Holy war calls to Indian Muslims

In the late 1990s, about a decade after terrorism first bespattered the Kashmir valley, champions of secularism in India would point out that Muslims from the rest of the country had never felt the need to join cause with the violence being perpetrated in the name of Islam in the northern state. Though the call for a holy war had drawn young Muslim men from Pakistan, Afghanistan and even Central Asia, not one of the Indian security forces that operated in Kashmir had captured a Muslim terrorist from West Bengal, say, or Bihar. This to many was sure-fire indication that the Indian polity was healthy and secular – a sign of the successful assimilation of a previously troubled minority.

Yet even then the argument seemed conceptually weak. The call to holy war in Kashmir could be ignored because the Bhojpuri or Malayali Muslim was as much of an outsider to Kashmir as a Hindu from Bhopal. The non-participation of Muslims in the violence in Kashmir was perhaps better read as an indication of the distance of that struggle from their daily lives – there was no emotive plank in the Kashmiri’s appeal to holy war. A generalised call to protect your religion or to fight with your religious cohorts is not sufficient to draw a peaceful person to violence. It needs sharper focus. And not just for Muslims: this is the reason LK Advani was ignored in the early 1980s but became a tidal political force later in the decade, radicalising hundreds of thousands across India when he fixed upon the Ram Janmabhoomi issue.

The first instance of Indian Muslim terror – in the definition that we have come to know it, causing wanton civilian death, targeting symbols of the state – were the 1993 bombings orchestrated by the Mumbai mobster Dawood Ibrahim, which he said was a response to the Hindutva attack on the Babri masjid. There is no doubt that the destruction of that mosque devastated the Indian Muslim community, who had suffered through numerous riots, and caused their own. But until then they had felt the state would protect places of worship important to the community. The numerous terrorist acts that have followed indicate the alienation many young Indian Muslims feel.

Even anti-Americanism among Muslims does not answer one question: why is it that fewer Indian Muslims were drawn to the jihad call of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Kashmir, than it seems are already being pulled towards ISIS?

http://scroll.in/article/672341/Why-a-photo-showing-Tamil-Muslims-in-support-of-ISIS-is-more-troubling-than-any-IB-report

confuzzled dude wrote:In the late 1990s, about a decade after terrorism first bespattered the Kashmir valley, champions of secularism in India would point out that Muslims from the rest of the country had never felt the need to join cause with the violence being perpetrated in the name of Islam in the northern state. Though the call for a holy war had drawn young Muslim men from Pakistan, Afghanistan and even Central Asia, not one of the Indian security forces that operated in Kashmir had captured a Muslim terrorist from West Bengal, say, or Bihar. This to many was sure-fire indication that the Indian polity was healthy and secular – a sign of the successful assimilation of a previously troubled minority.

Yet even then the argument seemed conceptually weak. The call to holy war in Kashmir could be ignored because the Bhojpuri or Malayali Muslim was as much of an outsider to Kashmir as a Hindu from Bhopal. The non-participation of Muslims in the violence in Kashmir was perhaps better read as an indication of the distance of that struggle from their daily lives – there was no emotive plank in the Kashmiri’s appeal to holy war. A generalised call to protect your religion or to fight with your religious cohorts is not sufficient to draw a peaceful person to violence. It needs sharper focus. And not just for Muslims: this is the reason LK Advani was ignored in the early 1980s but became a tidal political force later in the decade, radicalising hundreds of thousands across India when he fixed upon the Ram Janmabhoomi issue.

The first instance of Indian Muslim terror – in the definition that we have come to know it, causing wanton civilian death, targeting symbols of the state – were the 1993 bombings orchestrated by the Mumbai mobster Dawood Ibrahim, which he said was a response to the Hindutva attack on the Babri masjid. There is no doubt that the destruction of that mosque devastated the Indian Muslim community, who had suffered through numerous riots, and caused their own. But until then they had felt the state would protect places of worship important to the community. The numerous terrorist acts that have followed indicate the alienation many young Indian Muslims feel.

Even anti-Americanism among Muslims does not answer one question: why is it that fewer Indian Muslims were drawn to the jihad call of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Kashmir, than it seems are already being pulled towards ISIS?

http://scroll.in/article/672341/Why-a-photo-showing-Tamil-Muslims-in-support-of-ISIS-is-more-troubling-than-any-IB-report

>>>Occam's Razor would suggest that retrograde Wahabbism combined with Saudi money has a lot more to do with this than Hindus or Americans or Jews. India needs to figure out how to nip this radicalization in the bud, rather than obsess with these mea culpas that seem to get more fanciful and more bizarre by the day.

kris -- not sure if you actually read the article CD linked, but it concludes the same things you do. saudi money funneled into wahabbi islam seems to be the root of many of these problems. question is what is modi going to do about it without resorting to extra constitutional measures.

the west's hypocritical relationship with the saudis is also part of the problem.

another reason is the direction of earth's rotation on it's axis. if only the direction were reversed, the ummah's problems would be gone and they'll be making wonderful sweet pastry, donairs and biryanis to rest of the worlds' delight

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:kris -- not sure if you actually read the article CD linked, but it concludes the same things you do. saudi money funneled into wahabbi islam seems to be the root of many of these problems. question is what is modi going to do about it without resorting to extra constitutional measures.

>>>I did read the article. I was alluding to the highlighted section about babri masjid and similar rationalizations I have heard from other pundits. My point is this spread of radicalism would have happened with or without them. This is going to be a fine line for Modi and the Indian Gov't. Increased surveillance at mosques and gathering intel about Islamic youth  groups would be a start. The West already most certainly does this, for all the talk of freedom of religion. A second prong to the attack would be a strong 'law and order' message which will give confidence to the moderates in the community to turn in the mischief makers. While it is true that there may be a sense of omerta that stands in the way of this now, all this requires is a handful of people with conscience. In India they are not assured that this will result in anything despite sticking their necks out, due to the namby-pamby law enforcement, corruption of politicians and their pandering to vote bank politics. A top-down approach to allow (and insistence) that law enforcement do its job without political interference can get them there. Of course, this will be a rough road, given the media's reflexive hatred for Modi and in that sense that may be his biggest hurdle.

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:kris -- not sure if you actually read the article CD linked, but it concludes the same things you do. saudi money funneled into wahabbi islam seems to be the root of many of these problems. question is what is modi going to do about it without resorting to extra constitutional measures.

