PDA

View Full Version : Hindus urged to curb 'Muslim threat' by having big families



Abdul-Raouf
01-14-2008, 02:07 AM
Hindus urged to curb 'Muslim threat' by having big families

Source:http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/stor...088829,00.html

(Its a old article..but just today i knew about this incident)

Maseeh Rahman in New Delhi
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian


A radical Hindu political party in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state, which is a key ally of the country's ruling party, is encouraging Hindus to have more children because of fears of a Muslim population explosion.

The militant Shiv Sena party announced that it had identified 50 Hindu couples with five or more children in the parliamentary constituency of the Indian prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

"We will honour these couples at a special function next month by conferring the title 'Awakened Hindu Family'," said the Shiv Sena's state chief, Vijay Tiwari. Couples with more than 10 children would be given gifts of gold or silver.

The call runs counter to the Indian government's policy of controlling the country's burgeoning population by promoting family planning. The "awakening" that the Shiv Sena wants to bring about stems from the belief that India's Muslim population, already estimated to be about 140 million, will overtake the Hindu, even though Hindus account for 85% of India's population, now more than a billion.

Demographic experts assert that high birth rates are related to illiteracy and poverty, and have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

Radical Hindu leaders claim the percentage of Muslims has been rising. Their propaganda finds a response among Hindus who resent the Muslims' separate civil law permitting men four wives - though most Muslims are too poor to practise polygamy, and educated Muslims reject the idea.

"Even Hindus who do not support parties like the Shiv Sena or the ruling Bharatiya Janata party [BJP] believe that most Muslims have four wives and lots of children," said Dipankar Gupta, a sociologist.


The issue even figured in the Gujarat state assembly elections last year, with the BJP's chief minister, Narendra Modi, mocking Muslim families for their "25 children each".
Now the BJP's political ally, the Shiv Sena, hopes for mileage in the spectre of the "Muslim population bomb".

Mr Tiwari said: "When the Muslims become 30% of the population democracy and peace will disappear from India. To maintain the social balance, and to save the nation, we are now asking Hindu couples to have a minimum of four children each."

Mr Tiwari claimed there had been a positive response from Hindus in Uttar Pradesh. But analysts are doubtful.

"The Shiv Sena's appeal has always been its focus on pragmatic issues, such as jobs for its supporters," said Mr Gupta. "Such a madcap campaign could rebound on the party."


Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Whatsthepoint
01-14-2008, 02:41 PM
Well, I can see what they're afraid of, I kinda support their goal, yet I do not support their rhetorics.
Europe is facing a far greater threat than the Hindus are. "Genuine" Europeans' birth rates are very low, much lower than those of teh hindus and they aren't getting higher anytime soon, whereas the muslim birth rates are high and are slowing down very slowly, which makes it possible for muslims to overrun the Europeans in a matter of centuries if not decades. What could that mean? the installment of shariah? Religiously controlled art and the press? Quranic sexual norms? the new prohibition? You may all this great and wonderful, however I and most Europeans see them as a threat to our rights an liberties, a threat to our society and its history etc.

I have nothing against muslims living tehir lives according to their faith, I think they should be granted all rights in order to be able to do so. However, I don't like it, when muslims try to impose their values on us, when they interfere with our laws and oppose the freedom of speech ect.

I hope you know what I'm trying to say..
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-14-2008, 02:50 PM
lol they do this anyway. billion + in india, and Sikhs, Muslims and Christians are just a small minority. Shiv Sena and BJP deserve a fate worse than death for what htey have done to the Sikhs (and still are)
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
01-14-2008, 03:36 PM
^^

The Current Composition >>

Hindu 80.5%,
Muslim 13.4%,
Christian 2.3%,
Sikh 1.9%,
other 1.8%,
unspecified 0.1% (2001 census)

Source : https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2122.html
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
AFDAL
01-14-2008, 03:45 PM
Well Muslims in India do not believe in the 85 % hindus - because
- One should know , Who are hindus ?
- Hundus are a macrominiroty ( Visit www.dalitvoice.org ) only 15 %
- These 15 % rules India by propogating false popaganda, that they are 85%.
- In India Muslims are 35 % .
- Muslims having 35 % - still we Muslims in India are lliving in peace though many hardship, like the stuf terorrist and so on.
- So you will find stuff like hundus are soon becoming minority popogated by the macrominiroty 15 % maroons.
Reply

AFDAL
01-14-2008, 03:47 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul-Raouf
^^

The Current Composition >>

Hindu 80.5%,
Muslim 13.4%,
Christian 2.3%,
Sikh 1.9%,
other 1.8%,
unspecified 0.1% (2001 census)

Source : https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2122.html

You throw away all these data to dustbin, and travel to India and feel the reality, actually hindus are 80 % or Muslims are 13 %.
Reply

AFDAL
01-14-2008, 04:04 PM
IN DEFENCE OF EDITOR’S PLEA IN PAKISTAN
Confederation averts Brahminical terrorism in sub-continent
Dr. K. JAMANADAS, “SHALIMAR”, MAIN ROAD, CHANDRAPUR - 442 402


This refers to DV, May 16, 2007, the Editor’s speech in Pakistan, wherein he advocated formation of confederation of Pakistan, Bangla Desh and India by retaining its existing boundaries and its rebuttal by N. Haq from Islamabad and Parvez Khan from Germany who snubbed the Editor for such an idea. A small article like this cannot address the problem. I think a debate is necessary.

