Documentary- The Killing of Kashmir

[MolviCorleone]

A must watch.


More than 60,000 people, mostly innocent civilians, have died in the 15-year conflict. Half a million Indian troops are stationed in Kashmir, fighting Pakistani-funded militants who slip across the border to attack the troops but also to terrorise the local population into giving them shelter and assistance.

While both governments talk of peace, Unreported World reveals that, on the ground, very little has changed. For the local villagers life is a cycle of militant violence and government repression.
The team arrive in Srinagar to find Indian police have just violently beaten a group of women who are protesting about the detention of two men and a woman for alleged links to pro-Pakistan militants.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166172407554220338&q=the+killing+of+kashmir

[adren@line]

does that figure include the 200,000-500,000 Hindu Pandits that were killed/exiled?

[methodman535]

does that figure include the 200,000-500,000 Hindu Pandits that were killed/exiled?

Theres a big difference between DEAD and EXILED. Namely the exiled person is still alive for one. And usually hasnt been hurt either.

[adren@line]

yeah I know.

but there arent any official figures as to how many were killed and how many were exiled.

so im just sticking both in there.

[MolviCorleone]

yeah I know.

but there arent any official figures as to how many were killed and how many were exiled.

so im just sticking both in there.

this documentary highlights todays suffering of the KASHMIRI people and weyre not looking at this from a religious vewpoint either, the militants are blamed as much as the indian soldiers. weyre not critisizing one problem and id prefer it if you didnt talk about the hindu/muslim past. Theres always another argument when it comes to that.

[bad_cheque]

Theres a big difference between DEAD and EXILED. Namely the exiled person is still alive for one. And usually hasnt been hurt either.
Like the Palestinians?

[Space-Cowboy]

A must watch.


More than 60,000 people, mostly innocent civilians, have died in the 15-year conflict. Half a million Indian troops are stationed in Kashmir, fighting Pakistani-funded militants who slip across the border to attack the troops but also to terrorise the local population into giving them shelter and assistance.

While both governments talk of peace, Unreported World reveals that, on the ground, very little has changed. For the local villagers life is a cycle of militant violence and government repression.
The team arrive in Srinagar to find Indian police have just violently beaten a group of women who are protesting about the detention of two men and a woman for alleged links to pro-Pakistan militants.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166172407554220338&q=the+killing+of+kashmir

At the threat of sounding ass-ish....
What kind of abundance of natural resources/strategic geographical advantages/socio-economic potential/etc. does this chunk of land known as Kashmir have that would make both countries [Ind, Pak] want it so badly?

[rex_maximus]

At the threat of sounding ass-ish....
What kind of abundance of natural resources/strategic geographical advantages/socio-economic potential/etc. does this chunk of land known as Kashmir have that would make both countries [Ind, Pak] want it so badly?


kashmir is at a geographic location that comes between the conjoining of the borders of china and pakistan. for that reason, it is of extreme stragetic importance. now, due to the resources spent and lives lost of keeping it a part or India, it also has an element of great national pride attached to it.

[imprt_fghtr1]

I would like to make it clear a Muslim is required to feel for his brothers in faith as he is also required to share the pains of his brothers in humanity. Muslims are ordered to deal with all human beings, without discrimination as to race, religion or sex, with love and kindness, for they are all members of the same family of mankind.

Islam, a divine guidance for all, orders its followers to respond to the cry of SOS raised by the oppressed, be they Muslims or non-Muslims; to join the course of putting an end to injustice and to cater together for the welfare of mankind.

Whenever there is a war between a Muslim country and another state, it becomes a duty upon all Muslims to help their fellow brothers in Islam against their enemies so long as they are not the aggressors. In case of the prospective war between India and Pakistan, it is clear that the reason is Kashmir.

The Kashmiris, the majority of whom are Muslims, want to be attached to Pakistan, which is an Islamic country. India rejects the idea and tries to display its sovereignty over Kashmir.

The UN General Assembly and the Security Council have both issued many resolutions demanding India to respect the right of Kashmiris to self-determination. Refusing all these resolutions, India still insists on accusing Pakistan of inciting the people of Kashmir to demand independence from India.

Thus, in case of war, it behooves not a Muslim to stay idle or hands tied. Rather, it is his duty to help and support his Muslim brothers in Kashmir and Pakistan in this unjust war

[Indian_Eyess]

I would like to make it clear a Muslim is required to feel for his brothers in faith as he is also required to share the pains of his brothers in humanity. Muslims are ordered to deal with all human beings, without discrimination as to race, religion or sex, with love and kindness, for they are all members of the same family of mankind.

Islam, a divine guidance for all, orders its followers to respond to the cry of SOS raised by the oppressed, be they Muslims or non-Muslims; to join the course of putting an end to injustice and to cater together for the welfare of mankind.

Whenever there is a war between a Muslim country and another state, it becomes a duty upon all Muslims to help their fellow brothers in Islam against their enemies so long as they are not the aggressors. In case of the prospective war between India and Pakistan, it is clear that the reason is Kashmir.

The Kashmiris, the majority of whom are Muslims, want to be attached to Pakistan, which is an Islamic country. India rejects the idea and tries to display its sovereignty over Kashmir.

The UN General Assembly and the Security Council have both issued many resolutions demanding India to respect the right of Kashmiris to self-determination. Refusing all these resolutions, India still insists on accusing Pakistan of inciting the people of Kashmir to demand independence from India.

Thus, in case of war, it behooves not a Muslim to stay idle or hands tied. Rather, it is his duty to help and support his Muslim brothers in Kashmir and Pakistan in this unjust war
I agree with your point, but the Pakistani government is hardly Islamic. The ideology of the government does not reflect Islam, nor does any government in existence today. The faith of the people is different from the representation of the government in this case.

[Space-Cowboy]

I would like to make it clear a Muslim is required to feel for his brothers in faith as he is also required to share the pains of his brothers in humanity. Muslims are ordered to deal with all human beings, without discrimination as to race, religion or sex, with love and kindness, for they are all members of the same family of mankind.

Islam, a divine guidance for all, orders its followers to respond to the cry of SOS raised by the oppressed, be they Muslims or non-Muslims; to join the course of putting an end to injustice and to cater together for the welfare of mankind.

Whenever there is a war between a Muslim country and another state, it becomes a duty upon all Muslims to help their fellow brothers in Islam against their enemies so long as they are not the aggressors. In case of the prospective war between India and Pakistan, it is clear that the reason is Kashmir.

The Kashmiris, the majority of whom are Muslims, want to be attached to Pakistan, which is an Islamic country. India rejects the idea and tries to display its sovereignty over Kashmir.

The UN General Assembly and the Security Council have both issued many resolutions demanding India to respect the right of Kashmiris to self-determination. Refusing all these resolutions, India still insists on accusing Pakistan of inciting the people of Kashmir to demand independence from India.

Thus, in case of war, it behooves not a Muslim to stay idle or hands tied. Rather, it is his duty to help and support his Muslim brothers in Kashmir and Pakistan in this unjust war


Kashmiris want their own nation, they HARDLY want to be a part of Pakistan.

[adren@line]

I would like to make it clear a Muslim is required to feel for his brothers in faith as he is also required to share the pains of his brothers in humanity. Muslims are ordered to deal with all human beings, without discrimination as to race, religion or sex, with love and kindness, for they are all members of the same family of mankind.

Islam, a divine guidance for all, orders its followers to respond to the cry of SOS raised by the oppressed, be they Muslims or non-Muslims; to join the course of putting an end to injustice and to cater together for the welfare of mankind.

Whenever there is a war between a Muslim country and another state, it becomes a duty upon all Muslims to help their fellow brothers in Islam against their enemies so long as they are not the aggressors. In case of the prospective war between India and Pakistan, it is clear that the reason is Kashmir.

The Kashmiris, the majority of whom are Muslims, want to be attached to Pakistan, which is an Islamic country. India rejects the idea and tries to display its sovereignty over Kashmir.

The UN General Assembly and the Security Council have both issued many resolutions demanding India to respect the right of Kashmiris to self-determination. Refusing all these resolutions, India still insists on accusing Pakistan of inciting the people of Kashmir to demand independence from India.

Thus, in case of war, it behooves not a Muslim to stay idle or hands tied. Rather, it is his duty to help and support his Muslim brothers in Kashmir and Pakistan in this unjust war

the majority of people in Kashmir are Muslim due to two reasons

1. foriegn Muslim squatters
2. the fact that most of the Hindus were killed or kicked out.

So until both 1 and 2 are dealt with, this is most definitly a Hindu-Muslim issue, as obviously Pakistanis dont really give a crap Hindu Pandits, and the Indian Gov vice versa.

[MolviCorleone]

Kashmiris want their own nation, they HARDLY want to be a part of Pakistan.

your partly right, but theres a difference, in most of pakistan controlled kashmir the shout out "kashmir banay ga pakistan" in the lower mirpur areas the people only say "kashmir zindabad" they want to be independant of pakistan becuase they feel like pakistan has never given them anything, only used them by building a dam, destroying their homes and leaving them without jobs with the only option left to move to england and find whatever cheap labour job is going.
that is why in the UK he majority of pakistanis are from the mirpur/kotli districts.

then again i dont think any kashmiri or at least muslim kashmiri wants to be part of india.

pakistan is just the lesser of 2 evils.

[paulie walnuts]

your partly right, but theres a difference, in most of pakistan controlled kashmir the shout out "kashmir banay ga pakistan" in the lower mirpur areas the people only say "kashmir zindabad" they want to be independant of pakistan becuase they feel like pakistan has never given them anything, only used them by building a dam, destroying their homes and leaving them without jobs with the only option left to move to england and find whatever cheap labour job is going.
that is why in the UK he majority of pakistanis are from the mirpur/kotli districts.

then again i dont think any kashmiri or at least muslim kashmiri wants to be part of india.

pakistan is just the lesser of 2 evils.there is never going to be a scenario where they will choose the "lesser of two evils". not that there will be a referendum, but if there were, the option of Independence would certainly be there.

even if half of Pakistani Kashmir wants to be a state of Pakistan, that is about 1.5 million people out of a total Kashmiri population of 15 million. as of last year, the latest survey of Indian Kashmir resulted in a 2% preference for Pakistan, bringing the total pro-Pakistani population to 1.7 million Kashmiris, or roughly 11% of the total Kashmiri population.

according to that same survey, approximately 60% of Indian Kashmir favored Independence. this number, 7.2 million, added to the Pakistani Kashmiri estimate of another 1.5 million, brings the total in favor of Independence to 8.7 million, or 58% (a majority).

if we assume zero Pakistani Kashmiris favor India, then we are left with the 40% of Indian Kashmir (mostly the non-Muslims and about 5-10%% of the Muslims), which is 4.8 million, or 32% of the total Kashmiri population.

to summarize, out of the entire population of Kashmir, both the Pakistani side and the Indian side:

58% prefer Independence
32% prefer India
11% prefer Pakistan

[MolviCorleone]

there is never going to be a scenario where they will choose the "lesser of two evils". not that there will be a referendum, but if there were, the option of Independence would certainly be there.

even if half of Pakistani Kashmir wants to be a state of Pakistan, that is about 1.5 million people out of a total Kashmiri population of 15 million. as of last year, the latest survey of Indian Kashmir resulted in a 2% preference for Pakistan, bringing the total pro-Pakistani population to 1.7 million Kashmiris, or roughly 11% of the total Kashmiri population.

according to that same survey, approximately 60% of Indian Kashmir favored Independence. this number, 7.2 million, added to the Pakistani Kashmiri estimate of another 1.5 million, brings the total in favor of Independence to 8.7 million, or 58% (a majority).

if we assume zero Pakistani Kashmiris favor India, then we are left with the 40% of Indian Kashmir (mostly the non-Muslims and about 5-10%% of the Muslims), which is 4.8 million, or 32% of the total Kashmiri population.

to summarize, out of the entire population of Kashmir, both the Pakistani side and the Indian side:

58% prefer Independence
32% prefer India
11% prefer Pakistan

i do agree with you. but could kashmir survive on its own and more importantly, would india/pakistan ever allow that to happen.