>>>I did read the article. I was alluding to the highlighted section about babri masjid and similar rationalizations I have heard from other pundits. My point is this spread of radicalism would have happened with or without them. This is going to be a fine line for Modi and the Indian Gov't. Increased surveillance at mosques and gathering intel about Islamic youth  groups would be a start. The West already most certainly does this, for all the talk of freedom of religion. A second prong to the attack would be a strong 'law and order' message which will give confidence to the moderates in the community to turn in the mischief makers. While it is true that there may be a sense of omerta that stands in the way of this now, all this requires is a handful of people with conscience. In India they are not assured that this will result in anything despite sticking their necks out, due to the namby-pamby law enforcement, corruption of politicians and their pandering to vote bank politics. A top-down approach to allow (and insistence) that law enforcement do its job without political interference can get them there. Of course, this will be a rough road, given the media's reflexive hatred for Modi and in that sense that may be his biggest hurdle.

It is easy to cite babri Masjid as an excuse as that is all the muslims have got in a 1000 years. And w hae iSlamo-apologists willing to tango with them.

If only one considers the number of temples destroyed in India post-independence, they will understand the mindset of the Koranists.

How should hindus react for building a mosque at Mathura or Kasi Viswanath temple or other 1000s of temple since Koran was "delivered" by Allah.

These things would have happened with/without Barbarian Masjid.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:kris -- not sure if you actually read the article CD linked, but it concludes the same things you do. saudi money funneled into wahabbi islam seems to be the root of many of these problems. question is what is modi going to do about it without resorting to extra constitutional measures.

>>>I did read the article. I was alluding to the highlighted section about babri masjid and similar rationalizations I have heard from other pundits. My point is this spread of radicalism would have happened with or without them. This is going to be a fine line for Modi and the Indian Gov't. Increased surveillance at mosques and gathering intel about Islamic youth  groups would be a start. The West already most certainly does this, for all the talk of freedom of religion. A second prong to the attack would be a strong 'law and order' message which will give confidence to the moderates in the community to turn in the mischief makers. While it is true that there may be a sense of omerta that stands in the way of this now, all this requires is a handful of people with conscience. In India they are not assured that this will result in anything despite sticking their necks out, due to the namby-pamby law enforcement, corruption of politicians and their pandering to vote bank politics. A top-down approach to allow (and insistence) that law enforcement do its job without political interference can get them there. Of course, this will be a rough road, given the media's reflexive hatred for Modi and in that sense that may be his biggest hurdle.

It is easy to cite babri Masjid as an excuse as that is all the muslims have got in a 1000 years. And w hae iSlamo-apologists willing to tango with them.

If only one considers the number of temples destroyed in India post-independence, they will understand the mindset of the Koranists.

How should hindus react for building a mosque at Mathura or Kasi Viswanath temple or other 1000s of temple since Koran was "delivered" by Allah.

These things would have happened with/without Barbarian Masjid.

because they're not backward looking dimwits like Hindutva peddling fools

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:kris -- not sure if you actually read the article CD linked, but it concludes the same things you do. saudi money funneled into wahabbi islam seems to be the root of many of these problems. question is what is modi going to do about it without resorting to extra constitutional measures.

>>>I did read the article. I was alluding to the highlighted section about babri masjid and similar rationalizations I have heard from other pundits. My point is this spread of radicalism would have happened with or without them. This is going to be a fine line for Modi and the Indian Gov't. Increased surveillance at mosques and gathering intel about Islamic youth  groups would be a start. The West already most certainly does this, for all the talk of freedom of religion. A second prong to the attack would be a strong 'law and order' message which will give confidence to the moderates in the community to turn in the mischief makers. While it is true that there may be a sense of omerta that stands in the way of this now, all this requires is a handful of people with conscience. In India they are not assured that this will result in anything despite sticking their necks out, due to the namby-pamby law enforcement, corruption of politicians and their pandering to vote bank politics. A top-down approach to allow (and insistence) that law enforcement do its job without political interference can get them there. Of course, this will be a rough road, given the media's reflexive hatred for Modi and in that sense that may be his biggest hurdle.

What's wrong with that assertion? Instead of living in constant paranoia of some imaginary threat (drawing parallels with worldwide muslim activities), why don't we look at the things from a different perspective. Muslim population in India is larger than the combined population of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Qatar, Kuwait yet what percentage of Islamic terrorism took place in India & and what percentage of it is committed by Indians?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:kris -- not sure if you actually read the article CD linked, but it concludes the same things you do. saudi money funneled into wahabbi islam seems to be the root of many of these problems. question is what is modi going to do about it without resorting to extra constitutional measures.

>>>I did read the article. I was alluding to the highlighted section about babri masjid and similar rationalizations I have heard from other pundits. My point is this spread of radicalism would have happened with or without them. This is going to be a fine line for Modi and the Indian Gov't. Increased surveillance at mosques and gathering intel about Islamic youth  groups would be a start. The West already most certainly does this, for all the talk of freedom of religion. A second prong to the attack would be a strong 'law and order' message which will give confidence to the moderates in the community to turn in the mischief makers. While it is true that there may be a sense of omerta that stands in the way of this now, all this requires is a handful of people with conscience. In India they are not assured that this will result in anything despite sticking their necks out, due to the namby-pamby law enforcement, corruption of politicians and their pandering to vote bank politics. A top-down approach to allow (and insistence) that law enforcement do its job without political interference can get them there. Of course, this will be a rough road, given the media's reflexive hatred for Modi and in that sense that may be his biggest hurdle.

What's wrong with that assertion? Instead of living in constant paranoia of some imaginary threat (drawing parallels with worldwide muslim activities), why don't we look at the things from a different perspective. Muslim population in India is larger than the combined population of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Qatar, Kuwait yet what percentage of Islamic terrorism took place in India & and what percentage of it is committed by Indians?

>>The short answer: Everything is wrong with that assertion. The subject under discussion is the solidarity expressed by poor youth in TN with the ISIS. It would be  rather weird if they did this one fine morning as a reaction to babri masjid which took place 22 years earlier by expressing support for a foreign terrorist organization. We can get to the bottom of this by following the money and the preachers who put these ideas into their heads or we can look for causes quite removed in time and in geographic distance from them. The latter approach is essentially self-deception. I didn't understand your other point. The issue at hand is young men potentially making common cause with a terrorist organization which is wreaking havoc as we speak. This raises the possibility of radicalization coming to your doorstep. Isn't this a situation that requires attention?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:kris -- not sure if you actually read the article CD linked, but it concludes the same things you do. saudi money funneled into wahabbi islam seems to be the root of many of these problems. question is what is modi going to do about it without resorting to extra constitutional measures.

