Pahalgam terrorist attack and after effects - Page 2

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

Interesting read 👇

https://x.com/beatsinbrief/status/1917213509454303302?t=IUyv9Tn77hubbO7nnOzMTA&s=19

Indeed interesting times ...

It's very difficult to predict anything this time... I feel pressure and expectations from the government to take some decisive action on Pakistan is huge this time. Also because in various parliamentary debates this government has often criticised the Manmohan Singh government for not doing the air strikes after 26/11 despite being advised to do so. So now time is testing them the same way. At the same time India is also looking at expanding it's economy, attract companies shifting manufacturing from China, attract investments. From Climate change to semiconductor to AI to becoming a developed nation we have our targets. The government may not want India to get stuck in anyway in some kind of war. Forget about nuclear (which is good). But then again no action means giving Pakistan a moral victory to do more such attacks, perhaps even scale it. Also I feel not giving any response in a way also gives an impression of a weak government to the radicals within the country and Bangladesh, which may attack Hindus in various pockets taking inspiration from Pahalgam success. Already BJP has not done much when it comes to Bengal and Bangladesh both. So again the action indeed has to be very caliberated and well thought out but inaction may also not be an option. That leaves all of us with just speculations.

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

But if I want can I create a new thread with a different title about Kashmir issue? I don't want to post in this thread cos I don't want to trouble the tm more with my keyboard activism.

Yes. You can create a new thread with different topic & different discussions on Pahalgam terrorist attack.

TM had created the topic first. Hence she made 2nd topic to continue same discussions like 1st topic.

If 1st topic was created by a member, then same member or forum dt opens next one.

Someone else wants to make 2nd thread, needs to ask 1st topics tm.

What is with the picture in the very first post? It seems as if the perpetrators are victims and not the ones murdered. Anyways, thank you @InsaneDivine for inviting me.

Originally posted by: shramp

What is with the picture in the very first post? It seems as if the perpetrators are victims and not the ones murdered. Anyways, thank you @InsaneDivine for inviting me.

That picture indeed should not have been there.. I don't have the problem with thread merging but Pakistanis leaving is not the focal point of our entire discussion.. Anyway u can visit this thread....

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/current-affairs/5371167/kashmir-terrorism-a-broader-problem

The news reports of lakhs of Pakistanis living in India with all documents and voting in elections is frankly alarming. Commoners have to struggle to get docs made but these foreigners can simply waltz in and get everything so easily?

This country is being saved by some divine power.

Why do we even have so many from neighboring countries anyway? Isn't India unsafe for them? Now I get why the left and entire opposition fueled violent protests against CAA NRC. It was meant to save these kinds who are now being shown the door.

FlauntPessimism,

In answer to your previous query.

1 Dhur Khalasa incident is not mentioned in the Quran, but only in the hadith and over time there are a few variances in its description.

We would more or less be searching the same sources in order to get a answer and yet will possibly fail to meet the absolute correct one.

However going by this..

As the Muslims went from being tortured in the streets of Mecca to becoming the rulers of Arabia, they were driven by the vision of Monotheism and sought to destroy the chains of idolatry ruling the Arabs. Dhur Khalasa was also a cult of prostitution, hence destroyed and Arabia was cleansed from the idolatrous Arab practices of worshipping rocks and trees, burying their daughters alive and sharing their wives.

When they wished to do the demolition, they provided a three day notice period.

2. They were a Warlord, like others and this was the way to gain control over a region - possibly.

3. Did the teaching of Islam come into play in this case.. then the verse said 'to defend your religion'. So the other part to this is, there was a Kabaa already, then in Yemen they created Dhur khalasa as a Kabaa of Yemen. The original Kabaa was supposed to have been the central point for the purpose of religion, possibly politically too for the sake of economics.

Muslims are not the only ones who have taken over regions, this is how the world has evolved and it was happening everywhere and still is.

