Historic facts cannot be altered by the passage of time. That is why occupied Kashmir could not be considered as part of India, despite India's continued claim on it as being its integral part. The past 55 years of the illegal occupation of a major part of Jammu and Kashmir has kept South Asia under constant threat of catastrophe, and the Indian lofty claims of being an advocate and upholder of international norms and morality are not convincing at the international level. 

On October 27, 2003, 56 years of Indian aggression in Jammu and Kashmir will be complete. It was on this day in 1947 that the Indian troops had overtly invaded the Kashmiris' soil. In fact, the Indian armed forces, in blatant contravention of the principle of partition of the sub-continent into two sovereign states, Pakistan and India were long before present in Srinagar and other places. This day reminds us how the world community has failed to resolve the oldest issue on the UN agenda in accordance with the UN resolutions. 

The Kashmir dispute is one of the well-documented issues and the entire world is aware of India's violation of international norms and principles by keeping under its occupation a territory the political future of which is yet to be decided within the framework laid down by the UN resolutions. All the political ruses resorted to by India to legitimize its military occupation of Jammu and Kashmir coupled with fraud and conspiracies to make possible and Justify its aggression have proved to be no more than chasing mirages. Its conspiracies to alter to its advantage the report of the Boundary Commission, its forgery of the so-called accession document, its defiance of the UN resolutions and its continued victimisation and brutalisation of the Kashmiri people, struggling for their right to self-determination stand thoroughly exposed at the world level. 

India has mainly based its claim to Kashmir on a so-called accession document. The validity of this document was a burning topic in the Indian press in September 1995. There have been press reports, emanating from New Delhi to the effect that the so-called document of accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India is missing. This fraudulent document has been the subject of controversy for the past 50 years because its validity was in doubt right from its execution. That is why the then British governor general Lord Mountbatten, is on record having accepted the accession with the provision that the final disposition of the state would be decided by a reference to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. 

It was due to this controversy that the Indian government had kept the so-called accession document as a closely-guarded secret. The New Delhi press reports quoted an English weekly of Jammu, The Sahayogi Times as saying that '.the missing of the historic treaty is reported to have come to light when it was required for compiling the case to rebut the 'charge' of Pakistan and the doubts raised in the United States of America and some Arab and Western countries about the validity of the so-called Instrument of Accession.

The New Delhi press reports had also pointed out that the Jammu and Kashmir High Court had issued notice to the chief-secretary of occupied Kashmir and the director of Archives of India to file a written reply before September 28, 1995 to a writ petition, seeking production of the original document of the Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India. Justice Bilal Ahmad of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, had also issued a notice for the appointment of a commission, receiver or a sitting judge to take charge of the archives and verify the truth from the original document. The petitioners had prayed that the Instrument of Accession "be made public for the satisfaction of the people."

It is a universally known fact that the story of Jammu and Kashmir has been told many a time during all these years in all its aspects, and nothing has remained obscure from the piercing gaze of the incisive analysts and the probing historians. The Hindu-British perfidy has been fully exposed and the inaction of the United Nations to implement its pledge to the Kashmiris viewed from a variety of angles. 

In his book, Kashmir-A Disputed Legacy, the British author, Alastair Lamb, has revealed some very telling details relating to the Redcliffe. Award and the circumstances in which the bogey of the so-called accession of Kashmir to India materialized. The facts as narrated by him in this context can be clearly construed to be thoroughly exposing the partiality of Mountbatten towards India and his decisive role in influencing the accession of Jammu and Kashmir as well as the working of the Boundary Commission. He has stated that Sir Cyril Redcliffe was given residence in the Viceroy's Lodge, who frequently dined with him and thus was prone to succumb to viceregal wishes. 

Moreover, the Boundary Commission for the partition of Punjab had four members, two Muslims and the other two non- Muslims (a Hindu and a Sikh). The Muslim members were Justice Din Muhammad and Justice Muhammad Munir, Mehar Chand Mahajan was the Hindu and Taj Singh the Sikh member. In the event of difference of opinion between the members, Sir Cyrill Redcfiffe frequently resorted to using his 'casting vote' in favour of Hindu and Sikh members. 

