Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content Count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    55d 18h 38m 13s

1 Follower

About Alam_dar

  • Rank
    Marauder from Najafgarh
  • Birthday 08/14/1975

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Alam_dar

    Pakistani kids hang doll of Asia Bibi

    You cannot build a straight building upon an croocked BASE. Same is the case with Pakistan. It was the day when Pakistanis decided to have "Islamic Sharia" as the BASE of their Law system. This Sharia led Pakistan to the Blasphemy laws. This Blasphemy laws gave the power to the Extremists to blame any person, and then let him rot in the jail for 8 years, and whole family destroyed even if the person was innocent. Even @KeyboardWarrior type (moderate?) Muslims will also not answer what with 8 years of Jail for Asia in name of Sharia. They will keep silent upon it, or even show sadness, but at the same time will keep on supporting the Islamic Sharia based system in Pakistan which will keep on leading to all these evils.
  2. It may be that they are fake. But I know one thing, even if they are fake, still I am thankful for making such videos, which give hope and spread message of love and peace. For me, even very little something is better than nothing. I just want to stay positive and dream for a better hate free beautiful world.
  3. Alam_dar

    Hinduphobic Bollywood

    No, I absolutely not missed that part, but dealt with it in details and refuted it from multiple references from the Manusmriti itself. It is known as bringing the whole picture in light and making conclusions in proper context. All these arguments are present in details in my above post. You are totally free to point out where I presented the distorted translation, and then you could bring your correct translation. Similarly, if you question my intentions, then please bring correct translation according to your intention. And you say you don't follow any divinity crap. Unfortunately, you are doing exactly the same thing by defending the Manusmriti. I think you are now aiming at me, thinking that I am a Muslim. But I am an apostate i.e. Ex-Muslim. And I have been making much more objections upon Quran and Bible than you ever did.
  4. It is not about comparing. I wonder why are you making it an issue while no where I have compared them or said that they are at the same level. Most Pakistanis never met any Hindu in whole of their life and they surely they are far behind when it comes to seeing a Pundit on the streets of Pakistan. But here we are talking about the positives. Despite preaching of hatred against each other from the RW, still people are capable of loving and respecting and helping each other. This is a big positive. This same respect could be found when both communities interact in the western countries. Very often they are best friends and absolutely no problems. I am thankful for all these positive things and it makes my heart filled with joy.
  5. Alam_dar

    Hinduphobic Bollywood

    I believe my post was very long, and thus you didn't read it completely. If it is true, then I am sorry for such long post. Anyhow, thing is this that Shudra could never elevate himself by acquiring knowledge, as it is totally forbidden upon him to acquire knowledge. His only chance to elevate himself is through the "servitude" of the Brahmans. I provided all the related references for this above. The teachings in the Manu consists of hate and exploitation and extreme punishment of the Shudras, and also born caste system is still valid according to Manu. There is nothing divine in it.
  6. What little/more show of humanity we see in both countries, I am thankful for that. I wish one day Pandit Clothes don't matter any more too. But at moment we are far away from it.
  7. That Indians don't know and thus could not differentiate if he is from Karachi or not.
  8. Alam_dar