Coming back to attack and defend, with the 3 days notice, the pagans refused the offer and decided to engage in a fight. Now this is what I had said at the beginning.. During the fight/battle, the only time the Muslims would be allowed to raise their sword was if the opposition made the advancement first to attack, then the Muslims are allowed to raise theirs. so on the battleground, you can't be the one raising your sword first to attack.

It is not said that they cannot go into a war, but during the war, there are set ethics that need to be followed.

I hope this makes it more clear.. And this is possibly the nearest we can get, to put it in a nutshell.

Thank you for bringing this to me, I didn't know of the Dhur Khalasa situation, so it was something for me to look into and learn.

Originally posted by: carisma2

FlauntPessimism,

In answer to your previous query.

1 Dhur Khalasa incident is not mentioned in the Quran, but only in the hadith and over time there are a few variances in its description.

We would more or less be searching the same sources in order to get a answer and yet will possibly fail to meet the absolute correct one.

However going by this..

As the Muslims went from being tortured in the streets of Mecca to becoming the rulers of Arabia, they were driven by the vision of Monotheism and sought to destroy the chains of idolatry ruling the Arabs. Dhur Khalasa was also a cult of prostitution, hence destroyed and Arabia was cleansed from the idolatrous Arab practices of worshipping rocks and trees, burying their daughters alive and sharing their wives.

When they wished to do the demolition, they provided a three day notice period.

2. They were a Warlord, like others and this was the way to gain control over a region - possibly.

3. Did the teaching of Islam come into play in this case.. then the verse said 'to defend your religion'. So the other part to this is, there was a Kabaa already, then in Yemen they created Dhur khalasa as a Kabaa of Yemen. The original Kabaa was supposed to have been the central point for the purpose of religion, possibly politically too for the sake of economics.

Muslims are not the only ones who have taken over regions, this is how the world has evolved and it was happening everywhere and still is.

Coming back to attack and defend, with the 3 days notice, the pagans refused the offer and decided to engage in a fight. Now this is what I had said at the beginning.. During the fight/battle, the only time the Muslims would be allowed to raise their sword was if the opposition made the advancement first to attack, then the Muslims are allowed to raise theirs. so on the battleground, you can't be the one raising your sword first to attack.

It is not said that they cannot go into a war, but during the war, there are set ethics that need to be followed.

I hope this makes it more clear.. And this is possibly the nearest we can get, to put it in a nutshell.

Thank you for bringing this to me, I didn't know of the Dhur Khalasa situation, so it was something for me to look into and learn.

Dhul Khalsa wasn't something related to prostitusion as per any authentic Hadeeth(it's very convenient to bring prostitusion angle to demean other's religious place, so all later folklore). People wouldn't fight their lives to save a place of prostitusion. They did that because it was a place of their worship and immense faith.

Even if we assume that it was a place of prostitusion, shouldn't the plan be to stop prostitusion rather than demolish the place knowing how much sacred it was for others.

And yes Muslims were tortured in Mecca and later became victorious there, a great achievement and feat, how does that mean a set of people in Yemen(who by the way had nothing to do with people of Mecca) shall not be allowed to worship their Gods?

Why was it necessary to remove idols from entire Arabia?? I thought it was your religion for you and mine for me?

Dhul Khalsa wasn't named Kaba of Yemen but was called Kaba of Yemen(like Kalidasa is called Shakespeare of India) and it was called Kaba of Yemen since years before the Kaba of Mecca was "freed of the 360 idols" it was called Kaba of Yemen as it was comparable in grandeur to that of Mecca. And again if they had an issue with this being named so, the simple option was to ask the people stop calling it Kaba of Yemen, but that request was never made. In fact people simply went ahead for the demolition (after giving them 3 days time to demolition themselves)of this and killing the people who defended it.

Aside this logic in itself is meaningless what right do I have to stop you from naming your place anything?? If for example you like the name of my sister and decide to take it for your daughter, can I stop you saying that there is already one xxx so you can't keep that name? Not just ask do I become eligible to actually attack your family against this?

