Those were the dark ages of Christianity and it was more of a passion of various knights of European kingdoms to go for crusades and seek personal glory. Christians have moved on. Christians are no more bound to the land for the sake of religion.
right... you are saying what i was saying.
and this contradicts your earlier statements.
Tell me... as of now, isn't it very easy for Christian nations of the west to capture and vacate entire Israel/Jerusalem areas of muslims if they wish. They can very easily do it but they don't because they have MOVED ON....
1. i distinguish between western governments ( which are genocidal and war-criminal ) and the western peoples ( many of whom are good people and some are socialist, especially those who want jamahiriya in their own societies ).
2. the western governments/militaries can try that stunt you suggest and it will be rightly opposed in various ways.
so it's not easy.
more the question is why did that thought come into your mind??
Regarding Muslims, I dont need to be stealth. Where I see them on the right, I openly take their side.
and what is "right" according to you?? become slaves of rss and modi?? become desh bhakts when india really needs to be changed radically??
I earnestly want them to get out of their ghetto mentality and mix up properly with common Indians. Why is it that Muslims only live in their exclusive areas? I have not seen Sikhs, Christians etc living like that.
no doubt, there is ghetto mentality among many indian muslims in the last 15 to 20 years but please do remember that it was the beliefs of the muslims ( the true form ) which has forwarded civilization and justice in the world, especially to the female kind and about which i had create a thread months ago :
Married Muslim women, we find, are often on a higher and more secure footing than their counterparts from other religions. In fact, as a Christian marrying a Muslim, I chose to marry under the Muslim personal law, even over the seemingly modern Special Marriage Act, 1954, to better secure my economic rights. My mehr was a house in my name and my nikahnama includes necessary clauses to safeguard my and my children’s rights. My husband’s family members were witness to this document, which is registered and enforceable by law.
When we examine marriage laws in their historic context, it is interesting to note that the universally accepted notion that marriages are contractual rather than sacramental originates in Muslim law, which was accepted by the French law only in the 1800s and incorporated into the English law in the 1850s and became part of codified Hindu law as late as 1955. Today it appears to be the most practical way of dealing with the institution of marriage. Treating marriage as a sacrament which binds the parties for life has resulted in some of the most discriminatory practices against women such as sati and denial of right to divorce and remarriage, even in the most adverse conditions.
so we must acknowledge, in sincere faith, where ever we find progressiveness.
and what do you say about some of the catholic church of kerala who first raised the false alarms called "love jihad" and collaborated with the sangh in creating a oppressive environment for christian and hindu ladies??
For those who can not chant Bharat Mata ki jai, We have made Pakistan. They can migrate there and happily and practice islam by everything which we call values.
and those who cannot chant "jai insaaniyat !!" can leave the gathering of civilized humans and migrate to the himalayas or antarctica.
insaanon ke beech rehna hai toh insaaniyat apnaani hogi.
and even the jnu students and their supporters all over the country ( many of whom are hindu-born or christian or sikh born ) will object to chant such a unthinking and drone chant as "bharat mata ki jai".
read my first set of questions to utraash on "bhoomi maa".
---
[1]
prenups in indian weddings and islam
. Read the last line again.
