Saturday, October 17, 2009

Re: [aryasamajonline] Myth of Moderate Islam- Talveen Singh- pl unedersatnd the difference

My take:

"I am proud to belong to a religion which has tought the world both tolerance and universal acceptance.we believe in universal toleration but cannot accept those religions to be true that legitimate murder, plunder and rape for not subscribing to their faiths. I am proud to belong to a nation,which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of earth"

I agree with Daniel Webster who said, "There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. ... I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants... they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing."  Feminism is a tool of the enemy to emasculate America's husbands and fathers, destabilize America's homes, and produce selfish, undisciplined children......

There is scramble for booty and slaves around the whole world. Vedic Morals are stumbling-blocks. Moses, the founder of immorality on the pretext of religion, was the first person who moralized Booty, (Bible Deut. 20:14),  rape of women (Bible Isaiah 13:15-16) and subjugation of humanity through his religion Judaism and his domestic servant Jehovah on the pretext of ban on worshipping alien gods. (Bible Exodus/ Chapter 20 / The Ten Commandments/ Verses 3 and 5). Jesus, a pirate, improved the booty further. He moralized eating flesh of the son of man and drinking his blood (Bible, John 6:53) and slaughter of one who does not accept Jesus his ruler. (Bible, Luke, 19:27). Muhammad, an other pirate,  made Allah the owner of booty, (Koran 8:01, 41 and 69) killer of non-Muslims, (Koran 8:17) rapist of women (Koran 4:24; 23:6; 33:50 and 70:30) and owner of the world. (Koran 2:255). Still Jesus and Muhammad provided limited right of booty to their followers. Property is power. Remaining in the hands of citizens, property prevents their subjugation and servitude. Therefore, Carl Marx invested property into the immoral, corrupt and usurper society. Democracy is blend of all above to eradicate Vedic culture and enslave one.

Now compare Ishwar with these Gods! While Jehovah has two brokers named Moses and Jesus, Allah has one alone named Muhammad? Any one can meet Ishwar direct after performing Yoga or Kundalini Jagran. Ishwar has no broker. (Gita 7:21). No one can meet Jehovah and Allah. So why should one worship these impotent and criminal gods named Jehovah and Allah who make one slave, instigate one for murder, plunder, incest and rape of women of alien faiths and forbid one from worshipping a god of one's choice, in lieu of Ishwar who gives one unfettered right to worship any god of one's choice? Look! The notorious democracy calls this status of servility, liberty of faith and secularism! Therefore, the suggestion to these followers of criminal prophets is to relinquish their prophets and come into the fold of great and omnipresent Vedic culture. Do not believe in and do not accept religious servility for sex, booty and slave. Come to my fold I would provide you liberty to worship a God of your own choice, says Ishwar in Gita, See Chapter 7 Shloka 21.

Through the very tailor compiled Article 29(1) of the Indian Constitution by Jesus' Congress, the criminal Muslims and Christians have been provided unfettered fundamental right to conserve their culture i.e. in fact right to liquidate or enslave every non-Muslim and non-Christian of the globe.

Christianity and Islam are cults. It is time to wake up and realize that these cults are threat to humankind and there can be no co-existence with Muslims and Christians. As long as Muslims and Christians believe in Muhammad and Jesus, they are a threat to others and even to themselves. Muslims and Christians must leave their Christianity and Islam, discard their cultures of hate and join the rest of humankind as fellow humans, or non-Muslims and non-Christians must separate themselves from them, ban Christianity and Islam, end the immigration of Muslims and Christians and slay those, who plot against humanity and refuse to integrate. Christianity and Islam are incompatible with humanity and morality. These are warring creeds {(Koran 2:216 and 8:65) and (Bible, Matt 10:34 and Luke 12:49) that use democracy to destroy humanity and to establish itself as a worldwide dictatorship. The only way to avert the clash between this barbarity and civilization and a world disaster, is to expose the fallacies of Christianity and Islam and demystify them. Muslims and Christians must be weaned from Christianity and Islam for humanity to live in peace.

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:15 PM, ramans shriman <> wrote:

Priya arya jan

There is no such things as moderate islam . it cant be coz they say it is a world of God so human being are not authorized to change the word of god.
Coz if human being can change the word of god and make islaam moderate then the wisdom of almighty embedded in islam as claimed is lost .
Then there is no difference in western man made religions and Islam which is said to be God made religion although Rishi has disputed it from the starting ayat (verse) itself.

Modern change theorists of the west might be taken by surprise to know a fact that there are several things which are not changeable in this fast changing world. E.g

1- almighty param pita pameshwars laws ; this include the whole subject of parmatam vaad as embedded in holy Vedas none is changeable. i.e gun dharma karam swbhav of ishwar are not changeable. These are detailed by holy mahrishi dayanand by 100 names of Ishwar in SP sammullas -1
2- sarshti niyams ; srasti niyams are created in the beginning of the srasti and they are not changeable through out the period of the sarsti. These are explained in sarti utpatti vishya
3- in fact holy Vedas say , yatha poorvam kalpyat ie. Ishwar makes the sarsti according to his poorv kalpna . and rishi has written that ishwar makes his arsti every time the same way why coz his kalpna ( design and functions of padaarth prani , and their relationship –man material relationship ) was done in poorv ( before) of creation. And that is unknown when????? . but poorva word means and involves before the first sarsti was created. Therefore since his kalpna was done in the poorva of first srasti therefore all the times srastis are created the same way as per His poorva kalpna
4- The gun dharma swabhav of padarth are also not changed through out he srasti . they remain unchanged. As experienced day to day by manushay prani and human being.
5- By the same token His vidyas , gyan vigyan as filled in the holy Vedas is also not changeable .
Q- if so many things are not changeable then what is changeable?
Ans; the changeable thing is the gun karam dharma and swabhav of manushy prani or human being .
pl remember this is not true in case of animals. They cant change it .. why?
Coz the swatantrya (u can say freedom although swatantray is different and freedom is different ) is granted only to the manushay prani not to the animals.
Why? Coz manushay prani is in karm yoni and animals are in Bhog yonis.
And this the big-big-big difference human being don't understand and call themselves as social animals.
That is why manushay prani is not human being and human being is not manushay prani

So now another related question ???......What is that question ???
The Q: . why ishwar has to become sarav- vyapak, sarv- antaryami and sarvagya ????

Of course if you ask answer of this question to the religion people or some UNO chief or some Nobel prize winners or noble committee chief or some Macaulay university professors or Macaulay Phd in Vedas etc you should not be surprised if their answers come as many as many the people are.

So what is the correct answer???
The correct answer is...

Ans. Holy param pita parmatama ishwar has to become 1-sarv –vyapak , 2-sarva antaryami and 3- sarvagya for three facilities to manushay prani

1- to maintain the swatantrya status of manushay prani
2- to allow the manushay prani to change his /her gun, karam dharma swabhav over the yugas ( yug parivatan philosophy is a holy Vedic COPY RIGHT )
3- To remain nyaykari rather param nyaya kaari ( only ishwar by being sarvagya, sav anatryami and sarva vypak can carry out pram nyay- human being or manushay prani nyay is not param. it is ordinary naya)
For providing the above three facilities holy Vedic rishis and aapt purushah have called Holy parampita paramatma as dayalu

Religions don't know any of the above subjects .
But coming back to the point of change and no change in islaam and quran Vs holy Vedic dharma and Holy Vedas as to what is the difference between the two????????????????/

Of course the answer of this question is also not known to the religions and all those people mentioned above.
But the holy Vedic answer is that holy Vedic dharma and holy Vedas are philosophy based e.g master philosophy of traitvaad – ishwar jeev prakrit or philosophy of yug parivartan or philosophies described by six brahm rishis in six darshan shatras and ten rishi in ten brhamin granths
Where as islam or quran and similarly other religions and their books are instruction based . i.e you do so and so . so these instructions become outdated with the time and so become the religions also outdated .
This is not he case with holy Vedas and holy Vedic dharma . e,g. take for example .....
- yad bhadrma tanna suva or ..
- yo nah pracho dyat or ...
- jeevem shardah shatam or
- yhath poorvam kalpyat or
holy Vedic yog vidya .. or
Holy vedic ayur-vigyan ..or
Tamso ma jyotirgamay and so on the whole literatures of holy Vedas are never never going to be out dated
That is how aryas must understand the logic in maharhsi datyaand's writing the critics of astya , agyan and illiteracy based religions rather than giving them some charming words like moderate islaam etc.

