What's new

Who's killing India's Secularism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We are one. But not only when it suited u. You lot opted over your properties. So are bearing the cosequences. That said i dont find hindu stance any wrong. If we were anything like ganga hindus we would be one, but we are not. Your grievances alone show that. So enjoy the party

Again going on and on with your nonsense yaar.

Do you realize that Indian Muslims were by and large the poorer cousins (by far) compared to the zameen zaydad waale Pakistani muslims?

Kya property? What are you talking about man. Allah knows what you guys have been taught about India and us and the partition.

Kangaal the. We stayed in India for reasons most of you stayed in Pakistan. East or west. It is our motherland. Mitti hamari. Even though most of us owned nothing.

Yes Indian liberals and secularists will recognize everything but please spare us having to look at Yogi Baba's face first. It is blinding us to everything else!:lol:

First, we had to look at Baba Ramdev's lovely face, and now Adityanath. It is all a bit too much really.:undecided:

:lol:

No offense to Hindu radicals here, but why so much ugliness yaar? Your men and women both. Just seem to have fallen on their faces post delivery, and went downhill from there.
 
.
Polygamy is not a backward Islamic practice. Polygamy was banned in India for Hindus in 1954 .. As per a report published in 1975, the percentage of polygamous marriages (1951 -1961) was 5.06 among the Hindus and only 4.31 among the Muslims, despite it being illegal for Hindus. Hindus are more polygamous than Muslims ... The Hindu scriptures allow polygamy ...

The Hindus, following the west, had banned polygamy believing that it was immoral.... Islam and West have moral traditions that are fundamentally different .. In many cases what the west believe is "rational" and "moral", is considered "irrational" and "immoral" by the Muslims.


Modern man is averse to polygamy, not because he wants to be content with one wife, but because he wants to satisfy his sense of variety by indulging in unlimited adultery, for which ample facilities are available. Sin and not fidelity has taken the place of polygamy. That is why modern man is opposed to plurality of wives which commits him to many duties and responsibilities, financial and otherwise.


Gustave Le Bon rightly says that no Eastern custom is so infamous in Europe as polygamy, nor has Europe misjudged any other custom to the extent that it has misjudged this ... (See Civilisation des arabes for details)


Will Durant in his book, History of Civilization, vol.17, gives an interesting account of the state of morality in Italy during the renaissance. below is a summary of what he has said under the heading 'Morals in Sexual Relations'.

In the course of his brief introduction he says that before describing the morals of the laity it may be pointed out that by nature man is polygamous. Only strict moral restrictions, an adequate amount of hard work and poverty, and a continuous vigilance of the wife can compel him to maintain monogamy.

Then he says that adultery was not uncommon during the Middle Ages, prior to the Renaissance. As during the Middle Ages the guilt of adultery was extenuated by chivalry, similarly, during the Renaissance period, it was watered down among the educated classes by the craving for the polished manners and the refined spirit of the females. Girls belonging to respectable families were, to a certain extent, kept segregated from the males not connected with their own family and were taught the merits of pre -marital chastity. Sometimes these instructions were exceptionally effective. It is reported that a young woman, after being assaulted, drowned herself. That must have been an exceptional case, because a bishop took the trouble of installing her statue after her death to commemorate her chastity.

The number of pre-marital affairs must have been considerable, because there were innumerable children born of illegitimate relations in every town of Italy. It was a matter of pride not to have an illegitimate child, but to have one was not a matter of shame. Usually a husband persuaded his wife at the time of the marriage to bring her illegitimate child with her, to be brought up along with his children. Illegitimacy was not a slur on the reputation of anyone. Furthermore, a certificate of legitimacy could easily be obtained by bribing a clergyman. In the absence of other lawful or eligible heirs, an illegitimate son could inherit property and even a crown, as Frante-I, succeeded Alfonso-I, King of Naples. When in 1459 Pius-II came to Bavaria, he was received by seven princes, all of whom were illegitimate. Rivalry between the legitimate and illegitimate sons was an important cause of a long series of commotions during the Renaissance period. As far as homosexuality is concerned, it was only a revival of the ancient Greek tradition.