[paulie walnuts]

i do agree with you. but could kashmir survive on its own and more importantly, would india/pakistan ever allow that to happen.a) it could not survive on its own. any independent economic analyst will agree with this, despite it being insulting to Kashmiri pride. on both sides, the government has to fund it externally. the biggest exports of Kashmir have now all been dominated by south-east asians and Latin American countries at lower prices.

b) India will not allow it, and Pakistan will not allow it. just last week, Musharraf publicly re-affirmed the fact that Pakistan would not allow Independence to be an option for Kashmir. the Indian opinion is essentially the same.

the latest idea is "self-rule" of Kashmir with "soft borders" between Indian Kashmir and Paki Kashmir. both territories would still be officially administered by the Indian and Pakistani governments, but they would operate under maximum autonomy.

it might work out, but probably not for a while....there is still a lot of trust to be developed before anything major works out.

[MolviCorleone]

a) it could not survive on its own. any independent economic analyst will agree with this, despite it being insulting to Kashmiri pride. on both sides, the government has to fund it externally. the biggest exports of Kashmir have now all been dominated by south-east asians and Latin American countries at lower prices.

b) India will not allow it, and Pakistan will not allow it. just last week, Musharraf publicly re-affirmed the fact that Pakistan would not allow Independence to be an option for Kashmir. the Indian opinion is essentially the same.

the latest idea is "self-rule" of Kashmir with "soft borders" between Indian Kashmir and Paki Kashmir. both territories would still be officially administered by the Indian and Pakistani governments, but they would operate under maximum autonomy.

it might work out, but probably not for a while....there is still a lot of trust to be developed before anything major works out.

so basically it will carry on causing tentions between pakistan and india, its a whole fucked up scenario, with the way the US is going on aswell it will probably all end in bloodshed.
all it takes is pakistan to disagree with US foreign policy, india siding with USa, US could make them 2 war, especially if china gets involved...it could work in the USs favour if china got involved.

a chinese guy i know even told me pakistan is chinas biggest friend.

:(

[imprt_fghtr1]

the majority of people in Kashmir are Muslim due to two reasons

1. foriegn Muslim squatters
2. the fact that most of the Hindus were killed or kicked out.

So until both 1 and 2 are dealt with, this is most definitly a Hindu-Muslim issue, as obviously Pakistanis dont really give a crap Hindu Pandits, and the Indian Gov vice versa.


It is well-known that Kashmiri Muslims, forming about three quarters of the whole population, want to join Pakistan. This leads us muslims to say that Kashmir is a Muslim country, and we have the following two facts to support that arguments:

First, Kashmir was governed by Muslims and has been a part of the Muslim Ummah for a long span of time

History tells us that Kashmir passed from the control of the Durrani Empire (Ahmad Shah Durrani) of Afghanistan and centuries of Muslim rule under the Mughals, Persians, and Afghans to the conquering Sikh armies by the mid-19th century. During the latter part of the 19th century, Kashmir was ruled by the Dogras, who are a predominantly Hindu people in the area around Jammu and who were installed as rulers by the Sikhs.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of the people of Kashmir are Muslims.

Thus, based on the above two facts the people of Kashmir have inalienable right to self determination and their right to independence and joining Pakistan is unquestionable as long as they want this. All Muslims are to support them in their just cause.

[E.I.Walrus]

It is well-known that Kashmiri Muslims, forming about three quarters of the whole population, want to join Pakistan. This leads us muslims to say that Kashmir is a Muslim country, and we have the following two facts to support that arguments:

First, Kashmir was governed by Muslims and has been a part of the Muslim Ummah for a long span of time

History tells us that Kashmir passed from the control of the Durrani Empire (Ahmad Shah Durrani) of Afghanistan and centuries of Muslim rule under the Mughals, Persians, and Afghans to the conquering Sikh armies by the mid-19th century. During the latter part of the 19th century, Kashmir was ruled by the Dogras, who are a predominantly Hindu people in the area around Jammu and who were installed as rulers by the Sikhs.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of the people of Kashmir are Muslims.

Thus, based on the above two facts the people of Kashmir have inalienable right to self determination and their right to independence and joining Pakistan is unquestionable as long as they want this. All Muslims are to support them in their just cause.

I think want the Kashmiri people really want is PEACE.

[bad_cheque]

Don't start with history and this was part ummah and that was part of this shit. Because Kashmir used to be a Hindu and later Buddhist area.

Your own argument can be used to argue for throwing out Palestinians for the creation of Israel.

So be careful before you make such stupid arguments.

The issue is much more complicated than any of you can fathom.

[adren@line]

It is well-known that Kashmiri Muslims, forming about three quarters of the whole population, want to join Pakistan. This leads us muslims to say that Kashmir is a Muslim country, and we have the following two facts to support that arguments:

First, Kashmir was governed by Muslims and has been a part of the Muslim Ummah for a long span of time

History tells us that Kashmir passed from the control of the Durrani Empire (Ahmad Shah Durrani) of Afghanistan and centuries of Muslim rule under the Mughals, Persians, and Afghans to the conquering Sikh armies by the mid-19th century. During the latter part of the 19th century, Kashmir was ruled by the Dogras, who are a predominantly Hindu people in the area around Jammu and who were installed as rulers by the Sikhs.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of the people of Kashmir are Muslims.

Thus, based on the above two facts the people of Kashmir have inalienable right to self determination and their right to independence and joining Pakistan is unquestionable as long as they want this. All Muslims are to support them in their just cause.


right right.

self-determination only applies to Muslims.
Specifically Muslims who are ruled by non-Muslims.

What about the Kurds? The Balochis?
Where is their independent state?

What about the hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits, the real Kashmiris, who were kicked out of Kashmir?

They represent what Kashmir "really" is, as Kashmir is not some Islamic shithole (atleast it wasnt.......its merely turned into that by Muslim invaders and squatters who didnt afford the idea "self determination" to the native Hindu population).

[imprt_fghtr1]

Don't start with history and this was part ummah and that was part of this shit. Because Kashmir used to be a Hindu and later Buddhist area.

Your own argument can be used to argue for throwing out Palestinians for the creation of Israel.

So be careful before you make such stupid arguments.

The issue is much more complicated than any of you can fathom.


Do not be upset. I am simply stating facts here.

Kashmir was a princely state with a Muslim majority ruled by a Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh until 1947. In 1947, when the Indian subcontinent achieved independence from United Kingdom, Hari Singh could not decide whether to join India or Pakistan. Soon after the independence, Pathan tribesman from Pakistan's North Western Frontier backed by the Pakistani Army, invaded the state because of the rumours that the Hindu Maharaja was going to cede a Muslim Kashmir to the Union of India.

With no defence forces and a detoriating human rights condition, the Maharaja was compelled to ask India for military assistance. India's then Governor-General, Lord Mountbatten, favored the state's accession to the Republic of India, to which the Maharaja agreed. After the Instrument of Accession was signed, the National Conference's Shiekh Abdullah became the head of the Kashmir State government.

By January 1948, Indian troops landed in the region and claimed the territory as a part of the Union of India. Pakistan, immediately contested the accession and invaded Kashmir. After months of intense fighting, both the nations agreed on a cease-fire, separating the region into two: Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistani-administered Kashmir

I don't think this thread is the place to discuss Palestine/Israel Issue :-)

[adren@line]

The Pandits: Dole and despair
http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/04kanch.htm


Kashmiri Pandits -- who were hounded out of their ancestral land by jihadis as part of the Islamist agenda of creating a 'Muslim only' Kashmir valley, as the first step towards setting up 'Nizam-e-Mustafa' -- have been living on dole and hope for the last 15 years.

The first exodus saw 250,000 Kashmiri Pandits leaving their homes in Kashmir valley for sanctuary in Jammu and Delhi.

Subsequent targeted killing of Pandits forced the remaining to also flee and take refuge in shanty camps; those who could afford it, moved into rented accommodation. The final number of Pandits reduced to living as refugees in their own country would be as high as 400,000.

When Kashmiri Pandits fled Islamic terror

According to official statistics, notorious for being inaccurate if they are provided by the apology of a state government in Jammu & Kashmir and unreliable if they emanate from the Union home ministry, some 250,000 Kashmiri Pandits continue to camp in Jammu; another 100,000 are in Delhi. A large number of families have moved to other cities, some have migrated to the US or European countries.

Those who live in refugee camps -- some 4,600 families -- have to make do with one-room tenements. So, we have thousands of families who for 15 years have been condemned to live in 10 by 12 feet rooms, one room for each family. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, following his visit to a camp last year, has sanctioned funds for two-room tenements.

The pawns without a vote

Then there are those Pandit families that do not have the wherewithal to live in rented accommodation, having left behind all their assets in the 'Muslim only' Kashmir valley, and have not been able to secure a one-room tenement. They live in tattered tents.

Every time the issue of the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits has been raised, the Union and state governments have been quick to point out the 'assistance' provided to the 'migrants.'

The assistance is all of Rs 600 per head up to a maximum of Rs 2,400 per family. And inedible, PDS surplus food grains, what the Union home ministry's annual report eloquently describes as 'dry ration @ 9 kgs of rice and 2 kgs of atta per person and one kg of sugar per family per month to needy migrants.'

This did not happen in my Kashmir

The 'non-needy migrants' are Kashmiri Pandits who were government employees. They continue to receive their salaries or pensions. But they have been deprived of benefits like promotion. Most of them are barely able to keep body and soul together.

Kashmiri Pandit children have suffered the most. According to state government officials, '10 primary schools and three high schools have been built for migrant children.' Who is to tell them that 10 primary schools and three high schools cannot meet the needs of 250,000 people?

Will the Pandits ever find a home?

