Swara Bhaskar's insensitive remarks on Jauhar scene from Padmavat- Page 15

Originally posted by: Clochette

Bravo Nathu (you truly are a good conversational partner )...

You are quoting actual verses from the Quran, and you are entirely right to confront me with them. War booty and calling polytheists the 'worst of creatures' are real historical texts sanctioned under Muhammad. As a Hindu, it is completely valid that you view these verses as deeply exclusionary and harmful.

To -again - be absolutely clear about my own position: I am a staunch opponent of any religion or ideology that acts against humanity and human rights.

There is a big difference between analyzing how a system functions and agreeing with it. I do not defend these verses. In fact, as I previously stated in this forum, Islam was designed from its very inception as a socio-political concept and a state-building project, not just a private spiritual path.

When I previously used the phrase 'elevating spiritual philosophy,' I was referring strictly to the abstract metaphysical claims of monotheism that early believers felt drew them in. But as a political project in 7th-century Arabia, the reality was brutal:

In that era, tribal warfare was the economic norm. Before Islam, victorious warlords kept all the plunder. As part of its socio-political design, the Quran introduced a state tax system where 'one-fifth belongs to Allah and the Messenger' to fund social welfare (orphans and the poor). While it was historically an attempt to regulate tribal brutality and enforce social security, from a modern human rights perspective, it remains the institutionalization of warfare and plunder.

The verse about the "worst of creatures" is part of a fierce theological and political wartime polemic against the polytheist tribes of Mecca who were locked in a war of survival against the early Muslim state. Because monotheistic political concepts inherently rely on absolute exclusivity, anyone outside that system (like polytheists) was branded as a threat and dehumanized in the text.

Your point actually reinforces my stance against these systems. It proves exactly what I always claimed: When a socio-political concept wraps itself in the absolute authority of religion, it inevitably results in the violation of universal human rights.

This is precisely why I personally - in thinking and feeling - oppose any religious dogma that tramples on human dignity.

This is why i could be no more happier than being in any other religion than Hinduism. The Sanatan dharma or Hinduism gives me the freedom to be monotheist, polytheist or even atheist and I'll still be a Hindu. I can choose external forms of worship (idol worship) or completely internal forms of worship (like meditation and mantra jap) and still be a Hindu. My religion is not averse to changing with times and allows reforms and changes in dharma as the time changes. Rules which applied in satyug may not necessarily be applied in Kalyug. Hinduism evolves and encourages growth rather than being stuck in a particular timeframe and relying on specific rules and punishments established in some remote time. Hinduism is inclusive. There's no us (momins) vs them (kafirs) here. We welcome each religion as the path to reach the same God. Unfortunately this feeling is not reciprocated by other abrahmic religions towards us who still engage in our proselytization and conversion.

So... No! All religions are not the same, IMO.

Daily I thank God for giving me birth in a Hindu household.

*double post.

Originally posted by: Clochette

Bravo Nathu (you truly are a good conversational partner )...

You are quoting actual verses from the Quran, and you are entirely right to confront me with them. War booty and calling polytheists the 'worst of creatures' are real historical texts sanctioned under Muhammad. As a Hindu, it is completely valid that you view these verses as deeply exclusionary and harmful.

To -again - be absolutely clear about my own position: I am a staunch opponent of any religion or ideology that acts against humanity and human rights.

There is a big difference between analyzing how a system functions and agreeing with it. I do not defend these verses. In fact, as I previously stated in this forum, Islam was designed from its very inception as a socio-political concept and a state-building project, not just a private spiritual path.

When I previously used the phrase 'elevating spiritual philosophy,' I was referring strictly to the abstract metaphysical claims of monotheism that early believers felt drew them in. But as a political project in 7th-century Arabia, the reality was brutal:

In that era, tribal warfare was the economic norm. Before Islam, victorious warlords kept all the plunder. As part of its socio-political design, the Quran introduced a state tax system where 'one-fifth belongs to Allah and the Messenger' to fund social welfare (orphans and the poor). While it was historically an attempt to regulate tribal brutality and enforce social security, from a modern human rights perspective, it remains the institutionalization of warfare and plunder.

