why pakistan failed. india listen up.

[Guest guest]

That evil seems to give immediate happiness is the greatest temptation and the greatest obstacle to the cultivation of virtues; and it can be removed only by discrimination and experience. Contemplation over the ultimate and permanent damage done to the very soul of man by the evil actions, and the harm he is causing to the entire society itself by his evil, ought to compel a man to desist from evil action— however pleasant it might appear superficially. There is no short-cut to this really serious problem; the wicked heart will not yield easily. And therefore our ancients have exalted Satsanga. Constant association with the wise and spiritually evolved persons alone can remove these wrong notions from the mind of the wicked one.

 

abc

[Guest guest]

Indians made following mistakes in the recent past :

 

1. Banned Pakistani Actors and Singers in Bombay.

2. Banned Pakistani Cricketers in Bombay

3. Banned Cricket matches with Pakistanis in Bombay

3. Digged up Cricket grounds in Delhi.

4. Banned cricket matches with Pakistanis in India

5. Too much importance to win in cricket against Pakistan

 

Result

1. Encouraged enmity

2. Riots took place in Kashmir

3. Kargil War

4. Terrorism in India for the sake of Kashmir

 

abc

 

[maadhav 0]

wow! what a great brain to conclude that the

 

<< Result

1. Encouraged enmity

2. Riots took place in Kashmir

3. Kargil War

4. Terrorism in India for the sake of Kashmir >>

 

are due to Indians'

<< mistakes in the recent past :

 

1. Banned Pakistani Actors and Singers in Bombay.

2. Banned Pakistani Cricketers in Bombay

3. Banned Cricket matches with Pakistanis in Bombay

3. Digged up Cricket grounds in Delhi.

4. Banned cricket matches with Pakistanis in India

5. Too much importance to win in cricket against Pakistan >>

 

does any one agree?

i do not.

 

[maadhav 0]

<< secondly, I respect maadav and his viewpoints and do not consider him to be an ignorant person, just the opposite. i do feel however that he has some hatred in his heart (and I can understand where this hate comes from) and he would be better to let it rise away from him. we all want what is best for bharat and the protection of its people. islam cannot be reconciled with hindu tradition and it is true we did not invade any other lands with our ways of life and islam has. >>

 

thanks you could agree to this.

 

<< that said, we cannot lower ourselves to that level. >>

 

oh dear hindu, arjun did no lower himself when he fought kauravas. he just followed krishna's advice. he tried his best for a peaceful solution, and the asurqa did not agree. we hindus will try many peaceful solutions, soon. if the muslims of india are stupid like duryodhan, then we would do as krishna has said. else we will suffer for ever.

 

to not fight adharma and adharmi ideology is adharma.

 

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

I am Hindu living in Pakistan. I fully agreed and would like to say the following :-

 

In 1987, shivsena activist Mr. Thakre banned Pakistani Actors and singers in Bombay (Bollywood). Prior to that, there were friendly relations between the two countries and Kashmir issue was diluted. Pakistani Actors and singers did not get work in Bombay. Finally, they escaped because there were open threats to their life. After observing this, sentiments of Pakistani people got hurt. In response, they banned Hindi films in Pakistan.

 

During this period Mr. Thakre made statements that cricket matches against Pakistan would not be allowed in Bombay. Immediately, the scheduled cricket matches in Bombay were cancelled. Indian Cricket Board still invited Pakistanin cricketers to play in other parts of India. The Shivsena activitst took this as an insult. Thereafter, Shivsena activist went Delhi and digged up the cricket pitches. The match was rescheduled but nobody took objection to the irrational act of the Shivsena activists. The meaning of which was ‘all Indians were agreed to what these activists were doing’.

 

Since the friendly relations between the two countries were over and hatred reached it’s peak, the attention was focused on Kashmir by Pakistanis. The result of which is known to everybody.

 

Today, if you observe the violence is reduced because relations between the countries are improving. (?)

 

Pakistani

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"sure, because they do not have to.

the minority does the job for them by the secret support from the majority. or many even do not know that their donation helps the islam soildiers.

 

also note that this "peace loving" majority never tries to pacify or control or eliminat the violent and barbaric minority. nor they condemn them even. besides the koran and hadith do not teach peace but violence: convert or kill."

 

OK, then how come the major muslim leaders and imams from mosques all over the world, plus all the arab presidents all publicly condemn all the terrorist activities?

 

And how about all the muslim members of public interviewed on countless news broadcasts who are repeatedly saying that the terrorists are not part of true islam?