As for health care, the Kashmiri Pandits have been left to fend for themselves. Officials claim there are 28 doctors in the camps. Show us the doctors, say the Pandits. Local residents of Jammu are entitled to free medicines and health care in government dispensaries and hospitals, but not the 'migrants' who must pay.

Meanwhile, depression and other stress-related health problems plague the exiled community. Studies have shown that Kashmiri Pandits have begun to age rapidly, much earlier than before. Fertility rate among them has registered a sharp decline while mortality rate has increased.

Who cares for the Pandits?

The humiliation of living on dole apart, there is this added slight of being labelled 'migrants' -- as if the Kashmiri Pandits migrated of their own volition from the land of their forefathers. Implicit in this labelling is the shameful failure of India's political class and its self-serving bureaucracy to recognise the truth behind the violence in Jammu & Kashmir.

Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil has the gumption to tell Parliament 'they (terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir) are our brothers and sisters.' Therefore, the Government of India must embrace them.

What, then, are the Kashmiri Pandits chased out of their home and hearth by Mr Patil's 'brothers and sisters'?

The current dispensation in Delhi, however, is only echoing the callous indifference towards the plight of Kashmiri Pandits that has been the official policy of at least five different Union governments in these 15 years of their forced exile.

Kashmir is not okay, Mr Sayeed

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has recently set up an inter-ministerial group to prepare a report on the welfare of the Kashmiri Pandits. But that is small consolation for the thousands of hapless men, women and children who are convinced that nothing ever will be done to restore their lost lives.

Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed has on and off talked about enabling the Kashmiri Pandits to return to the valley. Three residential colonies are being set up for those willing to return. But Kashmiri Pandits believe this is an elaborate and devious political ploy meant to fool the Union government. Bearing in mind the Mufti's track record, they have a point.

Interview: Panun Kashmir leader Kamal Hak

In any event, it makes little sense for the Kashmiri Pandits to live in ghettos: they will be sitting ducks during a terrorist strike. Moreover, the self-appointed spokesmen of the 'Muslim only' Kashmir valley have shown little interest in the return of the Kashmiri Pandits. Pro-Pakistani secessionists like Syed Ali Shah Geelani have openly opposed any talk of the Kashmiri Pandits returning to their own land.

'Where do we return to?' is a common refrain among the exiles. Their homes, which they had left behind, have been forcibly occupied. The ownership of their agricultural land has been surreptitiously transferred. Their shops and businesses have been either destroyed or illegally taken over. Government measures meant to protect Kashmiri Pandit property have been followed more in the breach than in practice. Politicians and officials have been complicit partners in this robbery.

In the months after the exodus of 1990, most Kashmiri Pandits were hopeful that they would soon be able to return to their homes with full dignity and honour. The months stretched into years. The years have stretched into a decade-and-a-half of exile whose end is nowhere in sight.

Today, they live on dole and in despair, not on hope.

[adren@line]

first, lets deal with the 400,000 Hindu Kashmiris.

then well deal with the Muslim Kashmiris, and the non-Kashmiri Muslim squatters.

otherwise, this will never end.


In-fact, I personally know a Kashmiri Hindu girl whos family was kicked out of Kashmir. They were very wealthy and owned quite a bit of property. Her grandmother was basically evicted from her house by Muslim militants many decades ago, and if she hadnt have left, they would have killed her.

All of their property is now controlled by Muslim extremists or inhabited by Muslims who didnt pay a dime for it.

Sound familiar?

[bad_cheque]

Do not be upset. I am simply stating facts here.

Kashmir was a princely state with a Muslim majority ruled by a Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh until 1947. In 1947, when the Indian subcontinent achieved independence from United Kingdom, Hari Singh could not decide whether to join India or Pakistan. Soon after the independence, Pathan tribesman from Pakistan's North Western Frontier backed by the Pakistani Army, invaded the state because of the rumours that the Hindu Maharaja was going to cede a Muslim Kashmir to the Union of India.

With no defence forces and a detoriating human rights condition, the Maharaja was compelled to ask India for military assistance. India's then Governor-General, Lord Mountbatten, favored the state's accession to the Republic of India, to which the Maharaja agreed. After the Instrument of Accession was signed, the National Conference's Shiekh Abdullah became the head of the Kashmir State government.

By January 1948, Indian troops landed in the region and claimed the territory as a part of the Union of India. Pakistan, immediately contested the accession and invaded Kashmir. After months of intense fighting, both the nations agreed on a cease-fire, separating the region into two: Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistani-administered Kashmir

I don't think this thread is the place to discuss Palestine/Israel Issue :-)
I am going to bring elements of Israel/Palestinian issue whenever I feel its relevant. If you are not capable of comprehending them or refuting the arguments, that is your problem.

It doesn't matter whether I get upset or not. I am not upset because your arguments are not going to change the ground situation in any way. You have no power over the events there. On top of that, I get the feeling that you haven't felt the situation first-hand (not that it is of high importance but it helps).

The Maharaja of J&K had the right to hand over the country in the same way that the British govt. had the right to divide India and give a part as Pakistan (or ride roughshod over the rights of the native kings whichever way you see it). It is an internationally accepted practice though it might not be wholly justified (which would bring the creation of Pakistan into question).

Paulie Walnuts posted the survey finding that refutes your argument that the people of Jammu & Kashmir want to be part of Pakistan. In fact, the survey conducted by Gallup (if I remember right) came as a big shock for Pakistan which was expecting a different result.

Also, please stop referring to all the people of J&K as Kashmiris. It is an insult of Jammuites, Poonchies, Kargil people and Ladakhis who would resent such a characterisation. Also, don't call Miripuris Kashmiris. Kashmiris don't accept that.

History is a quirky thing and you cannot pick and choose what you want. I apply a single standard. Even if it is your standard, I will apply it evenly. If it works for J&K, it can work for Israel/Palestine. Do you want a part of that?

[imprt_fghtr1]

I know Kashmiri Pandits gradually emigrated to other parts of India as Kashmir became predominantly Muslim over the centuries. More recently (1990), hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits had to flee the Kashmir valley.

Bad/Cheque: ** Your own argument can be used to argue for throwing out Palestinians for the creation of Israel. **

I have no problem in discussing Palestine/Israel issue. I would love to communicate with anyone at anytime over that

[bad_cheque]

I know Kashmiri Pandits gradually emigrated to other parts of India as Kashmir became predominantly Muslim over the centuries. More recently (1990), hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits had to flee the Kashmir valley.

Bad/Cheque: ** Your own argument can be used to argue for throwing out Palestinians for the creation of Israel. **

I have no problem in discussing Palestine/Israel issue. I would love to communicate with anyone at anytime over that
I like the way you characterise it as "gradually migrated".

That is exactly what Zionists say about Palestinians. That they migrated to Jordan and Lebanon and should get rights and citizenship there.

You want to argue more?

[Space-Cowboy]

Kashmir is one of those 'hot topics'.... and it's just going to end up in a flame war.

In terms of being FORCED to choose sides..... Pakistan is actually the WORSE of two evils. India at least has a stable enough economy to be able to look after Kashmir. In the hands of Pakistan, it would most probably end up another waste land. Which is sad since it's probably the most beautiful piece of land on earth. ........ In terms of choosing lesser of evils.... I don't think they would ever be forced to choose such a role without fighting for independance first...

[imprt_fghtr1]

I like the way you characterise it as "gradually migrated".

That is exactly what Zionists say about Palestinians. That they migrated to Jordan and Lebanon and should get rights and citizenship there.

You want to argue more?

sure as long as there is no profanity. Perhaps, It would be better if you create a new thread for that :-)

[bad_cheque]

sure as long as there is no profanity. Perhaps, It would be better if you create a new thread for that :-)
No, your zionist agenda is clearer here.

[adren@line]

its quite sad that an area that was once a hotbed of Hindu and Buddhist culture and philosopy has now been degrated to an Islamic warzone.

:no:

[Space-Cowboy]

its quite sad that an area that was once a hotbed of Hindu and Buddhist culture and philosopy has now been degrated to an Islamic warzone.

:no:


Yeah I'm just concerned that one of the most majestic sceneries on earth is going to be turned into a desolate wasteland through all the violence...

[imprt_fghtr1]

No, your zionist agenda is clearer here.

First of all, I don't want to start any sort of hatred here. So I would appreciate if we keep this discussion going without any personal attacks.

Palestine is the birth right of Muslims. It is the present Palestine that is meant by the Land of Canaan. The Jews say they are the people who later came to be known as the Children of Israel. Israel was the second son of Isaac; and Isaac was the second son of Abraham. Jews argue that they are the people to whom God or Jehovah gave Palestine as an everlasting possession, that is because they claim to be the Children of Abraham through Isaac.

But here they ignore Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, and his children. (The Arabs are the Children of Ishmael). They deny the right of Ishmael saying that he was the son of a slave woman Hagar, whereas Isaac was the son of a free woman, Sarah. In fact, in the Torah itself it is clearly stated that the firstborn should get double portion of his father's share, even when his mother has a lower status.

What I mean here is that even if we appeal to the Torah the Jewish religious book, the Jews have no exclusive right to the Land of Palestine.

[bad_cheque]

First of all, I don't want to start any sort of hatred here. So I would appreciate if we keep this discussion going without any personal attacks.

Palestine is the birth right of Muslims. It is the present Palestine that is meant by the Land of Canaan. The Jews say they are the people who later came to be known as the Children of Israel. Israel was the second son of Isaac; and Isaac was the second son of Abraham. Jews argue that they are the people to whom God or Jehovah gave Palestine as an everlasting possession, that is because they claim to be the Children of Abraham through Isaac.

But here they ignore Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, and his children. (The Arabs are the Children of Ishmael). They deny the right of Ishmael saying that he was the son of a slave woman Hagar, whereas Isaac was the son of a free woman, Sarah. In fact, in the Torah itself it is clearly stated that the firstborn should get double portion of his father's share, even when his mother has a lower status.

What I mean here is that even if we appeal to the Torah the Jewish religious book, the Jews have no exclusive right to the Land of Palestine.
Umm, when did God become a realtor?

[bad_cheque]

its quite sad that an area that was once a hotbed of Hindu and Buddhist culture and philosopy has now been degrated to an Islamic warzone.

:no:
It was always a warzone.

[its_the_ice_man]

As a Muslim I say: F*** Pakistan.

Pakistan is run by a complete idiot. The Pakistani people (Non-Extremists) are good themselves, but their government is retarded.

Either give Kashmir to India, or let them be independant (BEST idea). Pakistan shouldn't get that land, because that country is run by morons, who are a disgrace to Islam.

[paulie walnuts]

lol @ imprt fighter copy/pasting every single thing he has said in this thread.

tsk tsk

[imprt_fghtr1]

As a Muslim I say: F*** Pakistan.

Pakistan is run by a complete idiot. The Pakistani people (Non-Extremists) are good themselves, but their government is retarded.

Either give Kashmir to India, or let them be independant (BEST idea). Pakistan shouldn't get that land, because that country is run by morons, who are a disgrace to Islam.

