M.F. Hussain accepts Qatar citizenship

[ganeshran]

Ganesh, Pls answer this question (see below) without trying to bring in any other religion or party. Pretend that at this moment that there are only those 4 entities. Please don't answer by asking another question. Thanks.

I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine. Your stand on Islam is well known on these forums and hence this question is very pertinent in this debate. If you dont agree with this statement, the original premise of your argument stands voided If you insult the Quran, does it also rationalize a Muslim insulting your wife and questioning her character, because he holds the Quran in higher esteem than your wife?

[ganeshran]

I answered your question more than once. And FWIW I asked you the question first IIRC. But anyhow heres another answer in a different way : unlike you who recognizes that I hold Bharatmata at a higher esteem than your own mother' date=' the Muslim does not have any such accords. As per his religion he is required only to acknowledge his God and Muhammad. And as I told you before there is a major disconnect with what you are asking and what Iam asking. The two are completely different topics and trust me the issue will become very clear the moment you answer my question. So please ... lets see a straightforward answer to my question.[/quote'] No you didnt. You have been sidestepping both this question and my point of hypocrisy while supporting Hussain's persecution while opposing Rushdie and Nasrin's? Do you hold the Bharatmata in higher accord than a Muslim holds his Quran? Is it something that can be irrefutably determined? Hence if you get offended when someone disrobes the Bharatmata, then a Muslim gets offended when someone insults the quran. So when you are justifying your violent objection to disrobing the Bharatmata, the muslim can also justify violent jihad because someone insulted the quran. Your argument rationalizes all the violence carried out in the name of religion. As I said, I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine. Because if you disagree with my earlier statement, then the whole premise for your argument gets voided.

[ganeshran]

So as I told you before there is a major disconnect with what you are asking and what Iam asking. The two are completely different topics and trust me the issue will become very clear the moment you answer my question. So please ... lets see a straightforward answer to my question. And FWIW this issue is not because MFH is a Muslim. From what I know he is a aethist.

I just asked a simple Agree or disagree answer. If you insult the Quran, does it also rationalize a Muslim insulting your wife and questioning her character, because he holds the Quran in higher esteem than your wife? If you agree to this, then we can agree that we are accepting the fundamental terms of the debate and move on to your question. If you disagree, then your argument of my mother and Bharat Mata gets voided as you are mixing both the public and private realm of our lives, just what I am doing in the question in the post.

[ganeshran]

I added more detail to my earlierr post but let me get to the crux of your response. Which is of whether we can irrefutably determine which of the 2 are holier. And the answer is most definitely yes. And as I have repeatedly told you the details have been given to you in the PM's. It is not my problem that today you have developed a unique sense of Right and wrong whereby you are willing to sweep a lot of violence under the rug and use pitiful excuses such as the 1% BS to overlook the worldwide intolerance that accompanies this ideology. The problem is with your Moral compass. Which is why we need to first identify what is Right and what is wrong , what is holy and what is un-holy. What is intolerance and what is tolerance. Once we do that the Quran will fail on most counts. Understand ? So now lets see the answer to my question.

The question I asked is not about right or wrong. The question was do you hold Bharatmata in a higher status than a Muslim holds his Quran. Its the status one accords to their symbols. The Muslim holds his religious symbols in an unquestionable position, (one of the key points that I have often argued with Muslims is that they should start questioning their faith more and not take everything at face value). From his position it is just as easy to justify violence since you have insulted something that is of paramount holiness to him,regardless of his actual holiness which you are arguing here. When you say Hussain has insulted something that is paramount importance to you and justify violence based on that, a muslim can do the same thing. So in essence your argument justifies all violence carried out in the name of religion.

[ganeshran]

And No Iam not sidestepping any of your questions. You asked your question in response to my question in Post#533 (which BTW I had to re-word because you were doggedly avoiding answering my question from much earlier post when the topic of your mom vs Bharatmata came up ). So you are the one that is avoiding answering my question and are responding by asking questions in reply. Anyhow it is now your turn to answer my simple question.

I will answer as soon as I see a simple answer to the below question. Can a Muslim question and taint your wife's character because you insulted his holy book which is of paramount importance to him.