 

"kill the ideology (remove it from the vedic land)"

 

can't do that because it would go against Prabhupada and Caitanya's instructions...

 

"this violent minority is produced by the teachings of koran and hadith in the madressas, within bharat and in pakistan, saudi arabia etc. if there were no madressas, no mosuques, no mullas, no koran copies, and no muslim neighborhoods where the hindus cannot enter freely, then there would not be any terrorists either."

 

1) the teachings of the koran have been misinerpreted. Just like many hindus misinterpret the Gita and say that it is alright to start wars with non-vedic people - does that sound familiar Maadhav?!!?!?

 

2) Illogical, because if there were no mosques, korans, mullahs, there would be no muslims. Muslims cannot be destroyed from India. Yet that is what would have to transpire in order for your aim to succeed. In that sense, your objective is violent, adharmic and plain wrong. Plus it is clearly on the bodily platform.

 

"kalam is not a real muslim"

 

You are in no position to judge whether he is a real muslim. A real muslim follows Mohammed's teachings: 'Treat all children of Allah equally for they are all dear to Him'. Therefore how can u conclude that the Koran's ideology is violent? Either u are ignorant of the real message of the Koran, or u are prejudiced against Muslims. I suspect both apply to you!

 

"koran teaches violence"

 

So does Bhagavad Gita - and just like the dharmic war portrayed in the Gita, the Muslim principle of jihad is a religious war when there is irreligion in the world...therefore why do u insist on destroying Islam? Would u like it if Muslims destroyed the Gita because of it's encouragement of war? There is no difference between the dharmic war in the Gita and the jihad in Islam. The only difference is between the interpretation. Just like the Hindus have generally succeeded in stopping the more fanatical interpretations of the Gita, for the good of India, we should help the Muslims phase out the fanatical interpretations of the Koran.

 

"why "we" should help them?

are they weak to control the misinterpretors?

did any one said they are?

give me an example where a mullah came to you and said, "please help me, i want to teach correct islam to the islamists.""

 

Why does Lord Shiva, Prahlad Maharaja, Lord Caitanya insist on helping the most fallen of the fallen? Because they are compassionate devotees. They practice what they preach, unlike you.

 

"they will follow their mullas only and koran and hadith"

 

So u see what I'm saying. If you show the real peaceful message of the Koran and the Hadith is totally peaceful, in the same way as Prabhupada and the acharyas re-established faith in the Manu-Smrti, then the Mullahs who preach violence will be replaced by Mullahs who preach the true peaceful messge of the Koran...

 

Caitanya did not convert Kazi by telling him Islam was asuric, he showed Kazi that Islam was just lacking in spiritual complexity and that the Vedas would further his own understanding of Allah.

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

 

( "koran teaches violence"

 

So does Bhagavad Gita - and just like the dharmic war portrayed in the Gita, the Muslim principle of jihad is a religious war when there is irreligion in the world...therefore why do u insist on destroying Islam? Would u like it if Muslims destroyed the Gita because of it's encouragement of war? There is no difference between the dharmic war in the Gita and the jihad in Islam. The only difference is between the interpretation. Just like the Hindus have generally succeeded in stopping the more fanatical interpretations of the Gita, for the good of India, we should help the Muslims phase out the fanatical interpretations of the Koran.)

 

Stop misrepresenting Gita, gita does not encourage violence

How can you compare jihad with Lord Krishna’s instruction to Arjun to uphold the Dharma.

 

Islam is nothing but barbaric ideology spread on the strength of the sword. They did not care for dharma, they destroyed any thing that came in their way without any compassion, they did that and are doing it in the name Allah how ironic the most compensate one.

 

Stop trying to be politically correct there is no comparison between Lord Krishna’s instruction in Gita to Arjun and jihad

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[maadhav 0]

thansk ganeshprasad ji.

 

look his response to my line.

 

my line: "kill the ideology (remove it from the vedic land)"

 

<< can't do that because it would go against Prabhupada and Caitanya's instructions...>>

 

and the HKs also say they are not hindus.

but they want to make decisions for all the hindus

how the hindu should solve their problems.

 

all he says is HK's cannot do it (as of now).

if he lives long, he will see we can do it.

 

if any one who understnds my points, and has a good response to this 'guest', please share it.

 

i find my self hard to debate with the irrationals like him.

 

[Guest guest]

I wholeheartedly agree with our "Guest" who posted in response to maadhav. The responses to that Guest's post by ganeshprasad and maadhav just show how blind and ignorant people can become in this world.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(The responses to that Guest's post by ganeshprasad and maadhav just show how blind and ignorant people can become in this world.)

