India vehemently ratifies the two nation theory after 8 decades of denial.

[Rafi]

They try to externalize their own issues, especially when they relate to Islamic extremism.

The funny thing is all their heroes were Islamic extremists who perpetrated terror, genocide, rapine and slavery on their own ancestors.



It is funny and sad at the same time. They were once our people even if they are our apostates now. Identity crisis makes life very difficult indeed...



You thinking is immaterial to us. We think of you neither as friend nor "arch enemy". In fact, Pakistan just doesn't matter to us except the terrorist issue who mostly have a lifespan less than a fruitfly and die at the average age of 16.95 years.

You share nothing with our Punjabis. Your identity is only Islamic and that supercedes the previous non Islamic past. This is the very basis of TNT, that you pre-Islamic past was jahiliya and the barbaric invaders delivered you from that by forcible conversion at the tip of the sword.

That was the reason for the thorough ethnic cleansing on both sides of Punjab.

Too late for "similarities" now. You only share similarity with the Somalians and Nigerian boko harams (or in your case with the Ayatollahs) who are part of the Ummah.

Your pain is apparent - and my opinion on defence Pakistan - is more valid than your's my little indian friend.

 

[Iggy]

And we don't have to listen your propaganda, you may continue your same bullshitting daily, just READ carefully the article written by Mihir Sharma.

We will see next five year for Modi.

Where did you find propoganda in my post dear?? As you said we will see next 5 years!!

 

[Vinod2070]

It is funny that 1000 people killed in a riot (these included almost 300 Hindus) when he had just become a chief minister, make Modi a "terrorist". Even though Muslims are propering in Gujarat and increasing in population just like all over India. Hundreds of rioters (mostly Hindu) were killed in Police firing in that riot (something they just ignore).

By the same token, what would these Pakistani call Mr. Jinnah? He presided over almost complete ethnic cleansing of Hindu Sikhs (led by Muslim league guards on horses, sponsored by Muslim league and official machinery)?

Let's see if any of these people can answer this. Any one of them!

Your pain is apparent - and my opinion on defence Pakistan - is more valid than your's my little indian friend.

You have no answer. Because I mentioned facts.

And yes, Raja Purushottam was a Hindu and a staunch Dharmic Indian.

 

[Rafi]

It is funny that 1000 people killed in a riot (these included almost 300 Hindus) when he had just become a chief minister, make Modi a "terrorist". Even though Muslims are propering in Gujarat and increasing in population just like all over India. Hundreds of rioters (mostly Hindu) were killed in Police firing in that riot (something they just ignore).

By the same token, what would these Pakistani call Mr. Jinnah? He presided over almost complete ethnic cleansing of Hindu Sikhs (led by Muslim league guards on horses, sponsored by Muslim league and official machinery)?

Let's see if any of these people can answer this. Any one of them!

Mr Jinnah along with Mustapha Pasha - are the greatest Muslim leaders to be born in the last 2 centuries, Mr Jinnah understood the nature of the bhartis - when he realized it was no longer possible to live as equals - he fought for and achieved independence, for our people.

 

[Vinod2070]

Mr Jinnah along with Mustapha Pasha - are the greatest Muslim leaders to be born in the last 2 centuries, Mr Jinnah understood the nature of the bhartis - when he realized it was no longer possible to live as equals - he fought for and achieved independence, for our people.

But first Ahmedi and then Shia are yet to achieve equality?

Anyway, the question was: what does the riots and ethnic cleansing presided over by Mr. Jinnah make him?

BTW, it is interesting that these two "are the greatest Muslim leaders to be born in the last 2 centuries".

The first one had very interesting views about Islam and Arabs.

The second one used to have pork and alcohol which are haram stuff I believe!

 

[VelocuR]

Does Narendra Modi threaten secular and liberal India?

By Sunny Hundal, Special for CNN

updated 3:38 AM EDT, Fri May 16, 2014

(CNN) -- It appears almost certain that Indians will elect Narendra Modi as their next prime minister following the world's biggest election.

Established as a secular and liberal nation in 1950, India will find itself in uncharted territory as it has never before had a hardline Hindu nationalist at the helm.

This raises an important question: what will Modi the prime minister be like? Will he sweep away the corruption scandals blighting the country's reputation and do a better job of rejuvenating India, or will he inflame religious tensions as some fear?

Much of the criticism aimed at Modi has focused on the riots of 2002 when hundreds, possibly thousands, of Muslims were butchered by Hindu mobs, while his government was accused of standing by and watching. But if a Prime Minister Modi carries on like he did as Chief Minister of Gujarat state and as the candidate for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during campaigning, there are plenty of reasons to be worried about the future. The future Modi is a terrifying prospect if he is based on the past Modi.

In power, the BJP candidate displayed an alarming disregard for the rule of law, was blamed for exploiting dozens of barely-investigated extra-judicial killings for political gain, swept away criticism of his crony capitalism, surrounded himself with religious zealots and exaggerated his role in economically developing his home state. Plus, comments made by his key allies during the election campaign illustrate that a Modi government will be much less tolerant of criticism, hostile towards press freedom, and further polarize the country along religious lines.