Forget that. Just think would you have had the same justification had the people of Yemen been powerful and would have attacked the Kaba of Mecca sating that there is already one Kaba in Yemen so the other one isn't needed??

This to will justify the injustice Arab Pagans did on Muslims because even they were thinking that this new religion is an attack on their faith.(I know you feel Islam is the first and oldest religion but Pagans of Arabia didn't know that. For them it was new)

We don't even know historically which was older the Kaba of Mecca or Dhul Khalsa.

And please don't mix everything, had all the Arabs been burying their daughters there wouldn't have been the next generation of Arabs. Forget others how did Bibi Khadeeja become so influential in Daure Jahalat had the daughters been treated that way.(There were powerful queens of Arabia in history but maybe you won't be interested)

If at all you want to say that "defend the religion" point can come into picture when attacking Dhul Khalsa and killing 100+ people on it, just tell me why can't another person take it as the feeling that when there is already one God, anyone worshipping anything else is an attack on the religion. Anyone worshipping idols is waging a war on our religion and hence we shall kiII them. Why not can they say that Hindus saying Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram, Ishwar Allah tero naam (meaning Ishwar and Allah are both the names of God Ram) is waging a war onto them? Or calling Christ the son of God isn't waging a war on us who knows that God has no offsprings

By what logic will you conclude that the level of waging religious war was only naming your religious place on the my religious place but not saying that the name of my God is actually a name of your God? You said earlier that people misunderstood the teachings, the thing is how will you say that your understanding is the correct one?

Anyhow my point was it's not the precedent or teaching of Islam to never strike first. Yes I agree Islam did have very strict rules about the way a war shall be fought, which is admirable but it wasn't against making the first strike if at all you feel you are being wronged (even if actually you weren't being wronged like here by the people of Yemen who very calmly praying to their Gods and built a giant temple for them which world started comparing to Kaba)

Islam did make good rules for its time I can't deny and I really appreciate you got the verses for us to make us understand its beautiful teachings.

But the thing is people do get different understanding by reading same things and then no one can claim theirs is the only correct one

I really apologise if I went slightly overboard or hurt you

Anyhow I have made my point here. I am sure you would have a better understanding, but I would leave it here because it's diverting from the topic

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Dhul Khalsa wasn't something related to prostitusion as per any authentic Hadeeth(it's very convenient to bring prostitusion angle to demean other's religious place, so all later folklore). People wouldn't fight their lives to save a place of prostitusion. They did that because it was a place of their worship and immense faith.

Even if we assume that it was a place of prostitusion, shouldn't the plan be to stop prostitusion rather than demolish the place knowing how much sacred it was for others.

And yes Muslims were tortured in Mecca and later became victorious there, a great achievement and feat, how does that mean a set of people in Yemen(who by the way had nothing to do with people of Mecca) shall not be allowed to worship their Gods?

Why was it necessary to remove idols from entire Arabia?? I thought it was your religion for you and mine for me?

Dhul Khalsa wasn't named Kaba of Yemen but was called Kaba of Yemen(like Kalidasa is called Shakespeare of India) and it was called Kaba of Yemen since years before the Kaba of Mecca was "freed of the 360 idols" it was called Kaba of Yemen as it was comparable in grandeur to that of Mecca. And again if they had an issue with this being named so, the simple option was to ask the people stop calling it Kaba of Yemen, but that request was never made. In fact people simply went ahead for the demolition (after giving them 3 days time to demolition themselves)of this and killing the people who defended it.

Aside this logic in itself is meaningless what right do I have to stop you from naming your place anything?? If for example you like the name of my sister and decide to take it for your daughter, can I stop you saying that there is already one xxx so you can't keep that name? Not just ask do I become eligible to actually attack your family against this?

