the violence to spread to other parts of Gujarat. either Modi was complicit in the violence, or if he was not then he was an incompetent CM.

Competence is never measured on single error/exception, if any. Especially when such a thing happened during the first few months of his office (Modi never held any other office and in India even if you are a CM/PM things dont direcly fall in your control from day one). The fact that he ruled the last 12 years without a riot or even a skirmish worthy of reporting is testimony to his competence and how he learnt to be better at control and execution on the job. Contrast this with MMS who came with great credentials over that of Modi and also experience of running a senior cabinet ministry and still ran a cabinet and PMO that he is not fully in control of. The graph is inverted in MMS case as opposed to that of NaMo and it is the single most compelling reason to elect him as PM.

by Kris Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:14 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
** yeah, we know, we've been hearing all the intricate details from the misty-eyed secular elites and secular media. otoh in the train incident secular-elites trivialized the crime and so we can't even be sure who was on the train other than the bs and half-truths we have to endure. and if the secular-elites acknowledged the truth and spoke up "chaddis" would not have to go hysterical. the only reason they do that is they can't deal with your half-truths and selective justice. we've had enough of your sanctimony.
That must be a figment of your imagination. Nobody is holding Modi responsible for train incident rather he is blamed for supporting the massacre that took place later as a retaliation.

>>.She is not saying that. She is talking about the secular elites trivializing it and not acknowledging it. Check the section I have bolded in her post.

whatever happened in Godhra should have been confined to Godhra. The series of mistakes Modi made as CM--starting from allowing the bodies to be brought to Ahmedabad and handed over to the VHP who paraded the bodies around--was simply criminal. it allowed the violence to spread to other parts of Gujarat. either Modi was complicit in the violence, or if he was not then he was an incompetent CM.

Secondly, Sidhartha Varadarajan has pointed out that even in Godhra there remained some unidentified bodies amongst the victims in the Godhra train violence. Varadarajan speculates that these unidentified victims must have been muslims for two reasons. First, the families of these people did not claim the bodies out of fear that they would be targeted if they drew attention to the fact that they were muslims and went about in public at that time. I forget the other reason Varadarajan gives in his book.

>>> My understanding is that this did not happen, but rather the bodies were handed over to the relatives. I would even hold him guilty if he looked the other way and tacitly encouraged a retaliation, but the investigations of him don't bear this out even after all these years. The other aspect to this I find intriguing is that there are prominent muslims backing him. The incompetence charge is one that is outside the jurisdiction of courts and evidently is not seen as an issue by the voting public. From all accounts, this guy is seen as an efficient administrator. In the years, since 2002 I have been reading up on this off and on. One thing that was an eye opener for me was a client (Indian) who moved back to India to set up business. He came here when he was a child with his parents and doesn't have any religious angle and would call a spade a spade, but he found Modi to be forthright and this was before any national office was on Modi's radar ( at least to my knowledge). On a related matter, PN's point is one I agree with on the media being disingenuous where the train burning gets short shrift. Two wrongs don't make a right, but an obvious glossing over of this makes you wonder how objective the media is in its reporting and if it has its own agenda.

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:30 pm

Kris wrote:
>>> My understanding is that this did not happen, but rather the bodies were handed over to the relatives. I would even hold him guilty if he looked the other way and tacitly encouraged a retaliation, but the investigations of him don't bear this out even after all these years. The other aspect to this I find intriguing is that there are prominent muslims backing him. The incompetence charge is one that is outside the jurisdiction of courts and evidently is not seen as an issue by the voting public. From all accounts, this guy is seen as an efficient administrator. In the years, since 2002 I have been reading up on this off and on. One thing that was an eye opener for me was a client (Indian) who moved back to India to set up business. He came here when he was a child with his parents and doesn't have any religious angle and would call a spade a spade, but he found Modi to be forthright and this was before any national office was on Modi's radar ( at least to my knowledge). On a related matter, PN's point is one I agree with on the media being disingenuous where the train burning gets short shrift. Two wrongs don't make a right, but an obvious glossing over of this makes you wonder how objective the media is in its reporting and if it has its own agenda.

