CD,

You forgot to mention Raj shekar reddy who instigated riots in early 1990s in his own party rule.  MIM initiated multiple communal riots throughout its history and harbors ISI agents. They suddenly did not go gandhian in 1980s.  So stop mischaracterization.

truthbetold wrote:CD,

You forgot to mention Raj shekar reddy who instigated riots in early 1990s in his own party rule.  MIM initiated multiple communal riots throughout its history and harbors ISI agents. They suddenly did not go gandhian in 1980s.  So stop mischaracterization.

My initial response was to Raw's comment that MMS instigated riots at the drop of the hat.

We can go on and on about who did what.. but at the end of the day we both know Hindus are no saints either.

So you agree MIM did not go secular in 1980s.

truthbetold wrote:So you agree MIM did not go secular in 1980s.

MIM is as secular as BJP.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:So you agree MIM did not go secular in 1980s.

MIM is as secular as BJP.

of course...of course...and I am glad that there is some party that can stand up for hindus. Imagine there is no BJP...

Oh, BTW...you forgot to add that Sonia Mata ji is as patriotic as Owaisi.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:So you agree MIM did not go secular in 1980s.

MIM is as secular as BJP.

Let me understand, according to Confuzzled Dude, a party
a) The ideology or goals is to ask for special favors ONLY for Muslims is secular ? even though what they ask is against the CONSTITUTION.
b) A party which openly wants fatwas implemented on Taslima and Salman Rushide is secular ?
http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/11/stories/2007081161781600.htm
c) A party which has a history of hate speeches with their leader threatening 80% of India (1/7th of the World Population) is Secular

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Hate-speech-not-new-for-Owaisi-clan/articleshow/17963124.cms


Has CD ever considered Living in "Secular" Pakistan or "Secular" Saudi Arabia ?

Because that seems to the best place for a "secular" person like him to live ,
with they being [size=12.800000190734863]bastions of secularism.[/size]

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:So you agree MIM did not go secular in 1980s.

MIM is as secular as BJP.

Let me understand, according to Confuzzled Dude, a party
a) The ideology or goals is to ask for special favors ONLY for Muslims is secular ? even though what they ask is against the CONSTITUTION.
b) A party which openly wants fatwas implemented on Taslima and Salman Rushide is secular ?
http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/11/stories/2007081161781600.htm
c) A party which has a history of hate speeches with their leader threatening 80% of India (1/7th of the World Population) is Secular

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Hate-speech-not-new-for-Owaisi-clan/articleshow/17963124.cms


Has CD ever considered Living in "Secular" Pakistan or "Secular" Saudi Arabia ?

Because that seems to the best place for a "secular" person like him to live ,
with they being bastions of secularism.

You're right, it is typical of both parties to indulge in such balderdash.

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:
Polical Islamists create trouble  because they hold Hindus in Contempt. This happens in South or in North of India. 

Hyderabad is known for riots instigated by MIM at the drop of the hat. 
In Hyd riots in 1983, official figures state 45 people diedand 70 injured.

Even if we assume Political Islamists create trouble, BabriMasjid terrorist act (as proven now) is not justified.

Read the report of your own friend Ashgar Ali Engineer on 1983 riots. His version is likely to be sanitized with whitewashing of MIM atrocities. But with all that whitewashing he says, how suddenly in Old city, a simple stone throwing incident was retaliated by the MIM with arbitrary killing of Hindus with acid tipped Knives. This is a party which you call Secular.

Man Shame on you!

Regarding Babri Masjid.


[size=12.800000190734863]If people had died when the so called Un-used Shia Masjid was destroyed, then it can be called a terrorist act. It was unused at that time, has NOT been used for 40 years.[/size]
At the time of demolition, there it was a functioning Hindu temple, with Murti's of Ram placed there and worship going on. 

So it was a monument protected by the government, with (Sunni) Muslims Opposing its relocation and those idiots destroyed it without permissions. It is a case of breakdown of law and order and challenging the state. Muslims Lost nothing when that monument was destroyed, they were NOT using it. But still it was used a pretext to kill 1000's of Hindus in pakistan, Bangladesh and in riots all over India. Political Islam is a clear and present danger to India.
MIM is a Political Islamist Party.


I do NOT understand why the AIMPLB had an issue with moving it that they opposed it so much. There was nothing sacred in babri Masjid for the Muslims. If a KM away, another Masjid is built and called Babri Masjid, things would have been no different, and Muslims would have gained another Masjid. It is strange that Muslims do not want to relocate just to DENY happiness to Hindus, when they have something to gain (if they had agreed to the request of allowing the relocation, the Hindus had promised to build two Masjids in return).

 Moreover according to my understanding when it was used centuries ago, it was a Shia Masjid, and Shias had no problem in its relocation, but it was the Sunnis who created issues for that and resisted relocation. 
 
In Islamic law, unlike a temple (where god is assumed to reside), masjid is not a place where their God resides. It is just a place where they gather to read Namaz. There is no sacredness to the site. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had destroyed many In-use Masjids.

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:
Polical Islamists create trouble  because they hold Hindus in Contempt. This happens in South or in North of India. 

Hyderabad is known for riots instigated by MIM at the drop of the hat. 
In Hyd riots in 1983, official figures state 45 people diedand 70 injured.

Even if we assume Political Islamists create trouble, BabriMasjid terrorist act (as proven now) is not justified.

Read the report of your own friend Ashgar Ali Engineer on 1983 riots. His version is likely to be sanitized with whitewashing of MIM atrocities. But with all that whitewashing he says, how suddenly in Old city, a simple stone throwing incident was retaliated by the MIM with arbitrary killing of Hindus with acid tipped Knives. This is a party which you call Secular.