The view that Nehru and Mountbatten were in league, and that Redcliffe was amenable to Mountbatten's mounting pressure has been conclusively proved by the statement of Christopher Beaumont, secretary to Sir Cyril Redcliffe, released to the press on February 25, 1992. This statement proves beyond any doubt that Sir Redcliffe had not only drawn his award in conformity with the wishes of Lord Mountbatten, he had even altered it to the great disadvantage of Pakistan. 

Beaumont, in his statement, has said "Sir Cyril Redcliffe, head of the Boundary Commission, had yielded to overwhelming political expediency, by agreeing after he had decided the line, to the transfer of the Ferozpur and Zira sub-division in Punjab from Pakistan to India. But no change was made in the North Punjab line in the Gurdaspur district, which abutted Kashmir. The Line in Gurdaspur, it is obvious, was not changed because it had the viceregal pleasure behind it. Mr. Christopher Beaumont, in his statement, added that, "the a1teration took place under the pressure from Mountbatten who was in turn under pressure from Nehru and almost certainly from the Maharaja of Bikaner whose state would have been adversely affected if the Canal Headworks in Ferozpur had gone to Pakistan. The Maharaja of Bikaner had told Mountbatten that unless Ferozpur was allotted to India, he would have to accede to Pakistan. Thus, Ferozpur was given to India, so that Bikaner state remains in the Indian Union and 

Gurdaspur was awarded to that country to facilitate the farcical accession to it by the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir." 

Beaumont has also described it as a serious mistake to appoint a Hindu, Rao Sahib VD Ayer, to the confidential post of assistant secretary to the Commission. The job, he thought, should have gone to someone brought from Britain. Beaumont said that he had little doubt that Aver Kent, Nehru and Menon who handled the accession of states to India were informed of the progress. The Award of Redcliffe, who died in 1977, has been the subject of subsistent controversy and now Beaumont has pronounced the final judgement about the mala fide of the Boundary Commission's Award. 

Even the official biographer of the last Viceroy of India, Philip Zieglen, while stoutly defending Mountbatten, in his book published in 1985 of the charges that he had tampered with the Award, had at least this much to concede that "at one point, Mountbatten, under pressure from Nehru, did contemplate asking Redcliffe to amend the award." 

Professor Alastair Lamb in his book has totally demolished India's case regarding the Kashmir issue. His conclusions regarding the Kashmir case were carried out in a monograph titled The Indian claim to Jammu and Kashmir: a reappraisal, which was released to the press in London on February 20, 1993. 

In this document the author proclaimed, "the ruler of the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, never did sign the Instrument of Accession to India. And to date no satisfactory original Instrument, signed by Maharaja, has been produced, though a highly suspect version, complete with false date of October 26, 1947, has been in circulation since 1960. 

Prof. Lamb's monograph, based on research and irrefutable evidence from the available archives, has brought to light for the first time India's fraudulently obtained accession of Jammu and Kashmir. It lays bare over five decades of Indian falsehood on Jammu and Kashmir and has altered fundamentally the nature of the Indian intervention in Jammu and Kashmir on October 27, 1947. 

The author asserts that, "India was not defending its own but intervening in a foreign state." The monograph stresses, had the United Nations and the world at large been aware of the falsification of the record by Indians, they would have listened with less sympathy to arguments made by successive Indian representatives." Given the facts as they are known, Prof. Lamb holds, "it may well be that an impartial international tribunal would decide that India had no right at all to be in the State of Jammu and Kashmir." 

The fact that till the writing of these lines, India has not contradicted the reports of the missing of the Accession Document is not surprising because it is of, no use even if it existed at any point of time. As pointed out by Alastair Lamb, India has been circulating a fake document, calling it Instrument of Accession. Therefore, it is not important whether such a piece of paper is missing or not. What is vital is that India yields to the verdict of the United Nations and leaves Kashmiris alone to decide their political future, through UN-supervised plebiscite. (Source: Kashmir Media Service}

Hello Everyone!!!

The War which has started long back between Bharat and first Muslims around 7th century AD hasn't over yet.  There was a break of around 300 years because of the British.  Before the Muslim conquest, the kingdoms from Afganistan to Phillipines were Hindu.  And Kashmir was an integral part of Akhand Bharat.

The land never belonged to the majority, but it always belonged to the powerful.

Muslims were powerful in this region about 500 years ago, so it belonged to them and now it belongs to India.

bharatiya wrote: ...There was a break of around 300 years because of the British.

Correction. British occupation of Indian Mughal Empire lasted from 1767 - 1947 CE.

Before the Muslim conquest, the kingdoms from Afganistan to Phillipines were Hindu.  And Kashmir was an integral part of Akhand Bharat

History prove you 101% wrong. When Mahmud Gaznavi attacked Bharat first time - Indian sub-continent was divided among over 1500 big and small Hindu states - fighting with each other. It were some these very Hindu states which invited the ruler of Afghanistan to help them against the powerful Hindu states.

Phillipinos were never Hindus nor were Iranians - but Afghanistan used to be Buddhist country - just like Tibbet, Burma, Thialand and Island of Bali in present-day Indonesia.

And there had never been a united 'Bharat' existed. It was to the credit of Muslim rulers to actually united the Indian Hindus under one banner while trying to save the 'low caste' from (now stand at 245 million) the butchery of high-caste Brehmins.

The land never belonged to the majority, but it always belonged to the powerful

That's true - Gandhi did believe in this philosophy - and was made to pay by RSS.

Muslims were powerful in this region about 500 years....

Correction - About 1000 years.

neo01 wrote: asalam walaikum rahmat kashmeer is a muslim state and so according to the theory of partition, it is an integral part of pakistan

British 'Partition Formula' was that any part of British India, which has 51% Muslim population - would become part of Muslim Pakistan. Kashmir had 80% Muslim population, but its ruler was a Dogra (Hindu) ruler, who against the wishes of his majority subjects - decided to join India. This created problem for three states - Hyderabad, Junagardh and Bhopal, whose rulers were Muslims but majority of subjects Hindu. Pandit Nehru solved this problem very easy way. He invaded those states and occupied them for the 'liberation' their Hindu population.

Wa Salaam.

Rehmat wrote: bharatiya wrote: ...There was a break of around 300 years because of the British.  Correction. British occupation of Indian Mughal Empire lasted from 1767 - 1947 CE. Before the Muslim conquest, the kingdoms from Afganistan to Phillipines were Hindu.  And Kashmir was an integral part of Akhand Bharat . History prove you 101% wrong. When Mahmud Gaznavi attacked Bharat first time - Indian sub-continent was divided among over 1500 big and small Hindu states - fighting with each other. It were some these very Hindu states which invited the ruler of Afghanistan to help them against the powerful Hindu states. Phillipinos were never Hindus nor were Iranians - but Afghanistan used to be Buddhist country - just like Tibbet, Burma, Thialand and Island of Bali in present-day Indonesia. And there had never been a united 'Bharat' existed. It was to the credit of Muslim rulers to actually united the Indian Hindus under one banner while trying to save the 'low caste' from (now stand at 245 million) the butchery of high-caste Brehmins. The land never belonged to the majority, but it always belonged to the powerful That's true - Gandhi did believe in this philosophy - and was made to pay by RSS. Muslims were powerful in this region about 500 years.... Correction - About 1000 years.

Yes, India was divided into several small states.  But before that, Bharata, son of King Dushyanta, brought the whole of Bharatvarsha under his rule and securing the title of an emperor.  And before Afganistan was Buddhist, it was 'hindu'.  It had a considerable 'hindu' population and many old temples. 

You are saying that smaller hindu states 'invited' gizni for 'help'??????????   It is devoid of meaning.

You are right that Filipinos were never hindus.  But just read the history of Philippines(its even on the internet).  They were ruled by Sri Vijaya.