    Hinduphobic Bollywood

    @cricketrulez You made interesting claims. Let us look at your first proof that there is no Caste System By Birth in Manusmriti: Don't you think that it is out of context conclusion? Let us read this verse along with the next verse. Verse 2.136 + Verse 2.137 Wealth, Relation, Age, Action and Learning, as the fifth,—these are the grounds of respect; (among them) that which follows is weightier (than that which goes before it).—(136) Among the three (higher) castes, he, in whom there are present most of these five, and of high degree, deserves (greater) respect; as also the Śūdra who has reached the tenth stage (of life).—(137) But do you know what does this 10th stage of life of Sudra means? Let us see the commentary of verse 2.137: // Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya): ... The ‘tenth’ stands for the last stage of life, and indicates extreme old age. Thus then, in case of the Śūdra, ‘wealth’ and ‘relations’ do not constitute grounds of respect, in relation to tho three higher castes. This is clear from the fact, that the Text specifies the ‘tenth stage.’ ‘Action’ and ‘Learning’ are not possible in the Śūdra; for the simple reason that he is not entitled to these. // Would you please mind and tell us: * Question 1: Why Sudras not allowed to LEARN the sacred texts and do the Action? * Question 2: Please tell us in which of the sacred Hindu texts, it has been written that Sudras are not allowed to learn and act? * Question 3: Don't you think without Learning, a Sudra will again turn to Sudra while according to your own conclusion an uneducated person is a Sudra. It is difficult to consider that creature to be Divine who wants to keep a person uneducated, while he was born in a lower caste. Don't you think once again there is some deception and distortion here and things are put against the context? Let us make things clear here first by reading this Verse 10.65 along with the preceding verse 10.64 in order to see the proper context: // Verse 10.64 + Verse 10.65 If the child born from a Śūdra woman to a Brāhmaṇa goes on being wedded to a superior person,—the inferior attains the superior caste, within the seventh generation.—(64) The Śūdra attains the position of the Brāhmaṇa and the Brāhmaṇa sinks to the position of the Śūdra; the same should be understood to be the case with the offspring of the Kṣatriya or of the vaiśya.—(65) Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya): —‘A maiden born from a Śūdrawoman to a Brāhmaṇa father,—if she is ‘wedded to’—acquires the capacity for bearing children, by becoming conjoined in wedlock to—a person of a superior caste i.e., the Brāhmaṇa,—and the girl born of this maiden is again married to a Brāhmaṇa,—and this goes on for seven generations, then in the seventh generation, the child that is born becomes a regular Brāhmaṇa.’ // Therefore: * Change of the Varna is happening here only through (1) Marriage in higher caste and (2) then again marriage in the higher caste for 7 consequent generations. Is it not totally against your claim that there is no Caste System by Birth in Hindu Sacred Texts? Here the change of Varna is taking place through "servitude" of Brahmans, but it has nothing to do with the learning, which was banned upon them as Sudras. Actual translation is: Verse 9:335: If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.—(335) I am afraid that you presented only one side of the Manusmriti, while hid the other side, which is as under: 1. For the welfare of humanity the supreme creator Brahma, gave birth to the Brahmins from his mouth, the Kshatriyas from his shoulders, the Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet. (Manu’s code I-31,) 2. God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper varnas faithfully with devotion and without grumbling. (Manu 1-91) Manu is not satisfied with this. He wants this servile status of the Shudras to be expressed in the names and surnames of persons belonging to that community. Manu says: 3. Let the first part of a Brahman’s name denote something auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaishyas with wealth but a Shudra’s express something contemptible. (Manu II.31) 4. The second part of a Brahmin’s name shall be a word implying happiness, of a Kshatriya’s (a word) implying protection, of a Vaishya’s a term expressive of thriving and of a Shudra’s an expression denoting service. (Manu II. 32.) 5. A hundred year old Kshatriya must treat a ten year old Brahmin boy as his father. (Manu 11-135) 6. The Brahmin should never invite persons of other varnas for food. In case, the latter begs the Brahmin for food, the Brahmin may give them some left-over. Even these left-over must be served not by the Brahmin but by his servants outside the house. (Manu II2). 7. He who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Shudra shall become disqualified for being invited to a shradha. (Manu III. 156.) 8. A Shudra is unfit of receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra.It is not necessary that the Shudra should know the laws and codes and hence need not be taught. Violators will go to as amrita hell. (Manu IV-78 to 81) 9. “Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Shudras.” (Manu IV. 61) 10. He must never read the Vedas in the presence of the Shudras. (Manu IV. 99.) 11. Any country, where there are no Brahmins, of where they are not happy will get devastated and destroyed. (Manu VIII-20 to 22) 12. A Brahmana who is only a Brahman by decent i.e., one who has neither studied nor performed any other act required by the Vedas may, at the king’s pleasure, interpret the law to him i.e., act as the judge, but never a Shudra (however learned he may be). (Manu VIII.20.) 13. The Kingdom of that monarch, who looks on while a Shudra settles the law, will sink low like a cow in the morass. (Manu VIII. 21.) 14. Any Brahmin, who enslaves or tries to enslave a Brahmin, is liable for a penalty of no less than 600 PANAS. A Brahmin can order a Shudra to serve him without any remuneration because the Shudra is created by Brahma to serve the Brahmins. Even if a Brahmin frees a Shudra from slavery the Shudra continue to be a slave as he is created for slavery. Nobody has the right to free him. (Manu VIII-50,56 and 59) 15. A Shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invectives shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. (Manu VIII. 270.) 16. If he mentions the names and castes of the (twice born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red hot into his mouth. (Manu VIII. 271.) 17. If a Shudra arrogantly presumes to preach religion to Brahmins, the king shall have poured burning oil in his mouth and ears. Manu VIII. 272.) 18. A Shudra who has an intercourse with a woman of the higher caste guarded or unguarded shall be punished in the following manner; if she was unguarded, he loses the offending part; if she was guarded then he should be put to death and his property confiscated.” (Manu VIII. 374.) 19. A Brahman may compel a Shudra, whether bought or unbought, to do servile work for he is created by the creator to be the slave of a Brahmana. (Manu VIII. 413.) 20. No Shudra should have property of his own, He should have nothing of his own. The existence of a wealthy Shudra is bad for the Brahmins. A Brahman may take possession of the goods of a Shudra. (ManuVIII-417 & X129) 21. A Brahman may seize without hesitation, if he be in distress for his subsistence, the goods of his Shudra. The Shudra can have only one occupation. This is one of the inexorable laws of Manu. says Manu. (Manu VIII. 417) 22. A Shudra who wants to just fill his stomach may serve a Vaishya. If he wants a permanent means of living he can serve a Kshatriya. But if he wants to go to heaven or wants higher or superior birth in the next generation he must serve a Brahmin. (ManuIX334 & 335) 23. The most sacred duty of a Shudra is to serve the Brahmins, always, reciting the words “Brahman” with utmost devotion. Such a Shudra will get salvation. Otherwise he will die a worst death and will go to the worst hell. (Manu X-121) 24. But let a (Shudra) serve Brahmans, either for the sake of heaven, or with a view to both (this life and the next) for he who is called the servant of a Brahman thereby gains all his ends. (Manu X. 122.) 25. The service of Brahmans alone is declared (to be) an excellent occupation for a Shudra for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit. (Manu X. 123.) 26. They must allot to him out of their own family (property) a suitable maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of those whom he is bound to support. (Manu X. 124.) All these hated teachings, all these contradiction, all these insane punishments of Sudras ... all this is implying only one thing i.e. the "human nature". This has nothing to do with teachings of any divine creature. Every religion put a lot of stress upon "knowledge/(useless knowledge) of the religion" and "worship" of the creator. There are about 100 Verses in Quran which are talking about the "ILM" i.e. knowledge. But all this knowledge is practically useless are it has mostly to do with the religion and there are less of the morals, and then sharia laws which are against the humanity.
  9. Alam_dar

    Hinduphobic Bollywood

    So, do you believe that Manusmriti is Divine? Please confirm.
  10. Never loose your faith in humanity and good. Pakistani in India: And Indian in Pakistan: Yes, there are also extremist religious people (who are also ultra nationalists) present who hate any human being across the border and will try their best kill the innocent creature. Alas.
  11. Alam_dar

    Ayodhya Verdict

    I don't know why you and Moochad become so angry when one criticizes the religion during the discussion? Is it really necessary to start abusing others? This very same behaviour is shown by the right wing Muslims too who again become furious whenever their religion is discussed and criticized.
  12. Alam_dar

    Ayodhya Verdict

    99% Indian Muslims read Quran, but understand not a single Arabic word. Any how, Islam is a separate issue. Coming back to Hinduism and Manusmriti, although 99% Hindus have neither read it, nor many other Hindu sacred books, still the effect of Manusmriti has been very strong upon the Hindu society for the last 2 thousand plus years. Hindu society faced the worst kind of caste system. It still exist today in whole of India and still Dalits are not considered good enough to be married in the upper caste families. And in the rural areas, situation is much worst. And all Commissions reported discrimination against the Dalits. Therefore , in my opinion, although 99% Hindus don't read Manusmriti, but again 99% of them still follow the Manusmriti in form of caste system. The walls of caste system have become weaker, but they are still there.
  13. Alam_dar

    Ayodhya Verdict

    What about the Hindus of last couple of thousands years? Yes, off course it was a long fight against this criminal caste system behaviour, which brought so much humanity in the society that even the modern Hindus were compelled to disassociate themselves from Manusmriti. But even today we see the influence of the Manusmriti in the form of caste system. BJP/RSS are most probably doing the political drama to get the votes. Otherwise if they take pride in their Hindu religion and their Hindu past of several thousands of years, then this caste system with all of it's evils was part of both Hindu religion and the Hindu past. What I found is this that both are considered divine. Difference is this that Shrithis is direct divine words, while Smritis is what the Rishi remembered from the divine words: Manusmriti= “The Remembered Tradition of Manu” You could keep on calling me ignorant, but this definition was given by the Hindu Scholars who wrote commentaries upon it, and we see it's influence upon the Hindu society for the last 2 thousands of years. So, keep your ignorance about Hindu beliefs to yourself. I am afraid that the translation is intentionally distorted here. The actual translation is: Verse 4.176 Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha: परित्यजेदर्थकामौ यौ स्यातां धर्मवर्जितौ । धर्मं चाप्यसुखोदर्कं लोकसङ्क्रुष्टमेव च ॥ १७६ ॥ parityajedarthakāmau yau syātāṃ dharmavarjitau | dharmaṃ cāpyasukhodarkaṃ lokasaṅkruṣṭameva ca || 176 || He shall, avoid such wealth and pleasures as are opposed to righteousness, as also righteousness if it be conducive to unhappiness, or disapproved by the people.—(176) Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya): It has been said above that the ‘group of three’ constitutes the ‘ends of man.’ Some people might think that all the three are equally important, and argue as follows and act accordingly Righteous acts, like the Jyotiṣṭoma, &c., are found to be performed at the cost of wealth and pleasure. Such acts lead to loss of wealth by the giving away of the sacrificial fee and other gifts; and they are opposed to pleasure, inasmuch as it has been laid down that the person initiated for sacrifices shall remain continent, and so forth. Exactly in the same manner, it would be right to have recourse to the acquisition of wealth and pleasure at the cost of righteousness, so that the prohibition, ‘One shall not injure any living beings,’ forbids only such injury as one might inflect upon others simply on account of enmity, and not that which brings to the person wealth or pleasure.” It is with a view to preclude such ideas that the text declares that—‘He shall avoid such wealth and pleasure’ as involve opposition to righteousness. Having thus emphasized the superior importance of Righteousness, he proceeds to add that, in some cases, righteous acts also have to be avoided—‘also righteousness if it be conducive to unhappiness.’ ‘Udarka’ means sequence; that whose sequence is unhappy is ‘asukhodarka.’ For instance, some people give away their entire property, and obtain the fame of being an ‘extremely righteous and charitable person;’—or, when, even on solitary river-banks, where many ordinary persons see what is being done, people bathe, not so much for acquiring spiritual merit, but for winning the praise of the populace;—or, again, when large gifts are made to the ‘crows of sacred places’ (the Brāhmaṇas, at these places, who hanker after gifts), for the purpose of advertising their, powers of giving. All such acts are deprecated. Or, again (one should avoid), such acts as are ‘disapproved by the people,’ as being blameworthy; e.g., the killing (at sacrifices) of the bull, which should not be killed; and the act of eating its flesh is more blameworthy than that of eating other kinds of flesh. This prohibition is with a view to perceptible results, just like the prohibition of touching a snake. Ordinary men, being ignorant, would not know that the killing of the bull is permitted (under special conditions), and would therefore make it known that the sacrificer of the bull is an unrighteous person; and, as a large majority of men are illiterate, even cultured persons, not caring to investigate the source of the popular opinion, would avoid the person (as unrighteous). This is what has been said in the passage—‘the king being righteous,’ etc., etc.. What we have said above, is in accordance with the explanation provided by older writers. As a matter of fact, however, it can never be right to reject, on the strength of Smṛti, what has been enjoined by the Veda. The right example of the act aimed at by the Text is as follows: The custom of ‘niyoga’ (‘begetting of a child on the widowed sister-in-law’) is sanctioned by Smṛtis; but it is not performed, because it is ‘deprecated by the people;’ or, again, when one is supporting an unprotected young woman, entirely through pity,—if people show their disapproval by giving out that ‘she appeals to hiś generosity because she is a woman,’—then the said righteous act of supporting would be one that is ‘deprecated by the people.’—(176) Conclusion: This stopping of righteous acts is about Optional Righteous Acts like sacrificing an animal. But is does not say to change the LAWS. I find the same problem in Muslims where they are changing the translations of Quranic verses and Islamic traditions in order to defend their religion in one way or another by using every possible lame excuse. And when we show them the right thing, then they blame us of ignorance and not worthy of talking about the religion.
  14. Alam_dar