The verse about the "worst of creatures" is part of a fierce theological and political wartime polemic against the polytheist tribes of Mecca who were locked in a war of survival against the early Muslim state. Because monotheistic political concepts inherently rely on absolute exclusivity, anyone outside that system (like polytheists) was branded as a threat and dehumanized in the text.

Your point actually reinforces my stance against these systems. It proves exactly what I always claimed: When a socio-political concept wraps itself in the absolute authority of religion, it inevitably results in the violation of universal human rights.

This is precisely why I personally - in thinking and feeling - oppose any religious dogma that tramples on human dignity.

I want to double check on this essay by you. Are you implying Quran is therefore not word of god as no god would create such laws for humanity or that allah is no God or both ?

Do you concur it has led to practices that should be number 1 priority for humanity to eliminate that you declare yourself in strong support of ?

Why would you like to focus on Islamic countries and their glaring anti-women politics??? Everybody knows that, right?

However, to provide a brief overview:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) comprises 57 member states where Islam significantly shapes culture and society.

In many of these countries, legal and social structures result in the systematic discrimination of women. The global Women, Peace and Security Index (WPS) and the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report consistently rank several Muslim-majority countries among the worst places in the world for women (with Afghanistan and Iran representing the most extreme cases).

The situation for women is particularly dire in countries ravaged by civil war and political instability, where legal protections are absent and sexual violence is used as a weapon of war (e.g., Yemen, Syria, Sudan, and Somalia).

In the 2025 Global Gender Gap Index, Pakistan ranks last out of the 148 nations surveyed. The country is characterized by so-called "honor killings," forced marriages, extremely low female literacy rates, and negligible labor market participation.

Although Saudi Arabia has implemented reforms in recent years (women have been permitted to drive and travel since 2018), the patriarchal male guardianship system remains legally entrenched (women often still require a male relative's permission for major life decisions, such as marriage).

Misogyny in these countries is deeply intertwined with political interpretations of Islamic law and local patriarchal traditions. At the same time, however, there are significant differences within the Islamic world: in more secular Muslim-majority countries (such as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, or parts of Indonesia), legal gender equality is much more advanced.

Does that suit you?

Originally posted by: Clochette

Why would you like to focus on Islamic countries and their glaring anti-women politics??? Everybody knows that, right?

However, to provide a brief overview:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) comprises 57 member states where Islam significantly shapes culture and society.

In many of these countries, legal and social structures result in the systematic discrimination of women. The global Women, Peace and Security Index (WPS) and the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report consistently rank several Muslim-majority countries among the worst places in the world for women (with Afghanistan and Iran representing the most extreme cases).

The situation for women is particularly dire in countries ravaged by civil war and political instability, where legal protections are absent and sexual violence is used as a weapon of war (e.g., Yemen, Syria, Sudan, and Somalia).

In the 2025 Global Gender Gap Index, Pakistan ranks last out of the 148 nations surveyed. The country is characterized by so-called "honor killings," forced marriages, extremely low female literacy rates, and negligible labor market participation.

Although Saudi Arabia has implemented reforms in recent years (women have been permitted to drive and travel since 2018), the patriarchal male guardianship system remains legally entrenched (women often still require a male relative's permission for major life decisions, such as marriage).

Misogyny in these countries is deeply intertwined with political interpretations of Islamic law and local patriarchal traditions. At the same time, however, there are significant differences within the Islamic world: in more secular Muslim-majority countries (such as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, or parts of Indonesia), legal gender equality is much more advanced.

Does that suit you?

why are you going round and round. My reply to you was based on what you wrote. Why can't you answer my question. It was entirely based on what you wrote.

Instead of writing essays without answering my question, it is easier to answer them.

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

... So... No! All religions are not the same, IMO.

Daily I thank God for giving me birth in a Hindu household.

Completely agree... when wanting to live in a religious belief, Hinduism is a very good place to be.

Btw, even though I do not belong to any religion, I also think that "all religions are not the same".

Originally posted by: D3VilsDex

I want to double check on this essay by you. Are you implying Quran is therefore not word of god as no god would create such laws for humanity or that allah is no God or both ?

Do you concur it has led to practices that should be number 1 priority for humanity to eliminate that you declare yourself in strong support of ?

How would I know which words of religious books are really "words of God"... Actually, it's a human's choice what it makes out of the words written in those books. God gives everybody a moral compass, but the influence on this compass starts with the birth. However, if you want a spiritual discussion, then you should make a new thread for that... here it isn't the right place, I think.

Originally posted by: Clochette

It seems that the member Ranbboomi has resorted to creating a completely fictional identity for me, making bizarre assumptions about my race, religion, and personal life, and tossing out wild accusations that were never even part of this thread. It is truly fascinating to watch him/her project own frustrations onto a stranger online simply because he/she lacks a certain understanding. Honestly, trying to turn a sociological discussion into a toxic personal soap opera is a textbook example of a deflection and the desperate attempt to label me as someone I'm not tells everyone in this forum far more about this person's logic than it could ever say about me.

But hey, as the picture says, without this level of dedication to absurd assumptions, internet discussions would be far less entertaining, so thanks for the service...

Classic islamist strategy playing victim card after attacking and abusing others just like gow they cry Islamophobia after every terrorist attacks..

The one who abuses indian hospitality by Constsntly making disparaging comments about hindus and India is now crying about being attacked...ungratefulness and shamelessness...typical Pakistani traits!!!

When someone from belonging to surround country immigrated to europe loves to create a fictional identity about themselves being white European so as to get white privilege over brown Indians to judge them however they want and to give sermons day in day out on their culture, religion, democracy and daily affairs and in contrast favors islam Islamic culture, people and their countries especially pakistan vehemently n unconditionally it must rattle then when their fakery gets busted.

You are welcome...I will always provide you the kind of entertainment ment you dederve....I hope you stop running to mods as usual since I seem to provide you so much entertainment. It seems you get frustrated too easily with such entertainment yourself and always complain to third party to come and save you from such entertainment because you cant take it anymore...

I mean why try to get rid of entertaining members...its good to be around stupid people as they are more entertaining...no??? I mean indians in general are stupid people which is why you to rule this place merely on claims of being a white person yourself...we live to rule by white people gping by our history...no wonder you want to be a white european and see how it worked in your favor??? You are the unofficial mod here who decide who stays and who gets kicked out of here...you run the show here...no two ways about it!

But anyways I hope and will always try to entertain you in this manner as long as you dont sneakily try to get rid of me...

After all these long discussions if i had to sum up in one line it would be -

Practically, If I were a girl trapped in a situation that required offing myself or becoming a sex slave I'd blame that person or people causing me to be in that situation rather than blaming patriarchy or misogyny.

Originally posted by: D3VilsDex

why are you going round and round. My reply to you was based on what you wrote. Why can't you answer my question. It was entirely based on what you wrote.

Instead of writing essays without answering my question, it is easier to answer them.

Poor thing was forced to say quite a few things against her will about Islam

Now sgow some mercy n let her go and talk shiit n on hindus and indian democracy in peace...btw that's her comfort zone of you dont know by now

Bibi badi frustrate ho chuki hai and begging for a way out since yesterday but some people keep bagging her back on halala and islam..she was even forced to take her words back on halala being a spiritual philosophy. Noone even apprecisted her entire essays preaching halala for women empowerment and uplift mental in this regressive forum and then they want her to talk about Islam..

Plz go read it and understand it properly before you question her more on her islam...

And pls I request you to not ask her why mohammad married a 6 yr old....

Obviously because he wasn't a misogynist as some people like to portray....Allah must have told him personally to take care of her just like how allah told him to marry his own daughter in law.. if he was a misogynist he wouldn't be taking care of underprivileged women like these...

I only answered pn her behalf because I know sooner or later this question would've popped up when the discussing about her religion in such details...and I wanted to give her a break from it...

Although i am sure she can herself answer in detail since she is a staunch supporter of Islam and Islamic laws herself and she is free to do so if she wants...