San Bernardino found this sort of perversion so common in Naples that he thought it to be threatened with the fate of Sodom. Artino found the perversion equally prevalent in Rome. The same thing can be said about prostitution. In 1490, out of a total population of 90,000, there were 6,800 registered prostitutes in Rome. Of course, this figure does not include clandestine and unofficial prostitutes. According to the statistics of 1509, out of a population of 300,000 of that city, there were 11,654 prostitutes. In the 15th century, a girl who had reached the age of 15 without having a husband, was regarded as a slur on the fair name of her family. In the 16th century, the 'age of disgrace' was extended up to 17 years, to enable the girls to receive higher education. Men, who enjoyed all the facilities provided by widespread prostitution, were attracted to marriage only if the woman concerned promised to bring a considerable dowry. According to the system of the Middle Ages, husband and wife were expected to love each other and share each other's joy and grief. Apparently in many cases this expectation came true, but still adultery was rampant. Most of the marriages of the upper classes were diplomatic unions contracted for political and economic gains. Many husbands regarded it as their right to have a mistress. The wife might feel dejected, but usually connived at the situation.

Among the middle classes, some people thought that adultery was a lawful pastime. Machiavelli and his friends apparently did not feel uneasy about the stories of their unfaithfulness which they exchanged with each other. When in such cases, the wife followed the example of her husband to wreak vengeance upon him, he usually connived at her behaviour and did not feel jealous or perturbed.


This was a specimen of the life of the people who regard polygamy as an unpardonable crime of the East and have occasionally blamed its climate for this supposedly inhuman custom. As far as their own climate is concerned, it does not allow them to be unfaithful to the wives and to exceed the limits of monogamy! ...


Bertrand Russell was conscious of the fact that in the case of monogamy being the sole form of marriage, a large number of women are to be deprived of their right. He has suggested a very simple solution to the problem. He wanted women to be allowed to entice men and bear father-less children. As the father usually supports the children, the government should take his place and give a subsidy to the unmarried mothers.

Russell says that at present, in Britain, there are more than two million surplus women who cannot ever hope to have children because of the law of monogamy. This is a big privation. He says that the system of monogamy is based on the presumption of approximate numerical equality between men and women, but where no such equality exists it gives a raw deal to those women who, in accordance with mathematical law, are doomed to remain unmarried. Anyhow, if it is desired to increase the population, such a raw deal is not even in the public interest, let alone in the private interest.

This is the solution of this social problem, as suggested by a great philosopher of the 20th century. But, according to Islam, the whole problem is solved if an adequate number of men having the necessary financial, moral and physical qualifications agree to bear the responsibility of more than one legal wife showing no distinction between her and his first wife and between the children by both of them. The first wife should accept the second one cheerfully with the spirit of doing a social duty, which is most necessary and the best form of morality.

Contrary to the Islamic mode of thinking, Russel advises the deprived women to steal the husbands of other women and call upon the government to support the children born of such illicit connections.

Thanks for the detailed response.

Can you please summarize as to why it means we have to accept polygamy today? Since we are not faced with population constraints anymore?

I am a libertarian, so it is not my position that these are matters of personal choice. However, desirability is an entirely different issue.
 
. .
Again going on and on with your nonsense yaar.

Do you realize that Indian Muslims were by and large the poorer cousins (by far) compared to the zameen zaydad waale Pakistani muslims?

Kya property? What are you talking about man. Allah knows what you guys have been taught about India and us and the partition.

Kangaal the. We stayed in India for reasons most of you stayed in Pakistan. East or west. It is our motherland. Mitti hamari. Even though most of us owned nothing.