Deepti Ukhal <> wrote: FIFTH COLUMNThe myth of moderate Islam
Tavleen SinghPosted online: Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 2316 hrs Print

This is not a column that discusses cinema, but this week I make an exception because of a film I have just seen, which inadvertently exposes the myth of ‘moderate’ Islam. I went to see Khuda Kay Liye not just because it is the first Pakistani film to be released in Indian cinemas since anyone can remember, but because I gathered from reviews that it was a reflection of moderate Islam. This is a commodity in short supply in the subcontinent as well as across the Islamic world, where supposedly moderate Islamic countries like Indonesia and Malaysia have transformed in recent times into places where women have exchanged mini-skirts and western influence for the hijab and a return to medieval Arabia.

Khuda Kay Liye is the story of a modern Pakistani family that is destroyed when one musician son ends up in the clutches of a bad mullah and the other ends up in an American prison cell, where he is tortured till he loses his mind. The Islamist son, under the influence of the evil maulana, coerces his London-bred cousin into a marriage she does not want and forces her to live in a primitive Afghan village so she cannot escape. He rapes her because the maulana instructs him to and gives up his musical career because the maulana tells him that the Prophet of Islam did not like music. And he becomes an involuntary mujahid after 9/11, fighting on the side of the Taliban government. This is a simple story of a young man misled in the name of Islam.

The other musician son’s story is more revealing of the flaws of what we like to call ‘moderate’ Islam. He goes to study music in a college in Chicago, falls in love with a white girl, and generally has a good time living the American dream until 9/11 happens. Then he is arrested, locked up in a secret prison in the United States and kept naked in a filthy cell until he goes mad. The message of the film, in its essence, is that Islam is a great religion that has been misunderstood and that the United States is a bad, bad country and all talk of freedom and democracy is nonsense. Alas, this is not how we infidels see things.

What interested me most about the film was that in seeking to show Islam in a good light, it accidentally exposes the prejudices that make moderate Muslims the ideological partners of jihadis. In painting America as the villain of our times, the prejudices against the West that get exposed are no different from what Mohammad Siddique, one of London’s tube bombers, said in the suicide video he made before blowing himself up. In the video, that surfaced during the trial now on in London, he describes himself as a soldier in the war against the West: ‘I’m doing what I am for Islam, not, you know, for materialistic or worldly benefits.’

In Khuda Kay Liye, the prejudices against India come through as well. The hero, when he lands in Chicago, finds that his future wife does not know that Pakistan is a country. When he tries to explain where it is geographically, he mentions Iran, Afghanistan and China before coming to India. It happens that India is the only country she knows and Taj Mahal the only Indian monument she has heard of. ‘We built it,’ says our hero, ‘we ruled India for a thousand years and Spain for 800.’ As an Indian, my question is: who is we? Those who left for Pakistan or the 180 million Muslims who still live in India? If we pursue this ‘we’ nonsense, we must urge the Indian Government to bring back Harappa and Mohenjo-daro and Taxila. And that is only the short list.

Let us not pretend that Muslims in India do not face hostility and prejudice. They do. But some of it comes from this idea that Muslims have of themselves as being superior because they ‘ruled India’ for a thousand years. The problem becomes more complex if you remember that Hindu fanatics also see Muslims as foreigners and use it to fuel their hatred.

If ‘moderate’ Muslims believe that the West is the real enemy of Islam and that the free societies of modern times compare poorly with the greatness of Muslim rule in earlier times, then there is little difference between them and the jihadis. As we infidels see it, the problem is that Islam refuses to accept that in the 21st century there is no room for religionâ€"any religionâ€"in the public square. Other religions have accepted this and retreated to a more private space. Islam has not.

Yahoo! For Good helps you make a difference

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Y! Messenger

Group get-together

Host a free online

conference on IM.

Popular Y! Groups

Is your group one?

Check it out and




No comments: