urdu print media gets away with call of murder of taslims in secular india

[Guest dada_rocks]

http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fod...e=cmnaim&sid=1 What I read on August 10 were two fiery, rabble-rousing statements in Urdu, but a more professional news report in English, no different from what I quoted above from The Hindu. Below I give in translation portions of the two Urdu reports. (But first an explanation of a phrase used below. Gustakh-e-Rasul, lit. one who insults the prophet. I abbreviate it as GR.): In Siasat, dated August 10, under two headings:

• ‘GR Authoress Taslima Nasrin Attacked with Bouquets of Flowers’
• ‘An Observance of What the Shari’at Commands or Merely a Political Ruse?’

‘. . .

GR

Taslima Nasrin succeeded in safely going back from Hyderabad, despite the fact that three MLAs, with some fifty supporters, threw flowers at her in the name of a protest. The shameless

GR

authoress, who stands next to Salman Rushdie, was taking part in a function organized by the Center for Enquiry at the Press Club, Somaji Goda, when three members of the Legislative Assembly, Muqtada Khan Afsar, Ahmad Pasha Qadiri, and Muazzam Khan, together with more than 50 of their supporters, arrived and, while using abusive language, did no more than cause a ruckus and some vandalism. All of them were unable to harm in the slightest a

GR

, not even a woman

GR

.

[sandtest]

man, the second page clearly calls for killing in the name of beloved Prophet. And this is in a newspaper right at the heart of India....can we expect any action from psec governments of Andhra or center? This Mullah writer-whoever he is- is obssessed with Sharia charm and needs to be brought to his senses immediately.

[CC1981]

man, the second page clearly calls for killing in the name of beloved Prophet. And this is in a newspaper right at the heart of India....can we expect any action from psec governments of Andhra or center? This Mullah writer-whoever he is- is obssessed with Sharia charm and needs to be brought to his senses immediately.

Agreed. I say lay a mole on the mullah, wait for him to slip up ( every human being slips up if measured by their demented scriptures) and then give him a taste of what Sharia really is. Trap the hunter in his own cage.

[Gambit]

Forget this idiot in Hyd. The greatest travesty is that the idiot Imam Bukhari still roams free.

[sandtest]

A few months back, Kerala anounced awards to MF Hussain-- the same retard who was drawing sexually explicit paintings of Hindu gods and mother India? So now what's those commie crowds problem with Taslima Nasreen? I am wondering how will these "secular" parties and "eminent" persons respond if say for example Gujarat gives award to Danish cartoonist for the caricatures which were in fact much decent than sexually explicit images of MoFo Hussain....:sad_smile:

[CC1981]

the same retard who was drawing sexually explicit paintings of Hindu gods and mother India?

Err..i liked it and so did my mother- and my mother is pretty devout in her hinduism( i am not a hindu btw). I always shake my head in amusement when desis get uppity about sex. Don't forget we are the same people who carved the Khajuraho temple and don't gimme sh!t about what those carvings mean- i've been there myself and it is pretty erotic/pornographic (not that i mind it btw). And neither you, nor I have any concrete idea what the statues are supposed to represent (common people ? Gods ? kings ? nothing concrete). Don't forget either that Draupadi had 5 hubbies ( f*ck all the rhetoric- if you really think she didn't horse around with the brothers, you are pretty much in denial of human nature and ignorant of our history during that era). Too much uppity-ness about sex = ends up being a repressed & violent culture. I am not saying cross all sexual boundaries- all i am saying is as long as people are being responsible (ie, no kids popping outta the woodwork from weird relationships), let THEM cross sexual boundaries as they please. MF Hussain's works were art, nothing more. Get over it. If anything, i encourage more of that stuff on all spectrum. Having lived in the heartlands of Islam,i can tell you have no idea how much they'd all calm the heck down if only they could get past their abnormally repressed sexuality. PS: I thought to remind you, since you claimed to be a 'devout hindu reader' that Sita (or Ram) for that matter, arn't Gods either in hinduism's definition. If you read carefully, there is a *big* difference between avatar and God. Hinduism considers it to be a human 'embedded' with 'godlyness', not Mr. God dood/chick shrink-wrapping themselves to look like humans and walking around. Vishnu and Krishna for eg, are NOT exactly interchangeable. For eg, your own religious scriptures potray the powers of Krishna and Vishnu as radically different, with Vishnu being a zillion times more 'hardcore'. Sure, most/many hindus consider themselves as Gods but that is really their ignorance and lack of 'fine tuning' from their part.

[coffee_rules]

Err..i liked it and so did my mother- and my mother is pretty devout in her hinduism( i am not a hindu btw). ...blah...blah.... Hinduism considers it to be a human 'embedded' with 'godlyness', not Mr. God dood/chick shrink-wrapping themselves to look like humans and walking around.

This is like George Bush giving a lecture on Fijian philosophy.

[Guest dada_rocks]

maaf kar do isse Coffe ye balak hai kahin se koi $hitty translation parh liya hoga ......

[CC1981]

se koi $hitty translation parh liya hoga

Funny that you pretend that reading it in sanskrit is somehow superior or a 'better' source, when you do not even understand the basics of language and its attributes. Even if you are the top dawg pandit of Tirumala or benares and you are reading 100.00% shuddh pratishaad sanskrit like a Sanskrit gurudev, you are STILL reading a translation. Think about it for a minute. If you believe the stories of mahabharata/ramayana etc to be true (or based in history), that would be a period where most desis spoke Sanskrit. Ie, sanskrit was a living language then and any living language changes with time. Ie, whatever Ram spoke a few thousand years before Yudhishtir, it was a different language (though the grammar might've stayed exactly the same). Whatever Yudhistir spoke, the 'translators' of 2500-3000 years ago spoke different language. So for a book that is ultimately a translation of a translation of a translation, it'd be a very silly perspective to hold one translation as somehow a superior means to another. Sanskrit is prefectly translated in North indian languages (i dunno about south) and reading your sanskrit in Hindi or Bengali or Orya is no different than reading it in Sanskrit, provided that you take translations from credible authorities, like in the case of the 'original text'. But what makes your position even more ridiculous is you've admitted yourself that you'r sanskrit isnt exactly 'superb' and therefore, you have no right to tell me 'koi $hitty translation parh liya hoga' since you are reading a $hitty translation as well !!