What's new

Hate Speech in a Secular State

Owasi made fun of Lord Ram.

His Lawyers : D.V. SITARAM & RAMchandra Rao.

What an irony. :D

I think he overstepped his bounds here. He is a very nice person in reality. Just frustration speaking.
Also some things just look like a joke. Like the stuff at the end-all those dua's. lol.
I doubt he is that religious. Asaduddin is, yes but not Akbar.
 
Muhajirs have a gdp per capita 13,000 rupees higher than the second ethnic group in Pakistan and are at the top in income and earning as well as position and power. It is our families noses that are too high. On the other hand Tamil Nadu government has a debt of 135,000 and some day may have to be bailed out by India. It is also the second most corrupt state in India according to Transparency International. But that is not the subject of this debate.

Who cares about that Mr.wannabe pathan. We still live in our ancestral lands like we lived for thousands of years. No one came and chased us anywhere. We have a proud identity going back 3500 years and we arent derogatorily called Muhajirs elsewhere. We were not hounded out by our countrymen by inventing a fictional conspiracy - just to put us in our place. We are not forced to assimilate with anybody. So shove you essay where the sun doesnt shine. And our capital city is called the Detroit of South Asia while yours is called the Beirut of South Asia. And what luffy said is absolutely true. You seem to be psychologically scarred for real. Coz compare your ethnicity standing with the second placed ethnicity with Tamil Nadu's debt to Central govt..that right. Comparing 15 meters of polyester cloth to 2.5 kgs of rice would make more sense. Ooops. But anyway that is not the subject of the debate so I'll move on.


I think he overstepped his bounds here. He is a very nice person in reality. Just frustration speaking.

True a very nice bigot who is now sitting in a cell in Adilabad behind a mortuary with 24/7 stench

http://www.defence.pk/forums/central-south-asia/227641-hate-speech-secular-state-16.html#post3768243
 
Owasi made fun of Lord Ram.

His Lawyers : D.V. SITARAM & RAMchandra Rao.

What an irony. :D

i am no aware of this issue or his speeches (just a bit)...but it seems he was not making fun of the 'name' Ram but the concept of Ram as god....just my thought and guess, btw making fun of your lord RAMh is NEVER allowed in ISLAM to make fun of others gods..it is strictly prohibited and sinful act to make of fun of others gods!
You know what a person with name Ahmed is the most loved one in muslims (Ahmed and muhammad are the names of our propher (SAW)), There is another person with same name Ahmed who is most hated one in muslims, yes Ahmed (of Qadian, from where these qadiani or Ahmedi sect of muslims (ALLAH knows if these are muslims or not)....so name is not a matter...
 
i am no aware of this issue (just a bit) or his speeches...but it seems he was not making fun of the 'name' Ram but the concept of Ram as god....just my thought!
You know that a person with name Ahmed is the mose loved one (our propher (SAW)) of muslim and a person with name Ahmed is the most hated one in muslims, yes Ahmed (of Qadian, from where these qadiani or Ahmedi sect of muslims (ALLAH knows if these are muslims or not)....so name is not a matter...
Its not me, the judge said it. You made fun of Ram and people named on Lord Ram are here to defend you. He also said Owasi's speech was despicable.
 
One more case filed against Akbaruddin in Ranga reddy court by D.Eashwar Reddy. Court has admitted it and has sent notice to Akbaruddin.
 
One more case filed against Akbaruddin in Ranga reddy court by D.Eashwar Reddy. Court has admitted it and has sent notice to Akbaruddin.

Thackerays in Maharashtra, Mumbai, have always delivered inflammatory, provocative and threatening speeches against Muslims and other immigrants from Assam and Bihar. Some leaders of other Hindu nationalist and fascist organisations such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) and Shiv Sena have a history of making provocative speeches and issuing anti-Muslim statements and threats.

Many radical organisations including the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Hindu Raksha Samiti have demanded a complete ban on the MIM. But they are tight-lipped on the hate-speeches made by their own leaders and mentors as a matter of routine. ...
Meanwhile Congress spokesperson Rashid Alvi compared MIM’s politics to the idea of Pakistan. “India had chosen to be a secular state contrary to Pakistan which opted to be an Islamic country on the very first day after its creation. Everyone has equal constitutional rights in India but some parties still fan communal hatred for political gain. Law will take its course on what has happened in Hyderabad” Alvi told journalists.