>>>I did read the article. I was alluding to the highlighted section about babri masjid and similar rationalizations I have heard from other pundits. My point is this spread of radicalism would have happened with or without them. This is going to be a fine line for Modi and the Indian Gov't. Increased surveillance at mosques and gathering intel about Islamic youth  groups would be a start. The West already most certainly does this, for all the talk of freedom of religion. A second prong to the attack would be a strong 'law and order' message which will give confidence to the moderates in the community to turn in the mischief makers. While it is true that there may be a sense of omerta that stands in the way of this now, all this requires is a handful of people with conscience. In India they are not assured that this will result in anything despite sticking their necks out, due to the namby-pamby law enforcement, corruption of politicians and their pandering to vote bank politics. A top-down approach to allow (and insistence) that law enforcement do its job without political interference can get them there. Of course, this will be a rough road, given the media's reflexive hatred for Modi and in that sense that may be his biggest hurdle.

It is easy to cite babri Masjid as an excuse as that is all the muslims have got in a 1000 years. And w hae iSlamo-apologists willing to tango with them.

If only one considers the number of temples destroyed in India post-independence, they will understand the mindset of the Koranists.

How should hindus react for building a mosque at Mathura or Kasi Viswanath temple or other 1000s of temple since Koran was "delivered" by Allah.

These things would have happened with/without Barbarian Masjid.

because they're not backward looking dimwits like Hindutva peddling fools

the only blinkers wearing dimwit is staring at you in the mirror, comrade

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

How should hindus react for building a mosque at Mathura or Kasi Viswanath temple or other 1000s of temple since Koran was "delivered" by Allah.

These things would have happened with/without Barbarian Masjid.

because they're not backward looking dimwits like Hindutva peddling fools

Then why do THEY and you & your ILK (YAYI) look BACK to 2002 or 1992 ?

Kris wrote:
>>The short answer: Everything is wrong with that assertion.

Anyone that thinks babri masjid was not the turning point is in denial. History & examples cited by the author also prove that, unrelenting hatred spewed at Indian Muslims, by our resident wing-nuts Uppili, rawemotions and their ilk is nothing but smoke & mirrors; These guys, just like those muslim terrorists, are thoroughly brainwashed by rightwing hindu mullahs.  

Kris wrote:
The subject under discussion is the solidarity expressed by poor youth in TN with the ISIS. It would be  rather weird if they did this one fine morning as a reaction to babri masjid which took place 22 years earlier by expressing support for a foreign terrorist organization. We can get to the bottom of this by following the money and the preachers who put these ideas into their heads or we can look for causes quite removed in time and in geographic distance from them. The latter approach is essentially self-deception. I didn't understand your other point. The issue at hand is young men potentially making common cause with a terrorist organization which is wreaking havoc as we speak. This raises the possibility of radicalization coming to your doorstep. Isn't this a situation that requires attention?

I didn't quiet get it. I never implied that babri masjid was the inspiration for those TN men or those 4 men from Mumbai joined ISIS. My point was, given the track record of Indian Muslims I wouldn't overly panic or make knee-jerk decisions that might prove costly.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

How should hindus react for building a mosque at Mathura or Kasi Viswanath temple or other 1000s of temple since Koran was "delivered" by Allah.

These things would have happened with/without Barbarian Masjid.

because they're not backward looking dimwits like Hindutva peddling fools

Then why do THEY and you & your ILK (YAYI) look BACK to 2002 or 1992 ?

Because a maniac who was part of both incidents is still relevant.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

How should hindus react for building a mosque at Mathura or Kasi Viswanath temple or other 1000s of temple since Koran was "delivered" by Allah.

These things would have happened with/without Barbarian Masjid.

because they're not backward looking dimwits like Hindutva peddling fools

Then why do THEY and you & your ILK (YAYI) look BACK to 2002 or 1992 ?

Because a maniac who was part of both incidents is still relevant.

Then the book and the religion that destroyed hindus and their temples over the last 1500 years are relevant as well...Don't you think so?

I am a nice guy..I am a fair-minded guy. Give the same amount of respect that you are given and in the same coin.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

How should hindus react for building a mosque at Mathura or Kasi Viswanath temple or other 1000s of temple since Koran was "delivered" by Allah.

These things would have happened with/without Barbarian Masjid.

because they're not backward looking dimwits like Hindutva peddling fools

Then why do THEY and you & your ILK (YAYI) look BACK to 2002 or 1992 ?

Because a maniac who was part of both incidents is still relevant.

Then the book and the religion that destroyed hindus and their temples over the last 1500 years are relevant as well...Don't you think so?

I am a nice guy..I am a fair-minded guy.  Give the same amount of respect that you are given and in the same coin.

How many temples were destroyed by muslims to build mosques in independent India?

i have written an answer to this thread but deleted it as i thought that i had no time to pursue the argument .

can the admin or moderator bring back the post??

ashdoc wrote:i have written an answer to this thread but deleted it as i thought that i had no time to pursue the argument .

can the admin or moderator bring back the post??

Sorry, it's not possible.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>The short answer: Everything is wrong with that assertion.

Anyone that thinks babri masjid was not the turning point is in denial. History & examples cited by the author also prove that, unrelenting hatred spewed at Indian Muslims, by our resident wing-nuts Uppili, rawemotions and their ilk is nothing but smoke & mirrors; These guys, just like those muslim terrorists, are thoroughly brainwashed by rightwing hindu mullahs.  

Kris wrote:
The subject under discussion is the solidarity expressed by poor youth in TN with the ISIS. It would be  rather weird if they did this one fine morning as a reaction to babri masjid which took place 22 years earlier by expressing support for a foreign terrorist organization. We can get to the bottom of this by following the money and the preachers who put these ideas into their heads or we can look for causes quite removed in time and in geographic distance from them. The latter approach is essentially self-deception. I didn't understand your other point. The issue at hand is young men potentially making common cause with a terrorist organization which is wreaking havoc as we speak. This raises the possibility of radicalization coming to your doorstep. Isn't this a situation that requires attention?

I didn't quiet get it. I never implied that babri masjid was the inspiration for those TN men or those 4 men from Mumbai joined ISIS. My point was, given the track record of Indian Muslims I wouldn't overly panic or make knee-jerk decisions that might prove costly.

