Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

They must have found something wrong with Islam! Otherwise, there wouldn't be over 10 million ex-Muslims in India! 73 sects don't give birth to Sanatani Muslims! Those who can't say Bharat Mata ki Jai! They can never be loyal to Bharat Mata! All India Muslim Personal Law Board Amit...

10,516 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

In India, the world’s largest democracy, senior Hindu leaders from Narendra Modi’s ruling #Hindu nationalist party are openly calling for the social and economic boycott of minority Muslims. Please take a look at the accompanying video to find out how much the Hindu #BJP leaders hate #Muslims in #India, how they incite attacks against them, and how they target to marginalise them in the Hindu majority nation. Saumitra Khan, a prominent BJP leader in West Bengal and a sitting MP, is advising Hindus not to rent out apartments to Muslims or sell them lands or houses. Another BJP leader, former MP Arjun Singh, is asking Hindus to socially and economically boycott Muslims. He is advising Hindus to adopt the means to push minority Muslims to the bottom of society. He tells Hindus not to buy anything from Muslim-owned shops, not to use vehicles run by Muslims, and not to give Muslims any work or engage in any business transaction with them. Over the past years, many international organisations have repeatedly reported that Hindu nationalist groups in India have routinely persecuted minority Muslims and Christians and that the perpetrators have largely gone unpunished. Since Narendra Modi’s party came to power in 2014, the persecution of the religious minorities has increased steadily. We all know that the Hindutva groups who attack and persecute minorities are patronised by the BJP and act as the party’s foot soldiers on many fronts. A large section of Hindus derives a sadistic pleasure from witnessing the persecution and suffering of minorities. They believe that only the BJP can “treat" Muslims and Christians “the way it is needed". Indian law prescribes punishment or imprisonment for delivering hate speech. However, after issuing hate speeches —particularly against minorities— Hindu leaders usually escape accountability. A few Hindutva leaders have faced brief jail terms for openly calling for the extermination of minorities or urging Hindus to carry out violent attacks against them. However, after being released, they usually resume issuing the same sort of hate speeches against Muslims as before. In India, they are considered bigger Hindu leaders who are more aggressive in their speeches against Muslims. In the BJP, these leaders win handsome rewards like election tickets or are given other plum party positions. The BJP-led Indian government and the Indian mainstream media often claim that minority Hindus in #Bangladesh are being persecuted. But can anyone present a single instance where a senior Muslim political or religious leader in Bangladesh has issued openly aggressive calls against minority Hindus, the way the BJP leaders in India often call for the social and economic boycott of minority Muslims? Can anyone show evidence of a senior Muslim leader in Bangladesh asking Muslims not to rent out houses to Bangladeshi Hindus, not to sell them land or a flat to them, or to boycott them socially and economically? No, they will not be able to present such evidence. We can safely assert that Muslim-majority Bangladesh is more secular than Hindu-majority India.

Pinaki Bhattacharya

11,766 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

A dialogue between a Muslim and an atheist: Muslim: There are over 1.8 billion Muslims in the World, and soon we'll overcome the Infidels. Atheist: The 1.8 billion include Ahmadis & Qadiyanis? Muslim: No, Ahmadi Qadiyanis dogs have got nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: How about those Barelvis visiting graves and worshipping the dead? ; they Muslim: Barelvis are infidels. They have nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: What do you think of ISIS? The majority of them are Sunnis? Muslim: They have nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: How about Shias, following 12 Imams, offering prayers differently, bathing in blood, and calling names to Abu Bakr & Umar? Muslim: Shia Kafirs have nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: In a newspaper, there was a headline about an Imam raping a 5-year-old boy and later killing him by hanging with a fan? Muslim: These prayer leaders are bringing a bad name to Islam, they have nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: There is another sect that denies all the Hadiths and follows nothing but Quran, known as Parvezis? Muslim: Parvezi followers have nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: I heard that Prophet Muhammad married Ayesha when she was 6 and he was 53? Muslim: These are all fabricated Ahadith. Atheist: But these are in the books of Ahadith compiled by Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, and considered correct by Ahl-e-Hadith? Muslim: Ahl e Hadith have nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: Taliban are killing people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not allowing girls education, taking up jobs, going to public parks, and never allowing them in public without shuttlecock burqas. Muslim: They are Deo-Bandi Kharjis; they are the agents of India, Israel, and America - they have nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: How about those mystic Sufi saints. Muslim: The sufis don’t follow Islam by the book and hold beliefs that lead to infidelity. Thus, they have nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: What is your opinion about liberal & progressive Muslims? Muslim: They have gone astray; they include seculars that have nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: How about the Saudi Salafi & Wahhabi groups? Muslims: They are extremists and Jihadists; they have nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: What do you think of killing non-Muslims? Muslim: Islam is a religion of peace; killings have no place in Islam. Atheist: But Jihad is ordered in the Quran in apparent words? Muslim: It has nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: But Jihad is the 6th Pillar of Islam. Muslim: Islam has 5 pillars only. Atheist: Saudi Prince MBS is on an Islam moderation drive, allowed concerts, and says hadith was written 250 years after Mohammed, and most are false. Muslim: MBS is an American and Israeli agent and has nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: Is it true that Abbasid Abd Al Malik invented Islam and the Quran, and Mohammed did not exist in history? Muslim: Abbasids were descendants of Yazid and were kafirs and had nothing to do with Islam. Atheist: You mean to say Islam has nothing to do with Islam? Muslim: You kaffirs will never understand Islam.

Imtiaz Mahmood

157,538 просмотров • 1 год назад

“First, we have to save the #Hindus. If they survive, everything will be fine. All Hindus have to put up the (saffron) flags on top of their houses. Separate the jihadis (#Muslims) from our Hindus completely... (Muslims) will have to change their religion.” Suvendu Adhikari, a senior #BJP leader in West Bengal, is seen addressing a group of Hindu villagers in the state. Since joining the Hindu nationalist party in 2020, Adhikari has been known for often delivering speeches attacking Muslims, frequently asserting in public that the minority community poses a significant threat to the Hindu majority. In this video, he urges villagers to distance themselves from their Muslim neighbours. By labeling the entire community as “jihadis,” he is effectively identifying all Muslims as Islamic militants. He is also heard making remarks in a threatening tone, suggesting that Muslims would have to convert to Hinduism. In several BJP-ruled states in India, militant Hindu groups have advised Hindus to display saffron flags atop their homes to mark them as Hindu households. During the outbreaks of anti-Muslim violence, armed rioters—often arriving from outside the area—can use these flags to identify Hindu homes and avoid targeting them. Against this backdrop, can Suvendu’s advice to put up saffron flags not be interpreted as a subtle signal of potential anti-Muslim violence in the area? State elections in West Bengal are scheduled to take place in the next two to three months. In the run-up to the polls, Suvendu and several other senior BJP leaders have frequently delivered hate speeches targeting Muslims, clearly intended to whip up anti-Muslim passion and deepen communal polarisation. In a sharply divided, Hindu-majority region, a party like the BJP benefits electorally from such polarisation. As the largest opposition party in West Bengal, the BJP is making an intense push to come to power following the upcoming elections. As part of this effort, some of its leaders are seeking to mobilise support by demonising Muslims and appealing to Hindu voters through communally charged rhetoric. The surge of #Hindutva ideology continues across India, and there is little chance that anti-Muslim hate speech in the country will diminish anytime soon. #HateSpeech USCIRF

Pinaki Bhattacharya

12,344 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Bharat Mata is not, and cannot be, a Goddess. The term Bharat Mata inspires patriotism. As a poetic symbol, there is nothing wrong with it. The problem begins when poetry is mistaken for theology. Honour vs. Worship The famous line from the Rāmāyaṇa, "Jananī Janmabhūmiśca Svargādapi Garīyasī" (One's mother and motherland are greater than heaven), is often cited to justify worshipping Bharat Mata. However, this verse teaches love, gratitude, and duty toward our birthplace—not religious worship. Sanātana Dharma clearly distinguishes between honour and worship: - We honour Parents, teachers, and the nation. - We worship Bhagavan and deities established by Hindu scriptures. The motherland is a metaphor deserving reverence, not a deity demanding worship. No Scriptural Authority Hindu tradition already has a complete theology of the Divine Mother. Deities like Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Parvati, Kali, and Bhūdevī are worshiped because they are recognised by pramāṇa—the Vedas, Itihasas, Purāṇas, Agamas, and traditional sampradayas. Bharat Mata fits none of these categories: - No Hindu scripture identifies Bharat Mata as a deity. - No traditional lineage prescribes her worship. - No classical temple tradition includes her. Some compare Bharat Mata to Bhūdevī (or Prithvi Mata), but this comparison is inaccurate. Bhūdevī is a scripturally recognized cosmic deity representing the entire Earth, not a specific modern country. India is part of Bhūdevī, but Bhūdevī is not Bharat Mata. A Modern Political Symbol Where did Bharat Mata come from? She is a modern political symbol. - Origins: She emerged during the 19th-century Bengal Renaissance through the wholesale imitation of the Westphalian model of territorial nationalism, with the Indian territory personified and deified as Bharat Mata. - Adoption: The symbol was later adopted by political organisations like the RSS. While this history explains her political importance, it does not give her religious or scriptural authority. Religious vs. Political Spheres India is a secular republic. If Bharat Mata represents the nation, she represents a political entity, not a divine one. A "secular goddess" is a self-contradictory idea. Political symbols belong in civic life—public institutions, rallies, and civic ceremonies. They do not belong in Hindu temples. Temples are consecrated only for Bhagavan and scripturally recognised deities. Installing Bharat Mata statues or pictures in temples is therefore not an act of patriotism but an act of sacrilege. Furthermore, a nation cannot grant moksha (liberation), nor can it replace religion. In Hindu thought: - Only Bhagavan is divine. - Patriotism, no matter how noble, can never replace spiritual devotion. Sacred Geography vs. Political Cartography Confusing political geography with sacred geography leads to several contradictions: - Sacred sites exist beyond modern borders: Holy places like Kashi, Ayodhya, Tirupati, and Puri are sacred because of their association with Bhagavan, not because they fall within India's current map. Conversely, sacred sites like Kailasa, Manasa Sarovar, Pashupatinath, and Janakpur lie outside modern India, yet their sanctity remains unchanged. - Political borders change; divinity does not: The political map of India changed under the Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals, British, and post-1950 Republic. If a deity (Bharat Mata) is bound to political borders, does that deity expand, shrink, or divide whenever the map changes? Hindu theology recognises no gods whose existence depends on human history or political maps. Hindutva is Universal Religion Sanatana Dharma is a universal faith, not a country-bound religion. Crores of Hindus live outside India: - A Hindu born in Nepal owes civic loyalty to Nepal. - Hindus in Mauritius, Fiji, South Africa, the UK, Australia, or the USA owe civic loyalty to their respective nations while remaining fully Hindu. If worshipping Bharat Mata were a mandatory religious duty, global Hindus would face a constant conflict between civic duty to their home country and religion which worships India (Bharat Mata). True Dharma does not impose such local constraints. Conclusion India deserves our love, gratitude, service, and protection as the cradle of Hindu civilisation. But love is not worship, patriotism is not religion, and a nation is not Goddess. When Param Pujya Jagadguru Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Maharaj Ji 1008.Guru stated that Bharat Mata is not a goddess, his view aligned directly with classical Hindu scriptures and theology. Grounded in śāstra and sampradaya, his position reflects traditional doctrinal clarity: Bharat Mata is not, and cannot be, a Goddess.

M. Nageswara Rao IPS (Retired)

38,251 просмотров • 20 дней назад