Man Shame on you!

Regarding Babri Masjid.


If people had died when the so called Un-used Shia Masjid was destroyed, then it can be called a terrorist act. It was unused at that time, has NOT been used for 40 years.
At the time of demolition, there it was a functioning Hindu temple, with Murti's of Ram placed there and worship going on. 

So it was a monument protected by the government, with (Sunni) Muslims Opposing its relocation and those idiots destroyed it without permissions. It is a case of breakdown of law and order and challenging the state. Muslims Lost nothing when that monument was destroyed, they were NOT using it. But still it was used a pretext to kill 1000's of Hindus in pakistan, Bangladesh and in riots all over India. Political Islam is a clear and present danger to India.
MIM is a Political Islamist Party.


I do NOT understand why the AIMPLB had an issue with moving it that they opposed it so much. There was nothing sacred in babri Masjid for the Muslims. If a KM away, another Masjid is built and called Babri Masjid, things would have been no different, and Muslims would have gained another Masjid. It is strange that Muslims do not want to relocate just to DENY happiness to Hindus, when they have something to gain (if they had agreed to the request of allowing the relocation, the Hindus had promised to build two Masjids in return).

 Moreover according to my understanding when it was used centuries ago, it was a Shia Masjid, and Shias had no problem in its relocation, but it was the Sunnis who created issues for that and resisted relocation. 
 
In Islamic law, unlike a temple (where god is assumed to reside), masjid is not a place where their God resides. It is just a place where they gather to read Namaz. There is no sacredness to the site. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had destroyed many In-use Masjids.

None of that matters...Muslims are the ONLY group that is entirely communal. They vote in a block based soley on what is good for "mulsims", make demands for muslims, expect every politican to attend their Iftar party wearing topis and pay obeisance to them, listen to the Maulanas and Mullahs, and measure every politicians on their favors to muslims (only).

So who are the communals? And aren't parties who consider muslims as "secular" the real communal parties?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:
Polical Islamists create trouble  because they hold Hindus in Contempt. This happens in South or in North of India. 

Hyderabad is known for riots instigated by MIM at the drop of the hat. 
In Hyd riots in 1983, official figures state 45 people diedand 70 injured.

Even if we assume Political Islamists create trouble, BabriMasjid terrorist act (as proven now) is not justified.

Read the report of your own friend Ashgar Ali Engineer on 1983 riots. His version is likely to be sanitized with whitewashing of MIM atrocities. But with all that whitewashing he says, how suddenly in Old city, a simple stone throwing incident was retaliated by the MIM with arbitrary killing of Hindus with acid tipped Knives. This is a party which you call Secular.

Man Shame on you!

Regarding Babri Masjid.


If people had died when the so called Un-used Shia Masjid was destroyed, then it can be called a terrorist act. It was unused at that time, has NOT been used for 40 years.
At the time of demolition, there it was a functioning Hindu temple, with Murti's of Ram placed there and worship going on. 

So it was a monument protected by the government, with (Sunni) Muslims Opposing its relocation and those idiots destroyed it without permissions. It is a case of breakdown of law and order and challenging the state. Muslims Lost nothing when that monument was destroyed, they were NOT using it. But still it was used a pretext to kill 1000's of Hindus in pakistan, Bangladesh and in riots all over India. Political Islam is a clear and present danger to India.
MIM is a Political Islamist Party.


I do NOT understand why the AIMPLB had an issue with moving it that they opposed it so much. There was nothing sacred in babri Masjid for the Muslims. If a KM away, another Masjid is built and called Babri Masjid, things would have been no different, and Muslims would have gained another Masjid. It is strange that Muslims do not want to relocate just to DENY happiness to Hindus, when they have something to gain (if they had agreed to the request of allowing the relocation, the Hindus had promised to build two Masjids in return).

 Moreover according to my understanding when it was used centuries ago, it was a Shia Masjid, and Shias had no problem in its relocation, but it was the Sunnis who created issues for that and resisted relocation. 
 
In Islamic law, unlike a temple (where god is assumed to reside), masjid is not a place where their God resides. It is just a place where they gather to read Namaz. There is no sacredness to the site. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had destroyed many In-use Masjids.

None of that matters...Muslims are the ONLY group that is entirely communal. They vote in a block based soley on what is good for "mulsims", make demands for muslims, expect every politican to attend their Iftar party wearing topis and pay obeisance to them, listen to the Maulanas and Mullahs, and measure every politicians on their favors to muslims (only).

So who are the communals? And aren't parties who consider muslims as "secular" the real communal parties?

The sad state of affairs is that Silent Majority of Muslims will never challenge the Political Islamists (on what they do in India or what their brethen do near abroad)

There are countries in the vicinity which
a) Wants 100% Muslim Only population (Maldives)
b) Practices Blatant discrimination and persecution of Non-Muslims (Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Bangladesh) even by law
c) Indulge in Ethnic cleansing of Non-muslims

None of these bother Muslims who claim that they do not have any of these intentions in India, since Islam wants peace. If Islam wants brotherhood what is the Islam that is practiced in all these countries ? That does NOT bother them and they do NOT feel like protesting or doing anything about it. 

In India Political Islamists
d) Agitate for the superiority of their medieval laws against modern ones
e) Block reforms of any form 
f) Have no trouble openly asking for favors ONLY for their religion, despite it being against the constitution.
g) Want politics based on segregated religious identity (but at the same time claiming secular) which is an irony in itself.

None of these trouble the silent majority. The root cause is that the education system are not teaching them about the ills of Political Islam. India is in a place where Pakistan was about 30 years back around 1970's. Pakistan went a little ahead and glorified it and see where they are now.