- Joined
- Jul 31, 2015
- Messages
- 1,059
- Likes
- 598
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKwAYPTUcAAW01X.jpg
Afghan King Shah Shuja had asked British to invade Punjab as they worship same God. This was after Maharaja Ranjit Singh
I guess term CrIslam is reality for infidel, kafir,pagan,heathen,etc.
I think support of Pakistan by USA should not just be taken in a geopolitical but also ideological context.
I.e Pakistan & Bangladesh represent an alternative Hindu free vision of Bharat Varsh. Also cannot ignore that Saudi tells USA what to do in a friendly way along with other mostly Sunnis. I.e they are sheiks
-- Core issue broken down here, more or less for military purposes a more efficient, stable & homogenized population is preferable as it lessens internal conflict. In any 'war' i.e civilizational or demographic conflict it is natural to try and monoplize force & territory i.e create a state. Geopolitically this is the primary goal of Ideology & something which many Hindus are in denial about.
https://manasataramgini.wordpress.c...ry-aspects-of-the-islamo-hindu-confrontation/
Here is Bramin explaining it:
The striving for non-Hinduness might have even lead to internal rifts within Mohammedanism as each group was trying be more Mohammedan than the other. For example, Mohammedan historians have correctly (unlike mlechCha apologists) interpreted the Mahdavi movement as part of the revitalization movements within the desert cult in India in order to stem what was clearly seen as the decay arising from Hinduization. This Mahdavi movement, when it arose in Gujarat, emphasized jihad, which it ended up launching it on the Muzzafarid Turks who were occupying Gujarat at the time of its origin. Thus, one should not be confused by internecine conflicts between various Mohammedan sects as they were actually competing for space of the ideal Mohammedan shorn of all Hindu influences. Indeed, this dynamic of competition for the ideal Mohammedanism is an important issue missed by most Hindus. It implies that as along as Islam exists as a distinct entity in the subcontinent there is always going to be a strain that would go for the Hindu’s neck or foreskin.
● From the viewpoint of the Shaikhs the subcontinent of jambudvIpa is their rightful property, where Hindus had no place beyond Dhimmis in the best case scenario. Anything that fuels a distinct Islamic identity in the subcontinent is going to favor its striving for an identity free of Hindu influence. Hence, “two-nation theory” is alive in its most primal form (people should not be confused by the presence of more than 2 physical countries) and is fundamentally incompatible with an Indian state, secular or Hindu.
● Hence, from the Hindu viewpoint a synthetic existence with Mohammedanism as a separate entity in their land, jaMbudvIpa, is not possible. This is not so much because Hindus do not want to live with them – many of our modern secularists would be delighted to do so, visiting them for syrupy semolinas or for their meat shops, or even for an occasional genuflection at a mazar, as it happens so often in ajayamerupura. However, as the Shaikhs have repeatedly emphasized they do not brook such a cohabitation and greatly fear the incubus of Hindu practice that accompanies it. No amount of mollycoddling by the Hindus or secularists will change this, only the erasure of the Hindu dharma will.
Now, for forum break.
Afghan King Shah Shuja had asked British to invade Punjab as they worship same God. This was after Maharaja Ranjit Singh
I guess term CrIslam is reality for infidel, kafir,pagan,heathen,etc.
I think support of Pakistan by USA should not just be taken in a geopolitical but also ideological context.
I.e Pakistan & Bangladesh represent an alternative Hindu free vision of Bharat Varsh. Also cannot ignore that Saudi tells USA what to do in a friendly way along with other mostly Sunnis. I.e they are sheiks
-- Core issue broken down here, more or less for military purposes a more efficient, stable & homogenized population is preferable as it lessens internal conflict. In any 'war' i.e civilizational or demographic conflict it is natural to try and monoplize force & territory i.e create a state. Geopolitically this is the primary goal of Ideology & something which many Hindus are in denial about.
https://manasataramgini.wordpress.c...ry-aspects-of-the-islamo-hindu-confrontation/
Here is Bramin explaining it:
The striving for non-Hinduness might have even lead to internal rifts within Mohammedanism as each group was trying be more Mohammedan than the other. For example, Mohammedan historians have correctly (unlike mlechCha apologists) interpreted the Mahdavi movement as part of the revitalization movements within the desert cult in India in order to stem what was clearly seen as the decay arising from Hinduization. This Mahdavi movement, when it arose in Gujarat, emphasized jihad, which it ended up launching it on the Muzzafarid Turks who were occupying Gujarat at the time of its origin. Thus, one should not be confused by internecine conflicts between various Mohammedan sects as they were actually competing for space of the ideal Mohammedan shorn of all Hindu influences. Indeed, this dynamic of competition for the ideal Mohammedanism is an important issue missed by most Hindus. It implies that as along as Islam exists as a distinct entity in the subcontinent there is always going to be a strain that would go for the Hindu’s neck or foreskin.
● From the viewpoint of the Shaikhs the subcontinent of jambudvIpa is their rightful property, where Hindus had no place beyond Dhimmis in the best case scenario. Anything that fuels a distinct Islamic identity in the subcontinent is going to favor its striving for an identity free of Hindu influence. Hence, “two-nation theory” is alive in its most primal form (people should not be confused by the presence of more than 2 physical countries) and is fundamentally incompatible with an Indian state, secular or Hindu.
● Hence, from the Hindu viewpoint a synthetic existence with Mohammedanism as a separate entity in their land, jaMbudvIpa, is not possible. This is not so much because Hindus do not want to live with them – many of our modern secularists would be delighted to do so, visiting them for syrupy semolinas or for their meat shops, or even for an occasional genuflection at a mazar, as it happens so often in ajayamerupura. However, as the Shaikhs have repeatedly emphasized they do not brook such a cohabitation and greatly fear the incubus of Hindu practice that accompanies it. No amount of mollycoddling by the Hindus or secularists will change this, only the erasure of the Hindu dharma will.
Now, for forum break.