I just asked a simple Agree or disagree answer. If you insult the Quran, does it also rationalize a Muslim insulting your wife and questioning her character, because he holds the Quran in higher esteem than your wife? If you agree to this, then we can agree that we are accepting the fundamental terms of the debate and move on to your question. If you disagree, then your argument of my mother and Bharat Mata gets voided as you are mixing both the public and private realm of our lives, just what I am doing in the question in the post.

[ganeshran]

Yes I do. This is like the 10th attempt. Didnt know that I wasnt clear enough earlier. The two should not even be on the same level.

How can you be so sure and can it be proved? Again its not which is right / wrong. Its who believes that his religious symbols is right. The Jihadi is thoroughly brainwashed and he cannot fathom the slightest of slights to his religious symbols. Regardless of whether you think it is holy or not, he does and he will go to any lengths to accept violence in order to avenge its insults. So when you justify violent persecution of Hussain because he insulted a symbol holy to you, it is not much different from the argument of the jihadi, except from a different perspective

Doesn't mean anything when his holy book itself doesn't recognize my religion, my gods and idol worship. It clearly tells me that I will go to hell. There are more gory details but I will spare you the details. So the matter becomes who is right and who is wrong . Just because someone believes in book doesn't automatically make it holy. I prefer to do a few cross checks. Dont expect me to be as gullible as you.

The Muslims I met in my life show none of the violence or intolerance that you mention. They recognize my right to worship my god, just as I recognize their right to. They are innocent of any wrongdoing. Then why should I hold them guilty of something that is happening in Afghanistan or what happened centuries ago. I stand by my original statement that an innocent person must not be condemned of being guilty by association. I am not guilty of Gujrat 2001 or Delhi 1984 and by the same logic the innocent people are not guilty of Kashmir or Godhra or the Khalistani movement.

[ganeshran]

It doesn't work that way. You simply cannot keep asking questions as a reply to my question which I asked way earlier than you did. If you don't answer my question in the next post the discussion ends right here. verse 3:85 for you : " If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him" http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/003.qmt.html#003.085

I always answered your questions. This one is different because you are reinforcing the sanctity of a religious/nationalistic symbol using a personal relationship (mother in this case) From your repeated assertions on these forums on not subscribing to political connectedness and subjecting everything to personal thought process, I was under the impression that you would also respect Hussain's right to question the concept of the Bharatmata which may not have been sacred to him after his internal thought process. (Which he didnt do btw, It was just a work of art - but just for sake of argument). But your stand on this surprised me. Hence I asked if you would have followed the same stand while questioning a Muslim's religious symbols and accept justification of violence if he reinforced the sanctity of his religious symbols using a personal relationship (wife in this case)

[ganeshran]

that is because you are doggedly avoiding the main issue of what constitutes as a sensitivity of others. You try to pretend as though you are ultra liberal (which you are not .. your liberalism only works one-way but thats a different topic ) and you will even try to justify say cows being killed outside temple if you have to. That is why I had to take the discussion to a level that you would understand and pin you down. Naturally you didn't like the outcome and hence your attempts to obfuscate the matter by bringing in all sorts of other things when there was no need but still I patiently answered every single question that you hurled at me even though I didn't have to because you were asking them out of turn and as a response to my question. You prefer this business of tolerance to be a one-way street which is what most secularists in India think is the right way to go about show casing their Tolerance and Secularism. But you very well know that you have absolutely no leg to stand on and justify that stand. As I have said multiple times in the case of Muslims they cannot demand others to respect their holy book because the book itself does not recognize other faiths. Why should I treat this book respectfully given all that I have proved in the PM's ? The onus is on YOU to prove that this book belongs in the space of holiness. But I have no problem extending such courtesy's to other Dharmic religions. I have even said that if I had my way I would want the whole world to be following Jainism. Just because you have a liking for self destruction and have found a way to sell that under the garb of "Liberalism/Secularism" doesn't mean that I have to blindly accept it at face value. I know all about the superfine print that is at the bottom of the brochure that you guys use to sell. So as I had predicted you will simply hit the exit when the truly uncomfortable facts are dug up.

You took the discussion to my mother because you wanted to provoke just like u provoke muslims by insulting their prophet. I didn't obfuscate the argument, but introduced another perspective which rationalizes a muslim questioning your wife's character because you insulted his holy book. I am happy to carry on that discussion as soon as you answer my question. I never claimed to be ultra Liberal, but I am tolerant. If I see intolerance, I will challenge it regardless of whether its against my religion or not. You on the other hand have a unique definition of tolerance and only invoke it when your religion is targeted. This thread was never about solely religion, it was about Hussain's freedom of expression. It was you who brought in religion. If you cannot respect Islam its totally your opinion and you are entitled to it even though I dont agree with for the reasons I have outlined before. The whole definition of freedom of expression is to allow an individual to be able to criticize something even if others dont agree with it. Your criticism of Islam also comes under it. I support Hussain's work of art and his right to draw religious symbols just like I support Rushdie's right to criticize Islam.

[ganeshran]

I am traveling tonight and wont be able to continue the debate further tonight . please reply and I will reply tomorrow morning

[ganeshran]

here's your answer (for the N'th time). As I have said multiple times in the case of Muslims they cannot demand others to respect their holy book because the book itself does not recognize other faiths especially those that are based on idol worship. So the question becomes redundant. I mean why should I treat this book respectfully given all that I have proved in the PM's ? The onus is on YOU to prove that this book belongs in the space of holiness. The question is of who is right and who is wrong. I'am more than welcome to have this evaluated based on predetermined set of moral standards that are widely prevalent in a self respecting civilized society but don't try to tell me that they have a right to an unconditional respect. Respect is earned not demanded.

I just asked for a simple agree/disagree answer. When you ask a Jihadi why is he indulging in this madness he can simply reply "I respect my religion just like you respect your wife. If you find it objectionable if I insult your wife, then I find it objectionable when you insult my religion and I will fight for it". This is your train of thought, not mine. And in this argument you only have the personal relationship on your side (just like you introduced my mother in the argument, here it is your wife). the symbol is on the other side and the question of your respect for the symbol is not in question (just like BharatMata in your argument, here is the jihadi's religion). That would just rationalize all the violence done in the name of religion by all nutters around the world. They can all justify it using similar arguments.

Is this why you are speaking very approvingly of a text that has all those things that I PM'd you ? And No I don't invoke it just when my religion is challenged it applies for all those Religions that I consider as being capable of being labelled Holy based on their track record. Just because your standards for what constitutes Holiness are at ankle level doesn't mean I have to come down to that level.

I again argued in the PM that you also have to take context in the argument. In the dark - middle ages The Americas - colonization of Europe and brutalities done on native Indians. Europe and Middle East - Christians and Muslims fighting it out in the name of religion. Numerous brutalities were done in the name of religion and everything was validated using the holy name. The subcontinent - Fierce internecine fighting went on in every part of the country. The only thing is it wasnt done in the name of religion, it was done in the name of honour and for land. Both southern and northern kingdoms were in conflict with each other - The Pallavas , Cholas Chalukyas all struggled for superiority. China: The ming dynasty had a huge army and navy. They faced many internal rebellions by the Han people and also fought for Yunnan. The struggle with Tibet goes back to this period too. IF all this violence was limited only to areas of muslim Influence, I have no problems in accepting the violent nature of the ideology. But it was not. Religion was simply a great tool to polarize people of that period and promises of a wonderful afterlife to compensate for miserable and violent living conditions. Christians were no less then - The pope sanctioned crusades, there were four different inquisitions against 'heretics' which was sanctioned by the Catholic church, 49000 trials were carried out against people were suspected of black magic and many were executed or tortured many such brutalities done in the name of religion. Does this make Christians intolerant? The western world today is one of the most tolerant regions in the world. “If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and perform them … you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none will make you afraid; I will rid the land of evil beasts, and the sword will not go through your land. You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.” (Leviticus 26:3) “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you.” You showed me verses in the Quran which sanction violence. There are similar verses in the Bible which sanction violence too. Curelty in the Bible :- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html Cruelty in the Quran :- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html Verses supporting Peace in the bible :- http://peace.mennolink.org/youth/verses.html Verses supporting Peace in the Quran :- http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/188867-the-peaceful-verses-of-the-quran-outlaw-the-murder-of-innocent-people-w You can take any verse in the book and use it to represent the ideology as you think it to be. The same technique is used by Jihadis to brainwash potential recruits.

It will become very clear what this is about IF and when you answer my question in post#543. The chances of you doing that are closer to ZERO which is not surprising considering how dubious your definition of freedom of expression is.

I have already replied why its imperative for you to answer my counter question first. Because if you disagree with my question, then it brings into question each and every argument you have made against Islam on these forums as all the violence can be rationalized.

Yes I know that since legally the world considers Islam as a Religion and no matter how many more Pakistans, Irans , Iraqs, Arabias, Palestine's, Chechniyas , Kashmirs and Afghanistans prop up the PC world will continue to pretend that way. The reasons are governed by political realities and not moral standards of any self respecting civilized society that can operate without fear or favour to anybody. But if you privately ask any Honest Legal expert the kind of intolerance that is in this book it can't even be allowed to be published as it violates many sections of India's Penal Code. And this I have confirmed by speaking to a retired SC employee. Read this : http://voi.org/books/tcqp/ if you want to look at it from a purely legal perspective. It is damning to say the least.

All of the conflicts you mentioned are true, and they are also driven by religion. But each of them is driven by different geo political realities where religion is being used to drive vested interests. Not too different from the middle ages. I concede that Muslims till date continue to fight in the name of religion while Christians left it behind in the middle ages. Gunner raised a very valid point here - Muslims inability to question their faith has resulted in them being easy to manipulate to rise in the name of religion. But that still doesnt answer one of the arguments I have been making for a long time name - "How does an innocent man become guilty just by his following of Islam. How do you justify guilt by association?

[ganeshran]

What ? This is like a thief saying to a cop : I find your attitude to thievery disrespectful just as I find your profession despicable. As I have said it all comes down to who is on the right side. The Jihadi naturally thinks he is the only one on Gods side ( no sh!t ehh ) . Doesn't mean that I bend over and take that at face value. And I gave you more than a Yes/No answer. With detailed evidence to go with it. You not being able to come to terms with the facts is something that I cant help you with.

Surprising you wanted a simple yes/no answer to your question but not offering a simple agree/disagree answer to mine. I will give a detailed answer to your question too. The Bharatmata symbol belongs to everyone - It belongs to Hussain equally as it does to you or it does to me. It is his prerogative to render the Bharatmata in a way he sees fit. It was a work of art and he wasnt looking to insult anyone's mother or India's mother either. The minute you bring in a personal relationship to justify the sanctity of a religious/nationalistic symbol, the same can be done by a right winged Islamist like I quoted regardless of whether you respect his god or not. If you want the four entities simple answer, please answer the below question in Post #544 and I will be happy to carry on the debate

The four entities: 1) You 2) A Muslim 3) Your wife 4) Quran (Holy book) You can insult the Quran because you dont subscribe to political correctness. The Muslim can insult your wife and call her names because he holds the Quran is the same/higher esteem that you hold your wife. Is that what you are trying to say?

I have answered this too. They are guilty by inactions. 1947 and 1989/90 are the 2 most despicable examples. The dogged support for Babri Masjid and the insistence of Sharia are other real life in your face type of incidents right in your time. These things cannot happen without implicit support from the community. The problem here is that you judge someone as guilty only when you see a smoking AK47 ... what you dont realize is that those who helped these guys those who looked away are all just as guilty. If you think Kashmir, Chechnya, Pakistan, Afghanistan,Iran Iraq,Indonesia etc etc can all happen because of a teeny-weeny set of nutbags I think we should meet personally as I have this bridge I am selling real cheap. (sorry for being rhetorical but it is highly irritating when people simply argue for the sake of arguing ) PS: You will not get any more answers from me if you refuse to accord the same courtesy.I have answered every single question of yours despite you asking them out of turn.. If you want this discussion to continue you need to answer the question in Post#543. Else many thanks for the discussion and as I had told you ... you will hit the exit when it comes down to the nitty gritty details

Then you and me can be held guilty of what happened in Gujrat in 2001 or Delhi in 1984 by inaction. Many times the larger community is silent simply because they are powerless to do something about it. They let the nutbags take the lead because they are the loudest in the community and seem sure of what they are doing. Believe me that is the exact thing happens when communal violence happens - a few nutters take the lead and the larger community thinks they must know what they are doing I can not and will not hold an innocent man responsible for the action of others. Yet those who commit violence must be strictly dealt with - regardless of the 'cause' they are fighting for. I am not exiting the debate - though you have been predicting it for the last 5-6 posts or so. Afghanistan is a totally different ball game. Pakistan cultivated the mujahideen with the help of CIA money to help them during the Soviet war - these arent a few nutjobs, these are thousands and thousands of nutcases who have been thoroughly brainwashed to fight and die for their religion. Backward Madarassa education and abject poverty which offers a great recruiting ground for potential terrorists.