And about Indonesians...  Bali is a Sanskrit word and there are more number of hindus in Indonesia than there are Buddhists.  The national carrier of Indonesia is Garuda Airways.  Garuda is a hindu angel.  There are still many hindu temples in Thailand.  Fortunately, those temples were not destroyed because the people are Buddhist and are tolerent unlike the muslims.

Brahmins are priests and know no martial art or use any weapons.

It was the muslim rulers who butchered so many 'hindus'.   Muslim rulers have destroyed so many hindu and buddhist temples and built mosques.  They are still existent here in our holy cities of Varanasi.  And if we destroy a single mosque(we didn't even kill anyone), there is a lot of hue and cry.

And caste system is existent only for people like you who are christians and muslims who want to degrade the hindus.  Why dont Buddhists who hate caste system, never talk of it?  Because, they well know that its an evil which was used only by a few people.

Yes, Gandhi was killed by the RSS.  They have killed only one man. But what about the islamic terrorists world over.  Killing thousands of innocents world over.

If you say that 'hindus' are bad people and want to rule whole of India...why did they make India a secular state?  Why would they make a Sikh their Prime Minister and a Muslim the President.

"Satyameva jayathe". "Truth shall triumph".

Rehmat wrote: neo01 wrote: asalam walaikum rahmat kashmeer is a muslim state and so according to the theory of partition, it is an integral part of pakistan British 'Partition Formula' was that any part of British India, which has 51% Muslim population - would become part of Muslim Pakistan. Kashmir had 80% Muslim population, but its ruler was a Dogra (Hindu) ruler, who against the wishes of his majority subjects - decided to join India. This created problem for three states - Hyderabad, Junagardh and Bhopal, whose rulers were Muslims but majority of subjects Hindu. Pandit Nehru solved this problem very easy way. He invaded those states and occupied them for the 'liberation' their Hindu population. Wa Salaam.

You are right that Nehru invaded Hyderabad.  I live in Hyderabad and know how the muslims here treat India.

A lot of them support ISI and celebrate when anything bad happens to India.

You see, patriotism cannot be forced.

bharatiya wrote: Yes, India was divided into several small states.  But before that, Bharata, son of King Dushyanta,....

I suggest you study 'Mahabharat' and 'Geeta' again.

You are saying that smaller hindu states 'invited' gizni for 'help'??????????   It is devoid of meaning

Yes dear that's what I am saying - and I also said not long ago that when the European Jews entered Palestine after WW I - Palestine was not an 'empty land', but the home of 700,000 Arabs.

...But just read the history of Philippines(its even on the internet).  They were ruled by Sri Vijaya

So were Indians of Peru????

Bali is a Sanskrit word....

So was Burtagal (Portugal); Indtleeb (Sri Lanka); Canaada (Canada), etc.

It was the muslim rulers who butchered so many 'hindus'.   Muslim rulers have destroyed so many hindu and buddhist temples and built mosques...

Your history is amazing - considering while Muslims were 'butchering Hindus' (where no Muslim army ever went), the same Muslims were giving refuge and prosperity to Jews who are well known for their enemity towards Islam, Muslims, and their Prophet, whom they tried to assassinate twice.

bharatiya wrote: You are right that Nehru invaded Hyderabad.  I live in Hyderabad and know how the muslims here treat India

You mean treat 'Hindus'!

A lot of them support ISI and celebrate when anything bad happens to India

Did you raise your object when Congress Party elected a Muslim as President of India? Or did you in case of the previous two Muslim Presidents? I think you're mixing up Mossad with ISI.

You see, patriotism cannot be forced

No kidding. I live next door to the US and I know how 'patriotic' Jews are....AIPAC can tell you better than me.

Asalam walaikum Rehmat bhai!!!

Please, no offence to be taken.

Rehmat wrote: I suggest you study 'Mahabharat' and 'Geeta' again.

Well... A muslim who has never been to India knows well about 'Mahabharata' and the 'Geeta'.  Please, they were written by many scholars and in modern India they are mostly misinterpreted by so called 'hindus'.  Anyway, that does not matter for me, 'cos I believe what I want to believe.  I mostly follow Sankaracharya and Swami Vivekananda and thats enough.  Emperor Bharata was born after the Mahabharata was over.  Mahabharata, Ramayana etc were history made into stories for the contemporary people.