Unfortunately I would agree with you. They don't deserve the land of Kashmir.

Look at the past and what they did to bengalis, I remember when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (Bengali) whose Awami League (bengali political party) won a majority in Parliament in the 1970 elections, was blocked from taking office. After staging compromise talks with Mujib, President Yahya Khan arrested him and on March 25, 1971 launched Operation Searchlight, a sustained military assault on East Pakistan. Yahya's methods were extremely bloody, and the violence of the war resulted in large scale civilian deaths

You are right. They are disgrace to Islam.

[its_the_ice_man]

Unfortunately I would agree with you. They don't deserve the land of Kashmir.

Look at the past and what they did to bengalis, I remember when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (Bengali) whose Awami League (bengali political party) won a majority in Parliament in the 1970 elections, was blocked from taking office. After staging compromise talks with Mujib, President Yahya Khan arrested him and on March 25, 1971 launched Operation Searchlight, a sustained military assault on East Pakistan. Yahya's methods were extremely bloody, and the violence of the war resulted in large scale civilian deaths

You are right. They are disgrace to Islam.

Thanks. I'm Indian, but Muslim, so I feared I would be attacked for making this post, but I noticed that you're Pakistani, and agreed with me.

I hope that Pakistan can get a new President, this guy Musharraf is a freak, and a really weird guy. Once Pakistan gets a descent government (Not like America or anything of course), I think the country will prosper a lot. There are many things to do/see in Pakistan. Ex: K2/Himalaya Mountains.

The extremism/militantism just has to go. India has done some stupid things as well.

[paulie walnuts]

Unfortunately I would agree with you. They don't deserve the land of Kashmir.

Look at the past and what they did to bengalis, I remember when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (Bengali) whose Awami League (bengali political party) won a majority in Parliament in the 1970 elections, was blocked from taking office. After staging compromise talks with Mujib, President Yahya Khan arrested him and on March 25, 1971 launched Operation Searchlight, a sustained military assault on East Pakistan. Yahya's methods were extremely bloody, and the violence of the war resulted in large scale civilian deaths

You are right. They are disgrace to Islam.lol, and the streak continues...
lol @ imprt fighter copy/pasting every single thing he has said in this thread.

tsk tsk

[imprt_fghtr1]

lol @ imprt fighter copy/pasting every single thing he has said in this thread.

tsk tsk

Yes, I have copied/pasted only the history information about Kashmir from Wikipedia. Would you like the links? Is there anything I said that was wrong? I never knew about Kashmiri Pandits. I just found out as we discussed this topic here so it's always good to have informative discussions, we could learn from each other. I am sorry if my posts may have offended anyone here.

Respect :-)

[MolviCorleone]

lol @ imprt fighter copy/pasting every single thing he has said in this thread.

tsk tsk

i knew that from the 1st post, becuase i read the same stuff on that encyclopedia type site, forgot the name.

[fratty]

Well Kashmir is the birthrite for Hindus. Our gods reside in the Himalayas. So we are entrusted with that land.

[MolviCorleone]

Well Kashmir is the birthrite for Hindus. Our gods reside in the Himalayas. So we are entrusted with that land.

please dont start that one, your gods reside there?

you beleive that.

[paulie walnuts]

Well Kashmir is the birthrite for Hindus. Our gods reside in the Himalayas. So we are entrusted with that land.religions don't own land.

[imprt_fghtr1]

Thanks. I'm Indian, but Muslim, so I feared I would be attacked for making this post, but I noticed that you're Pakistani, and agreed with me.

I hope that Pakistan can get a new President, this guy Musharraf is a freak, and a really weird guy. Once Pakistan gets a descent government (Not like America or anything of course), I think the country will prosper a lot. There are many things to do/see in Pakistan. Ex: K2/Himalaya Mountains.

The extremism/militantism just has to go. India has done some stupid things as well.

Throughout the history, Pakistan always had corrupted leaders. Look at what Yayha Khan did to bengalis. Look at what happened to people in Karachi. Pakistan is messed up big time. Muslims are fighting with each other like crazy such as: Punjabi vs Urdu, Pathan vs Sindhi, Urdu vs Sindhi and the list goes on

I don't understand nationalism or fascism or whatever you would want to call this. This is really bad for the image of Islam. The more non-muslims get attracted towards Islam through its noble teachings, the more the bad manners of some muslims scare off those non-muslims.

So there are some people who have call themselves "muslim" while not actually practicing what it means. That's why many non-muslims wrongly identify Islam as being simply "what muslims do" and this is a big problem when we have non-practicing muslims.

[fratty]

Oh so you dismiss my religious beliefs you hinduphobe. Why not try to understand instead of insult. Yes, Shiva lives in the Himalayas.

[paulie walnuts]

Oh so you dismiss my religious beliefs you hinduphobe. Why not try to understand instead of insult. Yes, Shiva lives in the Himalayas.
mt. kailash is in tibet....not kashmir.

[its_the_ice_man]

Throughout the history, Pakistan always had corrupted leaders. Look at what Yayha Khan did to bengalis. Look at what happened to people in Karachi. Pakistan is messed up big time. Muslims are fighting with each other like crazy such as: Punjabi vs Urdu, Pathan vs Sindhi, Urdu vs Sindhi and the list goes on

I don't understand nationalism or fascism or whatever you would want to call this. This is really bad for the image of Islam. The more non-muslims get attracted towards Islam through its noble teachings, the more the bad manners of some muslims scare off those non-muslims.

So there are some people who have call themselves "muslim" while not actually practicing what it means. That's why many non-muslims wrongly identify Islam as being simply "what muslims do" and this is a big problem when we have non-practicing muslims.

Yeah, I agree. The image of Islam, has been damaged by idiots around the world. I don't think many people know that the name itself means "Peace."

All they see is the bad things done by our people on the News, never the good. Though we fight with eachother, we are also very close together when needed.

I used to be Hindu, and aside from being unhappy when I was one, I found that they did not stick together as well as Muslims. I made some great friends on my first ever visit to the Mosque in our area, and we constantly keep in touch.

No discredit to Hindu's. The rest of my family is all Hindu's, I'm sure they are happy, but myself, I wasn't.

[fratty]

Regardless, Hindus have dominion over the entire mountain chain. At least historically Hindus have always resided there. I protest the occupation and intimidation of the muslims in the area over my hindu brethren. I call for a Hindu struggle against the nonbelievers and infidels against the forces of Krishna and Rama.

[bad_cheque]

please dont start that one, your gods reside there?

you beleive that.
Yup, God as realtor.

[fratty]

You converted to islam from hinduism. This is blaspemy. I must call on to you to renounce islam and join Hinduism. If you don't submit. You must pay me a tax. Failure on payment will mean your life.

[adren@line]

Regardless, Hindus have dominion over the entire mountain chain. At least historically Hindus have always resided there. I protest the occupation and intimidation of the muslims in the area over my hindu brethren. I call for a Hindu struggle against the nonbelievers and infidels against the forces of Krishna and Rama.

lol.

man I dont know whether to laugh or sympathize.

[its_the_ice_man]

You converted to islam from hinduism. This is blaspemy. I must call on to you to renounce islam and join Hinduism. If you don't submit. You must pay me a tax. Failure on payment will mean your life.

How is this blasphemy? First off, I'm an Indian, I don't pay anything.

I'm guessing your nationality is Indian. Well, just remember, that Muslims built a lot of India, and likewise we (Indians) helped the Muslims out a lot.

I was not happy with Hinduism, or it's people, so I converted. I believe in the principles of Islam, more than I do of Hinduism.

But again, I respect all Hindu's. I hate radicals/extremists of ALL religions, including Islam.

[imprt_fghtr1]

Well Kashmir is the birthrite for Hindus. Our gods reside in the Himalayas. So we are entrusted with that land.

I just did a quick search on wikipedia over History of Kashmir and I found out couple of good points, I might as well add them here:

Kashmir was once a Buddhist seat of learning, perhaps with the Sarvāstivādan school dominating. East and Central Asian Buddhist monks are recorded as visiting the kingdom

Some of the Kashmiri rulers like Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin were tolerant to all religions in a way comparable to Akbar. Muslims and Hindus of Kashmir lived in relative harmony and friendliness since the 13th century when Islam first became the majority religion in Kashmir

[adren@line]

I used to be Hindu, and aside from being unhappy when I was one, I found that they did not stick together as well as Muslims.

.

dude, that is patently false.
Muslims are the most divided, hatefull, and bigoted/ethnocentric/racist religious group on the planet, and they have been for most of their 1400 year history. They still hate each others guts. Iranians hate Arabs hate Kurds hate Pakistanis hate Shias hate Sunnis hate Wahhabis etc.

The amount of Muslim on Muslim violence is ridiculous.

Hindus, on the other hand, get along fine with each other (in comparison to Muslims).

[fratty]

RAM RAM OM OM RAM RAM. Death to all nonbelievers!!!!! The Trident of Hinduism will triumph once again over the forces of evil.

[imprt_fghtr1]

You converted to islam from hinduism. This is blaspemy. I must call on to you to renounce islam and join Hinduism. If you don't submit. You must pay me a tax. Failure on payment will mean your life.

why can't people have a debate / discussion without personal attacks ?? :S

[its_the_ice_man]

Regardless, Hindus have dominion over the entire mountain chain. At least historically Hindus have always resided there. I protest the occupation and intimidation of the muslims in the area over my hindu brethren. I call for a Hindu struggle against the nonbelievers and infidels against the forces of Krishna and Rama.

history has passed. make love not war

[fratty]

I am surprised you guys have not picked up on my allusions.

[adren@line]

Fratty is pulling everyones leg.

[bad_cheque]

This is turning into high comedy.

[MolviCorleone]

You converted to islam from hinduism. This is blaspemy. I must call on to you to renounce islam and join Hinduism. If you don't submit. You must pay me a tax. Failure on payment will mean your life.

you idiot, you know what that TAX was?

it wasnt an extra payment, it was the only tax they had to pay in the yr, and that is it.

how much do you spend on tax every yr? everybody has to contribute something unless they are very poor. In the islamic state a muslim had to pay zakaat whilst a non muslim had to pay a tax which was much less in percentage of income terms than the usual zakaat. It was for the poor and to protect them, also non muslims did not need to take part in any war. so they could live in a muslim country, enjoy thier own courts of law, not have to pay zakaat but instead pay a smaller amount in tax and be have thier protection.
that was the ideal muslim state and it was like that once upon a time.

[its_the_ice_man]

dude, that is patently false.
Muslims are the most divided, hatefull, and bigoted/ethnocentric/racist religious group on the planet, and they have been for most of their 1400 year history. They still hate each others guts. Iranians hate Arabs hate Kurds hate Pakistanis hate Shias hate Sunnis hate Wahhabis etc.

The amount of Muslim on Muslim violence is ridiculous.

Hindus, on the other hand, get along fine with each other (in comparison to Muslims).

First off. The AMERICAN Media states this fact, it is not true. In the end, we do not hate eachother.

If a Muslim says they are Sunni, or Shiite, then yes, there may be problems. That's why I, like everybody else at the mosque just say "MUSLIM" we do not mention any sect.

Hinduism does not have sects, therefore you can't really hate eachother in that standpoint.

Sikh's don't like Hindu's. There.

[fratty]

THE GREATEST HONOR FOR A HINDU IS MARTYRDOM. IT would be an honor to die for Krishna and Rama. They were both great warriors. They slayed thousands by themselves. Nonbelievers be warned. The Sword of Hinduism does not show mercy. I hope to die in battle as a martyr and achieve Moksha.

[imprt_fghtr1]

dude, that is patently false.
Muslims are the most divided, hatefull, and bigoted/ethnocentric/racist religious group on the planet, and they have been for most of their 1400 year history. They still hate each others guts. Iranians hate Arabs hate Kurds hate Pakistanis hate Shias hate Sunnis hate Wahhabis etc.

The amount of Muslim on Muslim violence is ridiculous.

Hindus, on the other hand, get along fine with each other (in comparison to Muslims).


I would just say this: People shouldn't judge "religion" based on the actions of some extremists. well not some, most of the muslims today are not practicing Islam as they should.

I would like to say the moral teaching offered to humanity by Islam is one that will bring peace, happiness and justice to the world. The barbarism that is happening in the world today under the name of "Islamic Terrorism" is completely removed from the moral teachings of the Qur'an; it is the work of ignorant, bigoted people, criminals who have nothing to do with religion. The solution which will be applied against these individuals and groups who are trying to commit their deeds of savagery under the guise of Islam, will be the instruction of people in the true moral teaching of Islam.

In other words, the religion of Islam and the moral teaching of the Quran are not the supporters of terrorism and the terrorists, but the remedy by which the world can be saved from the scourge of terrorism.

[bad_cheque]

you idiot, you know what that TAX was?

it wasnt an extra payment, it was the only tax they had to pay in the yr, and that is it.

how much do you spend on tax every yr? everybody has to contribute something unless they are very poor. In the islamic state a muslim had to pay zakaat whilst a non muslim had to pay a tax which was much less in percentage of income terms than the usual zakaat. It was for the poor and to protect them, also non muslims did not need to take part in any war. so they could live in a muslim country, enjoy thier own courts of law, not have to pay zakaat but instead pay a smaller amount in tax and be have thier protection.
that was the ideal muslim state and it was like that once upon a time.
The Indian tax system at the basic level was not based on religion. It was a sophisticated one which was eventually destroyed by the British.

Jaziya was a tax over and above the usual tax.

Also why should people who do not believe in your religion pay a tax which is based on the tenets of your religion? You pay zakat because it is a religious duty. Why should others pay jaziya?

[adren@line]

you idiot, you know what that TAX was?

it wasnt an extra payment, it was the only tax they had to pay in the yr, and that is it.

how much do you spend on tax every yr? everybody has to contribute something unless they are very poor. In the islamic state a muslim had to pay zakaat whilst a non muslim had to pay a tax which was much less in percentage of income terms than the usual zakaat. It was for the poor and to protect them, also non muslims did not need to take part in any war. so they could live in a muslim country, enjoy thier own courts of law, not have to pay zakaat but instead pay a smaller amount in tax and be have thier protection.
that was the ideal muslim state and it was like that once upon a time.


Jizya is basically extortion money.

reference this topic:
http://forums.ratedesi.com/showthread.php?p=5146741#post5146741

where I posted this:

"why the hell should non-Muslims have to pay a tax to NOT be able to fight FOR Muslims?

To begin with, 3/4ths of the time when non-Muslims were ruled by Muslims, its because the Muslims invaded the non-Muslim land.

So I guess it was like this:

1. Muslims invaded land. Killed off soldiers. Killed off rulers.

2. Muslims subjugated and in some cases enslaved natives, who were non-Muslims
.
3. Muslims then placed a tax on the subjugated people so these people wouldnt have to fight for Muslims, the same people that enslave them?

how does that make any sense?

Why the hell should have one of my Hindu ancestors have had to pay a tax so he wouldnt have to fight and die for some Muslim tyrant, who didnt belong on the land to begin with?"


the idea of Jizya is completey idiotic, especially in South Asia.

[its_the_ice_man]

THE GREATEST HONOR FOR A HINDU IS MARTYRDOM. IT would be an honor to die for Krishna and Rama. They were both great warriors. They slayed thousands by themselves. Nonbelievers be warned. The Sword of Hinduism does not show mercy. I hope to die in battle as a martyr and achieve Moksha.

Stop making an ass of yourself.

[adren@line]

The idea of Jizya in South Asia is comparitive to Isrealis taxing Palestinians so the Palestinians wont have to fight for the Jews...

...or the Americans taxing the Iraqis so they dont have to serve in the US military.


its a completely idiotic concept.

[bad_cheque]

THE GREATEST HONOR FOR A HINDU IS MARTYRDOM. IT would be an honor to die for Krishna and Rama. They were both great warriors. They slayed thousands by themselves. Nonbelievers be warned. The Sword of Hinduism does not show mercy. I hope to die in battle as a martyr and achieve Moksha.
Don't push it too much. We got you.

If this continues this thread will get junked. I know quite a few people are itching to get this thread banned. After a long time some of us are arguing well here.

[fratty]

ok I'll stop.

[imprt_fghtr1]

RE: JIZYAH / TAX




The wisdom behind the tax/jizyah paid by non-Muslims to the Islamic state was fairness. This is for two reasons:

First, Muslims were paying zakah (the annual charity) to the Islamic state, which was used for all sorts of services and social welfare. Zakah is an Islamic act of worship, but it is only for Muslims. It was fair to make non-Muslim citizens of the same state pay a similar (in fact, smaller) amount as a tax, since zakah is not taken from them as it is taken from Muslims. Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway.

In addition to that, this tax was paid in exchange of protection of these non-Muslim communities (i.e., military protection) and exemption of their men from joining the Islamic army. At that time, this was a necessary and fair measure given all the wars that the Islamic state was going through based on religious divides. It was not fair to ask these non-Muslim citizens to fight with Muslims against fellow believers of their same religion.

Then, do all the above make jizyah an eternal Islamic obligation, exactly like zakat? The answer is no! We need not to confuse between Islam as a civilization and Islam as a religion, to make a general point.

The interpretation of such verses that dealt with certain historical contexts should take into account that historical context, based on which scholars decide whether that context should or should not be extended to our context now. Given that this ruling was in particular political circumstances, it actually served a pure practical purpose. And if these circumstances and purpose no longer exist, then the ruling ceases to exist, too.

I have to stress that this applies to the area of politics and similar areas of policies, if you wish, and not the areas of `ibadat (acts of worship) and tashri` (legislation), which are eternally universal and abiding. In these areas of policies, the tradition of the Prophet (peace be upon him) teaches us higher values like fairness, justice, and compassion, rather than specific measures and procedures such as taxes, organization of the government or the army, or the division of provinces and states.

The historical context of the verse made it extendable to other similar situations throughout the Islamic history. Thus, similar taxes were taken from non-Muslims during the caliphates that followed the prophetic era. However, the concept of citizenship has developed in our current political culture to include people from all religions and it is no longer purely based on religion. Therefore, scholars no longer apply the rule of jizyah or exempt non-Muslims from serving their countries’ armies. The context now is different and therefore, the ruling differs and jizyah no longer applies.

If one calls for applying this ruling of jizyah nowadays, then one would miss the point and purpose behind the ruling, for which it was originally made, which is fairness!

I hope this clarifies the matter. In case anyone needs more details, here's the link: http://www.muslims.ca

[MolviCorleone]

Jizya is basically extortion money.

reference this topic:
http://forums.ratedesi.com/showthread.php?p=5146741#post5146741

where I posted this:

"why the hell should non-Muslims have to pay a tax to NOT be able to fight FOR Muslims?

To begin with, 3/4ths of the time when non-Muslims were ruled by Muslims, its because the Muslims invaded the non-Muslim land.

So I guess it was like this:

1. Muslims invaded land. Killed off soldiers. Killed off rulers.

2. Muslims subjugated and in some cases enslaved natives, who were non-Muslims
.
3. Muslims then placed a tax on the subjugated people so these people wouldnt have to fight for Muslims, the same people that enslave them?

how does that make any sense?

Why the hell should have one of my Hindu ancestors have had to pay a tax so he wouldnt have to fight and die for some Muslim tyrant, who didnt belong on the land to begin with?"


the idea of Jizya is completey idiotic, especially in South Asia.

and you claim muslims make every thread into a religious debate, here u are bringing religion into every thread i make.

anyway, islam wasnt spread by the sword and i dont need to justify my religioun to YOU of all people.
i really do think you should be banned, at 1st i thought, nah leave him....but every thread i make in SD you start a religious debate filled with obvious hate.

anyway hindus were far more happy under Muslim rule than there were under thier own rulers.

[bad_cheque]

What if somebody did not want to pay jaziya and didn't want your "protection"?

Jaziya is a wrongful concept for India.

[adren@line]

dude, your copy and paste answers dont apply to Hindus at all.

South Asia was Hindu land.

The Muslims were invaders.

They invaded, and subjugated the Hindus.

It was never Muslim land.

So why should Hindus have to pay protection money to foreigners who massacred Hindu soliders, rulers, and civilians?

Its akin to street gangs who demand "protection money" from shops and business that are on their turf.

[bad_cheque]

and you claim muslims make every thread into a religious debate, here u are bringing religion into every thread i make.

anyway, islam wasnt spread by the sword and i dont need to justify my religioun to YOU of all people.
i really do think you should be banned, at 1st i thought, nah leave him....but every thread i make in SD you start a religious debate filled with obvious hate.

anyway hindus were far more happy under Muslim rule than there were under thier own rulers.

:rofl:

btw, adren@line. Let's stick with politics.

[MolviCorleone]

The idea of Jizya in South Asia is comparitive to Isrealis taxing Palestinians so the Palestinians wont have to fight for the Jews...

...or the Americans taxing the Iraqis so they dont have to serve in the US military.


its a completely idiotic concept.

so during the crusades muslim defended the jews, simply becuase they paid thier dues and had the right to protection jut like you as an american pay taxes and expect protection.

[adren@line]

What if somebody did not want to pay jaziya and didn't want your "protection"?

Jaziya is a wrongful concept for India.

exactly.

Hindus didnt ask Muslims for protection, nor did they ask Muslims to invade and kill them off as well as their soldiers.

The Muslims simply did it, and then had the audacity to demand protection money.

[bad_cheque]

so during the crusades muslim defended the jews, simply becuase they paid thier dues and had the right to protection jut like you as an american pay taxes and expect protection.
That's not an analogous scenario.

How about the US in Iraq?

Now that's a scenario.

