Pres. Trump will be in attendance at 'Howdy Modi' event in Houston

[mishra]

I have followed Trump Hillary battle and how SM and MSM and anti Trump protestors have been making them heard. There was one on SM  where in a protest march Trump was represented by a ready to be roasted Pig faced man , while pigs butt was being kicked as the caravan mooved.

it was detestable and comments on the tweet were even more detestable. I doubt if anyone could do half that insulting rally for democrat candidates in any part of world and get away with it. 

Hence i find nationalist leaders like Modi, Putin, Trump, BoJo as lot more accommodating to views of others then so called libtard leaning one.

Because you can allways edit and show on libtard media which can make people more threatened.

[coffee_rules]

44 minutes ago, mishra said:

I have followed Trump Hillary battle and how SM and MSM and anti Trump protestors have been making them heard. There was one on SM  where in a protest march Trump was represented by a ready to be roasted Pig faced man , while pigs butt was being kicked as the caravan mooved.

it was detestable and comments on the tweet were even more detestable. I doubt if anyone could do half that insulting rally for democrat candidates in any part of world and get away with it. 

Hence i find nationalist leaders like Modi, Putin, Trump, BoJo as lot more accommodating to views of others then so called libtard leaning one.

Because you can allways edit and show on libtard media which can make people more threatened.

Excellent. Remember Kathy Griffin posing with Trump's head. Despicably intolerant Left.

 

[someone]

At the end of the day, it's nothing ground breaking. Yesterday, DT in press conference, was asked to comment on Pak as terror hub, yet he didn't answer it, and instead signaled Iran out. Reality is Pak, has a strategic location and a country where all land is available for sale. So no big nations would let go of such big advantage....

[Gollum]

13 hours ago, Mariyam said:

You are conflating a lot of issues here.

As long as they are valid, what's wrong?

Quote

Many Muslims do not donate organs because of scripture. Or the interpretation of scholars of that scripture. Obviously they are going to accept organs to survive. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

For instance, if a person knows that his relative may have a chance to survive then scripture be damned. 

In India, not only the donor, but also the family needs to nod their consent before the organs can be donated. And given that the family could face issues in the form of refusal by certain kabarastans, refusal of some moulvis to complete final rites etc, many are discouraged. 

Then there is a problem with the scriptures and the way scholars interpret them. Religions should reform with time, organ donation is very common these days. Why can't there be more flexibility in Islam? 

Quote

Your claim that Muslims are the first to rush to accept organs, it is a blatant falsehood. Lists are prepared well in advance and people are given the organs only the basis of the severity of the illness. The most deserving ones gets the organs first.

Going into semantics are we? Muslims have no problem with accepting organs but show negligible inclination to donate organs. Why the disparity? What is the reasoning? Their cadaver must not be tampered with but doesn't matter when they need other people's organs for survival.

Just like how all non-Muslims no matter how good will never go to heaven which is reserved only for Muslims...what is the logic there? Or just like how Muslims and kafirs are treated differently as per shariah? Do you accept that the religion encourages hatred and othering of non-Muslims? People may be bigoted, narrow minded but in case of Islam don't you think there is religious sanction to hate on and torture 'others'? I am not conflating, just extending the line of thought. 

Quote

 

WRT to the other part of your post, in a nutshell

Zakat is for the needy. I do not know of any specific Quranic injunction that says it should be only for Muslims. Maybe some expert on the Holy Quran can help you out here.

Majority (overwhelming) experts available on the internet say it is only for Muslims, the needy ones. Maybe your family does it in secular spirit but question mark about majority. Point I am making is why the discrimination when it comes to charity? If some needy person asks for help one may refuse or lend support, is it right to ascertain the religion of that person before coming to a decision?   

Quote

Also Friday sermons are just that. Sermons. They aren't discussions. If there ever were the topic of organ donation in any Friday congregation, the chances are that the religious leader there would make clear his interpretation/ observation about it in the most convincing fashion. 

Hope more Friday sermons are set aside for matters of interest rather than religious yada yada. If they can devote time to talk about Syria and Palestine I am sure they could slip in some time for pressing issues in India and the role of Muslims in them, there are many !!!

If their interpretation isn't appropriate for 21st century doesn't matter how convincing they are.

 

PS: You don't need to reply if you find this discussion uncomfortable, not my motive. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Gollum

[mishra]

1 hour ago, someone said:

At the end of the day, it's nothing ground breaking. Yesterday, DT in press conference, was asked to comment on Pak as terror hub, yet he didn't answer it, and instead signaled Iran out. Reality is Pak, has a strategic location and a country where all land is available for sale. So no big nations would let go of such big advantage....

The only announcement I am waiting on is India US trade deal. Even Modi referred Pakistan in 2 sentences in his 30 mins speech.

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, sandeep said:

Trump isn't a winning horse at this point.

 

Can't resist the urge to indulge in name-calling when you see a differing opinion, can you?

 

No he didn't.  He wanted to sow chaos and delegitimize the American democratic process. 

 

Sorry to be blunt, but this is the kind of foolish mentality that leads me to give up further discussion.  Are you a "congressi", are you a "bhakt", are you a 'dem".  Dumb as a doorknob this tribal stereotyping.   My point is about it not being in India's interest to take explicit partisan positions when it comes to the US.  If you can't comprehend that basic offering, let alone counter it with logic.  Then all I have to say is get well soon. 

Bhai it is actually in India’s interest to take a partisan approach to US presidential elections. For the last 25 years Republican government has been far more pro India than Democrat. 

[sandeep]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

For the last 25 years Republican government has been far more pro India than Democrat. 

Bullshit.  Untill Bill Clinton's decisively pro-India stance in 1999 (Kargil), US was firmly pro-Pakistan due to cold-war history, and hadn't updated its stance inspite of the cold war being history.  And even then, the Republican elites have a marked affinity for the greenbros, in line with with their habitual tendency and fascination with dictators and strongmen who can "get the job done" and deliver what US wants.  

 

Reality is that the US has recognized in the post-1990s world, that an alliance with India  is far, far more profitable and valuable, than propping up the paranoid Pakistanis.  It has nothing to do with any useless "partisan" approaches taken by Modi or anybody else.  All such actions do is lose a bit of credibility for the Indian government in the long-term.  And more than that, carry a bit of risk.   Nobody likes external interference in domestic politics, Indians or Americans.

[Mariyam]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

As long as they are valid, what's wrong? *1

Then there is a problem with the scriptures and the way scholars interpret them. Religions should reform with time, organ donation is very common these days. Why can't there be more flexibility in Islam? *2

Going into semantics are we? Muslims have no problem with accepting organs but show negligible inclination to donate organs. Why the disparity? What is the reasoning? Their cadaver must not be tampered with but doesn't matter when they need other people's organs for survival. *3

Just like how all non-Muslims no matter how good will never go to heaven which is reserved only for Muslims...what is the logic there? Or just like how Muslims and kafirs are treated differently as per shariah? Do you at accept that the religion encourages hatred and othering of non-Muslims? People may be bigoted, narrow minded but in case of Islam don't you think there is religious sanction to hate on and torture 'others'? I am not conflating, just extending the line of thought. *4

Majority (overwhelming) experts available on the internet say it is only for Muslims, the needy ones. Maybe your family does it in secular spirit but question mark about majority. Point I am making is why the discrimination when it comes to charity? If some needy person asks for help one may refuse or lend support, is it right to ascertain the religion of that person before coming to a decision? *5  

Hope more Friday sermons are set aside for matters of interest rather than religious yada yada. If they can devote time to talk about Syria and Palestine I am sure they could slip in some time for pressing issues in India and the role of Muslims in them, there are many !!!

If their interpretation isn't appropriate for 21st century doesn't matter how convincing they are. *6

I have broken my reply into multiple parts and numbered those parts above . I am unable to segregate your post and quote you multiple times.

 

*1 There is nothing wrong with it. I am not that sharp. I can't keep up and tend to lose focus on what exactly is being contended.

 

*2 I really cannot answer why there can't be more flexibility within Islam.

 

*3 I am not going into semantics. Your initial post on the topic made it sound like Muslims get some preferential treatment when it comes to organs. That isn't the case at all. On the topic of organ donation, I am not justifying the non donation of organs from Muslims. I am not saying it is right. I am giving you a logical explanation to why it happens. Let me be more clear. Humans always prefer to take the least part of resistance. When grieving a loved one, the last thing you want is to be shunned by a kabarastan (on account of a tampered cadaver) and having to make last minute alternate arrangements. The law in India requires consent of the immediate family in addition to written consent of the deceased. It is convenient to follow the interpretation of scripture here, since that means least hassle. On the other hand, when faced with death, survival instincts are primal. All religion goes out of the window. Is it highly hypocritical? yes. Its all too human.

 

*4 Why should matters of faith be logical? Isn't that beating the whole point of having faith. Yes, there definitely is an 'othering' of people. Infact there is an entire Surah al Kafiroon in the holy Quran.  Is the hate institutionalized in canon? Depends on the interpretation. You have verses which are fairly liberal about deen "lakoum deenukum waliya deeni" . This basically means to you your religion, to me mine. Or something to that effect. These are a part of the Meccan verses which some scholars would say were later abrogated. There definitely is a certain sense of condescension in the Holy Quran towards non believers. Does that necessarily mean it encourages torture, as you put it? No.