So they have been misinterpreted as mythologies.

Yes dear that's what I am saying - and I also said not long ago that when the European Jews entered Palestine after WW I - Palestine was not an 'empty land', but the home of 700,000 Arabs.

Well, let me tell you.  You really dont know how muslims entered India.  A hindu king wanted to kill a prince(because the prince and the daughter of the king loved each other and got married).  But the prince was so powerful that he was virtually unbeatable.  So he joined hands with the incoming muslim army.

And about Israel (India is not a friend of Israel, India had been condemning the occupation of Palestine) , I really pity the Israelis, first they were driven out by the arabs, and then murdered by the Germans.  You, may not agree with this.  But see the near past.  When modern Israel was formed, the Arabs attacked them from all the sides.  Thats why they occupied Palestine as a buffer zone.

So were Indians of Peru????

What do you mean by this?

So was Burtagal (Portugal); Indtleeb (Sri Lanka); Canaada (Canada), etc.

Oh my god... now I understand why people have a misconception about hindus... This clearly shows that muslims are narrow minded.

Your history is amazing - considering while Muslims were 'butchering Hindus' (where no Muslim army ever went), the same Muslims were giving refuge and prosperity to Jews who are well known for their enemity towards Islam, Muslims, and their Prophet, whom they tried to assassinate twice.

'no muslim army ever went'?  Please read Indian history(or even pakistan history, though they curse India, atleast they are a little fair towards history).

And let me tell you... Every non-hindu talks about hindu caste system.  If that really exists, then I should be an untouchable.  I am categorized as 'Backward Caste - B' by the Indian government.  But most of my friends are so called 'upper' caste Brahmins.  And mind you, Brahmins are a minority in India.

Rehmat wrote: You mean treat 'Hindus'!

Well, anti-Indian muslims even hate pro-Indian muslims.

Did you raise your object when Congress Party elected a Muslim as President of India? Or did you in case of the previous two Muslim Presidents? I think you're mixing up Mossad with ISI.

Buddy, you really dont know anything about India.  President Abdul Kalam was elected president by a so called 'communal' party.  And as I told you, India is a secular country.  Muslims are given as much respect as a hindu or christian or a sikh in India.  Well, I love Mossad.  Really, Indian intelligence agencies should learn a lot from Mossad.  Anyway, I still love my intelligence agencies though they are 'imperfect' spies.  Indians are told not to worry about the ISI as our own intelligence agencies retaliate to every strike of ISI.

No kidding. I live next door to the US and I know how 'patriotic' Jews are....AIPAC can tell you better than me.

We are not talking about Jews buddy.  If you say that Jews are not patriotic, its thier problem.  As there are traitors in India, there are traitors everywhere.

I want to ask you some questions buddy.

1. Why are most of the terrorists in the world 'muslim'?

2. Why do they always target unarmed innocents(are they afraid to face an army) most of the time killing them in the name of Islam(really I used to love Islam, I really still love it, except those extremists and fundamentalists)?

3. Why should women wear a veil and men have a freedom to do anything?

4. If Islam does not recognize idolatory, then why they worship the stone at Kaba?(I really dont mean any offence, I had my education from Muslim teachers who go to Mecca every year.  I love Mecca, as much as I love our own holy shrines)

5. If 'kafir' means 'non-believer' then why is India called land of kafirs, where people even believe stones to be god?  And how can they make jihad on them?

I know you will never reply again.

Satyameva Jayate.

bharatiya wrote: ...Well, anti-Indian muslims even hate pro-Indian muslims

That's funny, I have several Hindus friends in Canada and they're 'hidus' and I am 'Muslim'!

And as I told you, India is a secular country

So did I hear about Israel - but over there Muslims and Christians are not allowed to vote.

Muslims are given as much respect as a hindu or christian or a sikh in India

That's one thing you said corrct - Hindus treat them equally, when it comes to demolishing their religious places.

Well, I love Mossad

Did not I tell you before?

We are not talking about Jews buddy

But 'mate' you just admitted being 'in love with Mossad'! Is Mossad some company's name in Pakistan? 

I want to ask you some questions buddy. 1. Why are most of the terrorists in the world 'muslim'? 2. Why do they always target unarmed innocents(are they afraid to face an army) most of the time killing them in the name of Islam(really I used to love Islam, I really still love it, except those extremists and fundamentalists)? 3. Why should women wear a veil and men have a freedom to do anything? 4. If Islam does not recognize idolatory, then why they worship the stone at Kaba?(I really dont mean any offence, I had my education from Muslim teachers who go to Mecca every year.  I love Mecca, as much as I love our own holy shrines) 5. If 'kafir' means 'non-believer' then why is India called land of kafirs, where people even believe stones to be god?  And how can they make jihad on them?

I know you will never reply again

Iz not this world full of surprises!

Rehmat bhai!!!

Yes, India is a communal country.  And yes, even in India, muslims and christians are not allowed to vote.  They are stopped by the communal forces at the poling booths and are killed.  It seems the communal forces are planning to make India, 'Hindu Republic of Hindustan' by the end of this year.  And hey dont you know, Indian intelligence agencies fund Mossad.  Actually RAW and Mossad work hand in hand.

And beware of your fellow 'hindus', they may kill you some day because you are not hindu

Yes, world is full of surprises.

I will substitute for first two questions.  I will replace them with hindu, jew. Happy?

But what about the next three?

3. Why should women wear a veil and men have a freedom to do anything?

4. If Islam does not recognize idolatory, then why they worship the stone at Kaba?(I really dont mean any offence, I had my education from Muslim teachers who go to Mecca every year.  I love Mecca, as much as I love our own holy shrines)

5. If 'kafir' means 'non-believer' then why is India called land of kafirs, where people even believe stones to be god?  And how can they make jihad on them?

As I have told, you will not answer these questions

And, I need answers(if you can answer them) but not questions.  If you have any questions, first answer these and then you can ask me how many muslims I have killed by the time you answer

Sorry to intrude. Rehmat may have his own answers to your questions, as he did away with the ones on terrorists but i thought it a duty to respond to some, too.

Question 3. Women as well as men are not free to do everything if we are referring to Islaam. This is what makes the difference between human behaviour and those of animals, there are certain limitations in what you can and cannot do. Men are to cover certain portion of their body and women are also to cover certain portion of their body... why different?... because they are different.

Question 4. Muslims worship Allaah, The Most Great and The Most Glorious, the Creator of all that is in the heavens and on earth, including stones. The stone of Ka'aba is not worshipped.

Question 5. Kaffir an Arabic word meaning "denier" or "concealer", it is often used to mean "non-believer". Anyone who denies the existence of Allaah is a kaffir. Believing stones to be god makes you a denier of Allaah, for you become worshipper of a stone and not god.

Not quite sure though that India is called the land of kaffirs. There is an area called Kaffiristan some place northeastern Afghanistan inhabitted by people known as kaffirs and who have no reference to the Arabic term. Unless you think it part of India...

And, Bharatiya, please mind your language when putting up your posts, i am sure your belief does not advocate the use foul language. Otherwise, welcome!

neo01 wrote: .....by the way rehmat, what is your country of birth/

Pakhtooooon - You know one of the "People of 12 Tribes".

MOCKBA wrote: ...Rehmat may have his own answers to your questions, as he did away with the ones on terrorists but i thought it a duty to respond to some, too....

Rehmat doesn't know the answers.  He only has hatred towards the jews and hindus.  If mind is filled with hatred, how can it be clear?

Question 3. Women as well as men are not free to do everything if we are referring to Islaam. This is what makes the difference between human behaviour and those of animals, there are certain limitations in what you can and cannot do. Men are to cover certain portion of their body and women are also to cover certain portion of their body... why different?... because they are different.

Thats the difference between Islam and the beauty that is called 'Hinduism'.  'Hinduism' doesn't have any such limitations.  And treats everyone and everything equal.  But it also says that we are higher forms of life as we can think rationally unlike animals.  'Hinduism' allows us to do anything, allows us to make mistakes, but also says that if we do bad, bad will follow and if we do good, good will follow, and tells us that, even if we do mistakes, we are still one with God.

But why a man can marry a number of women, while a woman cannot?  And why should a woman cover the whole of her body(muslim woman cover whole of the body, not certain portion)?

Question 4. Muslims worship Allaah, The Most Great and The Most Glorious, the Creator of all that is in the heavens and on earth, including stones. The stone of Ka'aba is not worshipped.

If Allah is the creator of everything, he also created us 'hindus', jews and christians.  Then why do you want to kill everyone by a so called jihad?

Question 5. Kaffir an Arabic word meaning "denier" or "concealer", it is often used to mean "non-believer". Anyone who denies the existence of Allaah is a kaffir. Believing stones to be god makes you a denier of Allaah, for you become worshipper of a stone and not god.

You people call Allah, 'hindus' call Brahman(Rama, Krishna, Buddha etc. are human beings like the Prophet Muhammad) and the christians call The Holy Father.  If we deny the word Allah(we really hate the word 'allah' because, in the name of allah all the atrocities are being committed all around the world) it does not mean we do not believe in god.

Not quite sure though that India is called the land of kaffirs. There is an area called Kaffiristan some place northeastern Afghanistan inhabitted by people known as kaffirs and who have no reference to the Arabic term. Unless you think it part of India...

You see, this shows the intolerant mind of a Muslim...

And, Bharatiya, please mind your language when putting up your posts, i am sure your belief does not advocate the use foul language. Otherwise, welcome!

When 'rape' can be used freely, why not others in the forum?

bharatiya wrote: Rehmat doesn't know the answers.  He only has hatred towards the jews and hindus.  If mind is filled with hatred, how can it be clear?

Yep, only someone sitting in Haifa could show such ignorance about India - But then it never surprised me before his knowledge of Muslim Spain or Palestine (before it became Israel).

Life is beautiful - especially for the 'self-denials'.

Rehmat wrote: neo01 wrote: .....by the way rehmat, what is your country of birth/ Pakhtooooon - You know one of the "People of 12 Tribes".

salam rehmat..

where do u stay in pakistan?

iam a lahori

Rehmat wrote: neo01 wrote: .....by the way rehmat, what is your country of birth/ Pakhtooooon - You know one of the "People of 12 Tribes".

salam rehmat

where are you from? i am a lahori

bharatiya wrote: Rehmat wrote: Yep, only someone sitting in Haifa could show such ignorance about India - But then it never surprised me before his knowledge of Muslim Spain or Palestine (before it became Israel). I am unable to understand what you are talking about. Life is beautiful - especially for the 'self-denials'. Same with this sentence.  I dont know what you are talking about. lol. Well, before muslims came, India had only hindus(Buddhists, Jains etc) and Israel had only Jews.  But muslims came to india and Israel and you can see the state of affairs now. The Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid was asking for another partition of india?  On what grounds should we give you our land which has neither so called muslim shrine or has anything significant done by the muslims towards india excepting a few? And my fellow muslims are the real ********.  when they were given 33% of land for only 21% of population, they did not leave india.  Nowhere but here we say that 'hindus' and muslims are brothers.  And you see how they degrade us and the traditional indian religion. But every cause will have an effect.  If you do bad, good will not follow. 'Allah O Akbar' 'Satyameva jayate'

what do u want bharatiya????????????????????????

neo01 wrote: what do u want bharatiya????????????????????????

"bharatiya" or Israeliya - That 'Iznogoodh'

Asalam walaikum Rehmat,

One question,  what about the persecution of Kashmiri Pandits?

Kashmir - A Hindu Holocaust

bharatiya wrote: Asalam walaikum Rehmat, One question,  what about the persecution of Kashmiri Pandits? Kashmir - A Hindu Holocaust

I have heard Jew saying 'Shalom' - But never herad a Pandit saying 'Asalam' and 'walaikum' together - but then 'skullcaps' come in different colors and shades.