Take the extra-judicial killings as an example. In 2012, the Supreme Court of India ordered an inquiry into at least 20 cases from 2003 to 2006 where it was alleged the police had staged the death of innocent people. Amnesty International says at least 31 people were unlawfully killed by Gujarat police in such "encounters."

In one incident in 2004, the police claimed they had killed four terrorists conspiring to assassinate Modi, including a 19-year-old woman by the name of Ishrat Jahan. Modi openly branded her a terrorist straight after her death despite a lack of evidence. An inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) later found the entire incident was faked; the four were picked up and killed in police custody while weapons were arranged to stage a shootout. The state government denied Modi was involved and he was never charged with any crime related to the incident.

In 2010, Modi's right-hand man and the Home Minister for Gujarat, Amit Shah, was forced to resign after he was charged over allegations of murder, conspiracy, kidnapping and extortion by the CBI. But during the current election campaign he was by Modi's side, making inflammatory speeches where he talked of "revenge" for the riots in 2002 and telling voters to reject parties with Muslim candidates. The Electoral Commission was forced to ban him from addressing rallies as a result. The charges were eventually dropped against Shah due to insufficient evidence.

Campaign trail controversy

But Shah wasn't the only controversial aide on the campaign trail. One key BJP leader, Giriraj Singh, said critics of Modi had a "place in Pakistan and not in India." Another campaign ally, Pravin Togadia, who is president of the BJP's sister-organization, the VHP, said Muslim households should be "evicted" from Hindu areas.


Modi didn't condemn any of these remarks, saying only that he was focused on good governance. But even his record of governing Gujarat is mixed.

When people claim that Gujarat underwent an economic miracle under Modi, they usually ignore other Indian states. The state of Bihar saw a bigger growth in GDP than Gujarat in the decade from 2000. Over the last three decades, other states such as Haryana, Punjab and Maharashtra had a larger rise in average income per head than Gujarat. The state has undoubtedly done well since the liberalization of the 1990s, but so did the states of Maharashtra, Haryana, Punjab, Kerala, Bihar and Tamil Nadu. Why should Modi alone get credit? It's not explained what he did different to get credit, nor how the Gujarat model can be easily replicated across India.

Meanwhile, Gujarat was declared the most polluted state in 2010, and three of its rivers were found to be the most polluted in India. There have also been accusations of crony capitalism amid allegations the government handed out contracts to Modi allies at rock-bottom prices.

His liberal supporters have deluded themselves into thinking Modi will be too weak to challenge India's liberal and secular institutions, but strong enough to pull the levers to deliver economic growth. He is meant to have micro-managed Gujarat into an economic powerhouse but somehow went missing when massive riots took place under his watch.


The broader context is that India is seeing a rising tide of intolerance whipped up by Hindu nationalist groups that have forced books to be banned, intimidated journalists and threatened people for criticizing their leaders. Modi has always been a member and strong supporter of the right-wing group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), an organization that wants to remake India into a Hindu nation, and puts their interests above other groups.


There is little chance that Modi will change his style of governance. Rather than a welcome change, this is the most worrying prospect of all.

Does Narendra Modi threaten secular and liberal India? - CNN.com

 

[Iggy]

It is funny that 1000 people killed in a riot (these included almost 300 Hindus) when he had just become a chief minister, make Modi a "terrorist". Even though Muslims are propering in Gujarat and increasing in population just like all over India. Hundreds of rioters (mostly Hindu) were killed in Police firing in that riot (something they just ignore).

By the same token, what would these Pakistani call Mr. Jinnah? He presided over almost complete ethnic cleansing of Hindu Sikhs (led by Muslim league guards on horses, sponsored by Muslim league and official machinery)?

Let's see if any of these people can answer this. Any one of them!

That is a strong argument!!

 

[Vinod2070]

No answer to Jinnah, obsession again with Modi!

Indians have every right to have the kind of society we want.

Islamist Pakistanis have no say in the matter!

 

[KingMamba]

But first Ahmedi and then Shia are yet to achieve equality?

Anyway, the question was: what does the riots and ethnic cleansing presided over by Mr. Jinnah make him?

BTW, it is interesting that these two "are the greatest Muslim leaders to be born in the last 2 centuries".

The first one had very interesting views about Islam and Arabs.

The second one used to have pork and alcohol which are haram stuff I believe!

The quotes attributed to Ataturk are fake and Turks themselves say he never said those things.

Second having pork and alcohol while a sin does not make one non-Muslim. We all know Jinnah used to eat pork and fancied wine even his Muslim contemporaries of the time knew, it was no secret and ultimately that is irrelevant to his legacy.

Heck I fancy myself a fine woman and wine every now and then yet do you have any doubt to me being a Muslim? Heck you openly call me Islamist every other thread.

