Shiv Sena to Muslims: For special treatment, go to Pakistan

[Cruizer]

We still have 3 millions Afghan into Pakistan.
No need or any interest for Indians refugees .

 

[Emmie]

Pakistani minorities ..
how many indian took relgion as base to condem it .. ?
any person oppresed any where for wrong reason is condemnable being any relgion and natioanliy
i still uphold your right as human show any one if they are wrong side of humanity rule of law
so i have it too
but pakistani most members take base as ummah relgion for said stand than above ..
still i can indian members do also need to introspect but again they take relgion less in thier view than pakistani members
see how many pakistani meber have ummah muslim view .. self determination and go silent on xinang of china

And you think I am here to defend what Pakistanis members think and comment on Indian Muslims related issues and you are here to defend Indian members who unlike Pakistanis think and comment without making religion as their base? I am clueless what kind of condemnation is that which uses religion as a base?

I as a Muslim can't condemn anything that is related to Muslims and for a Hindu or any other non-Muslims it is fine to condemn anything related to Hindu or non-Muslims, is this what your trying to say?

Again I would put up the same question of mine - what does this act at the part of some Pakistani and Indian members reflect, trolling, criticism or principle stance?

Moreover the discussion that you're trying to drag me into isn't the mandate of this thread, so kindly have your say on the topic on hand.

What does Pakistan as a country has to do with Indian Muslims of today..
ans is simple
two nation theory
still fro crude perecption term pak is for mulsim hndutan is hindu
reality is not simple as that

This is what I have clarified already. Indian Muslims had a choice to make, now whether it was TNT or anything else but they had a choice to move to newly formed state called Pakistan. People like Moulana Azad opted India over Pakistan, they stayed there. Now that also means the TNT that they deemed flawed is no more relevant to them - it never was and it never is.

The reality is the Indian Muslims from day one remained Indian at heart and it's a pity that some factions in India still associate them to Pakistan knowing the fact that they preferred India back in 47. I am saddened after having read that bold part, no wonder why this mentality doesn't die. Such statements and their extensions must have been a source of great pain for people like Moulana Azad.

 

[Screambowl]

Mughals never invaded Germany.

I am talking about A STATE in India.

 

[SQ8]

Good to know that the only way Muslims can live in India is if they renounce their religion, so much for mud-slinging across the border.

 

[Levina]

I get it history and world affairs are not your strong point.

oopsie!!
why would you say that???

The term minority/minorities doesn't necessarily mean Muslims. Minority by definition is - A relatively small group of people, society or nation, differing from others in race, religion, language, or political persuasion. Now the statement you have quoted per se is a very strong statement to make that too on the part of a president, given usage of poor terminology. Ethnically Russia is a diverse federation, about 20% of Russians are non-ethnic Russians hence are ethnic minorities or minority groups & surely not all the groups are Muslims by religion. Religiously, again Russia is a diverse nation - almost all the religions are practiced. Orthodox Christianity/Russian orthodoxy is the largest and of course dominant religion in Russia, 41% of Russians are Russian orthodox Christians thence are majority. Remaining 59% of Russians in groups follow other religions, hence are minorities or minority groups. Muslims, to be precise are only 6.5% of the total minorities in Russia. That said, how can it be even imagined that 93.5% of that total minorities hailing from variety of religions will demand for Sharia that has nothing to do with their religion? Even if it can be imagined for the sake of argument, how can a president be willingly ready to banish 59% of his country's population?

Putin like a kid said this all, mainstream media didn't find the statement important enough to report & interestingly minorities didn't object at all! Would you mind reconsidering your post?

You've misunderstood what Putin had said.
Muslims make upto 14% of Russian population and is the second largest most professed religion in Russia, just like in India and ergo my comparison.
And its a well known fact that Moscow has the largest muslim population is Europe but when they started demanding more mosques in Moscow the tensions rose. And the Russia's policy on Islam has earned the ire of many muslim countries. But then I don't think there's anything wrong with following laws of land.

 

[suresh1773]

Good to know that the only way Muslims can live in India is if they renounce their religion, so much for mud-slinging across the border.

Oscarji,u r wrong. I would like to correct you. He has never asked muslims to renounce their religion,no where it is written in the OP. His methods r no doubt really crude. For instance he should have never used the word Pakistan. Secondly reservations should be based on criteria & not on the basis of religion. Lastly I don't agree with his statement " they must first accept India as their motherland and proclaim 'Vande Mataram'. By proclaming Vande mataram in no way makes person patritioic. U r free to correct me if am wrong

 

[Emmie]

You've misunderstood what Putin had said.
Muslims make upto 14% of Russian population and is the second largest most professed religion in Russia, just like in India and ergo my comparison.
And its a well known fact that Moscow has the largest muslim population is Europe but when they started demanding more mosques in Moscow the tensions rose. And the Russia's policy on Islam has earned the ire of many muslim countries. But then I don't think there's anything wrong with following laws of land.

No, I got that straight, no misunderstanding whatsoever, I am aware of the state of affairs. My post had more to do with the unfledged Putin who couldn't articulate in proper words. Thing is the Putin this world knows is far more political and intelligent in his approach, one wouldn't expect a statement of this sort from his end. Instead of aiming at one minority group it addresses minorities as a whole. I don't find any relation between Sharia and non-Muslim minorities, do you?

To sum up all this - I don't think Putin ever said such words. It's a hoax, mainstream media never reported this statement.

 

[Jaanbaz]

You've misunderstood what Putin had said.
Muslims make upto 14% of Russian population and is the second largest most professed religion in Russia, just like in India and ergo my comparison.
And its a well known fact that Moscow has the largest muslim population is Europe but when they started demanding more mosques in Moscow the tensions rose. And the Russia's policy on Islam has earned the ire of many muslim countries. But then I don't think there's anything wrong with following laws of land.

There are Muslims ethnicities that have been living there way before there was anything called Russia.

 

[SQ8]

Oscarji,u r wrong. I would like to correct you. He has never asked muslims to renounce their religion,no where it is written in the OP. His methods r no doubt really crude. For instance he should have never used the word Pakistan. Secondly reservations should be based on criteria & not on the basis of religion. Lastly I don't agree with his statement " they must first accept India as their motherland and proclaim 'Vande Mataram'. By proclaming Vande mataram in no way makes person patritioic. U r free to correct me if am wrong

I do not disagree, but as you can see that statement of his is rather bigoted and oppressive. Protesting against special reservations is one thing but telling people to leave their homes if they wish to practice their religion is another.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

And you think I am here to defend what Pakistanis members think and comment on Indian Muslims related issues and you are here to defend Indian members who unlike Pakistanis think and comment without making religion as their base? I am clueless what kind of condemnation is that which uses religion as a base?

I as a Muslim can't condemn anything that is related to Muslims and for a Hindu or any other non-Muslims it is fine to condemn anything related to Hindu or non-Muslims, is this what your trying to say?

Again I would put up the same question of mine - what does this act at the part of some Pakistani and Indian members reflect, trolling, criticism or principle stance?

Moreover the discussion that you're trying to drag me into isn't the mandate of this thread, so kindly have your say on the topic on hand.



This is what I have clarified already. Indian Muslims had a choice to make, now whether it was TNT or anything else but they had a choice to move to newly formed state called Pakistan. People like Moulana Azad opted India over Pakistan, they stayed there. Now that also means the TNT that they deemed flawed is no more relevant to them - it never was and it never is.

The reality is the Indian Muslims from day one remained Indian at heart and it's a pity that some factions in India still associate them to Pakistan knowing the fact that they preferred India back in 47. I am saddened after having read that bold part, no wonder why this mentality doesn't die. Such statements and their extensions must have been a source of great pain for people like Moulana Azad.

--
i think i could not put my POV
my only point is what i obesevr here in pdf .. pakistani mmebers are dreagging relgion more and at will as per them..
exa. gujrat riot case thread see what memebr have to say..
its condemnable act but not only on basis of relgion..
other side see how pakisnit memebr take stnad on ughir issue in china
that hypocracy .. that what i am pointing
nothing else
--
I am not defending anyone and i think you not too
--
I as a Muslim can't condemn anything that is related to Muslims and for a Hindu or any other non-Muslims it is fine to condemn anything related to Hindu or non-Muslims, is this what your trying to say?
what i am saying condem/ appricite irrespective being any hindu muslsim relgion tag
but unfortuablty both nation people still need to bring that more in to practice
---
india is still not perefct
as democracy we ahve all view..even extrme ones
maulana azad
if we have same story as you point out .. see commete of TTs (i think memebr hafi he openly called azad traitor )
so still people on both side cant able to draw clear line and accept the fact that deal was close in 47-48
and people settle now is their own .. irrespective of relgion ..
its a gift of british .. the seed of distress .. divide and rule which due are still pending on both side
---

And you think I am here to defend what Pakistanis members think and comment on Indian Muslims related issues and you are here to defend Indian members who unlike Pakistanis think and comment without making religion as their base? I am clueless what kind of condemnation is that which uses religion as a base?

I as a Muslim can't condemn anything that is related to Muslims and for a Hindu or any other non-Muslims it is fine to condemn anything related to Hindu or non-Muslims, is this what your trying to say?

Again I would put up the same question of mine - what does this act at the part of some Pakistani and Indian members reflect, trolling, criticism or principle stance?

Moreover the discussion that you're trying to drag me into isn't the mandate of this thread, so kindly have your say on the topic on hand.



This is what I have clarified already. Indian Muslims had a choice to make, now whether it was TNT or anything else but they had a choice to move to newly formed state called Pakistan. People like Moulana Azad opted India over Pakistan, they stayed there. Now that also means the TNT that they deemed flawed is no more relevant to them - it never was and it never is.

The reality is the Indian Muslims from day one remained Indian at heart and it's a pity that some factions in India still associate them to Pakistan knowing the fact that they preferred India back in 47. I am saddened after having read that bold part, no wonder why this mentality doesn't die. Such statements and their extensions must have been a source of great pain for people like Moulana Azad.

---
some Pakistani and Indian members reflect, trolling, criticism or principle stance?
most of time baggage of hisotory of partititon war .. media ... ignorace about each other system socio economic condotion and both made mistake ... too ..
some by desgin some by retaliation

 

[Levina]

No, I got that straight, no misunderstanding whatsoever, I am aware of the state of affairs. My post had more to do with the unfledged Putin who couldn't articulate in proper words. Thing is the Putin this world knows is far more political and intelligent in his approach, one wouldn't expect a statement of this sort from his end. Instead of aiming at one minority group it addresses minorities as a whole. I don't find any relation between Sharia and non-Muslim minorities, do you?

Well who doesn't know of Russia stance on minorities?
Russia has never entertained minority appeasement which is very prevalent in our country.

To sum up - I don't think Putin ever said such words. It's a hoax, mainstream media never reported this statement.

Again this may have been a hoax but still Russia appears to be taking serious moves to combat the “radicalization” of Muslims within its border.
I had read this on NYtimes sometime back
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/w...s-squeeze-on-muslims.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1

Let me remind you that in India, its citizens can still practice their religion freely. But minority appeasement is not something that the polity should stoop to. A uniform civil code and chopping off the reservations/quotas will make India a complete democracy.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

What could be more to details, except that what did they use? shovels or knives to dig those pitches?

So now they have been promoted from digging pitches to giving (undisclosed) policy statements............... hmmmm interesting.

--
dear ...
waht they did was wrong .
but its better to dig pithce tahn killing human
ans of these behaviour was that time anger agianst pkasitan deed not paksitani people ... politics of that time
as i said they ahve extrme view but still make sense in human civilaisd society

I do not disagree, but as you can see that statement of his is rather bigoted and oppressive. Protesting against special reservations is one thing but telling people to leave their homes if they wish to practice their religion is another.

--
its more target to OWASI brother for there flaming remks
it was nothing towards indian muslsim

 

[I.R.A]

--
dear ...
waht they did was wrong .
but its better to dig pithce tahn killing human
ans of these behaviour was that time anger agianst pkasitan deed not paksitani people ... politics of that time
as i said they ahve extrme view but still make sense in human civilaisd society

Bro don't get me wrong, I appreciate your participation on this forum and in various debates................. can you please inform me about your qualification? I have no intention of offending you, I am just curious and if you don't mind answering.....

 

[wolfschanzze]

Pakistan is not a refugee camp. Indian Muslims are not welcomed here.

And here we thought your hearts bleed for UMMAH and Indian Muslims

 

[Sugarcane]

Bija Shiv Sena ka baap de ga?