Whatever happens to Akbaruddin Owaisi in the court of law, many analysts in India feel there are clear “double-standards” when it comes to dealing with cases of such nature from the other side.


http://dawn.com/2013/01/11/owaisi-in-trouble-for-hate-speech/

Its not me, the judge said it. You made fun of Ram and people named on Lord Ram are here to defend you. He also said Owasi's speech was despicable.
judge has to see the history of hate-monger speeches by all groups like BJP according to media. I reiterate, I am no aware of such speeches, but I do condemn any such by any one as both representing big populations and they can't live with each other in harmony if someone is inciting hatered in between...plus I updated a bit my previous post
 
MIM is a Razakar party - that is a party that fought against the Indian Army (Indian state) against the accession of Hyderabd into India. It was banned from 1948 - 1957. Dont see why the ban was lifted and why it should not be enforced again.
 
MIM is a Razakar party - that is a party that fought against the Indian Army (Indian state) against the accession of Hyderabd into India. It was banned from 1948 - 1957. Dont see why the ban was lifted and why it should not be enforced again.

what a shame, when it was decided that majority areas of muslims were to go with Pakistan. So, India has invited a trouble in the start by denying justice to the majority muslim state....I have no lust to have bigger Pakistan, but I salute the wishes of majority in democracy...it was the failure of British who were dividing Pakistan and India with a just...
 
what a shame, when it was decided that majority areas of muslims were to go with Pakistan. So, India has invited a trouble in the start by denying justice to the majority muslim state....I have no lust to have bigger Pakistan, but I salute the wishes of majority in democracy...it was the failure of British who were dividing Pakistan and India with a just...

Muslims constituted about 10% of the princely state of Hyderabad. Guess who the rest 90% were ..:)
 
Muslims constituted about 10% of the princely state of Hyderabad. Guess who the rest 90% were ..:)

Mir Osman Ali Khan, also known as Asaf Jah VII, was the last Nizam of the princely state of Hyderabad. Born in Hyderabad, the son of Asaj Jah VI, he received his education at home from eminent scholars and maulanas. In 1911, upon his father’s death, he became the Nizam of Hyderabad, a title he held until 1948 when the princely state was finally integrated into the Indian Union. He married seven wives, and had approximately forty children. During his reign, he was counted among the world’s richest men. In 1947, as the British Empire was being partitioned, the princely states faced a difficult choice. They could claim independence or join India or Pakistan. Hyderabad was the largest Indian princely state. The Nizam was leaning towards Pakistan or independence but the fact is that the population of his state was mainly Hindu and it raised many questions. In 1947–48, pressure from the Union Home Minister Sardar Patel continuously strengthened, while the Nizam’s militia (the Razakars) became increasingly involved in tough operations. There was also severe agitation in Telangana led by the underground Communist Party, committed to insurrectional tactics. India had to send its troops. The Nizam had to flee. The state itself lost its name to be absorbed in the linguistic state of Andhra and was tripartitioned in 1956.

There were three rules to join India, Independent state could remain independent or their nazim (ruler) were to decide...then by this rule of 9% why KASHMIR could not become part of PAKISTAN, it's not a shame but hypocrisy as nazim wanted it with PAKISTAN or independent...its the truely HYPOCRISY of INDIA, where in Kashmir more than 80% are in hate with INDIa for its forcible inclusion....KASHmire were to go Independent or with Pakistan (ALLL according to wishes of ppl)
 
There were three rules to join India, Independent state could remain independent or their nazim (ruler) were to decide...then by this rule of 9% why KASHMIR could not become part of PAKISTAN, it's not a shame but hypocrisy as nazim wanted to integrate it with PAKISTAN or independent...its the truely HYPOCRISY of INDIA, where more than 80% are with INDIa when they hate INDIA,

Perhaps you forgot Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1947 against the wishes of the ruler thus giving India nice excuse in integration of Hyderabad in 1948. 1948 comes after 1947. And one more thing I doubt you know - for the princely states to join either India or Pakistan they had to physically contiguous with them. Hyderabad was like in the middle of nowhere deep in south India. Sooner or later it would have come to us. :)

Hey anyway this is not a thread for discussion of Hyderabad annexation. So give it a rest.
 