 

Well if you are so clever open my eyes to where i went wrong in my post rather than blindly accusing us of being ignorant.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

Ganeshprasad: Why did I not explicitly point out what I deemed to be ignorance in your post? The answer to that question is simply that the blind will remain blind, the ignorant will remain ignorant. Ignorance and blindness goes hand in hand with not being open-minded--so I believe that if I were to tell you why you are wrong, you will simply discount all that I say because you're going to blindly follow one thing. That's what maadhav has clearly displayed by not responding to my statements and questions on this very thread. But, if you insist on knowing, this is what I disagree with you on:

 

[[stop misrepresenting Gita, gita does not encourage violence. How can you compare jihad with Lord Krishna’s instruction to Arjun to uphold the Dharma?]]

 

First of all, who are you to say what is the right interpretation of the Gita and what is the wrong one? You can disagree on someone else's interpretation of the Gita, but you cannot say "Your interpretation is wrong because the only correct interpretation is MY interpretation." You can disagree, not discount, someone else's interpretation.

 

[[islam is nothing but barbaric ideology spread on the strength of the sword. They did not care for dharma, they destroyed any thing that came in their way without any compassion, they did that and are doing it in the name Allah how ironic the most compensate one.]]

 

The Jihadi "barbaric ideology" is a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran. It is as if someone were reading the Gita and saw "Oh, Krishna says war is OK so was MUST be OK...LETS KILL NON-HINDUS!" (This sounds much like maadhav's preechings, ironically.)

What you are doing, Ganeshprasad, is you are labeling ALL of Islam and ALL Muslims to be bearers of the "barbaric ideology" of Jihad. This is simply not true. Yes, the invaders of India 1000 years ago were Muslim. Yes, they killed thousands of Hindus in the process of invasion. But that gives you NO right to call all Muslims followers of the same fundamentalist "barbaric ideology" of the invaders 1000 years ago. Just like there are Hindus willing to kill any non-Hindus in India to "uphold their dharma" (I reference the VHP, the Shiv Sena, factions of the BJP, and our dear friend maadhav on this forum), there are Muslims willing to kill any non-Muslims in places to "uphold their religion." Both are fundamentalists. Both are TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. We must learn to end the hatred, to practice what we preach and preach what we believe--tolerance, harmony, and peace. Hinduism is the religion of such great people like Mahatma Gandhi--do not tarnish its beautiful, praiseworthy reputation by sinking to the level of fundamentalist terrorists by spreading hatred and violence.

[maadhav 0]

again my poins in short are:

 

- bharat is the vedic land, land of the hindus.

 

- islam has forcibly invaded in bharat and has caused hindue genocide and destroyed temple sfor 1000 years.

 

- barbaric intruder ideologies have never a right to stay on the invaded land.

 

- the message of koran and hadith is totally opposite to gita. so, as jinnah has said, islam and hinduism are not compatible. being so, it is very foolish to allow islam on the vedic land. (gandhi and his followers failed to understand this.)

 

therefore, either the muslims of india give up islam, or they get out of bharat. the hindus already have given then a separate land - pakistan - (foolishly due to gandhi).

 

if you reader could agree, please say so.

thanks.

 

[Guest guest]

agree

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(Ganeshprasad: Why did I not explicitly point out what I deemed to be ignorance in your post? The answer to that question is simply that the blind will remain blind, the ignorant will remain ignorant. Ignorance and blindness goes hand in hand with not being open-minded--so I believe that if I were to tell you why you are wrong, you will simply discount all that I say because you're going to blindly follow one thing. That's what maadhav has clearly displayed by not responding to my statements and questions on this very thread. But, if you insist on knowing, this is what I disagree with you on)

 

 

That is very nice I am blind and ignorant because maadhav has not answered you. and if I discount what you say I am blind great logic.

 

Re

(First of all, who are you to say what is the right interpretation of the Gita and what is the wrong one? You can disagree on someone else's interpretation of the Gita, but you cannot say "Your interpretation is wrong because the only correct interpretation is MY interpretation." You can disagree, not discount, someone else's interpretation.)

 

 

I may be no body, but any one studying gita will tell you that although spoken on battle field the massage is of dharma and following it, it makes you love the entire creation and it does not teach you violence.

 

 

Re

 

(The Jihadi "barbaric ideology" is a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran. It is as if someone were reading the Gita and saw "Oh, Krishna says war is OK so was MUST be OK...LETS KILL NON-HINDUS!")