>>>CD,

The young men in the picture sporting the ISIS t -shirts is referred to by the author. He finds it disturbing, as he well should. It may turn out to be nothing, but it doesn't hurt to be on guard. There is increased travel between these muslim villages and the middle east where semi skilled young men go now for jobs. With the nutcases running around in that part of the world, it won't take much to plant the seeds of radicalism in their heads. My point is that India needs to be proactive to head this off at the pass. It doesn't matter if it is between two sects of islam. These are not conflicts that are contained easily, once unleashed.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
because they're not backward looking dimwits like Hindutva peddling fools

Then why do THEY and you & your ILK (YAYI) look BACK to 2002 or 1992 ?

Because a maniac who was part of both incidents is still relevant.

Then the book and the religion that destroyed hindus and their temples over the last 1500 years are relevant as well...Don't you think so?

I am a nice guy..I am a fair-minded guy.  Give the same amount of respect that you are given and in the same coin.

How many temples were destroyed by muslims to build mosques in independent India?

Your India start on Aug 15, 1947; but that is only a political independence. Countries borders shorten and expand and a country's duration is about 200 years before it changes shape. But, the culture and ethos of India - err bharath is at least 5000 years old and that never changes.

Now, the same temples were built over 2000 years and why you want Aug 15 as cut off ? Consider the entire period of 2000 years and now tell me how many temples were destroyed ?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Then why do THEY and you & your ILK (YAYI) look BACK to 2002 or 1992 ?

Because a maniac who was part of both incidents is still relevant.

Then the book and the religion that destroyed hindus and their temples over the last 1500 years are relevant as well...Don't you think so?

I am a nice guy..I am a fair-minded guy.  Give the same amount of respect that you are given and in the same coin.

How many temples were destroyed by muslims to build mosques in independent India?

Your India start on Aug 15, 1947; but that is only a political independence. Countries borders shorten and expand and a country's duration is about 200 years before it changes shape. But, the culture and ethos of India - err bharath is at least 5000 years old and that never changes.

Now, the same temples were built over 2000 years and why you want Aug 15 as cut off ? Consider the entire period of 2000 years and now tell me how many temples were destroyed ?

Going by this logic many Hindu temples should be replaced with Buddhist temples.

Now all the Islamic states are joining hands to fight those ISIS guys, but Indian muslims want to fight for the ISIS?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-how-obama-can-show-he-is-serious-about-helping-iraq/2014/08/12/b501ccb0-2241-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?hpid=z2

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Because a maniac who was part of both incidents is still relevant.

Then the book and the religion that destroyed hindus and their temples over the last 1500 years are relevant as well...Don't you think so?

I am a nice guy..I am a fair-minded guy.  Give the same amount of respect that you are given and in the same coin.

How many temples were destroyed by muslims to build mosques in independent India?

Your India start on Aug 15, 1947; but that is only a political independence. Countries borders shorten and expand and a country's duration is about 200 years before it changes shape. But, the culture and ethos of India - err bharath is at least 5000 years old and that never changes.

Now, the same temples were built over 2000 years and why you want Aug 15 as cut off ? Consider the entire period of 2000 years and now tell me how many temples were destroyed ?

Going by this logic many Hindu temples should be replaced with Buddhist temples.

Sure... let the Budhists protest and demand and they will be replaced. Besides, Budhism is considered part of hinduism, and so in a way it does not matter.

Did hindus rape budhist women too ?

indophile wrote:Now all the Islamic states are joining hands to fight those ISIS guys, but Indian muslims want to fight for the ISIS?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-how-obama-can-show-he-is-serious-about-helping-iraq/2014/08/12/b501ccb0-2241-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?hpid=z2

The governments of those countries know that ISIS will get rid of them brutally and take over their country. That is why they oppose ISIS. Indian Muslims would rejoice if ISIS brutally got rid of the Indian government.

Talking of Buddhism, which is the only religion whose followers made even Buddhist monks turn violent? Please note here that these followers of the peaceful religion who pushed Buddhist monks to violence were NOT foreign-trained terrorists connected to the global terror network, at least not as far as we know. They were merely sincere everyday followers of the peaceful religion. That's the what the ideology of that religion does to you - turns even normal, average people into demons who provoke even Buddhist monks to violence.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Then the book and the religion that destroyed hindus and their temples over the last 1500 years are relevant as well...Don't you think so?

I am a nice guy..I am a fair-minded guy.  Give the same amount of respect that you are given and in the same coin.

How many temples were destroyed by muslims to build mosques in independent India?

Your India start on Aug 15, 1947; but that is only a political independence. Countries borders shorten and expand and a country's duration is about 200 years before it changes shape. But, the culture and ethos of India - err bharath is at least 5000 years old and that never changes.

Now, the same temples were built over 2000 years and why you want Aug 15 as cut off ? Consider the entire period of 2000 years and now tell me how many temples were destroyed ?

Going by this logic many Hindu temples should be replaced with Buddhist temples.

Sure... let the Budhists protest and demand and they will be replaced. Besides, Budhism is considered part of hinduism, and so in a way it does not matter.

Did hindus rape budhist women too ?

Do Budhists say that or is it typical bullying by hindutvavadis

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Budhism is considered part of hinduism[/b], and so in a way it does not matter.

Did hindus rape budhist women too ?

Do Budhists say that or is it typical bullying by hindutvavadis

If hindus say Budhism or islam is part of hinduism, it shows the magnanimity and all-inclusivity of the hindus. So it is upto the other side to be inclusive or not. At least the Budhists do not resort to Kabooms like your religionists.

"The video titled 'Al-Ghuraba-The Chosen Few of Different Lands' reveals the account of Abu Muslim, a jihadi from Canada. The video is subtitled in Tamil (right, from top to bottom), Urdu and Hindi languages."

The Facebook page also has several links leading to jihadi literature in Urdu, including a booklet on "Jihad: The forgotten obligation" attributed to a writer named "Ubaidha al Hindi".

Intelligence operatives said Al Isabah's presence on Twitter and Facebook played up efforts to link the jihad to "Hind", a nomenclature often used by militant groups to refer to India. "The names Ubaidha al Hindi and Abu Haider al Hindi are obviously pseudonyms but they are trying to project some sort of link to India," one source said. "Nevertheless, the videos and other materials cannot be taken lightly in view of the reports of Muslim youths from Thane and Chennai going off to fight with ISIS," the source added.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/isis-uses-internet-to-reach-indians-youths-to-wage-jihad/1/376788.html

Disclaimer: I'm not responsible for any issues in any fashion, should our resident hindus go hysterical over this news item.

confuzzled dude wrote:"The video titled 'Al-Ghuraba-The Chosen Few of Different Lands' reveals the account of Abu Muslim, a jihadi from Canada. The video is subtitled in Tamil (right, from top to bottom), Urdu and Hindi languages."