Forget that. Just think would you have had the same justification had the people of Yemen been powerful and would have attacked the Kaba of Mecca sating that there is already one Kaba in Yemen so the other one isn't needed??

This to will justify the injustice Arab Pagans did on Muslims because even they were thinking that this new religion is an attack on their faith.(I know you feel Islam is the first and oldest religion but Pagans of Arabia didn't know that. For them it was new)

We don't even know historically which was older the Kaba of Mecca or Dhul Khalsa.

And please don't mix everything, had all the Arabs been burying their daughters there wouldn't have been the next generation of Arabs. Forget others how did Bibi Khadeeja become so influential in Daure Jahalat had the daughters been treated that way.(There were powerful queens of Arabia in history but maybe you won't be interested)

If at all you want to say that "defend the religion" point can come into picture when attacking Dhul Khalsa and killing 100+ people on it, just tell me why can't another person take it as the feeling that when there is already one God, anyone worshipping anything else is an attack on the religion. Anyone worshipping idols is waging a war on our religion and hence we shall kiII them. Why not can they say that Hindus saying Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram, Ishwar Allah tero naam (meaning Ishwar and Allah are both the names of God Ram) is waging a war onto them? Or calling Christ the son of God isn't waging a war on us who knows that God has no offsprings

By what logic will you conclude that the level of waging religious war was only naming your religious place on the my religious place but not saying that the name of my God is actually a name of your God? You said earlier that people misunderstood the teachings, the thing is how will you say that your understanding is the correct one?

Anyhow my point was it's not the precedent or teaching of Islam to never strike first. Yes I agree Islam did have very strict rules about the way a war shall be fought, which is admirable but it wasn't against making the first strike if at all you feel you are being wronged (even if actually you weren't being wronged like here by the people of Yemen who very calmly praying to their Gods and built a giant temple for them which world started comparing to Kaba)

Islam did make good rules for its time I can't deny and I really appreciate you got the verses for us to make us understand its beautiful teachings.

But the thing is people do get different understanding by reading same things and then no one can claim theirs is the only correct one

I really apologise if I went slightly overboard or hurt you

I'm not offended. I rather people bring things to the table for a better understanding, I will try my best and use resources to iron out anything I can via research and understanding.

Islam started back from the time of the first Prophet Adam, but as time went on different faiths were emerged and after many other prophets came Muhammad S.A.W, as the last one and spread the word of Islam. Tribes from different faiths also gave them a hard time.

While there were instances of forced conversions to Islam throughout history, it's generally understood that such occurrences were relatively rare and not the primary method of spreading the faith. The Quran explicitly states, "There is no compulsion in religion". Most conversions to Islam were voluntary, often driven by factors like intermarriage, economic opportunities, or political allegiance.

Back then, things were very different to what they are today. Religion, conquering and politics were mixed in together. Like some conqueres didn't want to convert people but rather dominate only.

If Dhur Khalasa was mentioned in the Quran, I could find the full translation with the history straight from that for you as to whT was actually happening around the time. I presented research which is available to us both and I'm sure you were already rehearsed with that prior. I acknowledge your concerns, and naturally you are passionate about the subject. With what we have available, we can only draw our own conclusions and they do not have to conform.

The missing links are also, what a lot of people do not want to hear and rather stick by their own conclusion on the line, where U see a Kaafir, kill him. That line has a full different meaning to it. But ones who do not want to know its real meaning will not listen. Plans and plotting was done quite largely against Muslims, to ambush and kill them. Religion has given them a right to defend themselves, hence when they captured an enemy they gave them the choice to convert, if they still posed as a threat .. then to kill.

There are going to be situations in every religion one can question and raise questions on, but usually it is always Muslims who are being questioned and Islam being questioned because of the acts of some uncivil idiots going around attacking and chanting the Good Lords name.

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/166873010

Since that thread is closed I am tagging you here :)

Thanks but I will avoid. Don't want to. Reading your few posts I will say My thoughts and process is totally different from you. :)