I thought several were convicted & were sentenced to life imprisonment in the train burning incident and none of them was CM or ex-CM of Gujarat. It would be trivializing only if elite secularists oppose/critcize court's verdict.

by Guest Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:58 pm

Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
** yeah, we know, we've been hearing all the intricate details from the misty-eyed secular elites and secular media. otoh in the train incident secular-elites trivialized the crime and so we can't even be sure who was on the train other than the bs and half-truths we have to endure. and if the secular-elites acknowledged the truth and spoke up "chaddis" would not have to go hysterical. the only reason they do that is they can't deal with your half-truths and selective justice. we've had enough of your sanctimony.
That must be a figment of your imagination. Nobody is holding Modi responsible for train incident rather he is blamed for supporting the massacre that took place later as a retaliation.

>>.She is not saying that. She is talking about the secular elites trivializing it and not acknowledging it. Check the section I have bolded in her post.

whatever happened in Godhra should have been confined to Godhra. The series of mistakes Modi made as CM--starting from allowing the bodies to be brought to Ahmedabad and handed over to the VHP who paraded the bodies around--was simply criminal. it allowed the violence to spread to other parts of Gujarat. either Modi was complicit in the violence, or if he was not then he was an incompetent CM.

Secondly, Sidhartha Varadarajan has pointed out that even in Godhra there remained some unidentified bodies amongst the victims in the Godhra train violence. Varadarajan speculates that these unidentified victims must have been muslims for two reasons. First, the families of these people did not claim the bodies out of fear that they would be targeted if they drew attention to the fact that they were muslims and went about in public at that time. I forget the other reason Varadarajan gives in his book.

>>> My understanding is that this did not happen, but rather the bodies were handed over to the relatives. I would even hold him guilty if he looked the other way and tacitly encouraged a retaliation, but the investigations of him don't bear this out even after all these years. The other aspect to this I find intriguing is that there are prominent muslims backing him. The incompetence charge is one that is outside the jurisdiction of courts and evidently is not seen as an issue by the voting public. From all accounts, this guy is seen as an efficient administrator. In the years, since 2002 I have been reading up on this off and on. One thing that was an eye opener for me was a client (Indian) who moved back to India to set up business. He came here when he was a child with his parents and doesn't have any religious angle and would call a spade a spade, but he found Modi to be forthright and this was before any national office was on Modi's radar ( at least to my knowledge). On a related matter, PN's point is one I agree with on the media being disingenuous where the train burning gets short shrift. Two wrongs don't make a right, but an obvious glossing over of this makes you wonder how objective the media is in its reporting and if it has its own agenda.

With respect to Godhra victims' bodies brought to Ahmedabad and handed over to Vishwa Hindu Parishad:

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/vhp-leader-was-officially-given-custody-of-bodies-of-54-godhra-train-fire-victims/448695/

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/decision-to-bring-godhra-victims-bodies-taken-at-top-level/article2876244.ece

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:02 am

Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
That must be a figment of your imagination. Nobody is holding Modi responsible for train incident rather he is blamed for supporting the massacre that took place later as a retaliation.

>>.She is not saying that. She is talking about the secular elites trivializing it and not acknowledging it. Check the section I have bolded in her post.

whatever happened in Godhra should have been confined to Godhra. The series of mistakes Modi made as CM--starting from allowing the bodies to be brought to Ahmedabad and handed over to the VHP who paraded the bodies around--was simply criminal. it allowed the violence to spread to other parts of Gujarat. either Modi was complicit in the violence, or if he was not then he was an incompetent CM.

Secondly, Sidhartha Varadarajan has pointed out that even in Godhra there remained some unidentified bodies amongst the victims in the Godhra train violence. Varadarajan speculates that these unidentified victims must have been muslims for two reasons. First, the families of these people did not claim the bodies out of fear that they would be targeted if they drew attention to the fact that they were muslims and went about in public at that time. I forget the other reason Varadarajan gives in his book.

>>> My understanding is that this did not happen, but rather the bodies were handed over to the relatives. I would even hold him guilty if he looked the other way and tacitly encouraged a retaliation, but the investigations of him don't bear this out even after all these years. The other aspect to this I find intriguing is that there are prominent muslims backing him. The incompetence charge is one that is outside the jurisdiction of courts and evidently is not seen as an issue by the voting public. From all accounts, this guy is seen as an efficient administrator. In the years, since 2002 I have been reading up on this off and on. One thing that was an eye opener for me was a client (Indian) who moved back to India to set up business. He came here when he was a child with his parents and doesn't have any religious angle and would call a spade a spade, but he found Modi to be forthright and this was before any national office was on Modi's radar ( at least to my knowledge). On a related matter, PN's point is one I agree with on the media being disingenuous where the train burning gets short shrift. Two wrongs don't make a right, but an obvious glossing over of this makes you wonder how objective the media is in its reporting and if it has its own agenda.

With respect to Godhra victims' bodies brought to Ahmedabad and handed over to Vishwa Hindu Parishad:

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/vhp-leader-was-officially-given-custody-of-bodies-of-54-godhra-train-fire-victims/448695/

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/decision-to-bring-godhra-victims-bodies-taken-at-top-level/article2876244.ece

With respect to Modi looking the other way and tacitly encouraging retaliation see here:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Modi-modern-day-Nero-SC/articleshow/612448.cms

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:14 am

Regarding Muslims supporting Modi, here is a typical example of such a person:

https://such.forumotion.com/t18854-is-modi-supporter-zafar-sareshwala-a-crook#135147

Basically these are people who have been helped monetarily by Modi and are hence under Modi's obligation.

by Kris Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:58 am

Rashmun wrote:Regarding Muslims supporting Modi, here is a typical example of such a person:

https://such.forumotion.com/t18854-is-modi-supporter-zafar-sareshwala-a-crook#135147

Basically these are people who have been helped monetarily by Modi and are hence under Modi's obligation.

>>I have read about Sareshwala. The ones I am thinking of are Naqvi, MJ Akbar, Salim Khan etc. Wasn't there also a Farooq Khan (former IG of J&K)?.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:12 am

Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Regarding Muslims supporting Modi, here is a typical example of such a person:

https://such.forumotion.com/t18854-is-modi-supporter-zafar-sareshwala-a-crook#135147

Basically these are people who have been helped monetarily by Modi and are hence under Modi's obligation.

>>I have read about Sareshwala. The ones I am thinking of are Naqvi, MJ Akbar, Salim Khan etc. Wasn't there also a Farooq Khan (former IG of J&K)?.

Salim Khan has said he admires Modi, but he will vote for Congress:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/Salman-Khans-father-Salim-Khan-launches-Urdu-website-on-Modi/articleshow/33826192.cms

What is one to make of this? My understanding is that he is supporting both Modi and Congress in the hope that whichever party comes to power they could help his son Salman get some relief in the court cases he is facing. For instance even after conviction in a case Salman could get a presidential pardon. Two cases Salman faces are: poaching black bucks in Rajasthan which is not permitted since black buck is I think an endangered species; and running over some people sleeping on the pavement with his car in which incident 1-2 people died.

Regarding MJ Akbar the guy is a careerist and an opportunist. Did you know that he was a spokesperson of rajiv Gandhi and a Congress MP at one time? Anyways, see here for more on Akbar:

https://such.forumotion.com/t21933-a-good-article-on-the-opportunism-of-akbar-the-great?highlight=M+J+Akbar

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:18 am

Rashmun:

Unless you are peddling iSlam for whatever personal reason you may have, do you really think that there is no basket of civil laws that a country can borrow from in the modern scenario? Why does one need to look for Hindu laws, Muslim laws, Christian laws, etc., and create more problems than solutions?

If Muslims are so progressive, they should just embrace a uniform civil code and move ahead. There is no real reason to look back at a 7th century book. There is no need to unlock Babri musjid doors or contribute to Shaw Banu's misery.

Same thing goes for people of other faiths. They all should go for UCC and contribute to societal harmony and development. Hindus should forget about Dasaratha and his three wives and follow the current one man, one wife code.

Often, yesterday's prophets create more problems than solutions for today's man:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Oman-national-held-in-Hyderabad-for-marrying-minor-girl/articleshow/33961954.cms

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:39 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun:

Unless you are peddling iSlam for whatever personal reason you may have, do you really think that there is no basket of civil laws that a country can borrow from in the modern scenario? Why does one need to look for Hindu laws, Muslim laws, Christian laws, etc., and create more problems than solutions?