 

 

No I said Islam is barbaric ideology spread on the strength of sword prove me wrong if you can, where else the Gita message is fundamentally different to Jihad, Krishna is asking Arjun who is over come by grief to do his duty and fight the war that was imminent.

 

There is no message in Gita that says kill the non believer. The war was not on bases of religion.

 

Re

(What you are doing, Ganeshprasad, is you are labeling ALL of Islam and ALL Muslims to be bearers of the "barbaric ideology" of Jihad.)

 

Well if they are peaceful they have to come out in force and denounce their misdoing otherwise they remain supporter by default.

 

Re

( This is simply not true. Yes, the invaders of India 1000 years ago were Muslim. Yes, they killed thousands of Hindus in the process of invasion. But that gives you NO right to call all Muslims followers of the same fundamentalist "barbaric ideology" of the invaders 1000 years ago. )

 

Their aim still remains the same, covert all the kafirs They live on the vedic land and enjoy more rights yet they side with Pakistan.

If they believe in peace let them recognize the wrong doing of the past, it is quite easy to see the eyesores go to our holy Dham and you will see their domes on top of our mandirs, why cant they just hand it back it would be great step towards peace, we can all co exist in harmony.

 

 

Re

(Just like there are Hindus willing to kill any non-Hindus in India to "uphold their dharma" (I reference the VHP, the Shiv Sena, factions of the BJP, and our dear friend maadhav on this forum)

 

 

This is simply not true Hindus are not willing to kill, infect they are dying trying to seek justice. America went wild after 9-11 and no one is accusing them and yet we face this problem time and again, we are always asked to exercise restraint.

 

Re

(We must learn to end the hatred, to practice what we preach and preach what we believe--tolerance, harmony, and peace. Hinduism is the religion of such great people like Mahatma Gandhi--do not tarnish its beautiful, praiseworthy reputation by sinking to the level of fundamentalist terrorists by spreading hatred and violence. )

 

Yes it is very nice, we all love that but you can’t clap with one hand.

When there is fire you can’t just wish cool breeze, you have to extinguish the fire.

 

So people like maadhav are all clued up of the danger of Islam and i am not going to kick him.

 

My following of dharma is nothing to do with the so called good reputation that it enjoys, infect we are simply a joke to those who follow different faith; they know how to use few choice words just to keep us quiet. I follow it because I love it.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

It is an Arabic word the root of which is Jahada, which means to strive for a better way of life. The nouns are Juhd, Mujahid, Jihad, and Ijtihad. The other meanings are: endeavor, strain, exertion, effort, diligence, fighting to defend one's life, land, and religion.

 

Jihad should not be confused with Holy War; the latter does not exist in Islam nor will Islam allow its followers to be involved in a Holy War. The latter refers to the Holy War of the Crusaders.

 

Jihad is not a war to force the faith on others, as many people think of it. It should never be interpreted as a way of compulsion of the belief on others, since there is an explicit verse in the Qur'an that says:"There is no compulsion in religion" Al-Qur'an: Al-Baqarah (2:256).

 

Jihad is not a defensive war only, but a war against any unjust regime. If such a regime exists, a war is to be waged against the leaders, but not against the people of that country. People should be freed from the unjust regimes and influences so that they can freely choose to believe in Allah.

 

Not only in peace but also in war Islam prohibits terrorism, kidnapping, and hijacking, when carried against civilians. Whoever commits such violations is considered a murderer in Islam, and is to be punished by the Islamic state. during wars, Islam prohibits Muslim soldiers from harming civilians, women, children, elderly, and the religious men like priests and rabies. It also prohibits cutting down trees and destroying civilian constructions.

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the commercial on Islam.Nice one.I enjoyed it a lot.Now lets come to the point.

 

"Jihad is not a defensive war only, but a war against any unjust regime. If such a regime exists, a war is to be waged against the leaders, but not against the people of that country"

 

Who defines just and injust?And in the war will the leader alone come and fight?

 

"People should be freed from the unjust regimes and influences so that they can freely choose to believe in Allah."

 

Is this the definition of freedom?Freely to chose Allah?BTW are they freely allowed to refuse allah?