 

[KRAIT]

Yeah Muslims become Chief Election Commissioner, Chief Justice in Supreme Court, President, Superstar, Celebrities, Successful Business, high profile officers in govt. jobs, IAS, IPS. etc.

Millions of Muslims could have pressed NOTA button, they had that option too. But they elected BJP, not giving vote to SP, BSP, Congress, NC etc.

They gave vote to Jobs, Women Safety, Security from Some Trouble causing nation, Food Security etc. etc.

So before, from my POV its another disgruntled Pakistani who is trying to take out frustration of failing TNT and instead of thinking how he can deal and improve his country's problem.

 

[KingMamba]

That is a strong argument!!

That is BS history tells us Jinnah was in bad health all these years yet he presided over ethnic cleansing?

Hindutva pagan scum will resort to any low, kutte khi dhum ki tarra tere ke tere hai saale.

 

[Rafi]

But first Ahmedi and then Shia are yet to achieve equality?

Anyway, the question was: what does the riots and ethnic cleansing presided over by Mr. Jinnah make him?

BTW, it is interesting that these two "are the greatest Muslim leaders to be born in the last 2 centuries".

The first one had very interesting views about Islam and Arabs.

The second one used to have pork and alcohol which are haram stuff I believe!

The Quaid was a great man, he saw what the bhartees had become, he made the only logical conclusion.

The quotes attributed to Ataturk are fake and Turks themselves say he never said those things.

Second having pork and alcohol while a sin does not make one non-Muslim. We all know Jinnah used to eat pork and fancied wine even his Muslim contemporaries of the time knew, it was no secret and ultimately that is irrelevant to his legacy.

Heck I fancy myself a fine woman and wine every now and then yet do you have any doubt to me being a Muslim? Heck you openly call me Islamist every other thread.

And if loving women and wine was to make one non-Muslim then half of Pakistan is non-Muslim

 

[Iggy]

That is BS history tells us Jinnah was in bad health all these years yet he presided over ethnic cleansing?

Hindutva pagan scum will resort to any low, kutte khi dhum ki tarra tere ke tere hai saale.

Still he didnt have problem sending militants to take over Kashmir!!

 

[Vinod2070]

The quotes attributed to Ataturk are fake and Turks themselves say he never said those things.

Do your own research. Things are easily available on the net about his real vies on Islam and no one can deny the steps he took to move his country in the direction of secularism. Check the list of things he banned.

Second having pork and alcohol while a sin does not make one non-Muslim. We all know Jinnah used to eat pork and fancied wine even his Muslim contemporaries of the time knew, it was no secret and ultimately that is irrelevant to his legacy.

Heck I fancy myself a fine woman and wine every now and then yet do you have any doubt to me being a Muslim? Heck you openly call me Islamist every other thread.

Some of his contemporaries did call him kaffir-e-azam, didn't they? He used Islam only for politics not for practicing himself.

It doesn't matter to me if you are an Islamist on not.

And yes, being a Muslim I believe Shariah law should apply to you. Including adultery laws where applicable.

That is BS history tells us Jinnah was in bad health all these years yet he presided over ethnic cleansing?

Hindutva pagan scum will resort to any low, kutte khi dhum ki tarra tere ke tere hai saale.

These pathetic Syed low life desert hate cult scum are anyway always low life munafiq. Suar hi tarah...

He was ruling Pakistan when the ethnic cleansing happened. If his health deteriorated later, that changes nothing.

The Quaid was a great man, he saw what the bhartees had become, he made the only logical conclusion.
And if loving women and wine was to make one non-Muslim then half of Pakistan is non-Muslim

Adultery is punishable by death by stoning is Islam.

And alcohol is haram.

You can't get away from uncomfortable facts.

If Pakistanis are practicing what is haram in Islam, it is obvious what it makes them.

 

[Rafi]

If one was to evaluate my little indian friend vinod objectively - in my opinion he is a senior, bitter and twisted and hateful person who has had a close female relative or friend - who has eloped of with some Pakistani.

If true is hatred is understandable.

Do your own research. Things are easily available on the net about his real vies on Islam and no one can deny the steps he took to move his country in the direction of secularism. Check the list of things he banned.



Some of his contemporaries did call him kaffir-e-azam, didn't they? He used Islam only for politics not for practicing himself.

It doesn't matter to me if you are an Islamist on not.

And yes, being a Muslim I believe Shariah law should apply to you. Including adultery laws where applicable.



These pathetic Syed low life desert hate cult scum are anyway always low life munafiq. Suar hi tarah...

He was ruling Pakistan when the ethnic cleansing happened. If his health deteriorated later, that changes nothing.



Adultery is punishable by death by stoning is Islam.

And alcohol is haram.

You can't get away from uncomfortable facts.

If Pakistanis are practicing what is haram in Islam, it is obvious what it makes them.

LoL what makes you such an expert on Islam, let the Muslims decide what is Islam, and you can decide what your animism is.