If Muslims are so progressive, they should just embrace a uniform civil code and move ahead. There is no real reason to look back at a 7th century book. There is no need to unlock Babri musjid doors or contribute to Shaw Banu's misery.

Same thing goes for people of other faiths. They all should go for UCC and contribute to societal harmony and development. Hindus should forget about Dasaratha and his three wives and follow the current one man, one wife code.

Often, yesterday's prophets create more problems than solutions for today's man:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Oman-national-held-in-Hyderabad-for-marrying-minor-girl/articleshow/33961954.cms

In prior discussions with Seva I have expressed support for UCC. In my opinion the only people who can be exempt from the UCC are tribals who are living in jungles/forests/remote places.

I will point out though that it was only in 1956 that reforms were introduced in the Hindu marriage act after which a Hindu man could have only one wife. Prior to this a Hindu man could have unlimited number of wives theoretically without breaking the law in any way.

BJP Lok Sabha candidate Hema Malini is believed to have embraced Islam and is legally a Muslim. former BJP Lok Sabha member Dharmendra is also believed to have embraced Islam. The reason for these two embracing Islam was that Dharam was already married when he met Hema and converting to islam was the only way for them to get married. This example of hema and dharam is known to the public. God knows how many hindus have taken advantage of this lacuna in the law to have more than one spouse.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:53 am

Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun:

Unless you are peddling iSlam for whatever personal reason you may have, do you really think that there is no basket of civil laws that a country can borrow from in the modern scenario? Why does one need to look for Hindu laws, Muslim laws, Christian laws, etc., and create more problems than solutions?

If Muslims are so progressive, they should just embrace a uniform civil code and move ahead. There is no real reason to look back at a 7th century book. There is no need to unlock Babri musjid doors or contribute to Shaw Banu's misery.

Same thing goes for people of other faiths. They all should go for UCC and contribute to societal harmony and development. Hindus should forget about Dasaratha and his three wives and follow the current one man, one wife code.

Often, yesterday's prophets create more problems than solutions for today's man:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Oman-national-held-in-Hyderabad-for-marrying-minor-girl/articleshow/33961954.cms

In prior discussions with Seva I have expressed support for UCC. In my opinion the only people who can be exempt from the UCC are tribals who are living in jungles/forests/remote places.

I will point out though that it was only in 1956 that reforms were introduced in the Hindu marriage act after which a Hindu man could have only one wife. Prior to this a Hindu man could have unlimited number of wives theoretically without breaking the law in any way.

BJP Lok Sabha candidate Hema Malini is believed to have embraced Islam and is legally a Muslim. former BJP Lok Sabha member Dharmendra is also believed to have embraced Islam. The reason for these two embracing Islam was that Dharam was already married when he met Hema and converting to islam was the only way for them to get married. This example of hema and dharam is known to the public. God knows how many hindus have taken advantage of this lacuna in the law to have more than one spouse.

How can Modi impose UCC in the country when he cannot impose it within his own party?

http://outlookindia.com/story.aspx/?sid=4&aid=223773

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:01 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun:

Unless you are peddling iSlam for whatever personal reason you may have, do you really think that there is no basket of civil laws that a country can borrow from in the modern scenario? Why does one need to look for Hindu laws, Muslim laws, Christian laws, etc., and create more problems than solutions?

If Muslims are so progressive, they should just embrace a uniform civil code and move ahead. There is no real reason to look back at a 7th century book. There is no need to unlock Babri musjid doors or contribute to Shaw Banu's misery.

Same thing goes for people of other faiths. They all should go for UCC and contribute to societal harmony and development. Hindus should forget about Dasaratha and his three wives and follow the current one man, one wife code.

Often, yesterday's prophets create more problems than solutions for today's man:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Oman-national-held-in-Hyderabad-for-marrying-minor-girl/articleshow/33961954.cms

In prior discussions with Seva I have expressed support for UCC. In my opinion the only people who can be exempt from the UCC are tribals who are living in jungles/forests/remote places.

I will point out though that it was only in 1956 that reforms were introduced in the Hindu marriage act after which a Hindu man could have only one wife. Prior to this a Hindu man could have unlimited number of wives theoretically without breaking the law in any way.

BJP Lok Sabha candidate Hema Malini is believed to have embraced Islam and is legally a Muslim. former BJP Lok Sabha member Dharmendra is also believed to have embraced Islam. The reason for these two embracing Islam was that Dharam was already married when he met Hema and converting to islam was the only way for them to get married. This example of hema and dharam is known to the public. God knows how many hindus have taken advantage of this lacuna in the law to have more than one spouse.

That is my point. If there is an avenue to use religion for sex, some people will use it. In the case of Dharmendra and Hema Malini, don't blame their Hindu background (obviously, they are not that Hinduish to begin with). Blame it on iSlam which created this avenue for them so that they can "sleep" with each other and shout Abdul mian and Hamida bul bul while crashing into each other. They remind me of Ravan and Surpanaka. Ravan recited scriptural support when he attacked Rambha and Surpanakha invoked the supremacy of nature's laws when she showed her lust for Rama.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:13 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun:

Unless you are peddling iSlam for whatever personal reason you may have, do you really think that there is no basket of civil laws that a country can borrow from in the modern scenario? Why does one need to look for Hindu laws, Muslim laws, Christian laws, etc., and create more problems than solutions?

If Muslims are so progressive, they should just embrace a uniform civil code and move ahead. There is no real reason to look back at a 7th century book. There is no need to unlock Babri musjid doors or contribute to Shaw Banu's misery.

Same thing goes for people of other faiths. They all should go for UCC and contribute to societal harmony and development. Hindus should forget about Dasaratha and his three wives and follow the current one man, one wife code.

Often, yesterday's prophets create more problems than solutions for today's man:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Oman-national-held-in-Hyderabad-for-marrying-minor-girl/articleshow/33961954.cms

In prior discussions with Seva I have expressed support for UCC. In my opinion the only people who can be exempt from the UCC are tribals who are living in jungles/forests/remote places.

I will point out though that it was only in 1956 that reforms were introduced in the Hindu marriage act after which a Hindu man could have only one wife. Prior to this a Hindu man could have unlimited number of wives theoretically without breaking the law in any way.

BJP Lok Sabha candidate Hema Malini is believed to have embraced Islam and is legally a Muslim. former BJP Lok Sabha member Dharmendra is also believed to have embraced Islam. The reason for these two embracing Islam was that Dharam was already married when he met Hema and converting to islam was the only way for them to get married. This example of hema and dharam is known to the public. God knows how many hindus have taken advantage of this lacuna in the law to have more than one spouse.
That is my point. If there is an avenue to use religion for sex, some people will use it. In the case of Dharmendra and Hema Malini, don't blame their Hindu background (obviously, they are not that Hinduish to begin with). Blame it on iSlam which created this avenue for them so that they can "sleep" with each other and shout Abdul mian and Hamida bul bul while crashing into each other. They remind me of Ravan and Surpanaka. Ravan recited scriptural support when he attacked Rambha and Surpanakha invoked the supremacy of nature's laws when she showed her lust for Rama.

One could argue that they would have been sleeping together anyway. And having more than one wife was permitted in Hinduism till 1956. Better to be a second wife than to be a mistress or keep ( to use crude English). I have no issues with this at all since it is their personal life and by law they are allowed to do what they did. My problem is when these people are members and one can even say leaders of a party which claims it wants to introduce UCC. Why did BJP give a Lok Sabha ticket to Hema Malini and earlier a Lok Sabha ticket to Dharmendra? Why did BJP nominate Hema to Rajya Sabha earlier? Obviously because BJP is a hypocritical and fraudulent party with no principles. It says one thing, and does another.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:13 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun:

Unless you are peddling iSlam for whatever personal reason you may have, do you really think that there is no basket of civil laws that a country can borrow from in the modern scenario? Why does one need to look for Hindu laws, Muslim laws, Christian laws, etc., and create more problems than solutions?

If Muslims are so progressive, they should just embrace a uniform civil code and move ahead. There is no real reason to look back at a 7th century book. There is no need to unlock Babri musjid doors or contribute to Shaw Banu's misery.

Same thing goes for people of other faiths. They all should go for UCC and contribute to societal harmony and development. Hindus should forget about Dasaratha and his three wives and follow the current one man, one wife code.

Often, yesterday's prophets create more problems than solutions for today's man:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Oman-national-held-in-Hyderabad-for-marrying-minor-girl/articleshow/33961954.cms

In prior discussions with Seva I have expressed support for UCC. In my opinion the only people who can be exempt from the UCC are tribals who are living in jungles/forests/remote places.

I will point out though that it was only in 1956 that reforms were introduced in the Hindu marriage act after which a Hindu man could have only one wife. Prior to this a Hindu man could have unlimited number of wives theoretically without breaking the law in any way.

BJP Lok Sabha candidate Hema Malini is believed to have embraced Islam and is legally a Muslim. former BJP Lok Sabha member Dharmendra is also believed to have embraced Islam. The reason for these two embracing Islam was that Dharam was already married when he met Hema and converting to islam was the only way for them to get married. This example of hema and dharam is known to the public. God knows how many hindus have taken advantage of this lacuna in the law to have more than one spouse.

How can Modi impose UCC in the country when he cannot impose it within his own party?

http://outlookindia.com/story.aspx/?sid=4&aid=223773

Modi is already showing how he can put the old guard of BJP in its place. All that Advani, Togadia and MM Joshi can do is to cry on each others shoulders and fart once in a while to try and derail Modi's plan. If you don't see Modi's leadership skills in how he is managing the campaign (against great odds), that means your mind is clouded by sikular pollution.

Leaving Modi aside, if you believe that UCC is the way to go, who is stopping you from voicing that view (except the corrupt and fukular CONmen)?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:20 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun:

Unless you are peddling iSlam for whatever personal reason you may have, do you really think that there is no basket of civil laws that a country can borrow from in the modern scenario? Why does one need to look for Hindu laws, Muslim laws, Christian laws, etc., and create more problems than solutions?

If Muslims are so progressive, they should just embrace a uniform civil code and move ahead. There is no real reason to look back at a 7th century book. There is no need to unlock Babri musjid doors or contribute to Shaw Banu's misery.

Same thing goes for people of other faiths. They all should go for UCC and contribute to societal harmony and development. Hindus should forget about Dasaratha and his three wives and follow the current one man, one wife code.

Often, yesterday's prophets create more problems than solutions for today's man:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Oman-national-held-in-Hyderabad-for-marrying-minor-girl/articleshow/33961954.cms

In prior discussions with Seva I have expressed support for UCC. In my opinion the only people who can be exempt from the UCC are tribals who are living in jungles/forests/remote places.

I will point out though that it was only in 1956 that reforms were introduced in the Hindu marriage act after which a Hindu man could have only one wife. Prior to this a Hindu man could have unlimited number of wives theoretically without breaking the law in any way.

BJP Lok Sabha candidate Hema Malini is believed to have embraced Islam and is legally a Muslim. former BJP Lok Sabha member Dharmendra is also believed to have embraced Islam. The reason for these two embracing Islam was that Dharam was already married when he met Hema and converting to islam was the only way for them to get married. This example of hema and dharam is known to the public. God knows how many hindus have taken advantage of this lacuna in the law to have more than one spouse.
That is my point. If there is an avenue to use religion for sex, some people will use it. In the case of Dharmendra and Hema Malini, don't blame their Hindu background (obviously, they are not that Hinduish to begin with). Blame it on iSlam which created this avenue for them so that they can "sleep" with each other and shout Abdul mian and Hamida bul bul while crashing into each other. They remind me of Ravan and Surpanaka. Ravan recited scriptural support when he attacked Rambha and Surpanakha invoked the supremacy of nature's laws when she showed her lust for Rama.

One could argue that they would have been sleeping together anyway. And having more than one wife was permitted in Hinduism till 1956. Better to be a second wife than to be a mistress or keep ( to use crude English). I have no issues with this at all since it is their personal life and by law they are allowed to do what they did. My problem is when these people are members and one can even say leaders of a party which claims it wants to introduce UCC. Why did BJP give a Lok Sabha ticket to Hema Malini and earlier a Lok Sabha ticket to Dharmendra? Why did BJP nominate Hema to Rajya Sabha earlier? Obviously because BJP is a hypocritical and fraudulent party with no principles. It says one thing, and does another.

On the contrary, it may be showing that BJP is more open than we give credit. If you are sikular, you will have more difficulty in seeing anything positive in Modi or BJP.

Yesterday, I gave an example of how Kapil Sibal tried to malign Modi but the CBI (which is usually a puppy of CONmen) exposed his polluted mindset. CONmen have been after Modi for 12 years. With that much investment, they came out empty handed. That shows their lack of leadership skills.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:38 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun:

Unless you are peddling iSlam for whatever personal reason you may have, do you really think that there is no basket of civil laws that a country can borrow from in the modern scenario? Why does one need to look for Hindu laws, Muslim laws, Christian laws, etc., and create more problems than solutions?

If Muslims are so progressive, they should just embrace a uniform civil code and move ahead. There is no real reason to look back at a 7th century book. There is no need to unlock Babri musjid doors or contribute to Shaw Banu's misery.

Same thing goes for people of other faiths. They all should go for UCC and contribute to societal harmony and development. Hindus should forget about Dasaratha and his three wives and follow the current one man, one wife code.

Often, yesterday's prophets create more problems than solutions for today's man:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Oman-national-held-in-Hyderabad-for-marrying-minor-girl/articleshow/33961954.cms

In prior discussions with Seva I have expressed support for UCC. In my opinion the only people who can be exempt from the UCC are tribals who are living in jungles/forests/remote places.

I will point out though that it was only in 1956 that reforms were introduced in the Hindu marriage act after which a Hindu man could have only one wife. Prior to this a Hindu man could have unlimited number of wives theoretically without breaking the law in any way.

BJP Lok Sabha candidate Hema Malini is believed to have embraced Islam and is legally a Muslim. former BJP Lok Sabha member Dharmendra is also believed to have embraced Islam. The reason for these two embracing Islam was that Dharam was already married when he met Hema and converting to islam was the only way for them to get married. This example of hema and dharam is known to the public. God knows how many hindus have taken advantage of this lacuna in the law to have more than one spouse.
That is my point. If there is an avenue to use religion for sex, some people will use it. In the case of Dharmendra and Hema Malini, don't blame their Hindu background (obviously, they are not that Hinduish to begin with). Blame it on iSlam which created this avenue for them so that they can "sleep" with each other and shout Abdul mian and Hamida bul bul while crashing into each other. They remind me of Ravan and Surpanaka. Ravan recited scriptural support when he attacked Rambha and Surpanakha invoked the supremacy of nature's laws when she showed her lust for Rama.

One could argue that they would have been sleeping together anyway. And having more than one wife was permitted in Hinduism till 1956. Better to be a second wife than to be a mistress or keep ( to use crude English). I have no issues with this at all since it is their personal life and by law they are allowed to do what they did. My problem is when these people are members and one can even say leaders of a party which claims it wants to introduce UCC. Why did BJP give a Lok Sabha ticket to Hema Malini and earlier a Lok Sabha ticket to Dharmendra? Why did BJP nominate Hema to Rajya Sabha earlier? Obviously because BJP is a hypocritical and fraudulent party with no principles. It says one thing, and does another.
On the contrary, it may be showing that BJP is more open than we give credit. If you are sikular, you will have more difficulty in seeing anything positive in Modi or BJP.

Yesterday, I gave an example of how Kapil Sibal tried to malign Modi but the CBI (which is usually a puppy of CONmen) exposed his polluted mindset. CONmen have been after Modi for 12 years. With that much investment, they came out empty handed. That shows their lack of leadership skills.

You are missing the larger point which is: if BJP cannot implement UCC among its own leaders like Hema Malini ( 2 times BJP Rajya Sabha member, now fighting on BJP Lok Sabha ticket) then how the hell can it talk of giving UCC to the nation? Bunch of hypocrites!

by Sponsored content