:lol:

No offense to Hindu radicals here, but why so much ugliness yaar? Your men and women both. Just seem to have fallen on their faces post delivery, and went downhill from there.

It is meant to be a scary look, as in they mean business They otherwise look really great.

It does have the desired result though...
 
.
Its a big joke if they think they can turn this nation of ours into a Hindu rashtra.
Do Muslims have political power? Who is Muslim's leader in India? Who represents Muslims in Parliament? Maybe this one guy Assad Owaisi. How are Muslims going to stop Hindu rashtra as it is happening right now with Beef killings and conversions and we get to read reports from Indian papers how prevalent Islamophobia is in India.
 
.
Do Muslims have political power? Who is Muslim's leader in India? Who represents Muslims in Parliament? Maybe this one guy Assad Owaisi. How are Muslims going to stop Hindu rashtra as it is happening right now with Beef killings and conversions and we get to read reports from Indian papers how prevalent Islamophobia is in India.

We have never had political power. Representation.

Yet one billion Hindus cannot touch us.

This country cannot run with Muslims and Hindus killing each other.

Each time the Hindus have pulled in the state for help, India has burned.
 
.
Again going on and on with your nonsense yaar.

Do you realize that Indian Muslims were by and large the poorer cousins (by far) compared to the zameen zaydad waale Pakistani muslims?

Kya property? What are you talking about man. Allah knows what you guys have been taught about India and us and the partition.

Kangaal the. We stayed in India for reasons most of you stayed in Pakistan. East or west. It is our motherland. Mitti hamari. Even though most of us owned nothing.



:lol:

No offense to Hindu radicals here, but why so much ugliness yaar? Your men and women both. Just seem to have fallen on their faces post delivery, and went downhill from there.
Do you know ofnizams ? My ansectors hail from deccan and quite land, all gone now for Pakistan. Whereas when they came here they were piss poor, people helped us here to resettle and welcomed us. The poor Indian distant families also came. Like I said the ones who opted to stay in rashtra must now face the consequences and pay the price. The age of glorious rules of Muslim rule had come to an end, when this was realised and with immense standing of Hindus and marginalisation it was decided that a separate land should be carved out. Whi h happened. So now you cannot really say anything to what is happening. The age of Hndu rule is here and will be for a longtime to come. Emigrants mulism knew that and took the wise choice, the rich ones who wanted tonstay with wealth are still there,crying and moaning

Yet one billion Hindus cannot touch us.
Then I guess Kashmir is some fictional story

Shimla Accords 1912 and Balfour Declaration 1916. Indian and Arab nation are having one cause which is to stand against colonization. Indian Establishment has always stand with the Liberation of Palestine.

in_azad.gif



libya-arms.gif
I'm talking about occupied religious scared lands of india . who is the occupier ? Who has occupied them from Indians ? Is that occupation internationally recognised as such ?

Still haven't gotten anything related to what I asked in context
 
.
Do you know ofnizams ? My ansectors hail from deccan and quite land, all gone now for Pakistan. Whereas when they came here they were piss poor, people helped us here to resettle and welcomed us. The poor Indian distant families also came. Like I said the ones who opted to stay in rashtra must now face the consequences and pay the price. The age of glorious rules of Muslim rule had come to an end, when this was realised and with immense standing of Hindus and marginalisation it was decided that a separate land should be carved out. Whi h happened. So now you cannot really say anything to what is happening. The age of Hndu rule is here and will be for a longtime to come. Emigrants mulism knew that and took the wise choice, the rich ones who wanted tonstay with wealth are still there,crying and moaning

Then I guess Kashmir is some fictional story

No one is crying and moaning. We are roaring. This is India buddy. Democracy. We will kick the BJP and its goons out. Likh le. Gaanth baandh le. Main ban hua ya nahin. Tu yaad rakhega.

Aur Kashmir kya unki jaydaad hai? It belongs to me. I will kick any Kashmiri in his buttocks if he dares raises the mudda of Azadi.
 