[ganeshran]

No it is not his prerogative. It will become clear the moment you answer my question. This aspect of your question is a non-starter because unlike you the Jihadi does not recognize Bharatmata as being equivalent to his mother/religion and it is regardless of what I think about his religion.

The jehadi's recognition of Bharatmata has no relation to the question. The jehadi holds his holy book in higher esteem than his family (including wife) and insulting your wife just because you insulted his holy book. I am not sure how you can demand a straightforward answer when you are beating around the bush yourself and offering excuses

You are comparing 2001 and 1984 to Pakistan, Chechnya , Kashmir etc ? Brilliant. An attempt to spread the guilt perhaps ?

There is no attempt to spread the guilt. If a whole community is guilty by inaction for the acts of a few then we are guilty by inaction because of our community people engaging in 2001 and 1984 riots too.

Is that why you are shying from providing a straightforward answer to my question ? Got stuck and now trying to use all excuses and beating around the bush to try and relocate the matter elsewhere ehhh ?

Already answered. If you accept rationalization of violence by associating a religious symbol with a personal relationship, you have to do so across the board and accept the fact that others can do the same with your personal relationships and their symbols. Anything short of that would be hypocritical.

Soon after the US liberated them from the Taliban they promptly went back and setup a surprise surprise : "Islamic Republic" instead of learning from the past mistakes.

The current Northern Alliance government are angels compared to the Taliban. There is no more strict compliance to the Shariat and punishment for not doing so. Anyways, Afghanistan is not an area fully ruled by a central government. People's loyalties lie more with the tribals cheiftains and warlords who in turn help the government in keeping them under control Also I am still waiting for a reply to the 'evil' Christian ideology considering the fact that so many verses are there which glorify cruelty and so many dastardly acts committed in the name of religion in the middle ages?

[ganeshran]

You brought this dubious comparison as a rhetorical question in response to post#543. It is a non-starter because my question is based on a common ground (which is respect for mothers) between the parties that have a conflict ( which is you and me ). There is absolutely no common ground between me and the Jihadi in your example. Any common ground is just your OWN OPINION which is simply not backed by any fact. Now without any further delay I would like to see a response to post#543.

Not a bad analogy, unless you want it to be. Personal Symbols : Your Wife . My Mother Religious/ Nationalist symbols: The Quran. The Bharat Mata Action by another person: Insulting the Quran, Painting the Bharatmata unclothed. You cannot digest another person disrobing the Bharatmata because you hold her in higher esteem than his mother and hence support his her persecution. by the same analogy a muslim cannot digest you insulting the quran because he holds it in higher esteem than your wife, hence any of his violent objections are rationalized.

[ganeshran]

Jeez In the dispute between me and you the common ground is :Mutual Respect for Mothers and your acknowledgement that I hold Bhartmata in a higher esteem than a real mother. In the dispute between me and the Jihadi the common ground is : ...................... ?

The Jihadi holds the Quran in higher esteem than his family (including wife). His whole life is his religious symbols - the holy book and his Prophet. When you insult something he considers much above his family, he is also justified in insulting your family. To put it in the words of your original argument. If you find it objectionable when he insults your wife, then he also finds it objectionable when you insult the Quran (which he holds in higher esteem than his wife) Still waiting for an answer on the evil Christian ideology.

[ganeshran]

As I said there is no common ground between us. He doesn't respect my beliefs I don't respect his . This is not the same situation as in my question to you in post#543 because we have a common ground. Clear ?

The question of respect for each other's beliefs doesnt arise at all here. Because one party uses a symbol and other party uses a personal relationship. In Hussain's Bharatmata argument: You had the symbol - the Bharatmata and I had the relationship - my own mother In my Jehadi argument: Jehadi has the symbol - The Quran and You have the relationship - your wife. The analogy in the two arguments lies in the use of a personal relationship to reinforce the sanctity of a religious/nationalist symbol. One party rationalizes violence to the other party by saying that "my devotion for this symbol is analogus to your devotion for the personal relationship. So if you find it objectionable when I defile your personal relation, by the same stick I find it objectionable when you defile my religious symbol, and hence I have a right to respond violently"

[ganeshran]

What part of my categorical denial that there is no relationship and that I don't recognize anything that he (the Jihadi) believes in ( and vice-versa) do you not understand. ? Theres is NO Mutually accepted common ground. There is nothing. ZILCH NADA. If there is anything it is entirely in your own head and is your own making. I have no control over it. However I can help you get rid of it. We both acknowledge this and realize it. I simply don't recognize the Quran as you think and expect me to. I have very meticulously explained the reasons behind this elsewhere which you recognize. In short there is NO COMMON GROUND here in this case. It is all imaginary and entirely your own making. And please stop responding if you cannot have the courtesy to respond to others questions.

You are missing the point entirely. There is NO NEED FOR A COMMON GROUND in the argument. In fact this argument is far more effective without a common ground because it uses a personal relationship to drive home the importance and sanctity of a religious symbol. The Jehadi knows you do not recognize the Quran. That is why he resorts to using your wife to explain the Quran's importance to him. He drives home the point of the importance of Quran to him by saying he feels the same pain when someone insults the Quran as you feel when someone insults your wife. And if you find it objectionable when someone insults your wife, he finds it objectionable when someone insults the Quran. Hence all his violent objections are rationalized using this argument. I have repeatedly said that your answering Post #544 is imperative to mine answering post #543. If you agree with the #544, you thereby rationalize every violence commited in the name of Islam using your own line of thought and every argument that you ever made on ICF of Islamists being violent and intolerant gets voided. I will only stop responding to this conversation when you or someone else explains to me how an innocent muslim is guilty but an innocent Hindu or an innocent Christian is not. You are however free to walk away from the debate.

[EnterTheVoid]

Reading this made my thirsty, I need a

[gaurav92]

Its not going to end, the debate that is. I am with you Boss on this, make Ganesh Bhai realize that the name of the painter said it all MF Hussain :--D P.S : MF stands for Multi Faceted if you are thinking about banning me for that statement :P

[ganeshran]

Nope you are completely missing the point. AND IT will ONLY Become clear to you IF AND WHEN YOU RESPOND to post#543. The onus is onto to you if you want to debate and keep your original promise of answering my question (without firing rhetorical questions in response). For the millionth time : I'am not obligated to bendover and recognize his sensitivities when I know that the Quran stands for all things that are wrong in a civilized society. He is driving home no point here. This applies regardless of whether he recognizes my sensitivities or not. How much more clearly do I need to explain this ? As i said before it is like a bunch of Pirates demanding the cops to recognize the sanctity of their profession.

I already explained in no uncertain terms that an absence of a common ground is what makes the argument effective. The common ground is gained by using the personal relationship as a bridge to explain the sanctity of the symbol. You are not obligated to recognize the sensitivities of the Quran, and THAT is why the Jehadi uses your personal relationship (wife) to explain the sensitivity of Quran to him. He rationalizes his violence using your respect for your wife, NOT your respect for the quran. I have again and repeated the analogy is the use of a personal relationship to reinforce the sanctity of a symbol. Party B doesnt need to respect Party A's symbol. That is why Party A uses Party B's relationship to explain his respect and regard for his own symbol.

A debate does not work like that. You cant keep firing questions as answers to my questions. But it is clearly evident the reasons why you are shying away from answering a simple question.

Its not about this debate alone. Its on your larger stand against Islam. You have time and again highlighted the religious violence carried out in the name of Islam and how it cannot be rationalized. (I agree with you on the part that violence cannot be rationalized under any circumstances). That is why I was totally amazed on your argument using a personal relationship to sanctify a symbol and hence rationalizing Hussain's persecution. This is what led to Post #544 and why it needs to be answered to explain your larger stand on violence carried out in the name of religion. My stand is clear on this - I will condemn any violence carried out in the name of religion - whether its jihad or crusades or communal riots. VIOLENCE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED USING RELIGION.

[gaurav92]

No one plays with Boss Bhai

:hahaha: Opponents BossBhai