    Ayodhya Verdict

    I have not written to kick all the BJP and RSS leaders. But I asked if you are ready to kick those leaders of BJP and RSS out who still believe in caste system? Answer should be very simple. Yes or No? Or would you only oppose orally and then again we see you sitting with those same people on the table who still practice this caste system? BJP and RSS consists of mostly higher caste Hindus. My feeling is this that RSS is showing it (i.e. it does not believe in caste system) mostly out of political reasons. At least the Dalits don't believe in this RSS drama. I beg to differ. Manusmriti + Hindu Scholars who wrote famous commentaries upon it ... all this lead to a very different conclusion. For example: Killing of low caste Person is equal to killing the animals Manusmriti (LINK): Comparative notes by various authors (verses 11.131-132): Please tell me, what should the world then think about Hinduism? Hindus got several thousands of years to get rid of caste system, but they didn't. When today you claim opposing it, then world is not going to believe you so easily. If Hinduism gets itself reformed, and extremism disappears, then I have no problems with Hinduism and BJP, as I have no problems with liberal Christians who try to give equal rights to all people in the West.
  15. Alam_dar

    Ayodhya Verdict

    I am sorry if I offended you by using the word Yaar. If you don't like it, then it is ok. It was only a joke. I know what message you wanted to convey through this joke. But I intentionally changed it to bring my joke by conveying the message that religious people today gather for killing upon non issues, which is not good. I have only one post in this thread, and that too very short one (only one line) and basically it is about the other fears of the Muslim community which are related to Babari masjid issue. I don't think I have done anything wrong to offend you so much here by one line comment, and a joke as a reply. We are living is a mixed society. Every issue in the society effects all, and not only the RSS and the Extremist Muslims. Every atheist, every Christian, every Parsi, every Sikh, and every sane Hindu and every sane Muslim have the full right to comment upon all the issues of the society, while ultimately they effect all directly or indirectly. Ok, it seems you are mainly pissed off due to my arguments in the Hinduphobic Bollywood thread. Please tell me why should I have not replied there while: (1) Firstly, we are on a discussion forum and everyone has the right to comment on any issue of the mixed society. (2) Secondly, you people directly attacked and falsely accused the Secularists. And I am an atheist and as well as a Secularist and Humanist. What is wrong when I simply brought my arguments and opinion? If I am wrong, then you have the fully liberty to bring your arguments and opinions. We are here to learn from each other and let others make aware of opinions and thinking. Why do you want to sew my lips in name of lame excuses and personal attacks? OK. But have you ever seen that I am making these killer atheists my hero instead of condemning their killings? Contrary to the religious zealots, who take their biggest religious killers as their Heros, I simply condemn any such atheist. Only and only Atheism has the ability to REFORM itself, while freethinking has no limits in atheism. But religions have only limited freethinking, which stays only the religious boundaries. Therefore, it is not possible for the religions to reform themselves. Thus Hindusim was not able to get rid of evil caste system at it's own. While it were the western atheists themselves who rejected the communist Stalin, while we are not the cult worshippers and have the full backing of the freethinking. The atheist, whom I respect, he is Buddah, and not Stalin. Now could you come out, and kick all your BJP and RSS leaders and Pandits who still believe in the caste system and don't let the Dalits to marry the Brahmins? You accused me of following the Islamists, who consider killers like Ghaznavi as their Hero. I just hope you are able to see the difference that Stalin or any other atheist killer is absolutely not my hero and I am not a cult worshipper.

Guest, sign in to access all features.