. .
That's harsh bro

I'm harsh bro. I'm totally done with their natak.

They give two figs about us "mainland" Muslims. "India se ho" is their question.

So recently in a fight here between some Kashmiri students and us locals (police came much later) maine bhi apna haath acchi tarah saaf kar diya.

Stupid turds were throwing their weight around with a entitlement complex the size of Brooklyn. Nothing major. A few whacks and kicks for the more obnoxious guys. The girl got slapped around a bit by some of ours.

Everything ended with cops coming in and the standard natak. Next day stuff splashed all across the papers ...

Chick crying. Guys moaning. We will go back to Kashmir. We will never come back. Yada yada yada. Who called them here in the first place no one knows.
 
.
I'm harsh bro. I'm totally done with their natak.

They give two figs about us "mainland" Muslims. "India se ho" is their question.

So recently in a fight here between some Kashmiri students and us locals (police came much later) maine bhi apna haath acchi tarah saaf kar diya.

Stupid turds were throwing their weight around with a entitlement complex the size of Brooklyn. Nothing major. A few whacks and kicks for the more obnoxious guys. The girl got slapped around a bit by some of ours.

Everything ended with cops coming in and the standard natak. Next day stuff splashed all across the papers ...

Chick crying. Guys moaning. We will go back to Kashmir. We will never come back. Yada yada yada. Who called them here in the first place no one knows.
We have some Kashmiris in college,wonderful guys. Park Circus is like their second home now. Maybe your experience with Kashmiris has been different

As for that fight you mentioned, might be that some abvp retards were provoking them that's why they reacted. Anyways you should support them bro
 
.
Wow ...... couple of "secular" perverts ogling at 13 year old girls. :sick:

Christian muslim at least unit on pedophilia. congratulations.
@waz @Jungibaaz
Post reported for saying that Muslims and Christians are united at least pedophilla

No one is crying and moaning. We are roaring. This is India buddy. Democracy. We will kick the BJP and its goons out. Likh le. Gaanth baandh le. Main ban hua ya nahin. Tu yaad rakhega.

Aur Kashmir kya unki jaydaad hai? It belongs to me. I will kick any Kashmiri in his buttocks if he dares raises the mudda of Azadi.
Tu tarak damn.you are padachem.
Dude I don't giv an F about what happens on either side of border.

Reality check, provoke Hindus and see what they will do to you. Don't act too machoman. You are nothing to them.
The age of mulism rule is long gone over India. It is Hindus term and they shall rule over it for longtime to come.
BJP or not BJP you have no representaion in India as said by you. Secondly, Muslims are all terrorists as mentioned by your previous banned ID. So trust me Hindus have 0 tolerance level for terrorists.
Stay safe and stay low. Just don't a t overmsart and with humiliation you will be fine. Act too much and provoke them who are in power. They will show you Your Aukaat

This harsh reality your ancestors chose for you
 
.
Polygamy is not a backward Islamic practice. Polygamy was banned in India for Hindus in 1954 .. As per a report published in 1975, the percentage of polygamous marriages (1951 -1961) was 5.06 among the Hindus and only 4.31 among the Muslims, despite it being illegal for Hindus. Hindus are more polygamous than Muslims ... The Hindu scriptures allow polygamy ...

The Hindus, following the west, had banned polygamy believing that it was immoral.... Islam and West have moral traditions that are fundamentally different .. In many cases what the west believe is "rational" and "moral", is considered "irrational" and "immoral" by the Muslims.


Modern man is averse to polygamy, not because he wants to be content with one wife, but because he wants to satisfy his sense of variety by indulging in unlimited adultery, for which ample facilities are available. Sin and not fidelity has taken the place of polygamy. That is why modern man is opposed to plurality of wives which commits him to many duties and responsibilities, financial and otherwise.


