his rhetoric since beginning has reflected the real background - the ‘they are originally hindus’ discourse (*), early on before it was noted, that is only used by that fringe etc.
(*: it is interesting how the genocidiares from this kind of background fall into such similar language, ‘they were originally’ X and ‘nothing against the individual’ Y but the group is “poison” also used in the balkans in the march to justification of genocidal action.
Christian attacks issue has mostly been made up by the media as they have to run 24*7 channels, and so they invent stories. The old nun was gangraped by illegal immigrants from Bangladesh who happened to be Muslims. Few other ‘attacks’ were found to be petty theft incidents and revenge for the church having complained to police for some other issue. The majority community(Hindus) and Christians have largely lived with harmony. Christian missionaries actually do charity work and convert Hindus to Christians. Hindu nationalists do not like it but that is how Christian population has increased in India.
Really? Did they make up the story of the joint general secretary of the Vishva Hindu Parishad party threatening more attacks on Christians and Christian churches?
That’s who the authorities claimed it was, while the joint general secretary of a Hinduvta party threatened more attacks on churches. But Modi’s Hindu-nationalist government wouldn’t do anything like scapegoat Muslims while turning a blind eye to Hinduvta incitement and violence, right?
“It’s just reprisal attacks by Hindu nationalists against Christians in retaliation for the Christians attempting to get police protection! What’s the big deal?”
Do you even read what you write?
No they don’t, do they?
Today’s news -
47 from shia minority gunned down in Karachi today.
So…does this mean we should hate Muslims because they commit violence or that we should support Muslims as victims of violence or that it all averages out?
Do you even know what your point is?
My point is that Islam is a cancer. When someone (rightly) abuses it, people should not feel the need to defend it . liberal Muslims should not ideally identify themselves with Islam.
Nun was gangraped actually by Bangladeshi immigrants who happened to be Muslims.
And then a story was invented by media that Christians may be under attack in India to fill their 24*7 news slots.
That’s a ridiculous point, particularly as it’s been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that other religions have plenty of examples of violent extremism. When someone abuses Christianity, does that make it a cancer? Should all Christian then repudiate the label? Should the faith be defined by the abortion clinic bombers and the lynchers of homosexuals, the Lord’s Resistance Army and the African priests torturing children accused of witchcraft, and the endless parade of priests and pastors who have been sexually abusing children for centuries? If not, how does that differ from Islam? Or Buddhism, or Hinduism or any religion with a large enough number of adherents to be able to dominate a particular culture and to have an extremist fringe?
No one here is defending extremist violence. No one. So put away your little strawman.
It is wrong to compare Islam with other religions that all peacefully co-exist with other sects and religions in 21st century.
I think the Christians subject to violence at the hand of mobs incited by people like Surendra Jain might disagree. But I’m sure that’s all the fault of the vast anti-Hindu media conspiracy within India, a country that’s 80% Hindu and which elected a Hindu nationalist prime minister, to forge attacks on Christians, cover up Muslim crimes, and generally make Hindus look bad, right?
Except that those “other religions” don’t “all peacefully co-exist with other sects and religions in 21st century”.
Of course if you handwave away evidence that disagrees with you while cherrypicking examples to support your point, you can pretty much claim anything you like.
Of course the UK Financial Times, Deutsche Welle, etc are well known for lying and for making up stories to fit their agendas unlike the religious bigot extremists who would never do so and would never distort to pursue an religious “cleansing” agenda.
and contrary the British novellist Orwell, they would never use the double language…
apparently it is glowing from shame for being so bigotted and stupid.
Of course in the eastern south Asia region we now have the three examples of three countries with three different majority religions where there is very simply ethnic-religious political forcing and competition, where bigotted parties purusing for their own gains ethnic-religious majoritarian power are very similar purity discourses, contamination and foundation discourses - but from three different views: the India among the Hindu supramacist parties including quite murderous fractions, the Takfiri islamists in the Bangladesh attempting to intimidate, and the Budhdhist supramacist of the Myanmar.
So if one is not simple minded and grotesquely bigoted, it is much more analytical to see that there is a competition of resources and it must be suspected the power competition over the resource and political power pies that are seen as more scarce.
Of you can be with the empty headed bigots who lie and who lay the ground works for the ethnic cleansing, the suppression and eventually the genocides against minorities.
It is obvious where the OP tends, one can see from the strategic silences.
Yes, strategic silence betrays a genocide of all Muslims.
Or, I’d rather the machete make my argument for me.
What a lying pile of shit.
This is typical example of the result of the American news media not bothering to report things that would be inconvenient to explain. (They would not all lie that it never happens the way that Faux News will, but they do not bother to report when it happens.)
There is no “strategic silence” except in the lying claims of the Islamophobes, (unless one is talking about the “strategic silence” of the media that declines to report when it happens).
PROTESTERS DENOUNCE MURDER OF ATHEIST BLOGGER HACKED TO DEATH IN BANGLADESH
Statements by Muslim individuals and groups condemning terrorist attacks
Gülen’s Condemnation Message of Terrorism
Islamic Statements Against Terrorism
And in return I’ll give you Ugandan MP David Bahati:
And Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe said of homosexuals:
Both are Roman Catholics.
Could someone put this in English? Google Translate just returns gibberish.
Robert Hoyland’s Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam is a massive doorstopper of a book, a 900-page treasure trove of translations of virtually every non-Muslim source that mentions or refers to Islam during the Seventh and Eighth Centuries. As if that weren’t enough, the book also contains a detailed analysis of what all those sources (and what they say) means when it comes to determining the historical events and shape of early Islam. At $45 on Amazon right now for the hardcover, this book is pretty much a must-have for anyone interested in both the early history of Islam and how early Islam related to the other religions and societies of Late Antiquity.
“I hate Muslims”