My Dearest fellow Indian Tasneem,
I have already told you that 'hindus' never wanted you out. We
call you brothers. And I have already told you that you are as
much an Indian as any other. I dont have any grudge towards you
nor towards your religion.
Please do not misunderstand me buddy.
Originally posted by Tasneem
From the very beginning you fall into the fallacy that India is a "Hindu" country.
I never said India was 'hindu'. Well 'hindu' itself is
relatively younger word and its not an 'Indian' word(thats why I hate
Vishwa 'hindu' Parishad). The actual name proposed for 'hinduism'
was Sanatana Dharma.
Please try to understand me. Atleast consider me as a fellow Indian. Forget about my religion.
What I say holds good for both of us. Afterall, you are an Indian.
We(Indians) have a very wonderful history which has been distorted
by the Westerners, the pseudo-secularists and our own Marxists.
If you read the history of Pakistan or any other country, they write it
in order to suit them. For example, Pakistanis say some 'hindu'
king was a rogue and gave asylum to pirates. Thats why Muslims
attacked Bharat. We have a different version of the same.
Our version says that, that 'hindu' king did not give any asylum and it
was just a silly reason to attack Bharat.
But believe me buddy(listen to me atleast as a fellow Indian), we
have a really really wonderful history. According to the Bible,
humanity started around 4000 BC. So the Western historians had to
cramp all of the Indian history into those 4000 years. According
to 'hindu' calendar (recently we Telugus celebrated our New Year day,
which is also according to 'hindu' calendar), this is the year
5206. And it is to be noted that this is the 52nd century of the
Kali Yuga, the last Yuga in the cycle. A next cycle will start
with the end of this Yuga. Krishna died at the end of Treta Yuga,
i.e., at the begining of this Yuga. Krishna lived for around 125
years. Mahabharata happened when Krishna was 89 years of
age. So you can see that Mahabharata happened 52 centuries
ago. Ramayana is much more older. It was the descendent of
Pandavas(Krishna's cousins), Bharata, after which our country is
named. Bharata was the first to unify the whole of 'india'.
After him our country was named as Bharata Varsha.
And if the so called 'caste' system existed, then Bagavadh Gita were
the sayings of a 'shudra'. Krishna used to look after cattle.
The Vedas and the Upanishads are older than Ramayana or any other scripture. But they were passed by word of mouth.
You all Muslims may feel this all to be rubbish. That does not
matter. Even our so called 'secularists' say that this is all
You may not bother about this. But it is the history of
'India'. Ramayana and Mahabharata are no 'hindu'
scriptures. They are chronicles of history.
Unfortunately(or may be fortunately), past becomes history, history becomes legend and legend becomes myth.
In an earlier quote you say that you "allowed Muslims to stay in India".
When did I say this?
How does India become a Hindu country?
I never said this. What I said was 'hindu' majority country.
The country belongs to people who were born and brought up in that country.
You are right. A country also belongs to the people who adopted it.
According to archaelogical findings the Mohan jedaro and
Harapa civilisations were older than Hinduism but they were not
Can you prove this? I have already briefed up with
our(Indian) history. The Aryan invasion theory was a
farce. Even Max Mueller who proposed the theory said that he did
not mean any invasion. The problem is past becomes
history, history becomes legend and legend becomes a myth.
So some religion cannot claim the ownership of any land anywhere.
The land belongs to its citizens who can be either Hindu or Muslims or
Christians or Jews. So one citizen cannot claim superiority over other
citizens, unless they are rogues who lack decency and justice.
You are damn right.
Even in the British Parliament there are Indian
Parliamentarians. Does it mean they should be kicked out? In Iraq
Saddam's deputy was Tariq Aziz who was Christian born in Iraq. So birth
and citizenship takes over all claims of ownership in any land.
Yes there are. India is not the only secular country in the world. Even Turkey, Israel are secular.
You speak as if Hindus are favouring Muslims by "allowing" them
to live in India. This is how "Hinduvata" expresses itself
unreasonably, unjustly like thugs!
As I have already said that 'hindutva' does not exist.
For your kind information in the India/Pakistan wars all the
heroic work was done by the Muslims (like Hawaldar Hamid, Brigadier
Usman) and Sikhs and we hardly hear of any Hindu heros.
Well, they are not dying for another's country. They are dying for their motherland.
When India gained independence there were two states or
provinces that the British did not finalise one was the Nizam's state
of Hyderabad and the other is Kashmir. The Nizam though a Muslm ruler
had a Hindu majority state on the other hand Kashmir had a Hindu ruler
with Muslim majority state. When Hyderabad the Nizam state was
forcefully annexed by the Indian government one would expect that
Kashmir would go to Pakistan which is yet to happen. That is the reason
why the Kashmiri Hindus are facing the problem because the Indian
government did not make the right decision. But we do not support the
oppression of any innocent people. It is nothing to do with
Hindu/Muslim division, it is purely political and geographical.
