Saudi Arabia has big plans in India

[Mamadouso]

You follow arab religion, you practice arab customs, an arab is your definition of a perfect man, you imitate arabs and then you wonder why I am talking about ?

How does idol worship and pagans factor in here ?

Just because people follow Islam does not mean they can not criticise current Arab leadership. I am talking about the leaders here, please learn to read context.

If I criticise Saudi princes or Jordan King, that has nothing to do with our faith. You are obviously Hindu fundamentalist muddying the debate.

It is like saying I criticise your leader Modi that means I am criticising Hindu.

 

[Chakar The Great]

The relationship benefits both, it will only strengthen with time. SA doesnt care about Kashmiris or Palestinians.

Apparently Pakistan with barely enough money to survive has taken the charge of Custodian of Ummah or fort of Islam.

 

[Andhadhun]

Just because people follow Islam does not mean they can not criticise current Arab leadership. I am talking about the leaders here, please learn to read context.

If I criticise Saudi princes or Jordan King, that has nothing to do with our faith. You are obviously Hindu fundamentalist muddying the debate.

It is like saying I criticise your leader Modi that means I am criticising Hindu.

On what authority can you criticize Modi ? You have none.

You have no stake in choosing him nor any stake in what he does.

Same goes for you and arabs. Except you own a debt arabs because they gave you a significant part of your life. Your religion and culture.

What have you given in return ? Hence your lack of moral authority to criticize them.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

If government have no problem with history Then why they felt the need to change the name of Aurangzeb Road, Akhbar fort, Mughalsarai Railway station in attempt of saffronising Indian text books and history

As I said it's an excuse to justify their actions against Muslims today. They want to turn the public opinion against Muslims by telling the public what the Muslim invaders did. They polarise the society this way to get votes. Otherwise how can they morally justify to the public as to why Muslims are bad. Similar to how some radical Muslim clerics try to turn Muslims against Hindus by telling them how Hindus have treated Muslims during riots in the recent past.

History is just used as a justification for present xenophobia for the "other". Otherwise, the ancestors of almost every Indian was an invader at some point. Why dont they have problem with those invaders ? Because they converted to Hinduism. Muslims invaders didn't. So it is basically about xenophobia, hatred for the other.

 

[Andhadhun]

As I said it's an excuse to justify their actions against Muslims today. They want to turn the public opinion against Muslims by telling the public what the Muslim invaders did. They polarise the society this way to get votes. Otherwise how can they morally justify to the public as to why Muslims are bad. Similar to how some radical Muslim clerics try to turn Muslims against Hindus by telling them how Hindus have treated Muslims during riots in the recent past.

History is just used as a justification for present xenophobia for the "other". Otherwise, the ancestors of almost every Indian was an invader at some point. Why dont they have problem with those invaders ? Because they converted to Hinduism. Muslims invaders didn't. So it is basically about xenophobia, hatred for the other.

Justify what actions against the muslims ?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Justify what actions against the muslims ?

Riots, beef lynchings, too many muslims are bad etc.

 

[Bengal71]

Most of the times the violence against Muslims in India has nothing to do with history or historical invaders. It's just a good old mix of xenophobia, ultra religiosity, lack of education, politics etc. They just use the actions of history's invaders as an excuse to justify their own actions in the present day.

If India never divided into three countries, I think even that would be kept to minimum.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

If India never divided into three countries, I think even that would be kept to minimum.

Are you saying divisions was for better or for worse ?

 

[Andhadhun]

Riots, beef lynchings, too many muslims are bad etc.

I am confused.

Which of this is govt. action as per your claim ?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I am confused.

Which of this is govt. action as per your claim ?

The right wing in general.

 

[Bengal71]

Are you saying divisions was for better or for worse ?

For worse.

 

[Andhadhun]

The right wing in general.

First you claimed this was "Govt. action".

Now you claim its "right wing" action.

Which "right wing" ? and what action ?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

For worse.

It could have gone either way really. We can never know. But we should have at least tried to stay together for a decade at least after partition. If it worked, we could have been extremely powerful. Not even trying to stay together and dividing immediately after partition was a bad idea I feel. Separation could have been done anytime if things didn't work out.

Anyway, what's done is done. No point beating a dead horse.

 

[mikkix]

A new bloc might be emerging with Saudia iran India afghan. Turkey if joins this group. Hadeeth will become true.

 

[Bengal71]

It could have gone either way really. We can never know. But we should have at least tried to stay together for a decade at least after partition. If it worked, we could have been extremely powerful. Not even trying to stay together and dividing immediately after partition was a bad idea I feel. Separation could have been done anytime if things didn't work out.

Anyway, what's done is done. No point beating a dead horse.

Unlikely, the combined population of the subcontinent today has significant percentage of Muslims, it would have caused a balance.