Kashmir, perhaps even more than the Middle East, is the world's most intractable, most punishingly futile crisis. Decade after decade it rumbles insolubly on, claiming dead on the battlefield but, beyond that, claiming millions of lives lost to poverty and sickness, people ground down by an obscene weight of military spending. The generals and politicians who made the first blunders have long since passed away: though the excuses have changed, their heirs perform as though from memory.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,626099,00.html - http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,626099,00.htm l

Rehmat wrote: bharatiya wrote: Asalam walaikum Rehmat, One question,  what about the persecution of Kashmiri Pandits? Kashmir - A Hindu Holocaust I have heard Jew saying 'Shalom' - But never herad a Pandit saying 'Asalam' and 'walaikum' together - but then 'skullcaps' come in different colors and shades. Kashmir, perhaps even more than the Middle East, is the world's most intractable, most punishingly futile crisis. Decade after decade it rumbles insolubly on, claiming dead on the battlefield but, beyond that, claiming millions of lives lost to poverty and sickness, people ground down by an obscene weight of military spending. The generals and politicians who made the first blunders have long since passed away: though the excuses have changed, their heirs perform as though from memory. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,626099,00.html - http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,626099,00.htm l

Es_Selam'un Aleykum ve Rahmetullahi ve Berakatuh Sister Nausheen,

 Sister,as you have understood from the words of rehmat,he has a link in his mind to jews;i believe this is not coming form iman;iman can't be seem like that too ugly....Sister,he has a aberration in his mind;please ban him from the board,he does not care the words...this is an discussion board not an warboard...please discuss the issue with the other moderators...all of your decision will be respected;but i think the time has come...he did not listen...look at these words,he sees everybody as a zionist;probably he needs a theraphy,this is not islam...

Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullah,

Jazak allah khair for your input brother Suleyman,

Es_Selam'un Aleykum ve Rahmetullahi ve Berakatuh Sister Nausheen,

[Quote=Suleyman]Sister,as you have understood from the words of rehmat,he has a link in his mind to jews;i believe this is not coming form iman;iman can't be seem like that too ugly....Sister,he has a aberration in his mind;please ban him from the board,he does not care the words...this is an discussion board not an warboard...please discuss the issue with the other moderators...all of your decision will be respected;but i think the time has come...he did not listen...look at these words,he sees everybody as a zionist;probably he needs a theraphy,this is not islam...[/Quote]

I think this person is a metamorphosed zionist. He wants to paint everyone as such but during his study on the jews and zionist he got gripped so hard by them, that has been transformed into one.

As the saying goes, a jaundiced eye sees everything yellow - he sees everyone as a zionist.

Definetly what he says is not Islam, but do u think he will leave us alone if we ban him? he will come back, and start the circus under a different name. This is one of my prime concerns while banning him, and i need some advice from members like you.

I will however take your voice to the moderator forum.

Jazak allah khair,

Maa salaama.

Nausheen

Es_Selam'un Aleykum ve Rahmetullahi ve Berakatuh Sister Nausheen,

 Sister,i have invited him to msn for discussing his words on the board and he did not accept...i am not sure;but we are agreed with him for his leaving the board;i am not sure,all i can understand from his words...i can imagine his backgrounds,i can feel what he suffers and the cause of his problems and the resolutions,i have joined some of the groups who thinks and acts like him...i have invited him for sharing my experiences;no answer..i think he is going to leave the board;unless he will not change and keep on writing with the same style,an opinion from me you should ban him...a last not from me,he is not an bad person,a brother who is the victim of the books...sometimes evil can use islam for covering the persons for causing acting sins...as we can remember from the murder of Hz.Ali(r.a.)..the person who killed him was reading qur'an with his mouth without stopping...he was reading with his mouth neither with his heart nor with his brain or with the science of shariat...when he caught by the muslims he was still reading the qur'an with his mouth while he killed the dear love of the last prophet;His custody...as an result;absorbing the qur'an and knowing how to moving with is so much important...unless we can go to the other way while we are believing that we are on jihad...i wish him the best for his next life,i wish Allah will protect all of us...