Gollum Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Hindu religion still has the caste system and it does not grant equal rights to the women We are working on our flaws, wish all religions were open to reform. Quote And off course when we today see the Ghar Wapsi movement, or intolerance and violence by the saffron brigade, then all presents bad picture of hindu religion. How many took part in Ghar Wapsi? Compare that (all-India GW) with numbers churned out in Islamic religious conversion centres just in Kerala (35 million pop), few of them landed in IS territories (Syria, Iraq, Afg). https://www.indiatoday.in/india/south/story/love-jihad-oommen-chandy-islam-kerala-muslim-marriage-115150-2012-09-04 No ghar wapsi without love jihad, demographic invasion. If you chose to disbelieve Hindus here is what the Church is saying Kerala Catholic church says ‘love jihad’ a reality, alleges women being lured into IS trap https://theprint.in/india/kerala-catholic-church-says-love-jihad-a-reality-alleges-women-being-lured-into-is-trap/349951/ Ghar wapsi is entirely an exercise in self-defence, still a losing cause because these Hindu orgs don't have deep pockets unlike Gulf Sheikhs or Evangelicals from US. Bhagwa intolerance, violence etc. pale before what the other side does. You want Hindus to lay down their arms and get slaughtered? Sorry, not happening, saffron brigade will resist. I don't give a * about vested media narrative, for MSM, Islamists, lobbies, HR groups.... Muslims are perennial victims and Dharmics the perennial aggressors, no factual basis, just BS. Edited May 12, 2020 by Gollum
Alam_dar Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 8 hours ago, MechEng said: There is no point in criticizing caste system because it vanished away from South Asia during the British rule itself. My request is to please understand the BASIC Atheist's OBJECTION on this issue. Objection upon the Incompetence of gods: (1) Today Muslim Apologists come and tell us that Islamic Scholars of past misunderstand the Quranic Verses and Ahadith on the subject of marriage of 2 years old girl, or about killing the Kafirs and to humiliate the non-Muslims etc. And then they present pages long new interpretations of Quranic verses where they present the totally opposite picture of Islam of the past, while Ahadith of Muhammad are totally rejected by presenting one lame excuse of another. And we answer these Muslim apologists, by telling them that: * Why the millions of Islamic Scholars of last 14 centuries misunderstood Quranic Verses on these subjects? Why was Allah not able to reveal the verses in a manner that a normal person could easily understand them and then not to go astray? Quran is a very thick book, which your Allah filled with boasting about his Powers, but we don't have any Laws about the Slaves and any laws about beating women or any other issue (except for very few verses). Therefore, if millions of Slave Women were raped by millions of Muslims during last 14 centuries, then is it not Allah's incompetence which is responsible for their rape and all the hardships? Then how could Muslim's claim that their Allah is All Wise, All Knower, All Competent when this same Allah was not even able to reveal the laws about the slaves and women and non-Muslims in a sensible manner? (2) Same is true about the Judaism and Christianity. (3) And same is true about Hinduism too. The question is not if caste system disappeared during the British rule. And question is also not if Hinduism is REFORMING today and ending the caste system trends today. But the basic Atheist Objection is why Hindu gods were incompetent to reveal Clear and Straight orders and laws about the Caste System that would have been easily understood by all, and none had gone astray? Vedas and other Hindu religious books are thick books like Quran and Bible. They are full about the stories of gods, but when it comes to the most important part i.e. Human Rights, then they are vague. And due to this millions and billions of Hindus of past several thousand years were misguided and thus millions of low caste people had to suffer badly for thousands of years. 2nd Basic Objection: Why Allah stopped contacting People through prophets? Quran and Bible of Muslim/Judaism/Christianity are telling the stories that there were multiple prophets who were constantly sent by Allah/God to guide the humans. Therefore, question arises why then Jewish God didn't sent any prophet for the last 2400 years? (Last Jewish Prophet was Malachi who came about 420 BCE years ago). And Last Prophet of Christians came 2000 years ago (i.e. Jesus) And last Prophet of Islam came 1400 years ago (i.e. Muhammad). If really all Muslims of last 14 centuries misunderstood Quran/Ahadith about Slaves and Women, why then Allah didn't contact with humans any more through any other prophet and corrected them? Why Allah let millions of slaves and women and non-Muslims suffer and didn't help them during this era? Off course these modern Muslim Apologists have no answer to this question. Same is true about modern Jewish/Christian apologists too. And this same question is valid for Hinduism too. If really there exist any God/Light, in which Hindus believe and who contacted the humans in the past, and who sent the Vedas for guidance of humanity, then why didn't this God/Light didn't contact the humanity any more when this God/Light saw that his/her Vedas were misunderstood and humanity was suffering due to caste system? Till Ramayan and Mahabharata, there were dozens of gods or Awtars of gods who were directly in contact with humans. But suddenly all of them disappeared and thus gods were unable to reform the Hindu Society. 9 hours ago, MechEng said: The real history of Buddha is doubtful, there are historical debates as to whether Buddha was a real person or not. It is not important for me if Buddha was real or not. The important thing for me is this that a group of people indeed rebelled against the caste system of Hindu society and abandoned this religion totally. They denied Vedas. They denied all other so called "divine" teachings. They became a separate entity, just like the Indian ancient Atheists, The Charvakas.
Manny_Pacquiao Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 13 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Bro, if we think upon this issue with neutral minds, then issue is this that every Religion is actually offensive to all other religions while every religion is denying the "god/gods of all other religions and consider them to be the fake gods. As secularist, I find Azan offensive while Muslims are not keeping their religioun to themselves and making problems for others by using speakers, and this is enough reason for it to be banned. Remaining, I am also as offensive to Muslims while I also believethat there is No Allah, but all that was Muhammad's own Drama. LOL, since when is a secularist considered 'neutral'? Secularism itself is a partisan stance. You sound confused. And no, every religion is NOT offensive to all other religions. Only abrahamic religions such as christianity and islam make a distinction between non-believers and believers. Only abrahamic religions proselytize and inflict violence in name of their 'true god', only abrahamic religions have a sense of 'persecution' driving their expansion. Your 'secularism' is nothing more than an apology for unsecular behaviour. You are a hypocrite, and all you have are false equivalences. 14 hours ago, Alam_dar said: I don't agree with you that Secularism is hypocritical, but the issue is this that you are following the Muslim path where they make special rules for Muslims in name of Muslim majority and Islamic Republic. You are doing the same in name of Hindu Majority and the Hindu Rashtra. Same thing Gandhi did about the slaughter of the cow, which was again a hypocritical thing and against the Secular values. Another pathetic false equivalence. For the last time, a hindu rashtra IS NOT THE SAME as an islamic state. There is a 5 acre plot of land for a mosque in ayodhya. You would NEVER see a temple at the holy sites of mecca or medina. Hindus don't look at muslims as 'infidels'. Gandhi is no authority on hinduism, he was a british-educated politician. His motives were political. He has no relevance in today's india.
Manny_Pacquiao Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 6 hours ago, Vilander said: Means jack **** one is either good or bad in being secular. No muslim ruler was good enough since they were fundamental to varying degrees and intolerant. This guy is beyond help. In another thread, he actually said that 'hindus were 80-90% equal' during akbar's time... It sounds funny, but what worries me is that he actually thinks these are reasonable arguments.
Manny_Pacquiao Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 14 hours ago, Mariyam said: Don't follow what you term as bigotry here? Where is the hate speech exactly? You are using 'hate speech' very loosely. Let us leave aside the loudspeaker issue, which I will address later, and only focus on the message. People have every right to *believe* anything that they want to. If someone believes his way is the best way, that is that person's prerogative. As long as he keeps his belief to himself and doesn't discriminate on the basis of it, nobody else should have any objection to what the belief is. That is what secularism is! It's an unsecular message, mariyam. If your idea of secularism is built on defending unsecular ideas, you are a hypocrite. My larger issue with 'overt' islamic identity, is that it prevents assimilation. How on earth are you and me supposed to get along if you think of me as an inferior, idol-worshipping kaffir? How can i even trust you to NOT discriminate against me? You already gave yourself a moral basis with your religion. Secularism in theory, is equality among equals. When muslims don't view hindus as equals - rather as idol-worshipping kaffirs - then it's impossible to achieve any kind of equality, even within the framework of law. You end up having state-sanctioned segregation, rather than unity. I don't like this type of governance. We need to reform islam and disincentivize the muslim identity.
Mariyam Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 @gollum You are branching off into history. Why should a discussion on what Javed Akhtar has to say in 2020 need to revolve around genocide, Bin Qasim, Mughals, Khilji and what not? You keep mixing the loudspeaker issue with that of the message of the Azaan. A belief system is just that. Again, if someone thinks theirs is the better way, so be it. There is no such thing as a thought crime! This is not 1984. The problem is when that belief system is pushed down your throat. And on that I agree with you. The loudspeakers should not be used. Regarding your question : Is it necessary? Is any belief necessary? Are you against the idea that people should be free to believe (however inimical they maybe) what they want to? @manny Your understanding of secularism is rather strange. The function of secularism isn't to churn out assembly line "unbiased" automatons. When we say India is a secular country we mean that the state does not discriminate against people of various faiths and steps in to prevent people discriminating against each other on the basis of faith. Discrimination is not the same as having a bias. Discrimination is an action on the basis of a bias/situation. Bias is a thought process. A state can only use punitive measures against discriminatory practices. Not against biases. Secularism doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to be prejudiced. Prejudices/ biases have always existed. And they will continue to do so, till the end of days. They are a result of many factors: religion, class, education etc. Changing a thought process/bias is a different topic altogether. And in my view Javed Akhtar said a right thing here. There is no need to play the Azaan on loudspeakers. And it is a step in changing that thought process.
Manny_Pacquiao Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Mariyam said: @manny Your understanding of secularism is rather strange. The function of secularism isn't to churn out assembly line "unbiased" automatons. When we say India is a secular country we mean that the state does not discriminate against people of various faiths and steps in to prevent people discriminating against each other on the basis of faith. Discrimination is not the same as having a bias. Discrimination is an action on the basis of a bias/situation. Bias is a thought process. A state can only use punitive measures against discriminatory practices. Not against biases. Secularism doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to be prejudiced. Prejudices/ biases have always existed. And they will continue to do so, till the end of days. They are a result of many factors: religion, class, education etc. Changing a thought process/bias is a different topic altogether. And in my view Javed Akhtar said a right thing here. There is no need to play the Azaan on loudspeakers. And it is a step in changing that thought process. There's secularism in theory, and secularism in practice. I'm speaking of secularism in theory. The theory doesn't correspond to the practice, which results in preferential treatment more than anything else. I have no issue with people holding biases. To discriminate is to be human. If i go by your definition, secularism in india is a failure. Because the state enables discrimination - and even violence - by enshrining religious identity into law. That shouldn't be the case. Discrimination should not be institutionalized by the state in the form of quotas and separate laws. This kind of governance will only create segregation. And as someone who views India as a predominantly dharmic society, i don't believe the state should be incentivizing or reinforcing extreme interpretations of islam. I accept that this could be seen as a 'controversial', even 'anti-muslim' stance...but this is the kind of governance i would prefer. This kind of 'secularism' is what creates the conditions for a little boy to refuse the Snickers bar you gave him. I still remember that story!!
Alam_dar Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 33 minutes ago, Mariyam said: @manny Your understanding of secularism is rather strange. The function of secularism isn't to churn out assembly line "unbiased" automatons. When we say India is a secular country we mean that the state does not discriminate against people of various faiths and steps in to prevent people discriminating against each other on the basis of faith. Discrimination is not the same as having a bias. Discrimination is an action on the basis of a bias/situation. Bias is a thought process. A state can only use punitive measures against discriminatory practices. Not against biases. Secularism doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to be prejudiced. Prejudices/ biases have always existed. And they will continue to do so, till the end of days. They are a result of many factors: religion, class, education etc. Changing a thought process/bias is a different topic altogether. And in my view Javed Akhtar said a right thing here. There is no need to play the Azaan on loudspeakers. And it is a step in changing that thought process. Very well explained what Secularism ist and what not. Thanks.
Alam_dar Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Manny_Pacquiao said: And no, every religion is NOT offensive to all other religions. Only abrahamic religions such as christianity and islam make a distinction 1 hour ago, Manny_Pacquiao said: My larger issue with 'overt' islamic identity, is that it prevents assimilation. How on earth are you and me supposed to get along if you think of me as an inferior, 1 hour ago, Manny_Pacquiao said: Secularism in theory, is equality among equals. I am afraid you are making only one sided charges against one religion. You make it an issue of "more evil" or "less evil", and then declare your religion to be the salvation. In reality, Hinduism is also based upon discrimination, and it also has distinctions, and it also makes others inferior and it also does not consider all humans equal. It may be doing against other group of people, but all these evils exist your religion too. 1 hour ago, Manny_Pacquiao said: For the last time, a hindu rashtra IS NOT THE SAME as an islamic state. Off course it is, while you want to give Hindus high status by giving them extra rights as compared to the other in name of majority. It was your claim that Mandirs should have the right to ring the bells while it is a Hindu majority country. This statement is totally against the Secular values and it is going in the direction of Islamic Republic where Muslims get extra rights against the non-Muslims. Your only excuse here is this that Islamic Republic is "more evil", but Hindu Rashtra is not so much discriminatory against the others. Surely, we don't agree with your more/less theory, while law is based upon the principles which stay the same. You already have banned Beef in name of Hindu Rashtra and Hindu majority.
coffee_rules Posted May 12, 2020 Author Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, Mariyam said: Don't follow what you term as bigotry here? Where is the hate speech exactly? You are using 'hate speech' very loosely. Let us leave aside the loudspeaker issue, which I will address later, and only focus on the message. People have every right to *believe* anything that they want to. If someone believes his way is the best way, that is that person's prerogative. As long as he keeps his belief to himself and doesn't discriminate on the basis of it, nobody else should have any objection to what the belief is. That is what secularism is! No, this is not what secularism is. You are defining what a plural society is, where every viewpoint is accepted, respected and given space to flourish, what the Samatan Dharma is set up for. Secular is only from a State’s viewpoint, that state doesn’t discriminate among religions and keeps out of business of governance of religious matters. There is no responsibilities of citizens to respect each other as per secularism. The country’s laws then prevent citizens from fighting with each other over religion. No country is ideally secular, maybe Scandinavian countries, but the RW there is showing opposition due to EU refugee problem and wants laws that make them not secular. Quote Also, you've left out the most important verses of the Azaan. It is basically a call to prayer and not the actual prayer itself. In addition to what you've said, it consists of: hayyal al salah (hurry to pray) hayyal al falah (hurry to salvation) There is no other but our god, Allah. This is not a belief that one can keep to himself and not discriminate others. This belief has resulted in so many supremacist systems like - Halal (our god has to be pleased by a Mullah’s prayer before the animal is killed) , hurting the jobs and economy of non-Muslim butchers, - Banking.,paying interest to non-Muslim banks is haram, as Allah doesn’t like interest - breaking laws. Since, it puts Allah over any other system, the country’s laws can be broken as long as Allah is ok with their acts. Hence, they start demanding their own law systems that is blessed by Allah. How can others accept that one keeps a belief to himself that praying for Allah’s victory over kaffirs , everyday before going to sleep (Surah Al-Kafirun) or in every Friday’s congregation? This is toxic and hate speech and unprecedented. Hence, the need for reforming Islam is more than others, even in a “secular” country. Loudspeakers are being fought upon so much in India mainly because they are being used to mobilize people to congregate during other needs like L&O emergencies. Edited May 12, 2020 by coffee_rules
Gollum Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 18 hours ago, Mariyam said: Also, you've left out the most important verses of the Azaan. It is basically a call to prayer and not the actual prayer itself. In addition to what you've said, it consists of: hayyal al salah (hurry to pray) hayyal al falah (hurry to salvation) Deliberately left them out since I don't have a problem with those verses. 3 hours ago, Mariyam said: @gollum You are branching off into history. Why should a discussion on what Javed Akhtar has to say in 2020 need to revolve around genocide, Bin Qasim, Mughals, Khilji and what not? Because there is a historical reason behind why the 'no God but Allah' bit doesn't fit right especially in Indian context. Just like how you can't get away with 'Heil Hitler' in many countries. If it is simply a call for prayer, why not limit to that? Quote A belief system is just that. Again, if someone thinks theirs is the better way, so be it. There is no such thing as a thought crime! This is not 1984. The problem is when that belief system is pushed down your throat. And on that I agree with you. The loudspeakers should not be used. Sure, then my suggestion to them will be 'don't broadcast those controversial bits, keep that belief private.' Anyway if you are fine with not using loudspeakers I think I'll stop. Edited May 12, 2020 by Gollum
coffee_rules Posted May 12, 2020 Author Posted May 12, 2020 16 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Nothing is perfect in this world. I don't know about all Moghuls, but I have seen Javed Akhtar praising Akbar only for going against the normal Muslim culture and still trying to implement more and more secular values. Akbar may not had been able to introduce 100% Secular values, but he was the best among all the Muslim Indian Rulers. We are fighting the wrong narrative about Jalaluddin (don’t want to refer him as Great). His narrative is given a secular color just to assimilate Muslims in India to give them assurance that India will honor him so they can feel proud of their identity. From TI: Allah gave me task of destroying wicked Hindu kafirs.. At his command, I performed Jihαd destroying places of Hindu kafirs. I raised standards of Islam everywhere and destroyed Kafirs by the use of sword. I destroyed places of idol worship all over India" -Akbar's OWN words in Fathnama I Chittor https://twitter.com/tiinexile/status/1260185036201979904?s=21 16 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Thus not only Javed Akhtar Sahib, but almost all secularist takes his era as somewhat role model. I highly doubt that they praise Aurangzeb. Now problem with right wing Hindus is this that they are not for the Secular Values, but they take one or few incidents of Akbar's era, and then DENY all the secular values that the introduced during his era. In fact, it is impossible for right wing Hindus to ever accept any Muslim Ruler as good one. Actually, right wing Hindus are so much narrow minded that they are even unable to praise modern day Hindu Secularists, then we could forget about Akbar. His secular values were dhong that Marxist historians are perpetuating. Bards in his aasthaan praising him doesn’t make it History. We do accept Muslim leaders like A Kalam , Dr. Arif Mohd Khan and many numerous Muslims who respect other faiths and don’t believe in fake “secular” leaders. 16 hours ago, Alam_dar said: PS: I don't know exactly what Javed Sahib said about Khilji, except this that without his presence, the Mangools would have invaded India. I think this statement is not wrong and historians do agree upon it that Khilji indeed presented resistance against the Mangools. So TF what? it is like saying lions protected lambs from wolves, but later killed them. What difference does it make, Khilji ldid to India what Mongols like Taimur did later. It doesn’t make Khilji noble 16 hours ago, Alam_dar said: PS: Has Javed Sahib ever praised Ghaznavi for destroying the temple of Somnath? I don't think so. But right wing Hindus neglect all good from Javed Sahib while they could only praise any right wing Hindu leader only. He wants Fatwas to proclaim that Mosques be closed , not by the laws of the country. That is Jalaluddin type secularism.
Mariyam Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 @coffee_rules You haven't read or haven't understood what I am saying. And then you proceed on an unrelated rant quoting my post. Why? Secularism is not about public acceptance of a certain viewpoint. Or about giving it respect, whatever that means. That is not the function or the look out of the state. Are you trying to say that having a " certain belief system" is unconstitutional? What are you trying to get at?
diga Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 18 hours ago, Mariyam said: Javed Akhtar's definition of his 'own brethren' includes people of all faiths and even those of no faith whatsoever. Why project what is essentially your parochial outlook onto others? Not for a moment I believe Javed Akhtars view includes every faith ... you are free to believe in his atheist beliefs/impartial views .
Gollum Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 I used to regard Javed Akhtar as a true atheist. Still would like to believe that it is his intense dislike for BJP/Modi which makes him give some ridiculous statements every now and then. His thoughts about history, well that can be cos he isn't a historian and what he spouts are common myths and gems from Indian education curriculum. Also maybe he enjoys trolling certain sections.
coffee_rules Posted May 12, 2020 Author Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Mariyam said: @coffee_rules You haven't read or haven't understood what I am saying. And then you proceed on an unrelated rant quoting my post. Why? This is what you said: Quote People have every right to *believe* anything that they want to. If someone believes his way is the best way, that is that person's prerogative. As long as he keeps hisbelief to himself and doesn't discriminate on the basis of it, nobody else should have any objection to what the belief is. That is what secularism is! Quote Secularism is not about public acceptance of a certain viewpoint. Or about giving it respect, whatever that means. That is not the function or the look out of the state. I don't agree with what Secularism by your definition. Secularism doesn't mean one had a right to any belief as long as it is not harmful.. You are making it up. It is always about the state's priorities on how it treats religions. What one believes is defined by country;s laws. If we let people believe in any thing they feel like, it gives rise to what I explained and you called a 'rant'. One can believe in Holocause denial in private, but why is it made illegal in EU countries? Quote Are you trying to say that having a " certain belief system" is unconstitutional? What are you trying to get at? I can go on a rant about how our Constitution is unconstitutional in regards to Majority rights. But, believing in a harmful ideology privately is toxic and needs reform. This is what china is doing, unIslamsize Muslims. Which is extreme, but any reform should come from within.. Edited May 12, 2020 by coffee_rules
Gollum Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 JA was one of the few Bollywoodias who spoke in favor of KPs in the 90s, his views about Indian Army, Kashmir etc. do indicate he is a patriot. Remember Lakshya? Often he has those weird moments which can be due to senility. Like him more than Shabana who has crossed the line many times. There are many celebs who had/have links with the likes of Dawood and Abu Salem. Javed may be a Pak Premi but there are many criminals in that industry whose lives aren't dissected this way. If after being in the industry for 50 years JA has managed to avoid links with the underworld full credit. Recently Rishi Kapoor passed away, well he visited Dawood's house in Dubai in the late 80s and had tea, mentioned in his autobiography. Nobody talks about that.