Perhaps you forgot Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1947 against the wishes of the ruler thus giving India nice excuse in integration of Hyderabad in 1948. 1948 comes after 1947. And one more thing I doubt you know - for the princely states to join either India or Pakistan they had to physically contiguous with them. Hyderabad was like in the middle of nowhere deep in south India. Sooner or later it would have come to us. :)

Bro, You are giving lame excuse to justify your injustice ...why Pakistan had to invade KAshmir, a logical question after that idiot ruler of kashmir (MAY ALLAH give him the place worst of in the hell (AMEEN!!)---a helpless person can make curse at least) decided to accede with INDIAN, as it was deadly injustice...even juna garh were to come in Pakistan...why it has to contiguous, it could have independent like Bangla desh, but to see the bigger INDIA outside the wishes of ppl denotes the worst of 'less human' behaviour....

I am out of discussion, as people will keep coming with execuses to justify then...but justification is not equivalent to a relation of humanity...you representing merely hindus 'not muslim' not human who HATE to live in a forced sitution...we all want to rule the lands, not the heart of ppl in general ( UTTERLY GREEDY, VORACIOUS human nature making even less human)
 
Bro, You are giving lame excuse to justify your injustice ...why Pakistan had to invade KAshmir, a logical question after that idiot ruler of kashmir (MAY ALLAH give him the place worst of in the hell (AMEEN!!)---a helpless person can make curse at least) decided to accede with INDIAN, as it was deadly injustice...even juna garh were to come in Pakistan...why it has to contiguous, it could have independent like Bangla desh, but to see the bigger INDIA outside the wishes of ppl denotes the worst of 'less human' behaviour....

You completely did not make any sense. On one hand you justify Pakistani invasion of Kashmir and curse the ruler for acceding to India while you condemn India taking over a landlocked 90% Hindu state somewhere deep in South India just because the ruler wanted to join pakistan. wow.

And why again junagadh had to come to pakistaan ? again about 90% of Junagadh was Hindu.

And I am not making up the rules..the physically contiguous rule was present in the Partition plan.

Please this is not a topic to discuss accession of Hyd..this is my last reply :)
 
You completely did not make any sense. On one hand you justify Pakistani invasion of Kashmir and curse the ruler for acceding to India while you condemn India taking over a landlocked 90% Hindu state somewhere deep in South India just because the ruler wanted to join pakistan. wow.

And why again junagadh had to come to pakistaan ? again about 90% of Junagadh was Hindu.

And I am not making up the rules..the physically contiguous rule was present in the Partition plan.

Please this is not a topic to discuss accession of Hyd..this is my last reply :)



I am not justifying the invasion at all..I am not posting as a Pakistani. ALL I am saying that same rules should have been applied, if it were based on the majority then as Hyderabad is acceded to INDIa so should Kashmir (as both were having different rulers unlike the majority), if it were to independent then both were to ....though i believe that people of both state should have decided as these were exceptional cases, if Kashmiris decides even today to be independent then I will be more than happy or Balochi or Sariki, I consider people consent importan though it would be difficult for me to supress my desires being a strong nationalist...
There are 48 landlocked countries in the world, including partially recognized states.


but ppl have to behave like as I said: "Summun, Bukmun, Umyun" is taken from the Sura Bakara of the Qur'an...
Meaning: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path).

Againn I am again the hate-monger speeches and law should take the responsibility if it comes thakery or OWASI...while thakey was give tribute as big political parties were on his funeral...so when it come speeches agaist muslims then it is fine by the judges, so i guess then muslim would be justifying which is not good (AND THEY SHOULD NOT DO THE SAME EVEN IF HINDUS LEADERS ARE DOING as it is agist the preaching of ISLAM)...but law should see the peole with same eye...
 

Back
Top Bottom