 

Islam prohibits Muslim soldiers from harming civilians, women, children, elderly, and the religious men like priests and rabies

 

How about attacking a jewsih village,killing a girls father,husband and marrying her in the same day?And dividing captured women after war is not prohibited I suppose.Keeping women slaves in Harem too is permitted I suppose.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

What is just and unjust is defined by God...and these laws can be found in the Koran - just like the laws of God are found in the Manu-Smrti

 

Yes, one is free to choose or not choose Allah. As the Koran says, 'There is no compulsion in religion'

 

Yep, all the things about attacking a jewish village etc are all condemned by Islam - those who perform such acts are not following Mohammed's teachings...

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

It seems that our Muslim guest has panic attack of consciousness.

If you come in peace and if you think Islam is peaceful let us here you denounce the atrocities us Hindus suffered perpetually from it. All the temples that were destroyed and your dome on top of our mandir is a constant reminder. Let us here from you and your mullahs that that was a mistake and give them back, then I will believe you, that Islam is a peaceful religion like any religion should be.

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[maadhav 0]

i have to say teh same as ganeshprasad ji said:

 

<< If you come in peace and if you think Islam is peaceful let us here (hear) you denounce the atrocities us Hindus suffered perpetually from it. All the temples that were destroyed and your (mosques) dome on top of our mandir is a constant reminder. Let us here (hear/read) from you and your mullahs that that was a (barbaric) mistake and give them back, then I will believe you, that Islam is a peaceful religion like any religion should be. >>

 

additionally, you need to preach islam to wahabis and bin ladins and all kinds of laskaras.

could you agree?

 

[Guest guest]

{What is just and unjust is defined by God...and these laws can be found in the Koran - just like the laws of God are found in the Manu-Smrti}

 

The laws of God are NOT found in the Manu Smriti. Manu Smriti is not a scripture but a social law book attibuted to Manu. It's to do more with society rather than religion or God.

It's the Vedas and Upanishads that have laws of God or the spiritual laws.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Thanks maadhavji

 

Our guest here talks about Koran and just laws given in it.

well i ask him again give us the justice we deserve. we are waiting for an answer.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

dear guest, I was asking the jewish village only to test you.Now that you have condemned it I will tell you who did it and what happened.

 

The Battle with the Quraiza Jews

Mohammed marched with 3,000 followers against 2,000 Quraiza Jews, shortly after the siege of Medina ended. The Jews were attacked and they soon surrendered. A wounded chief named Sa'd was asked by Mohammed to decide the fate of the captives. His response was that the men should be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, and the booty be divided among the Islamic army. A shrill of horror ran through the assembled captives. Mohammed then said; "Truly, the judgment of Sa'd is the judgment of the Lord, pronounced on high from above the seventh heaven".

 

The Muslims dug trenches across from the marketplace, and in the morning Mohammed commanded that the male captives be brought out 5-6 at a time. The Jews were made to sit down at the top of the trenches. Next, the Muslims beheaded them and tossed their bodies into the trench. This lasted all day. It continued into the night by torchlight.

 

source:Ibn Ishaq (A.D. 768)

 

Now you have to tell me if this massacre is will of god or not

 

 

[Guest guest]

is not from the original Koran - it is by fanatic mullahs aiming to justify their violence using the holy words of Mohammed.

 

Also, I condemn all atrocities in the name of Islam...

 

but I am not a Muslim, I am born a Hindu, a Gujarati...I too used to hate Muslim religion, but then I came into contact with Krishna Consciousness, and realised how Prabhupada and Caitanya were so compassionate for the unfortunate souls who are following the most basic and corrupted philosophy - islam.

 

Prabhupada said Mohammed was a shaktiavesa avatar. I believe him. And having seen the Koran, there is nothing violent in it. The so-called followers have either misinterpreted the Koran or purposely politicized Islam.

[Guest guest]

Hmm,That is from the biography of prophet mohammed.Of course it will not be in quran since quran is not a biography of prohet.But that incident isnt false.

Since you are hindu, I wont debate about islam to you.Proceed in prabupada's way.

[Guest guest]

{And having seen the Koran, there is nothing violent in it.}

 

Doy you expect us to believe you and trust you on that? Either your lying out of your teeth and have not seen the koran or you're trying to fool us. How can you say that there is nothing violent in it when there are plenty of violent verses in the koran?

 

For example

Qur’an 9:5 "When the sacred months have past, slat the idolators wherever you find them, take them captive and besiege them, and prepare for them ambush."

 

8.12 "When thy lord inspired the angels, saying: I am with you. Make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of the disbelievers. Then smite their necks and smite of them each finger."

 

Those were only 2 verses of the koran which is full of many violent verses directed towards non-muslims...so how could you possibly miss it? Did you skip half the koran when reading it?