Gustave Le Bon rightly says that no Eastern custom is so infamous in Europe as polygamy, nor has Europe misjudged any other custom to the extent that it has misjudged this ... (See Civilisation des arabes for details)


Will Durant in his book, History of Civilization, vol.17, gives an interesting account of the state of morality in Italy during the renaissance. below is a summary of what he has said under the heading 'Morals in Sexual Relations'.

In the course of his brief introduction he says that before describing the morals of the laity it may be pointed out that by nature man is polygamous. Only strict moral restrictions, an adequate amount of hard work and poverty, and a continuous vigilance of the wife can compel him to maintain monogamy.

Then he says that adultery was not uncommon during the Middle Ages, prior to the Renaissance. As during the Middle Ages the guilt of adultery was extenuated by chivalry, similarly, during the Renaissance period, it was watered down among the educated classes by the craving for the polished manners and the refined spirit of the females. Girls belonging to respectable families were, to a certain extent, kept segregated from the males not connected with their own family and were taught the merits of pre -marital chastity. Sometimes these instructions were exceptionally effective. It is reported that a young woman, after being assaulted, drowned herself. That must have been an exceptional case, because a bishop took the trouble of installing her statue after her death to commemorate her chastity.

The number of pre-marital affairs must have been considerable, because there were innumerable children born of illegitimate relations in every town of Italy. It was a matter of pride not to have an illegitimate child, but to have one was not a matter of shame. Usually a husband persuaded his wife at the time of the marriage to bring her illegitimate child with her, to be brought up along with his children. Illegitimacy was not a slur on the reputation of anyone. Furthermore, a certificate of legitimacy could easily be obtained by bribing a clergyman. In the absence of other lawful or eligible heirs, an illegitimate son could inherit property and even a crown, as Frante-I, succeeded Alfonso-I, King of Naples. When in 1459 Pius-II came to Bavaria, he was received by seven princes, all of whom were illegitimate. Rivalry between the legitimate and illegitimate sons was an important cause of a long series of commotions during the Renaissance period. As far as homosexuality is concerned, it was only a revival of the ancient Greek tradition.

San Bernardino found this sort of perversion so common in Naples that he thought it to be threatened with the fate of Sodom. Artino found the perversion equally prevalent in Rome. The same thing can be said about prostitution. In 1490, out of a total population of 90,000, there were 6,800 registered prostitutes in Rome. Of course, this figure does not include clandestine and unofficial prostitutes. According to the statistics of 1509, out of a population of 300,000 of that city, there were 11,654 prostitutes. In the 15th century, a girl who had reached the age of 15 without having a husband, was regarded as a slur on the fair name of her family. In the 16th century, the 'age of disgrace' was extended up to 17 years, to enable the girls to receive higher education. Men, who enjoyed all the facilities provided by widespread prostitution, were attracted to marriage only if the woman concerned promised to bring a considerable dowry. According to the system of the Middle Ages, husband and wife were expected to love each other and share each other's joy and grief. Apparently in many cases this expectation came true, but still adultery was rampant. Most of the marriages of the upper classes were diplomatic unions contracted for political and economic gains. Many husbands regarded it as their right to have a mistress. The wife might feel dejected, but usually connived at the situation.

Among the middle classes, some people thought that adultery was a lawful pastime. Machiavelli and his friends apparently did not feel uneasy about the stories of their unfaithfulness which they exchanged with each other. When in such cases, the wife followed the example of her husband to wreak vengeance upon him, he usually connived at her behaviour and did not feel jealous or perturbed.


This was a specimen of the life of the people who regard polygamy as an unpardonable crime of the East and have occasionally blamed its climate for this supposedly inhuman custom. As far as their own climate is concerned, it does not allow them to be unfaithful to the wives and to exceed the limits of monogamy! ...


Bertrand Russell was conscious of the fact that in the case of monogamy being the sole form of marriage, a large number of women are to be deprived of their right. He has suggested a very simple solution to the problem. He wanted women to be allowed to entice men and bear father-less children. As the father usually supports the children, the government should take his place and give a subsidy to the unmarried mothers.