[adren@line]

so during the crusades muslim defended the jews, simply becuase they paid thier dues and had the right to protection jut like you as an american pay taxes and expect protection.

Jews arent Hindus.

Hindus had their own land, their own countries, and were perfectly fine until a bunch of A-rabs and Turks started stealing Hindu land and then started demanding protection money from people they had no right to rule over to begin with.

do you not get it?

[adren@line]

That's not an analogous scenario.

How about the US in Iraq?

Now that's a scenario.

yes.

The Americans should give Muslims a taste of their own medicine and start demanding a tax from Iraqis so the Iraqis dont have to serve in the US military.

[adren@line]

anyway hindus were far more happy under Muslim rule than there were under thier own rulers.

sure they were.

The fact remains that Islam always has and probably always will represent the inferior element in South Asia.

Its no coincidence that the majority of Hindu inventions occured before the Islamic invasions, and its no coincidence that India is doing much better than its Islamic neighbors while it is under self-rule.

Your opinion that Hindus preffered to be ruled by Muslims is contradicted by history and the present divide between India and Pakistan.

[imprt_fghtr1]

This thread is going to turn into a religious war here. People keep a lot of "RAGE" inside them.

Im outta here. It was informative discussion earlier.

[adren@line]

This thread is going to turn into a religious war here. People keep a lot of "RAGE" inside them.

Im outta here. It was informative discussion earlier.

youre partly to blame with your preachy "islam is for all of mankind" crap.

[MolviCorleone]

Jews arent Hindus.

Hindus had their own land, their own countries, and were perfectly fine until a bunch of A-rabs and Turks started stealing Hindu land and then started demanding protection money from people they had no right to rule over to begin with.

do you not get it?

muslims came there peacefully, its later on when muslims were growing, thats when the battles bagan.

people like Hazart Khwaja Moinuddin Hasan Chishty (RA) didnt suddenly invade india, the hindus starting attacking the muslims 1st in order to stop people from converting.

it was in the latter years when muslim leaders lacked spiritual knowledge they began opressing people.

it doesnt matter anyway, muslims were not opressing the hindus at the beginning, the idea was never to humiliate and opress hindus by forcing them to pay ;eavy; taxes as you ppl like to claim, the taxes they paid were very small compared to what hindus had to pay thier previous rulers.

[bad_cheque]

sure they were.

The fact remains that Islam always has and probably always will represent the inferior element in South Asia.

Its no coincidence that the majority of Hindu inventions occured before the Islamic invasions, and its no coincidence that India is doing much better than its Islamic neighbors while it is under self-rule.

Your opinion that Hindus preffered to be ruled by Muslims is contradicted by history and the present divide between India and Pakistan.
Don't blame Islam for the defeat of Indians. They became entrenched in their beliefs and lose the touch. The fact that they failed shows that they were doing something very wrong. India was a rich land and it always needed good defences. It had good defences but it all went down. Hindus were brought down by then rigid obscurantism, orthodoxy and entrenched interests.

Also, it wasn't Islam the religion that led to invasions. Islam was used as a means of political organisation. According to Shia history, the leadership of Muslims was taken over by the same old elite that initially refused to accept Islam.

Religion is one thing and politics is another. I wish you would see the difference but it seems like a lost cause.

[adren@line]

muslims came there peacefully, its later on when muslims were growing, thats when the battles bagan.

people like Hazart Khwaja Moinuddin Hasan Chishty (RA) didnt suddenly invade india, the hindus starting attacking the muslims 1st in order to stop people from converting.

it was in the latter years when muslim leaders lacked spiritual knowledge they began opressing people.

it doesnt matter anyway, muslims were not opressing the hindus at the beginning, the idea was never to humiliate and opress hindus by forcing them to pay ;eavy; taxes as you ppl like to claim, the taxes they paid were very small compared to what hindus had to pay thier previous rulers.

you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about, and are in severe denial.

Moinuddin Chishti lived in the 1100's.

The first Islamic invasions started right after prophet Mohhamed died, in the 600's and 700's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hajjaj_ibn_Yusuf
With the ascent of al-Walid I, al-Hajjāj's reputation grew due to his selection and deployment of numerous successful generals who expanded the Islamic empire. He was given these powers due to his high status in the Umayyad government and he exhibited a lot of control over the provinces that he governed.

Among these generals was the teenaged Muhammad ibn-Qasīm, who in 712 was sent to Sindh in India. Compared to his general, al-Hajjāj was more hardline, insisting that those who were not People of the Book be killed or enslaved.


Prophet Mohhamed died in 632. Less than 100 years after his death, Muslims began killing everyone off.

[fratty]

The muslims were the invaders. At that time India stretched to Afghanistan. Islam came and sacked Delhi. You never hear about Hindus attacking and sacking any muslim cities.

[adren@line]

So please tell me Molvi, how the hell did a significant presence of Muslims build in up India of all places less than 75 years after Mohhamed died?

[rex_maximus]

The Jews say they are the people who later came to be known as the Children of Israel. Israel was the second son of Isaac; and Isaac was the second son of Abraham.

But here they ignore Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, and his children. (The Arabs are the Children of Ishmael).


what i dont understand is: is it even possible or plausible to imagine, that entire races of people (13 million and 1.6 billion strong) can emerge from just 2 individuals?

[fratty]

The problem is Islam has a political edge to it. The Quran expounds economic and political tenents. It doesn't just encompass spirituality. If Islam was just a means to political ends than most Islamic nations would have a separation of Church and State and well most don't. And muslims would not demand sharia law in almost every country they emmigrant to.

[adren@line]

Don't blame Islam for the defeat of Indians. They became entrenched in their beliefs and lose the touch. The fact that they failed shows that they were doing something very wrong. India was a rich land and it always needed good defences. It had good defences but it all went down. Hindus were brought down by then rigid obscurantism, orthodoxy and entrenched interests.

.

I am not blaming Islam for the defeat of Indians. That is actually irrelevent.
The fact remains Muslims were offensive invaders. They were better at killing people (obviously) and the Hindus were to busy fighting with each other.

Also, it wasn't Islam the religion that led to invasions. Islam was used as a means of political organisation. According to Shia history, the leadership of Muslims was taken over by the same old elite that initially refused to accept Islam.

Religion is one thing and politics is another. I wish you would see the difference but it seems like a lost cause
I bet to differ.
It was a mix of many things.
Greed. Lust for power and expansion, and a root in Islamic theology that paints infidels and idolaters as pagans and hell-bound infidels that need to be converted or killed.

Many Islamic invaders invaded with religious zeal and greed in-mind.
They invaded with religious justification.

Hell, read Timur's autobiography. Its chock-full of Islamic references and themes. He was directly motivated by Islam.

[bad_cheque]

This thread was about Kashmir.

I will say this:

What is happening there has very little to do with religion. Whoever is trying to understand the situation on the basis of Islam vs Hinduism, Muslim unity, Muslim victimhood, Pandit victimhood etc is missing a lot. I mean a huge amount.

The problem there is socio-economic and also related to global geopolitics. Anybody who takes a simplistic stance is an idiot.

Yes, there is suffering and the people should get relief. I think the relief should be social and economic because politically the people of J&K have equal and more rights. In fact they are at a much better position than the people in India's northeast.

[adren@line]

and besides, Shias are a minority and the mainstream Sunnis dont really give a damn what they think.

[adren@line]

This thread was about Kashmir.

I will say this:

What is happening there has very little to do with religion. Whoever is trying to understand the situation on the basis of Islam vs Hinduism, Muslim unity, Muslim victimhood, Pandit victimhood etc is missing a lot. I mean a huge amount.

The problem there is socio-economic and also related to global geopolitics. Anybody who takes a simplistic stance is an idiot.

Yes, there is suffering and the people should get relief. I think the relief should be social and economic because politically the people of J&K have equal and more rights. In fact they are at a much better position than the people in India's northeast.
its political and religious.

theres a reason why Pandits were singled out and exiled from Kashmir.
Its because they were Hindu

[fratty]

Kashmir should just be independent. As long as they allow hindus and sikhs to reside and allow for religious expression.

[adren@line]

The main problem with Kashmir is that Wahhabi and Sunni strains of Islam have infected the region.

Before it mostly Sufi-inspired, hence the peace.

[adren@line]

And I say that because most of the historical invaders and the modern day terrorists are either Sunni or Wahhabi.

They both have histories of and extreme amount of violence.

For example, Nadir Shah was a Sunni in a majority-Shia Iran. HE ruled over these Shias, and it just so happend he invaded and sacked New Delhi and killed over 30,000 people.

Which historical Shia Muslim did something similar?

[bad_cheque]

The problem is Islam has a political edge to it. The Quran expounds economic and political tenents. It doesn't just encompass spirituality. If Islam was just a means to political ends than most Islamic nations would have a separation of Church and State and well most don't. And muslims would not demand sharia law in almost every country they emmigrant to.
Every religion/creed has a political edge. Even science has a political edge. Any means of organising people will seem attractive to budding empire-builders/politicians. It is not surprising.

Today pan-hinduism is being molded politically which in turn dilutes many of the traditional and unique ways of various peoples of India.

Whether it is pan-Islam or pan-hinduism there is a political edge. Yes, Islam has been used politically and even today massive money is being used to fund dissemination of some viewpoints. If you throw a lot of money at something for a long time, you are bound to get results. The views of quite a few Muslims here is a sign of the success of this scheme.

Separation of Church and State is a European/American concept and a very modern one. It was developed because of the specific history of Europe/North America. That needn't be the case for others and also needn't be the right political system for them. Even Europe is not completely secular. It is Christian secular and very intolerant of minorities. They evicted the Jews and don't like the Muslims amidst them. The Hindus and the Sikhs are tolerated only because they do not volubly ask to be treated on par with the Christian culture of Europe. If they do, they will bear the consequences.

Having said that Muslims should also accept past mistakes and acknowledge the right of others for justice rather than making excuses and lying.

[fratty]

Well why don't Muslim countries allow for freedom of religious expression. They are as worse as China on religious expression. Why does every muslim country have upwards of 90% or more muslim population. Why don't they allow for missionaries. Why are there no liberal muslim governments that allow for religious freedom. Its such a double standard. Muslims will ask and demand for understanding and tolerance of their religion but they smite those non-muslims who ask for the same protection in their countries.

[bad_cheque]

its political and religious.

theres a reason why Pandits were singled out and exiled from Kashmir.
Its because they were Hindu
You just don't know the ground realities.

Yes nobody deserves to be evicted from their land.