In one of my post in another forum, I have supported Nizam's decision. I still regret about what Nehru did.
You visit Mysore that was ruled by a Muslim ruler Tippu
Sultan, and to your amazement every temple and every stone of a temple
is intact despite being ruled by a Muslim ruler. Because Muslim
rulers both in Hyderabad and Mysore believed in justice without
supporting any religion.
Did I say Muslims to be maniacs? I never was anti-Muslim. I was anti-somebody, but never was anti-Muslim.
At the time of Indepedence the subcontinent had 40%
Muslim population and your slogan that vast land was given to Muslims
doesn't hold water. Because if you add up Bangla desh and Pakistan it
is not 40% of the old subcontinent. India gave 15% of the land for 40%
percent of the population and that is why Bangla desh is the most
densely populated per km area.
Ok, I am with you.
India did not share any of its gold reserves and these
countries had to depend on the generosity of donors from their own
But India gave a lot of money for Pakistan's reconstruction(I dont
know the amount, but it did had to pay at the time of partition).
India retained their share of wealth in a way it was stolen from them.
I didn't understand. 'Stolen'?
I cannot understand your complaint about Aryans in history.
You cannot alter history now because history is what has already
happened and should remain factual.
I think my explanation is enough.
Last month a Hindu mob burnt and demolished a very old
library in Pune because history was not written to appease them and in
doing so they have also destroyed your sacred books like Upanishads
written on leaves
I didn't hear about this. But if it happened, it is because of the chauvinists who have no work. LOL.
... and now you are left with only RSS history who are
responsible for assassinating Mahatma Gandhi the father of the
In one of my posts, I even discussed this, and in this very post I have told about RSS being chauvinistic.
Seems like you would like to change even this fact. (Now, you
might say that Mahatma Gandhi was never assassinated and that he died
of old age!)
What historical 'fact' did I change or tried to change?
Inspite of all this I do not want to dwell on the issue
about who owns the country any longer. All this is politics and nothing
to do with religion.
Ok, well. Here ends the discussion about politics(I have a question at the end of this post).
'hindus' have never, in thier thousands of years of history, waged a war to conquer territories
This is a quote from Dr Abdul Kalam. a Muslim President of
India who actually said India has never...... conquer territories" You
are replacing the word "India" by "Hindus".
Actually it was said by Swami Vivekananda.
You people are so unjust and corrupt because of which you
have a Sikh Prime Minister and a Muslim President, otherwise a
foreigner would have been your Prime Minister.
I totally agree with that. Did you read, "Wonder that was
India and horror that is India" by Francois Gautier? He rightly
condemns us Indians.
Now coming to religion, there are no similarities
between Islam and Hinduism because you state that "Brahman" is the
ultimate "god". Your use of the word ultimate shows that there are many
many more before the ultimate "god".
Didn't you see, I quoted it. I said 'god' and not God.
There is a difference between english word 'god' and Brahman. The
whole of Upanishads discuss about Brahman. Even the Advaita
Vedanta i.e., Advaita Philosophy deals about Brahman.
In Islam there is no "god" but the only ONE GOD.
I know it. In 'hinduism' there is no temple for Brahman,
because It has no form. What we call Vishnu, Brahma etc are
synonymous to Rabb, Khaaliq etc.
You state "Let me ask you one question, would you
spit on your photograph? This is the same with idol
worship. If Brahman(Allah) is everywhere and everything and
at everytime, whats wrong with worshipping an idol which is also
The answer is yes I would spit at my own photograph. Why? Because we
are nothing before God who is the creator and the sustainer.
So generous of you.
We all produce in our bodies nothing but filth and God is
free from all this. God is pure and cannot be likened to anything or
anyone as everything has been created by Him and everything is at
HIS service. An idol is even less than a human being because it
was created by this worthless human being. It is nothing but mocking
God. I do not believe you have read the Quran, leave alone
understanding it. The idols you worship are helpless themselves, how
can they help you? They crack and break when they fall to the ground,
they need your help to move around, they do not eat the fruits that you
offer, so one lowers onself by worshipping such things.
Yes, this may be the difference between 'hinduism' and Islam.
'hinduism' considers everyone and everything to be Brahman or rather
manifestation of Brahman.
Historically Gautam Budha saw a light, and people started
worshipping him rather than the light. That is Hinduism.
Whatever you may think... If you think 'hinduism' is a farce, let it be. It does not matter to Muslims anyway.
Can you tell me how many times and how you were discriminated 'religiously' in India?
THE SOIL OF BHARAT IS MY HIGHEST HEAVEN, THE GOOD OF BHARAT IS MY GOOD.