The Facebook page also has several links leading to jihadi literature in Urdu, including a booklet on "Jihad: The forgotten obligation" attributed to a writer named "Ubaidha al Hindi".

Intelligence operatives said Al Isabah's presence on Twitter and Facebook played up efforts to link the jihad to "Hind", a nomenclature often used by militant groups to refer to India. "The names Ubaidha al Hindi and Abu Haider al Hindi are obviously pseudonyms but they are trying to project some sort of link to India," one source said. "Nevertheless, the videos and other materials cannot be taken lightly in view of the reports of Muslim youths from Thane and Chennai going off to fight with ISIS," the source added.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/isis-uses-internet-to-reach-indians-youths-to-wage-jihad/1/376788.html

Disclaimer: I'm not responsible for any issues in any fashion, should our resident hindus go hysterical over this news item.

Indian Muslims have always had a place in their hearts for jeehad. I may have mentioned this before also but back in the 90s I was conversing with a Muslim friend of mine and his doctor Muslim friend. The doctor casually says "I will send atleast one of my kids to jeehad". Why would an educated man like him say something like that? Because he feels it is his religious duty to do so? And most recently, didn't Moeen Ali wear wrist bands to support Palestine despite it not being his country?

nevada wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:"The video titled 'Al-Ghuraba-The Chosen Few of Different Lands' reveals the account of Abu Muslim, a jihadi from Canada. The video is subtitled in Tamil (right, from top to bottom), Urdu and Hindi languages."

The Facebook page also has several links leading to jihadi literature in Urdu, including a booklet on "Jihad: The forgotten obligation" attributed to a writer named "Ubaidha al Hindi".

Intelligence operatives said Al Isabah's presence on Twitter and Facebook played up efforts to link the jihad to "Hind", a nomenclature often used by militant groups to refer to India. "The names Ubaidha al Hindi and Abu Haider al Hindi are obviously pseudonyms but they are trying to project some sort of link to India," one source said. "Nevertheless, the videos and other materials cannot be taken lightly in view of the reports of Muslim youths from Thane and Chennai going off to fight with ISIS," the source added.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/isis-uses-internet-to-reach-indians-youths-to-wage-jihad/1/376788.html

Disclaimer: I'm not responsible for any issues in any fashion, should our resident hindus go hysterical over this news item.

Indian Muslims have always had a place in their hearts for jeehad. I may have mentioned this before also but back in the 90s I was conversing with a Muslim friend of mine and his doctor Muslim friend. The doctor casually says "I will send atleast one of my kids to jeehad". Why would an educated man like him say something like that? Because he feels it is his religious duty to do so? And most recently, didn't Moeen Ali wear wrist bands to support Palestine despite it not being his country?

In what context though? a lot of them name their kids Jihad. One of my ex-door neighbor's name, who was born and raised in the US, is Jihad.

confuzzled dude wrote:

nevada wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:"The video titled 'Al-Ghuraba-The Chosen Few of Different Lands' reveals the account of Abu Muslim, a jihadi from Canada. The video is subtitled in Tamil (right, from top to bottom), Urdu and Hindi languages."

The Facebook page also has several links leading to jihadi literature in Urdu, including a booklet on "Jihad: The forgotten obligation" attributed to a writer named "Ubaidha al Hindi".

Intelligence operatives said Al Isabah's presence on Twitter and Facebook played up efforts to link the jihad to "Hind", a nomenclature often used by militant groups to refer to India. "The names Ubaidha al Hindi and Abu Haider al Hindi are obviously pseudonyms but they are trying to project some sort of link to India," one source said. "Nevertheless, the videos and other materials cannot be taken lightly in view of the reports of Muslim youths from Thane and Chennai going off to fight with ISIS," the source added.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/isis-uses-internet-to-reach-indians-youths-to-wage-jihad/1/376788.html

Disclaimer: I'm not responsible for any issues in any fashion, should our resident hindus go hysterical over this news item.

Indian Muslims have always had a place in their hearts for jeehad. I may have mentioned this before also but back in the 90s I was conversing with a Muslim friend of mine and his doctor Muslim friend. The doctor casually says "I will send atleast one of my kids to jeehad". Why would an educated man like him say something like that? Because he feels it is his religious duty to do so? And most recently, didn't Moeen Ali wear wrist bands to support Palestine despite it not being his country?

In what context though? a lot of them name their kids Jihad. One of my ex-door neighbor's name, who was born and raised in the US, is Jihad.

As far as I know, there are no towns or schools named jeehad. So I assume he meant it in the context of holy war.

nevada wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

nevada wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:"The video titled 'Al-Ghuraba-The Chosen Few of Different Lands' reveals the account of Abu Muslim, a jihadi from Canada. The video is subtitled in Tamil (right, from top to bottom), Urdu and Hindi languages."

The Facebook page also has several links leading to jihadi literature in Urdu, including a booklet on "Jihad: The forgotten obligation" attributed to a writer named "Ubaidha al Hindi".

Intelligence operatives said Al Isabah's presence on Twitter and Facebook played up efforts to link the jihad to "Hind", a nomenclature often used by militant groups to refer to India. "The names Ubaidha al Hindi and Abu Haider al Hindi are obviously pseudonyms but they are trying to project some sort of link to India," one source said. "Nevertheless, the videos and other materials cannot be taken lightly in view of the reports of Muslim youths from Thane and Chennai going off to fight with ISIS," the source added.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/isis-uses-internet-to-reach-indians-youths-to-wage-jihad/1/376788.html

Disclaimer: I'm not responsible for any issues in any fashion, should our resident hindus go hysterical over this news item.

Indian Muslims have always had a place in their hearts for jeehad. I may have mentioned this before also but back in the 90s I was conversing with a Muslim friend of mine and his doctor Muslim friend. The doctor casually says "I will send atleast one of my kids to jeehad". Why would an educated man like him say something like that? Because he feels it is his religious duty to do so? And most recently, didn't Moeen Ali wear wrist bands to support Palestine despite it not being his country?