[MolviCorleone]

So please tell me Molvi, how the hell did a significant presence of Muslims build in up India of all places less than 75 years after Mohhamed died?

so your saying muslims just invaded india eith a viewpoint of converting all indians by force.....im saying muslims began the process peacefully but force was used to defend the growing number of muslims. In later years there were muslim tyrant rulers who did not live thier lives as true muslims. But that doesnt matter, regardless if islam was spread by the sword in india, bare in mind muslims have had a presence in india around 1000 years. muslims ruled the place for a long long long time and had they been hell bent of converting by the sword, you can sure as hell say most of india would have been muslim....by force.
BUT islam isnt about spreading by force, its about what a person truely beleives, its like pointing agun at someones head and asking him to beleive Mohammed was the last messenger. He might say the words but if he does not truely beleive then it is fruitless.

bottom line is, muslims ruled india for 1000 years and islam is till only around 20-30% of the population.
All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

[MolviCorleone]

Well why don't Muslim countries allow for freedom of religious expression. They are as worse as China on religious expression. Why does every muslim country have upwards of 90% or more muslim population. Why don't they allow for missionaries. Why are there no liberal muslim governments that allow for religious freedom. Its such a double standard. Muslims will ask and demand for understanding and tolerance of their religion but they smite those non-muslims who ask for the same protection in their countries.

but again your missing the point..islam does allow missionaries.....just becuase people in todays world wont allow it doesnt mean islamic laws are at fault.

[fratty]

Molvi you are not a true muslim.

[adren@line]

Speaking of Moinuddin Chishti, he was a good guy.

A Sufi mystic who taught very Hindu-like concepts in South Asia, specifically the concept of Wahdat al-wujud, which basically states that God alone exists, and that everything is false or an illussion.

The only difference is that Hindus came to this conclusions nearly 2000 years before he did.

Sufis = Islamic Hindus.
no wonder they are considered the intellectual Muslims.

[bad_cheque]

Well why don't Muslim countries allow for freedom of religious expression. They are as worse as China on religious expression. Why does every muslim country have upwards of 90% or more muslim population. Why don't they allow for missionaries. Why are there no liberal muslim governments that allow for religious freedom. Its such a double standard. Muslims will ask and demand for understanding and tolerance of their religion but they smite those non-muslims who ask for the same protection in their countries.
It is a political problem. The fact is that the rulers of the middle east are puppets. To hide that fact they play as very religious ppl and fund fanaticism. This fools the ordinary people. Why didn't Arabs protest their own govts but protested against the Danish cartoons?

Rules were not strict in old times. Some Gujarati families settled there, practiced their religion and are considered citizens but now they have become discriminatory against other religions. The funding of extremism has become a feedback mechanism that only makes things worse.

[MolviCorleone]

Molvi you are not a true muslim.

lol where did that come from?

btw religious rthreads are not allowed thanks to your friend adrelanine.

so i really dont want to talk religioun here.

i guess ive learnt my lesson i wont create any threads for SD in the future. no matter what the topic is, you guys will make it into a muslim vs non muslim thread.

anyway if im not a true muslim, then so be it.......ill try to be a better muslim in the future.

[MolviCorleone]

Speaking of Moinuddin Chishti, he was a good guy.

A Sufi mystic who taught very Hindu-like concepts in South Asia, specifically the concept of Wahdat al-wujud, which basically states that God alone exists, and that everything is false or an illussion.

The only difference is that Hindus came to this conclusions nearly 2000 years before he did.

Sufis = Islamic Hindus.
no wonder they are considered the intellectual Muslims.

we are not discussing this, stick to the thread topic.

[fratty]

No according Sharia law apostasy is punishable by death.

[adren@line]

so your saying muslims just invaded india eith a viewpoint of converting all indians by force.....im saying muslims began the process peacefully but force was used to defend the growing number of muslims. In later years there were muslim tyrant rulers who did not live thier lives as true muslims. But that doesnt matter, regardless if islam was spread by the sword in india, bare in mind muslims have had a presence in india around 1000 years. muslims ruled the place for a long long long time and had they been hell bent of converting by the sword, you can sure as hell say most of india would have been muslim....by force.
BUT islam isnt about spreading by force, its about what a person truely beleives, its like pointing agun at someones head and asking him to beleive Mohammed was the last messenger. He might say the words but if he does not truely beleive then it is fruitless.

bottom line is, muslims ruled india for 1000 years and islam is till only around 20-30% of the population.
All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

what I am stating is that Muslims offensively invaded India for reasons relating to greed and religious zeal, less than 100 years after Mohhamed died. It was completely un-provoked. No Hindu ever invaded Muslim land, nor where they ever planning to. Moinuddin Chishti has absolutely nothing to do with it, as he existed nearly 400 years after the first invasions began.

Nor was there any significant (or ANY) Muslim presence in India, as the first invasion began shortly after Mohhamed died. Islam had not spread that far. It took Islam long enough to spread in the middle-east, let alone India.

So your point about "Hindus oppressing Muslims, hence the invasions" is crap.

How most Muslims became Muslim in India is a different argument all-togethor.

[its_the_ice_man]

missionaries are annoying as fuck

[bad_cheque]

lol where did that come from?

btw religious rthreads are not allowed thanks to your friend adrelanine.

so i really dont want to talk religioun here.

i guess ive learnt my lesson i wont create any threads for SD in the future. no matter what the topic is, you guys will make it into a muslim vs non muslim thread.

anyway if im not a true muslim, then so be it.......ill try to be a better muslim in the future.
it was imprt_fightr1 who wheeled out the 'Kashmiri Muslim' meme.

[fratty]

You are just scared because you can't intimidate us with their religious rhetoric. You want all non-muslims to behave like damned dhimmis. Strength should only be responded by more strength. That is how fundmentalism will be cured.

[its_the_ice_man]

Again, as a Muslim, I'll say this:

Muslims have not been good in India, but there is one great thing we have done for India. Made it non-Western. When Bush came to India, it was the Muslims who were protesting against him, and burning his figurine(s).

If there were no Muslims in India, India would be much more Westernized.

[adren@line]

Again, as a Muslim, I'll say this:

Muslims have not been good in India, but there is one great thing we have done for India. Made it non-Western. When Bush came to India, it was the Muslims who were protesting against him, and burning his figurine(s).

If there were no Muslims in India, India would be much more Westernized.

if I had to choose between more western or Islamic influence in India, id sure as hell pick western.

I think most Hindus would too.

[fratty]

Whats wrong with Western culture. Yes, you are right Muslims were the only ones protesting and the few communists and liberals. But for the most part India welcomed Bush. India wants closer relations with America. We don't believe in that 3rd World Unity crap and Nonalignment policy. India is moving forward while our muslim neigbhors are losing their democratic character.

[fratty]

The vast majority of muslims protesting show how well out of sync they are with mainstream India.

[bad_cheque]

India had a painful colonial history. It is not easy to face away from the oppression around us. To do that is immoral and allowing fascist forces to become even more powerful will only create threats for India in the longer term.

Stop acting like you are accepted by the masters of this world. India has been independent only for 58 years yet. Have some humility and empathy.

[its_the_ice_man]

if I had to choose between more western or Islamic influence in India, id sure as hell pick western.

I think most Hindus would too.

The Muslims never said India had to have an Islamic influence. I'm Indian, every bit much as you are, but I'd rather have India as a Hindu Nation, than a Western Nation.

[its_the_ice_man]

Whats wrong with Western culture. Yes, you are right Muslims were the only ones protesting and the few communists and liberals. But for the most part India welcomed Bush. India wants closer relations with America. We don't believe in that 3rd World Unity crap and Nonalignment policy. India is moving forward while our muslim neigbhors are losing their democratic character.

What's wrong with Western Culture? It's complete garbage, that's what's wrong.

Does India really need every girl running around like a Britney Spear slut-hoe? No. Hinduism is fine. Islam is fine. Westernism, is not fine.

[fratty]

Ice man you are one confused individual. I doubt you have read your Quran correctly.

[its_the_ice_man]

The vast majority of muslims protesting show how well out of sync they are with mainstream India.

That majority of Muslims shows that they would rather remain in a more Hindu-dominated society, than a Western dominated society.

I would rather have my country run by Hindu values, than Western ones.

[fratty]

If you want a Middle Eastern religion to follow than become a Christian. If you want an Eastern religion hinduism, sikhism, and buddhism at least they renounce violence. Where in the Quran does it say "turn the other cheek". Christianity is pretty cool religion and so is your parents' religion of hinduism. They expound philosophy and spirituality they you won't find in the orthoprathy Islam.

[its_the_ice_man]

Ice man you are one confused individual. I doubt you have read your Quran correctly.

Aren't you the dumbass who said Hindu's should fight a war against Muslims? Yeah, you did. You want to go against "Infidels."

Don't be an idiot buddy. If the Hindu's were to go against the Muslims, let's just say, you wouldn't come out on top.:P


...actually hindus would pwn muslims

[fratty]

Girls can act whatever way they wish. The best way to guide people is through ones own actions than by dictating them.

[its_the_ice_man]

If you want a Middle Eastern religion to follow than become a Christian. If you want an Eastern religion hinduism, sikhism, and buddhism at least they renounce violence. Where in the Quran does it say "turn the other cheek". Christianity is pretty cool religion and so is your parents' religion of hinduism. They expound philosophy and spirituality they you won't find in the orthoprathy Islam.


Islam is about peace. We don't want fighting and wars, nowhere does the Qu'ran mention blowing yourself up for god, or any of that crap.

Islam is the most mis-interepreted religion in the World, period.

[fratty]

Aren't you the dumbass who said Hindu's should fight a war against Muslims? Yeah, you did. You want to go against "Infidels."

Don't be an idiot buddy. If the Hindu's were to go against the Muslims, let's just say, you wouldn't come out on top.

Haha if its peaceful. Then why do you say Hindus wouldn't come out on top. A peaceful religion would not endorse violence or have any kind of martial history. So then the hindus would be on top.

[its_the_ice_man]

Girls can act whatever way they wish. The best way to guide people is through ones own actions than by dictating them.

Saying that, is like saying you can shoot whoever you want in the face. The best way to stop that, is by not shooting people yourself.

Completely rediculous.

[adren@line]

Aren't you the dumbass who said Hindu's should fight a war against Muslims? Yeah, you did. You want to go against "Infidels."

Don't be an idiot buddy. If the Hindu's were to go against the Muslims, let's just say, you wouldn't come out on top.

actually we would.

the Indian military is pretty powerfull, more powerfull than any other Muslim army, nukes or no nukes.

[its_the_ice_man]

Haha if its peaceful. Then why do you say Hindus wouldn't come out on top. A peaceful religion would not endorse violence or have any kind of martial history. So then the hindus would be on top.


No you bonehead. I'm saying, if the Hindu's want to go to war against Islam, they would not come out on top.

Look, India was ruled for a VERY long time.

[its_the_ice_man]

actually we would.

the Indian military is pretty powerfull, more powerfull than any other Muslim army, nukes or no nukes.


I am INDIAN. I'm not going against India, or Hindu's. India's Parliament has NUMEROUS Muslims within it.

The Prime Minister of India is a Hindu. The President of India is a MUSLIM.

[fratty]

Islamic nations were ruled over by hence the reasoning for many terrorists acts and their belief that the West colonialism made them weak and powerless. Islamic nations have an superiority complex.