Russell says that at present, in Britain, there are more than two million surplus women who cannot ever hope to have children because of the law of monogamy. This is a big privation. He says that the system of monogamy is based on the presumption of approximate numerical equality between men and women, but where no such equality exists it gives a raw deal to those women who, in accordance with mathematical law, are doomed to remain unmarried. Anyhow, if it is desired to increase the population, such a raw deal is not even in the public interest, let alone in the private interest.

This is the solution of this social problem, as suggested by a great philosopher of the 20th century. But, according to Islam, the whole problem is solved if an adequate number of men having the necessary financial, moral and physical qualifications agree to bear the responsibility of more than one legal wife showing no distinction between her and his first wife and between the children by both of them. The first wife should accept the second one cheerfully with the spirit of doing a social duty, which is most necessary and the best form of morality.

Contrary to the Islamic mode of thinking, Russel advises the deprived women to steal the husbands of other women and call upon the government to support the children born of such illicit connections.
You can post multiple sources but Sanghis will overlook them, facts seldom matter to them. They can/will peddle lies to further their cause.

This does not apply to India. In India the population of women is less than men.
All thanks to Female feoticide:coffee:

Dharmic nationalism is the fabric of this country and due to that only the people in this country are tolerant.

Look at Egypt, Nigeria, Syria, Cameroon, Sudan and South SUdan and see what organised religion does.
So tolerant that they discriminate their own people(i.e. the Lower caste:()

And what has "unorganized" religion done? Well they annihilated a community(i.e. Buddhism) from their place of origin. So please spare us your sermon. It is rather hypocritical.

If this is the case why are their millions of Muslims in the West? It is very well known that muslims considered Islam over anything else even their country. So why drop the morality and go to immoral west just to earn some $$$
Isnt it hypocrisy of the highest order.
Same can be said about those numerous Sanghis minting money in West Asia. They despise muslims and Islam yet go to these muslim lands. You don't want Christians to propagate their religion in India but you love to go to these christian lands. Hypocrisy you see..
 
Last edited:
.
Tu tarak damn.you are padachem.
Dude I don't giv an F about what happens on either side of border.

Reality check, provoke Hindus and see what they will do to you. Don't act too machoman. You are nothing to them.
The age of mulism rule is long gone over India. It is Hindus term and they shall rule over it for longtime to come.
BJP or not BJP you have no representaion in India as said by you. Secondly, Muslims are all terrorists as mentioned by your previous banned ID. So trust me Hindus have 0 tolerance level for terrorists.
Stay safe and stay low. Just don't a t overmsart and with humiliation you will be fine. Act too much and provoke them who are in power. They will show you Your Aukaat

This harsh reality your ancestors chose for you

You think from a medieval point of view of Hindu rule and Muslim rule.

Workings of secular rule through modern democracy is beyond your capacity of imagination.

To answer your allegations that Muslims do not get respect from Hindus . Please see case of A P J Abdul Kalam ,he is the role model of every Indian be it Hindu or Muslim.

So brother,you tried your best to instigate Indian Muslims on Kashmir and what you get from @adil_minhas .. " Das Boot " please don't forget that.
 
.
Do Muslims have political power? Who is Muslim's leader in India? Who represents Muslims in Parliament? Maybe this one guy Assad Owaisi. How are Muslims going to stop Hindu rashtra as it is happening right now with Beef killings and conversions and we get to read reports from Indian papers how prevalent Islamophobia is in India.
Our constitution allows us to vote and stand in elections, chose our leaders. Yes we have issues within but we shall resolve them and let me tell you that there are many Hindus who will come to our aid in our times of need. Remember Gujarat 2002? There were many Hindus who helped victims fight for justice, helped them recuperate. So dude, all is not lost.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom