I think you are confused by what I am saying. Let me clarify. I am not against the right to Muslim women to appraoch qaazi for seeking divorce.1400 years ago and still now expecting all men to voluntarily give up the male chauvinsim coz Allah swt expects so would be childish at best . There was a reason to direct a lady to the judge so that she could actually get her rights enforced by the state
Who do you think she must approach if she's not feeling sexually satisfied apart from other issues? It's not like after approaching the qaazi she could be coerced to live in a relationship without her consent .the qaazi/judge has to cave in to her legit demands in any case and that includes divorce
If this is so fine a system, then why not give the same right to wife too.
It's already happening in India,India is a divided hatefilled poisonous hindutva extremist communal shitholeIsi sapne mai aapke do tukde ho gaye, rehne dijiye.
Beauty is the eyes of the beholderThis is very sad.
But our hindus are much better looking than Indians ones
I agree that CAA is in a constitutional grey area. I personally dont like how CAA is worded today. Instead of saying 'non-muslim', it should be changed to 'prosecuted minorities'.India also have a book called the constitution of India, which have clauses about India being a secular country and state has no business with the religion and all are equal.
Does the current India follows that constitution, with prejudiced CAA enacted, constitution breached in India held Kashmir.
And it is his story, of Modi's has taken precedence over history, the reason for the rise of Hindutva...
So it's history versus his(story).
If I'm trying to wow my slave subjects into becoming obedient, I will tell them what they want to hear. It's simple marketing really.Sure. I am ready to explain.
They wrote extensively about Indian land but not a single line about their so called former home. Do you think this is 'normal'. If you migrate from Pakistan to US and prolifically write about your life in US, would you not mention anything about your upbringing in Pak?
Apart from this, there is no positive evidence to support Aryan migration theory. It is only a theory which came about in British time. This was another one of their tools used for divide and rule.
Britishers were very few in number. The only way they could continue ruling vast majority of Indians were to make them fight against each other. This is how they gained power. They would promise protection to one raja against the other and take money from him for British troops posted there. They would promise the same to the other raja and take money from him too.If I'm trying to wow my slave subjects into becoming obedient, I will tell them what they want to hear. It's simple marketing really.
If I'm selling phones in India, I'm going to tell you how well they work in India.
As for "positive evidence"...khuda kei bande...people are tired of my explanations. Here we go again...Apart from this, there is no positive evidence to support Aryan migration theory
If you love aborigines so much why do people with slightly higher than average aboriginal ancestry, the Dalits and untouchables, have subhuman status? The Brahmins even created books on how to treat lower castes - Manusmriti - despite themselves having substantial aboriginal black ancestry.The hindus of IV came here thousands of years ago...they have assimilated with the local culture of negroids or austroids who were living there before them..the hinduism is a blend of cultures , faiths and beliefs of different aborigines of india( whoever came here thousands of years ago and called it their land , have a right over this land unlike people who claim arab or iran ancestry)
What was the dress of Hindus before Muslims arrived?
Cultural dressing for men and women has remained the same in the last 2000 years
Cultural dressing for Indian men traces back to 1 AD .
To figure out answer, one must understand the mindset behind itWhat do you define as 'proper dress'?
If I am merely replying to you on your point, how am I a troll. You are welcome to open a separate thread and invite me there if you worry about me answering you here.As for "positive evidence"...khuda kei bande...people are tired of my explanations. Here we go again...
Rakhigiri. Your own archaeological site. A body was studied. She had IVC heritage from Pakistani lands. However the authors made clear that in northern and western parts of modern India, the ANI genetic signature (I.e. the erstwhile Aryans) is presently UBIQUITOUS.
The rakhigiri body had no Aryan heritage but modern Indians in the north and west do, ubiquitously.
Now don't derail this otherwise useful thread. This is why you have a reputation as a troll.
Kindly reflect on this.
Give me a single Quran stanza which encourages eating beef.
The above post only says that you are permitted to eat the flesh of cattle. Where does it say you 'should' eat their flesh?Quran (36:71) Do they not see Our handiwork:60 We created for them cattle which they own? (36:72) We have subjected the cattle to them so that some of them they ride and eat the flesh of others. (36:73) They derive a variety of benefits and drinks from them. Will they, then, not give thanks?61