[fratty]

anyways lets set up a scenario. What if India did attack an islamic nation what would other islamic nations use in the Quran for justification to go and fight India.

[imprt_fghtr1]

I would suggest muslims to remain cool headed. They are but a test of anger. At least thats all i regard them as. Don't hate them either, just try to understand why they are what they are.

It is easy to get caught up in fighting ignorance with ignorance. The key is to realize this is an illusion or at the very least to look at why people are as they are (usually they are the victims of ignorance themselves)

[fratty]

well you can call it ignorance. But I am well-read and I have all Quranic verses to support my arguments. Know thy Enemy.

[its_the_ice_man]

anyways lets set up a scenario. What if India did attack an islamic nation what would other islamic nations use in the Quran for justification to go and fight India.

First off. India signed a deal stating in the case of a war, it would not be the first nation to strike. It would only attack, if it was attacked.

The Islamic Nations would attack India back, because India attacked them. I'll tell you this: I'd support India.

I am a Muslim, but I am for India over all other countries.

[imprt_fghtr1]

well you can call it ignorance. But I am well-read and I have all Quranic verses to support my arguments. Know thy Enemy.

what arguments ?

[fratty]

well any that may arise. Such as well Islam is about peace and tolerance. Which is just not the case.

[imprt_fghtr1]

well any that may arise. Such as well Islam is about peace and tolerance. Which is just not the case.


why do you say Islam is not about peace ?

[its_the_ice_man]

why do you say Islam is not about peace ?


Here's a moron. Fratty you have never even seen the Qu'ran so shut your mouth.

We have not taken insults towards Hinduism, but if you are so perfect, then why do Hindu's believe in the CASTE SYSTEM? That is more worse than anything Muslims have done.

[imprt_fghtr1]

Here's a moron. Fratty you have never even seen the Qu'ran so shut your mouth.

We have not taken insults towards Hinduism, but if you are so perfect, then why do Hindu's believe in the CASTE SYSTEM? That is more worse than anything Muslims have done. Atleast for the most part, in history, we killed off invaders/enemies. We didn't opress our own people.

I think he may be a victime of "Ignorance" himself. It seems like he has a lot of "rage" or "hatred" against Muslims, I wonder why :S

I know "adreline" or whatever that user's name is, he was upset at what happened to "kashmiri pundits" so I could understand why he's sad/mad.

[adren@line]

but if you are so perfect, then why do Hindu's believe in the CASTE SYSTEM? That is more worse than anything Muslims have done. Atleast for the most part, in history, we killed off invaders/enemies. We didn't opress our own people.

dude, if you really converted to Islam and your posts are really reflective of your knowledge, then I feel sorry for you.

your arguments are pretty much the same as most Hindu-to-Islam converts, most of whom dont know jack about Hinduism or Indian history.

[imprt_fghtr1]

Here's a moron. Fratty you have never even seen the Qu'ran so shut your mouth.

We have not taken insults towards Hinduism, but if you are so perfect, then why do Hindu's believe in the CASTE SYSTEM? That is more worse than anything Muslims have done. Atleast for the most part, in history, we killed off invaders/enemies. We didn't opress our own people.


Nothing is more needed now, than gentleness and wisdom. The reason for this is to dispel all the superstitions and lies spread against Islam. All this needs wisdom, patience and perseverance, and such polite methods brings quick results and has rapid effect on the audience.

It just reminded me of I read how the Prophet’s gentle manners and wise approach softened the hearts of the idolaters :-)

[fratty]

Haha I'm not even hindu. I'm sikh. Yes, caste system is a problem. I don't condone it. But to you I ask you. Why does Osama use the Quran to justify his terrorism? Why does Islam condone violence? ANd what do you make of Sura 9:5? "Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful" Or Sura 9:29? "You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly." I just want clarity on these verses.

[its_the_ice_man]

I don't get why they are fighting us. We already said, Muslims have not been very good in Kashmir.

The Hindu's have not been the greatest people to us either. It's a shame that our extremists have caused so much damage, but there are people of every religion doing the same things, but the media will never show it.

All Muslims, and Hindu's with intelligence, that practice their respective religions in a non-extremist fashion don't want fighting between the two.

I don't really care what happens with Kashmir, as long as its inhabitants are happy. After so many years of war, it's as useless as the land the Palestinaians/Israeli's are fighting over.

[its_the_ice_man]

I haven't even fully read the Qu'ran so I can't clarify those verses for you.

On Osama:
The guys had so much opium in Afghanistan, that he doesn't even know what he's saying half the time. He's a complete moron. Anybody who uses religion to justify killing is an idiot.

I don't think Islam is the perfect religion, and I don't think there are any perfect ones. All of them have their faults.

[imprt_fghtr1]

[QUOTE=fratty]Haha I'm not even hindu. I'm sikh. Yes, caste system is a problem. I don't condone it. But to you I ask you. Why does Osama use the Quran to justify his terrorism? Why does Islam condone violence?


Fratty: For the first part of your post

Please read it with open mind and heart

After the occurrence of the attacks of Sept 11. as well as the many other attacks and bloody incidents which put Islam at the focus of criticism and insults

This is due to great misconceptions many Westerners have about Islam

Some people who say they are acting in the name of religion may misunderstand their religion or practice it wrongly. For this reason, it is a mistake to form any idea of that religion from the activities of these people. The best way to understand Islam is through its holy source. The holy source of Islam is the Qur'an; and the model of morality in the Qur’an is completely different from the image of it formed in the minds of some Westerners. The Qur'an is based on the concepts of morality, love, compassion, mercy, modesty, self-sacrifice, tolerance and peace, and a Muslim who truly lives according to these moral precepts is highly refined, thoughtful, tolerant, trustworthy and accommodating. To those around him he gives love, respect, peace of mind and a sense of the joy of life.

The word Islam has the same meaning as "peace" in Arabic. Islam is a religion that came down to offer humanity a life filled with the peace and well-being in which Allah's eternal mercy and compassion is manifested in the world

where do you see Islam condoning Violence?

[imprt_fghtr1]

[QUOTE=its_the_ice_man]I don't get why they are fighting us. We already said, Muslims have not been very good in Kashmir.


Bro, I don't know if you have noticed but I could tell he has a lot of "HATE" deep down inside. I would stay just stay "cool headed" and try to answer his questions to the best of our knowledge. We can't change anyone.

[fratty]

Sura 47:4If you encounter those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks. If you take them as captives you may set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. Had GOD willed, He could have granted you victory, without war. But He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of GOD, He will never put their sacrifice to waste.? Explain

[imprt_fghtr1]

ANd what do you make of Sura 9:5? "Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful" Or Sura 9:29? "You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly." I just want clarity on these verses.


For Quranic Verses, Only some of the meanings of Qur’an are captured by any translation. Because of this, several translations don’t even claim to translate the Qur’an but rather “the meanings of the Qur’an”. But as long as you appreciate that to really understand the full subtleties and ranges of meanings of the Qur’an you need really to go into the Arabic text, then you will treat translations with appropriate caution. As a matter of fact, in dealing with translations, we are inevitably dealing with interpreting the Qur’an

You haven't quoted the verses exactly as they are in Quran. Who has written this English Translation of Quran ?


As for those surahs you are referring to, If you want to find negative statements in any book you will. If you want to understand the words in the Qur’an referring to jihad (struggle including fighting) as allowing Muslims to retaliate when attacked, you will do so. If you want to say: “No ... these are the main principles of Islam”, you will say that as well!

This is a call of Islam to help and rescue ANY oppressed people, not only Muslims. This is where jihad is a tool of liberating the oppressed, without even asking them to convert to Islam. For example, this is what Islam did in Egypt, where we have here a substantial Coptic minority. No Holocaust erased them and nobody forced them to convert. On the other hand, Muslims were thrown out of Andalusia (Spain) along with Jews, to keep Europe "Christian".

In the old testament you can find very odd verses reflecting the behavior of prophets, as well as words of God that illustrate Him in conflict with man!
Here, the question is how one reads the text, any text and in what context it is put. "Knowledge and power" as the French postmodern philosopher Foucault said!

Is Islam really the religion that advocates hatred? Sir, where in the Qur’an do you find that Muslims are the “chosen” people? Where in the Qur’an are they allowed to kill innocent people?

Actually the call for jihad is basically what is called now "humanitarian intervention" or the retaliation vis a vis aggression. Even if it is mentioned that some Jews and Christians will not accept the message of Islam it nevertheless stated that "among them are true believers".

[imprt_fghtr1]

I haven't even fully read the Qu'ran so I can't clarify those verses for you.

On Osama:
The guys had so much opium in Afghanistan, that he doesn't even know what he's saying half the time. He's a complete moron. Anybody who uses religion to justify killing is an idiot.

I don't think Islam is the perfect religion, and I don't think there are any perfect ones. All of them have their faults.

Iceman bro, Let me tell you something, Since Fratty is sikh, I can understand why he has so much hate. Some Sikhs usually hate muslims because of what muslim Kings did in the past, I don't know much but I heard some muslim kings have spilled rivers of blood, and one of the muslim king tortured one of the Sikh Guru in the past. Fratty may be upset at that :S

This is what I tell people, There are people who say they are acting in the name of religion but they practice it wrongly

[its_the_ice_man]

I understand why fratty would be upset. I would be furious as well. But you should hate the people who did it, not all Muslims.

It would be like us hating all Americans. Sure we hate the ones who kill our innocent people, but there are good ones.

Radicals don't see the good in anybody who is not their race/religion. Only the bad.

I love Sikh's/Hindu's/etc. All religions have good, all have bad. The same goes for race.

[chakdephute]

The Prime Minister of India is a Hindu. The President of India is a MUSLIM.

No. The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, is a Sikh. A Sikh is not, I repeat, NOT a Hindu.

And btw, I don't really sense any hate in fratty's posts. Adrel@line, however, exhibits plenty of hate in his posts. Whatever.

Imprt fghter:
I guess I'll have to take up Arabic to see for myself whether or not you're telling us the truth... ;)

[MolviCorleone]

No. The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, is a Sikh. A Sikh is not, I repeat, NOT a Hindu.

And btw, I don't really sense any hate in fratty's posts. Adrel@line, however, exhibits plenty of hate in his posts. Whatever.

Imprt fghter:
I guess I'll have to take up Arabic to see for myself whether or not you're telling us the truth... ;)

its frattys sarcastic digs at muslims without quite understanding what thier about.

and anyway i know this thread will get moved even though i didnt plan on it being a religious thread, its about the people of kashmir and highlights problems the kashmiris are having becuase of militants and soldiers.

[imprt_fghtr1]

[QUOTE=its_the_ice_man]IBut you should hate the people who did it, not all Muslims. Radicals don't see the good in anybody who is not their race/religion. Only the bad.

Exactly. That's what I have been trying to tell him. People needs to stop generalizing. I guess we all need a little education than we could all live in peace :)