Alam_dar Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 29 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: We are fighting the wrong narrative about Jalaluddin (don’t want to refer him as Great). His narrative is given a secular color just to assimilate Muslims in India to give them assurance that India will honor him so they can feel proud of their identity. Yes. And thus it is not a fault of Javed Sahib if he praises Akbar, while his ultimate goal is to promote secularism. 29 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: From TI: Allah gave me task of destroying wicked Hindu kafirs.. At his command, I performed Jihαd destroying places of Hindu kafirs. I raised standards of Islam everywhere and destroyed Kafirs by the use of sword. I destroyed places of idol worship all over India" -Akbar's OWN words in Fathnama I Chittor https://twitter.com/tiinexile/status/1260185036201979904?s=21 I don't know about the authenticity of Fatehnama. But I highly doubt that Akbar ever destroyed the places of idol worship ALL OVER INDIA as has been claimed in this Fathenama. Let us assume that Fathenama is authentic, still the WHOLE picture of Akbar then occurs like this that: * In the beginning, Akbar was under the influence of Islam and extremist Muslims, and thus he used these insulting wordings towards Rajputs. * But when Akbar got older, then his thoughts went through huge EVOLUTION. He gave up the Islamic extremism, and indeed became the true Secularist. * This evolution could easily be seen in Suleh Kul. * Also we see this true Secularism in Ain-e-Akbari, where there is an entire section that has been dedicated to the religion of the " people of Hindustan" where the vedas, ramayana ect have been described with utmost respect. * We also see this evolution and secular Akbar when he married Jodha Bai and permitted her to do Puja and to make a mandir in his Mehal. * We also see how Dara Sikuh was raised by Akbar which is a witness of this mega evolution in his character. The later days Akbar is presented here: Sulh-e-Kul ! Or Universal Peace, was introduced by Akbar, the Great. He believed in : -No discrimination on the basis of religion and race -Focus on universal peace -Secular form of government -Religious tolerance Problem with Hindu Right of today is this that they are totally denying this later day Character of Akbar, which would not be a justice to Akbar. Actually, if I have to think about days of my "youth" as Mulim, then my thoughts were no different about the Hindus. But then I gained more and more knowledge and became mature and got the ability to differentiate between the right and wrong. And final result is this that I made a 180 degree twist and today standing as ex-Muslim here. Therefore, even if young Akbar was so much hostile to Hindus, still I don't declare him at fault for it as Religious Brainwashing is natural in this age. Actually I would then admire Akbar much more than before if he was able to get rid of this Muslim extremism and for adopting the true Secular values later in his life.
coffee_rules Posted May 12, 2020 Author Posted May 12, 2020 13 minutes ago, Gollum said: There are many celebs who had/have links with the likes of Dawood and Abu Salem. Javed may be a Pak Premi but there are many criminals in that industry whose lives aren't dissected this way. If after being in the industry for 50 years JA has managed to avoid links with the underworld full credit. He is not a Pak Premi. He hates Pak as per some of his own comments and is denied entry into Pak (visa denied). They don't like Atheists there. The hyprocitical thing is that people have started calling him a 'buddhijeevi' and that has gone into his head. He starts spouting his gyaan on all sundry things (he is a communist and hence reads only marxist historians) like Khilji protecting India from Mongols. He is a BJP/RSS?Dharmic hater, hence his views are hypociritical when it comes to equally criticising Islam.
Mariyam Posted May 12, 2020 Posted May 12, 2020 @coffee_rules My last reply to you on the topic. I'll try and be as succinct as I can. 1) That isn't my definition. It is not stuff I made up. All of this information is in the public domain. Feel free to look up what secularism is. And also what freedom of religion as a fundamental right as enshrined in our constitution. This mainly with respect to your 'Halal' example. 2) The Holocaust denial example is utterly ludicrous. Holocaust denial is not a religion. Secondly, the word denial indicates that there is an act and not a thought. When you deny something, you are committing an act which is just beyond mere thinking. This is no equivalence and irrelevant to this discussion. 3) Yes, by all means. You can go on a rant about how you perceive the Constitution to be unconstitutional. You can also harbour toxic viewpoints on the others and/or their ways of life. That is your democratic right. 4) Also, you are completely mixing up what is hate speech and demagoguery.
Recommended Posts