In what context though? a lot of them name their kids Jihad. One of my ex-door neighbor's name, who was born and raised in the US, is Jihad.

As far as I know, there are no towns or schools named jeehad. So I assume he meant it in the context of holy war.

"Two examples from leading American Muslim organizations, both fundamentalist, show the extent of disagreement this issue inspires. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group, flatly states that jihad "does not mean 'holy war.'" Rather, it refers to "a central and broad Islamic concept that includes the struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense . . . or fighting against tyranny or oppression." CAIR even asserts that Islam knows no such concept as "holy war." "

"Sufis understand the greater jihad as an inner war, primarily a struggle against the base instincts of the body but also resistance to the temptation of polytheism. Some Sufi writers assert that Satan organizes the temptation of the body and the world to corrupt the soul. Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1059-1111), probably the most important figure in Islam's development after the prophet, describes the body as a city, governed by the soul, and besieged by the lower self. Withdrawal from the world to mystical pursuits constitutes an advance in the greater jihad. Conversely, the greater jihad is a necessary part of the process of gaining spiritual insight.17 By the eleventh century Sufism had become an extremely influential, and perhaps even the dominant, form of Islamic spirituality. To this day, many Muslims conceive of jihad as a personal rather than a political struggle. But Sufism provoked opposition, most importantly from Ibn Taymiya, who condemned many aspects of Sufism which he believed contradicted the Shari'a"

http://www.meforum.org/357/what-does-jihad-mean

confuzzled dude wrote:

nevada wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

nevada wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:"The video titled 'Al-Ghuraba-The Chosen Few of Different Lands' reveals the account of Abu Muslim, a jihadi from Canada. The video is subtitled in Tamil (right, from top to bottom), Urdu and Hindi languages."

The Facebook page also has several links leading to jihadi literature in Urdu, including a booklet on "Jihad: The forgotten obligation" attributed to a writer named "Ubaidha al Hindi".

Intelligence operatives said Al Isabah's presence on Twitter and Facebook played up efforts to link the jihad to "Hind", a nomenclature often used by militant groups to refer to India. "The names Ubaidha al Hindi and Abu Haider al Hindi are obviously pseudonyms but they are trying to project some sort of link to India," one source said. "Nevertheless, the videos and other materials cannot be taken lightly in view of the reports of Muslim youths from Thane and Chennai going off to fight with ISIS," the source added.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/isis-uses-internet-to-reach-indians-youths-to-wage-jihad/1/376788.html

Disclaimer: I'm not responsible for any issues in any fashion, should our resident hindus go hysterical over this news item.

Indian Muslims have always had a place in their hearts for jeehad. I may have mentioned this before also but back in the 90s I was conversing with a Muslim friend of mine and his doctor Muslim friend. The doctor casually says "I will send atleast one of my kids to jeehad". Why would an educated man like him say something like that? Because he feels it is his religious duty to do so? And most recently, didn't Moeen Ali wear wrist bands to support Palestine despite it not being his country?

In what context though? a lot of them name their kids Jihad. One of my ex-door neighbor's name, who was born and raised in the US, is Jihad.

As far as I know, there are no towns or schools named jeehad. So I assume he meant it in the context of holy war.

"Two examples from leading American Muslim organizations, both fundamentalist, show the extent of disagreement this issue inspires. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group, flatly states that jihad "does not mean 'holy war.'" Rather, it refers to "a central and broad Islamic concept that includes the struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense . . . or fighting against tyranny or oppression." CAIR even asserts that Islam knows no such concept as "holy war." "

"Sufis understand the greater jihad as an inner war, primarily a struggle against the base instincts of the body but also resistance to the temptation of polytheism. Some Sufi writers assert that Satan organizes the temptation of the body and the world to corrupt the soul. Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1059-1111), probably the most important figure in Islam's development after the prophet, describes the body as a city, governed by the soul, and besieged by the lower self. Withdrawal from the world to mystical pursuits constitutes an advance in the greater jihad. Conversely, the greater jihad is a necessary part of the process of gaining spiritual insight.17 By the eleventh century Sufism had become an extremely influential, and perhaps even the dominant, form of Islamic spirituality. To this day, many Muslims conceive of jihad as a personal rather than a political struggle. But Sufism provoked opposition, most importantly from Ibn Taymiya, who condemned many aspects of Sufism which he believed contradicted the Shari'a"

http://www.meforum.org/357/what-does-jihad-mean

>>>This is the crux of the problem with these guys and why they cannot be modern in their thinking. Why is there this obsession with struggle and battles and tyranny? And what the hell is the problem with polytheism? I may want to worship a god who rides a tiger or an octopus (thanks, swapna/michelle/FF) or a sports car a Victoria's secret model  (well, it is the other way around, but I digress). WTH is the problem with these guys over that?

confuzzled dude wrote:In the late 1990s, about a decade after terrorism first bespattered the Kashmir valley, champions of secularism in India would point out that Muslims from the rest of the country had never felt the need to join cause with the violence being perpetrated in the name of Islam in the northern state. Though the call for a holy war had drawn young Muslim men from Pakistan, Afghanistan and even Central Asia, not one of the Indian security forces that operated in Kashmir had captured a Muslim terrorist from West Bengal, say, or Bihar. This to many was sure-fire indication that the Indian polity was healthy and secular – a sign of the successful assimilation of a previously troubled minority.

Yet even then the argument seemed conceptually weak. The call to holy war in Kashmir could be ignored because the Bhojpuri or Malayali Muslim was as much of an outsider to Kashmir as a Hindu from Bhopal. The non-participation of Muslims in the violence in Kashmir was perhaps better read as an indication of the distance of that struggle from their daily lives – there was no emotive plank in the Kashmiri’s appeal to holy war. A generalised call to protect your religion or to fight with your religious cohorts is not sufficient to draw a peaceful person to violence. It needs sharper focus. And not just for Muslims: this is the reason LK Advani was ignored in the early 1980s but became a tidal political force later in the decade, radicalising hundreds of thousands across India when he fixed upon the Ram Janmabhoomi issue.

The first instance of Indian Muslim terror – in the definition that we have come to know it, causing wanton civilian death, targeting symbols of the state – were the 1993 bombings orchestrated by the Mumbai mobster Dawood Ibrahim, which he said was a response to the Hindutva attack on the Babri masjid. There is no doubt that the destruction of that mosque devastated the Indian Muslim community, who had suffered through numerous riots, and caused their own. But until then they had felt the state would protect places of worship important to the community. The numerous terrorist acts that have followed indicate the alienation many young Indian Muslims feel.

Even anti-Americanism among Muslims does not answer one question: why is it that fewer Indian Muslims were drawn to the jihad call of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Kashmir, than it seems are already being pulled towards ISIS?

http://scroll.in/article/672341/Why-a-photo-showing-Tamil-Muslims-in-support-of-ISIS-is-more-troubling-than-any-IB-report

here i am again writing the answer i deleted---

anti hindu riots used to occur even in the 70s and 80s . when i was growing up in mumbai in the 80s , bhiwandi and malegaon near mumbai were hotbeds of anti hindu violence . in every riot , scores of hindus used to be killed . and the hindus used to take this meekly .

when a muslim fanatic called juhayman attacked the mosque of mecca in 1979 , anti hindu riots occured in india---this even though hindus had nothing to do with the mecca incident .

ahmedabad was infamously known as ' riot city ' in the 80s because anti hindu violence used to keep the city on curfew for weeks on end per year . the demarcation line between hindu dominated and muslim dominated areas of ahmedabad was known as ' border ' in the 80s as if it was india pakistan border . any hindu crossing this ' border ' was likely to get bodily harmed .

all this the hindus used to take in there stride , without retaliating .

this changed with the ram janma bhoomi movement and babri demolition . suddenly the muslims were confronted with a hindu who was ready to strike back . they could no longer go on a riot without getting retaliation of the same kind .

the muslim response to this changed situation was to turn to terrorism . 

but if the hindus had not got mobilized the way they got in the ram janma bhoomi movement and not destroyed the babri masjid , then would they have not been killed ?? 

the answer is that they would have got killed anyway , in plain and simple riots and not due to terrorism . for muslims would not have needed to go to terrorism to kill hindus every year . simple rioting was sufficient .

now that rioting is difficult , the muslims have turned to terrorism . but even before they had to turn to terrorism they used to kill hindus anyway , by other methods ( riots ) .

interestingly , the ahmedabad riots stopped after the stunning blow given to the muslim community in the 2002 post godhra riots . thereafter , the muslims have largely kept quiet .

ashdoc wrote:
here i am again writing the answer i deleted---

anti hindu riots used to occur even in the 70s and 80s . when i was growing up in mumbai in the 80s , bhiwandi and malegaon near mumbai were hotbeds of anti hindu violence . in every riot , scores of hindus used to be killed . and the hindus used to take this meekly .

when a muslim fanatic called juhayman attacked the mosque of mecca in 1979 , anti hindu riots occured in india---this even though hindus had nothing to do with the mecca incident .

ahmedabad was infamously known as ' riot city ' in the 80s because anti hindu violence used to keep the city on curfew for weeks on end per year . the demarcation line between hindu dominated and muslim dominated areas of ahmedabad was known as ' border ' in the 80s as if it was india pakistan border . any hindu crossing this ' border ' was likely to get bodily harmed .

all this the hindus used to take in there stride , without retaliating .

this changed with the ram janma bhoomi movement and babri demolition . suddenly the muslims were confronted with a hindu who was ready to strike back . they could no longer go on a riot without getting retaliation of the same kind .

the muslim response to this changed situation was to turn to terrorism . 

but if the hindus had not got mobilized the way they got in the ram janma bhoomi movement and not destroyed the babri masjid , then would they have not been killed ?? 

the answer is that they would have got killed anyway , in plain and simple riots and not due to terrorism . for muslims would not have needed to go to terrorism to kill hindus every year . simple rioting was sufficient .

now that rioting is difficult , the muslims have turned to terrorism . but even before they had to turn to terrorism they used to kill hindus anyway , by other methods ( riots ) .

Having lived in Hyd, another city prone to communal riots I can say that these riots were seldom one-sided affair and riots are different from terrorism, they go back to the days of british raj. Please  note that author didn't suggest that hindus started terrorist activities in independent India.

ashdoc wrote:interestingly , the ahmedabad riots stopped after the stunning blow given to the muslim community in the 2002 post godhra riots . thereafter , the muslims have largely kept quiet .

Just a load of hogwash. NTR was able to put an end to riots in Hyd  i.e. achieved the same result without resorting to barbarian Modi methods.

confuzzled dude wrote:

ashdoc wrote:interestingly , the ahmedabad riots stopped after the stunning blow given to the muslim community in the 2002 post godhra riots . thereafter , the muslims have largely kept quiet .

Just a load of hogwash. NTR was able to put an end to riots in Hyd  i.e. achieved the same result without resorting to barbarian Modi methods.

unlike hyd , the communal situation in ahmedabad has been defused . in hyd , there is still a communal situation and it cannot be called entirely free from riots .

http://www.niticentral.com/2014/05/14/communal-clash-in-hyderabad-claims-3-lives-223327.html

ashdoc wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

ashdoc wrote:interestingly , the ahmedabad riots stopped after the stunning blow given to the muslim community in the 2002 post godhra riots . thereafter , the muslims have largely kept quiet .

Just a load of hogwash. NTR was able to put an end to riots in Hyd  i.e. achieved the same result without resorting to barbarian Modi methods.

unlike hyd , the communal situation in ahmedabad has been defused . in hyd , there is still a communal situation and it cannot be called entirely free from riots .

http://www.niticentral.com/2014/05/14/communal-clash-in-hyderabad-claims-3-lives-223327.html

Defused! Your comparison of 30 years vs 12 years of history is not valid. Hyderabad has been relatively riots free in last 30 years

confuzzled dude wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

ashdoc wrote:interestingly , the ahmedabad riots stopped after the stunning blow given to the muslim community in the 2002 post godhra riots . thereafter , the muslims have largely kept quiet .

Just a load of hogwash. NTR was able to put an end to riots in Hyd  i.e. achieved the same result without resorting to barbarian Modi methods.

unlike hyd , the communal situation in ahmedabad has been defused . in hyd , there is still a communal situation and it cannot be called entirely free from riots .

http://www.niticentral.com/2014/05/14/communal-clash-in-hyderabad-claims-3-lives-223327.html

Defused! Your comparison of 30 years vs 12 years of history is not valid. Hyderabad has been relatively riots free in last 30 years

then i shudder to think what it must have been 30 years ago  

confuzzled dude wrote:
Having lived in Hyd, another city prone to communal riots I can say that these riots were seldom one-sided affair and riots are different from terrorism, they go back to the days of british raj. Please  note that author didn't suggest that hindus started terrorist activities in independent India.

That explains why you are so very scared to criticize any muslim "deed" even in an anonymous forum using an anonymous handle...

You decided to "jaingChuk in totality" is your safest bet to protect your family in Hyd against your feared buddies - the MIM and Owaisi.

I can now sympathize fully with you.

We need to apply a post-Godhra "pain balm" in hyderabad...to resolve this migraine head ache.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Having lived in Hyd, another city prone to communal riots I can say that these riots were seldom one-sided affair and riots are different from terrorism, they go back to the days of british raj. Please  note that author didn't suggest that hindus started terrorist activities in independent India.

That explains why you are so very scared to criticize any muslim "deed" even in an anonymous forum using an anonymous handle...

You decided to "jaingChuk in totality" is your safest bet to protect your family in Hyd against your feared buddies - the MIM and Owaisi.

I can now sympathize fully with you.

We need to apply a post-Godhra "pain balm" in hyderabad...to resolve this migraine head ache.

Don't try to project your insecurities on me. Remember, a couple of years ago you dared me if I could pass through muslim areas in Hyd after 8 pm as though that is an impossible feat. Is that what amounts to ultimate bravery in RSS sakhas?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Having lived in Hyd, another city prone to communal riots I can say that these riots were seldom one-sided affair and riots are different from terrorism, they go back to the days of british raj. Please  note that author didn't suggest that hindus started terrorist activities in independent India.

That explains why you are so very scared to criticize any muslim "deed" even in an anonymous forum using an anonymous handle...

You decided to "jaingChuk in totality" is your safest bet to protect your family in Hyd against your feared buddies - the MIM and Owaisi.

I can now sympathize fully with you.

We need to apply a post-Godhra "pain balm" in hyderabad...to resolve this migraine head ache.

Don't try to project your insecurities on me. Remember, a couple of years ago you dared me if I could pass through muslim areas in Hyd after 8 pm as though that is an impossible feat. Is that what amounts to ultimate bravery in RSS sakhas?

Really ? I dared you ? nawww....never... That too...when I know that you would not venture into the Burkha area even during mid day, when you are afraid to criticize even this far away from hyderabad.

confuzzled dude wrote:

ashdoc wrote:
here i am again writing the answer i deleted---

anti hindu riots used to occur even in the 70s and 80s . when i was growing up in mumbai in the 80s , bhiwandi and malegaon near mumbai were hotbeds of anti hindu violence . in every riot , scores of hindus used to be killed . and the hindus used to take this meekly .

when a muslim fanatic called juhayman attacked the mosque of mecca in 1979 , anti hindu riots occured in india---this even though hindus had nothing to do with the mecca incident .

ahmedabad was infamously known as ' riot city ' in the 80s because anti hindu violence used to keep the city on curfew for weeks on end per year . the demarcation line between hindu dominated and muslim dominated areas of ahmedabad was known as ' border ' in the 80s as if it was india pakistan border . any hindu crossing this ' border ' was likely to get bodily harmed .

all this the hindus used to take in there stride , without retaliating .

this changed with the ram janma bhoomi movement and babri demolition . suddenly the muslims were confronted with a hindu who was ready to strike back . they could no longer go on a riot without getting retaliation of the same kind .

the muslim response to this changed situation was to turn to terrorism . 

but if the hindus had not got mobilized the way they got in the ram janma bhoomi movement and not destroyed the babri masjid , then would they have not been killed ?? 

the answer is that they would have got killed anyway , in plain and simple riots and not due to terrorism . for muslims would not have needed to go to terrorism to kill hindus every year . simple rioting was sufficient .

now that rioting is difficult , the muslims have turned to terrorism . but even before they had to turn to terrorism they used to kill hindus anyway , by other methods ( riots ) .

Having lived in Hyd, another city prone to communal riots I can say that these riots were seldom one-sided affair and riots are different from terrorism, they go back to the days of british raj. Please  note that author didn't suggest that hindus started terrorist activities in independent India.

the peculiarity about these riots in the 70s and 80s was---they used to occur mostly in areas with significant muslim population . the muslims either used to be majority or at least 35 to 40 percent of the population of that city/town .

on the other hand , where hindus used to be in overwhelming majority there the muslims never got molested in those days ( this i am talking about the 70s and 80s , not now ) . but if hindus lived in muslim majority areas , they were attacked and their women were molested .

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Having lived in Hyd, another city prone to communal riots I can say that these riots were seldom one-sided affair and riots are different from terrorism, they go back to the days of british raj. Please  note that author didn't suggest that hindus started terrorist activities in independent India.

That explains why you are so very scared to criticize any muslim "deed" even in an anonymous forum using an anonymous handle...

You decided to "jaingChuk in totality" is your safest bet to protect your family in Hyd against your feared buddies - the MIM and Owaisi.

I can now sympathize fully with you.

We need to apply a post-Godhra "pain balm" in hyderabad...to resolve this migraine head ache.

Don't try to project your insecurities on me. Remember, a couple of years ago you dared me if I could pass through muslim areas in Hyd after 8 pm as though that is an impossible feat. Is that what amounts to ultimate bravery in RSS sakhas?

Really ? I dared you ?  nawww....never... That too...when I know that you would not venture into the Burkha area even during mid day, when you are afraid to criticize even this far away from hyderabad.

mulla reddy has worries about venturing into burkha free zone

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Having lived in Hyd, another city prone to communal riots I can say that these riots were seldom one-sided affair and riots are different from terrorism, they go back to the days of british raj. Please  note that author didn't suggest that hindus started terrorist activities in independent India.

That explains why you are so very scared to criticize any muslim "deed" even in an anonymous forum using an anonymous handle...

You decided to "jaingChuk in totality" is your safest bet to protect your family in Hyd against your feared buddies - the MIM and Owaisi.

I can now sympathize fully with you.

We need to apply a post-Godhra "pain balm" in hyderabad...to resolve this migraine head ache.

Don't try to project your insecurities on me. Remember, a couple of years ago you dared me if I could pass through muslim areas in Hyd after 8 pm as though that is an impossible feat. Is that what amounts to ultimate bravery in RSS sakhas?

Really ? I dared you ?  nawww....never... That too...when I know that you would not venture into the Burkha area even during mid day, when you are afraid to criticize even this far away from hyderabad.

mulla reddy has worries about venturing into burkha free zone

Word on the grapevine is that Mulla Confused Douche has some old family connection to the Nizam. No need to explain further...