 

*5 Let me tell you how Zakat works these days. Gone are the days when you directly give alms to the needy. Most people donate the money at their regular mosque or whatever centre of religious congregation. Those mosques directly give the moneys to NGOs (Islamic mainly) or distribute it in upkeep of the needy. Many madrassas run this way. Partially funded by the state governments and partially by zakat money. In Maharashtra for example, a good 30-40% of the kids are non Muslims. Why? Because municipal schools have absolutely NO standard when it comes to academic rigour. But that's a topic for another day. Just an example. Also, a google search more or less tells me what I told you in my earlier post. Zakat is for the needy. There is absolutely nothing in the Holy Quran that says that it can't be for a non Muslim.

 

*6 Syria and Palestine are hardly hot topics of discussion. Most mosques wouldn't have sermons on those. Palestine still I have heard of mosques having some kind of an 'educational' rant by the moulvi in charge. Syria talk is mainly done in Shia congregations. But these topics are rarely discussed. The Indian political scenario is discussed, which is neither a religious matter nor is it particularly democratic. having said that ,most sermons are stories from the life of the prophet (PBUH). Also there are talks about community issues. For example there was a huge campaign in 2017-2018 to make young Muslim kids understand that risking their life by riding the motorcycles like maniacs is not necessarily fun. The preachers were approached and played a huge role in convincing the kids. You have serious misgivings about what is being preached. 

  

 

 

[sandeep]

@Mariyam  I feel a bit of sadness at you having to defend or explain your faith like this.  Our India was, is and ought to be better than that.  

[Mariyam]

On the topic of Modiji campaigning for Trump.

 

Let say, hypothetically it were the other way around.

A US President came to India and publicly endorsed the MMS government and campaigned for the Congress in 2013. Would you see that as fair?

 

 

[Mariyam]

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

@Mariyam  I feel a bit of sadness at you having to defend or explain your faith like this.  Our India was, is and ought to be better than that.  

ICF isn't India. If anything more NRI in its outlook. 

Jokes apart. @Gollum took time out on that post and its been a while since I wrote a long (not by Gollum standards) post. So that's that. 

India was, and still is the best.

[mishra]

 

6 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

On the topic of Modiji campaigning for Trump.

 

Let say, hypothetically it were the other way around.

A US President came to India and publicly endorsed the MMS government and campaigned for the Congress in 2013. Would you see that as fair?

 

 

On a issue bigger than A single election between labour and conservatives . 

https://www.politico.eu/article/9-takeaways-from-obamas-david-cameron-brexit/amp/

 

Enough said

[Muloghonto]

28 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Bullshit.  Untill Bill Clinton's decisively pro-India stance in 1999 (Kargil), US was firmly pro-Pakistan due to cold-war history, and hadn't updated its stance inspite of the cold war being history.  And even then, the Republican elites have a marked affinity for the greenbros, in line with with their habitual tendency and fascination with dictators and strongmen who can "get the job done" and deliver what US wants.  

 

Reality is that the US has recognized in the post-1990s world, that an alliance with India  is far, far more profitable and valuable, than propping up the paranoid Pakistanis.  It has nothing to do with any useless "partisan" approaches taken by Modi or anybody else.  All such actions do is lose a bit of credibility for the Indian government in the long-term.  And more than that, carry a bit of risk.   Nobody likes external interference in domestic politics, Indians or Americans.

You are correct about before Clinton. But 100% wrong since then. It’s Bush who removed the Pokhran related embargo on us, imposed by Clinton. It’s Bush that for the first time in USA history states that US policy shall not see India Pakistan as equal equal. It’s bush that opened the door for India getting special exceptions to import arms from USA. And Obama administration again did the India Pakistan equal equal mode. 

 

The reality is the Republicans are far more geostrategically aware than the Democrats who are far more about globalism. In globalism model India is just a competitor to the US. In geostrategic model we are a bulwark against China. 

[someone]

30 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

On the topic of Modiji campaigning for Trump.

 

Let say, hypothetically it were the other way around.

A US President came to India and publicly endorsed the MMS government and campaigned for the Congress in 2013. Would you see that as fair?

 

 

Well, USA did ban Modi visa, and that was one big issue in 2014 election. So they did try and interfered in our politics. 

 

Its fortunate that Modi is a genuine patriot, who didnt take it personally, and thus choose to work with US irrespective of past actions. 

[someone]

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You are correct about before Clinton. But 100% wrong since then. It’s Bush who removed the Pokhran related embargo on us, imposed by Clinton. It’s Bush that for the first time in USA history states that US policy shall not see India Pakistan as equal equal. It’s bush that opened the door for India getting special exceptions to import arms from USA. And Obama administration again did the India Pakistan equal equal mode. 

 

The reality is the Republicans are far more geostrategically aware than the Democrats who are far more about globalism. In globalism model India is just a competitor to the US. In geostrategic model we are a bulwark against China. 

Before Bush, USA key demand was always for India to forgo and end its nuclear programme. It was under Bush who accepted India as nuclear state and pushed ahead the relationship...

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, someone said:

Before Bush, USA key demand was always for India to forgo and end its nuclear programme. It was under Bush who accepted India as nuclear state and pushed ahead the relationship...

Yep. Republican relations with India has decisively been superior, state to state, than Democrat. This is undeniable to any observer speaking without agenda or bias.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

You are correct about before Clinton. But 100% wrong since then. It’s Bush who removed the Pokhran related embargo on us, imposed by Clinton.

Are you claiming that Al Gore wouldn't have done the same?  Bullshit.

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

It’s Bush that for the first time in USA history states that US policy shall not see India Pakistan as equal equal. It’s bush that opened the door for India getting special exceptions to import arms from USA. And Obama administration again did the India Pakistan equal equal mode. 

This is completely false.  Bush was a moron who was led around by his nose.  It was the American foreign policy establishment that had realized post-Kargil and post-economic reforms, that their India policy needed a long overdue adjustment.  It had nothing to do with Bush "deciding" anything.  

 

And neither did the Obama administration do "Ind-Pak equal equal mode".  IIRC it was under Obama that India worked out NSG exemption.  With both Pakistan and China crying like little babies to no avail.  

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

The reality is the Republicans are far more geostrategically aware than the Democrats who are far more about globalism. In globalism model India is just a competitor to the US. In geostrategic model we are a bulwark against China. 

These are overly broad generalizations that are by definition, false.  Trump is a transactional arsehole, and is looking everywhere , anywhere, for areas and decisions where he can claim victory to his rabid paranoid ignorant base.  And he has attempted to bully India by removing tax exemptions that India enjoyed as a developing country, etc in order to extract trade concessions from India.  He has pressured India further to buy more arms from US, and will continue to do so.  Any US President, Republican or Democrat will act largely the same with India, and continue its defence co-operation with India as a bulwark against China, as well as a market for its arms and other goods.  There is no special benefit that India gains from a Republican administration that it can't achieve with a democratic one.  

 

But this "Republicans are good for India" is one of those false myths that some folks like to bandy around, and it makes them feel like they know what they are talking about.  Let the facts lead you to the conclusions, not the other way around.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Yep. Republican relations with India has decisively been superior, state to state, than Democrat. This is undeniable to any observer speaking without agenda or bias.

What party did Richard Nixon get elected as President from? Was it the one with more "geopolitical awareness"?  What about Ronald Reagan?  What party appointed Robin Raphael as Deputy Secretary of State for South Asia - Ms Raphael gained notoriety in the early 1990s for aggressively touting the Pakistani line on  Kashmir, even in the face of repeated terrorist attacks in Kashmir and beyond by Pakistani "non-state actors".  

 

Post-2000s, both Republican and Democratic administrations in the US have increasingly stepped up engagement and partnership with India, for obvious reasons, primarily because it is in American interests to do so.  Just because old man Bernie says a few things on Kashmir, don't extrapolate foolishly and mistake rhetoric for substantive policy preferences.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

On the topic of Modiji campaigning for Trump.

 

Let say, hypothetically it were the other way around.

A US President came to India and publicly endorsed the MMS government and campaigned for the Congress in 2013. Would you see that as fair?

 

 

Expect radio silence on this obvious parallel from the rejoicing "right-wingers".   Empty vessels do make more noise after all.

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

What party did Richard Nixon get elected as President from? Was it the one with more "geopolitical awareness"?  What about Ronald Reagan?  What party appointed Robin Raphael as Deputy Secretary of State for South Asia - Ms Raphael gained notoriety in the early 1990s for aggressively touting the Pakistani line on  Kashmir, even in the face of repeated terrorist attacks in Kashmir and beyond by Pakistani "non-state actors".  

What part of post Clinton did you miss ? We are talking 20 years later buddy. 

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Post-2000s, both Republican and Democratic administrations in the US have increasingly stepped up engagement and partnership with India, for obvious reasons, primarily because it is in American interests to do so.  Just because old man Bernie says a few things on Kashmir, don't extrapolate foolishly and mistake rhetoric for substantive policy preferences.

Economically it’s true. Militarily and strategically Obama administration gave us a lot more bamboo than Republicans have.  Hillary is actually far more pro Pakistan on Kashmir than anyone else and she ran the foreign relations team under Obama.