Gandhi knew of partition
The Editor had always maintained that view. It is not the new idea of Editor. When asked, whether he welcomed India’s partition, he replied (to quote from the Ready Reference to Revolutionaries,1991, p. 6):

“The partition of India and Pakistan was a grave error. The upper caste leaders led by M. K. Gandhi conspired to divide India. They feared if Muslims remained in undivided India, they would side with SC/ST/BCs, and the upper castes would be isolated and reduced to a minority. This was a conspiracy. We must undo the partition so that we may solve many of our problems ourselves. We are for Akhand Bharat, which is a nazi slogan now forgotten, meaning uniting Pakistan and Bangladesh back with India. Are the Nazis ready?”

The Editor’s idea is approved of by Ambedkarites.

I do not think his idea to be preposterous and if some cool heads work on it, may be the thought would appear that it is the only saner idea which would be agreed to by all, if not today, tomorrow. Those who read Dr. Ambedkar’s Thoughts on Pakistan, would agree with me.

Though journalists like Jagan Fadnis maintain that M. K. Gandhi was kept in dark by Nehru and Patel about agreement between them and Mountbatten regarding partition of India, it was not true.

The Editor has mentioned that when Babasaheb’s book, Thoughts on Pakistan, was seen by C. Rajgopalchari, “a Southern fox and extraordinary cunning Brahmin from Tamilnadu”, “he was one of the first persons to grasp the significance of partition and its advantages to Brahmins”. He ran to Gandhi and explained him how giving Pakistan to Muslims is more beneficial for the Brahmins than to Muslims.

PARTITION HELPED BRAHMINS
Though RSS was opposed to partition, Nehru and Rajaji favoured it. VTR says:

“It would be difficult for the Brahmins to check the rising aspirations of the shudras and the Dalits. And when the low caste (proletariat) unrest gets uncontrollable, they are certain to join with the Muslims and Christians, their co-sufferers, as both the sections are victims of common enemy. The “Socialist Brahmins” … decided that unless the Muslims are driven out, they would prove to be greater danger to Brahmins inside. Brahmins forming less than 5 % of the total population of India will not be able to control much less thwart a revolution when it breaks out when the Dalits explode with the help of enemies of Hinduism, namely Muslims, Christians and Sikhs.”

It was after Gandhi’s consent, that all the wheels moved in accepting the proposal of Pakistan, says VTR in his book, Why Godse killed Gandhi? (1986, p. 38).

Can India ever become a Hindu Raj
In the days of Hindu Mahasabha, in my childhood, there used to be a slogan, hindustan hinduo ka, nahi kisi ke baap ka. At least they should have said, nahi kisi aur ke baap ka. All think that India can be Hindu nation. Is it possible? I think not. There is a trick in Hindutvawadis claiming population of Hindus to be 80 to 85%. They include SC/STs, whose population at a conservative estimate is not less than 25%. If one adds 20% Muslims, Sikhs, Budhists and Christians, there remain only 55%, about 35% of whom are BCs who are against the upper castes.

It is rather unfortunate that Muslim leaders also like to combine Dalits with Hindus. This, I feel, is short-sightedness. This mistake was committed by the Muslim leaders of the past, and is continued by the present-day leaders like Syed Shahabuddin also.

Our Editor says:

“Godse accuses Gandhi of divide and rule, but how can anybody divide a people if they are not willing to be divided? Hindu caste system has divided the Hindus and that is why they are too willing to be divided. RSS leaders now and then express their fear that Hindus may be reduced to a minority in India. Their fear is genuine. When Dalits and shudras realize their slavery under the Aryan invaders, the “Hindus” will be reduced to a minority. This is bound to happen soon. Already Dalits have declared they are not Hindu. So also the Sikhs. Many more will say so soon. Then the “Hindus” will become a minority.” [Why Godse killed Gandhi?, p.32]

Dr. Ambedkar’s views
Dr. Ambedkar’s monumental book deserves to be studied even now after partition by all Hindus as well as Muslims. It has maintained that though giving Pakistan to Muslims is beneficial to the Hindus, it is not beneficial to the Muslims to ask for and accept Pakistan.

Addressing the Hindus, he said:

“Once it becomes certain that the Muslims want Pakistan there can be no doubt that the wise course would be to concede the principle of it.”

To Muslims, Dr. Ambedkar asked, “Must there be Pakistan?” and raised many questions like:

1. Because a good part of the Muslim population of India happens to be concentrated in certain defined areas, which can be easily severed from the rest of India.

2. Because there is communal antagonism between the Hindus and the Muslims?

3. Because the Muslims have lost faith in the Congress majority?

4. Because the Musalmans are a nation?

5. Because otherwise swaraj will be a Hindu Raj?

HINDUISM A MENACE
He answered all these questions. The last question was the most important one: “Because otherwise Swaraj will be a Hindu Raj?” to which he himself answered:

“If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost. But is Pakistan the true remedy against it?”

How to avoid Hindu Raj
He had also given the method to avoid the Hindu Raj. It was to put a ban on communal parties in politics. He said:

“Not partition, but the abolition, of the Muslim League and the formation of a mixed party of Hindus and Muslims is the only effective way of burying the ghost of Hindu Raj.”

He stressed that the formation of a mixed party of Hindus and Muslims would not be difficult in India, because:

Dalit-Muslim unity
“There are many lower orders in the Hindu society whose economic, political and social needs are the same as those of the majority of the Muslims and they would be far more ready to make a common cause with the Muslims for achieving common ends than they would with the high caste of Hindus who have denied and deprived them of ordinary human rights for centuries.”

And he averred that such co-operation was seen when under the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms in most Provinces the Muslims, the Non-Brahmins and the Depressed Classes united together and worked the reforms as members of one team from 1920 to 1937, and observed that this was

“The most fruitful method of achieving communal harmony among Hindus and Muslims and of destroying the danger of a Hindu Raj.”

As Jinnah had the ability to organize and had the reputation of a nationalist:

“Even many Hindus who were opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him if he had only sent out a call for a united party of like-minded Hindus and Muslims.”

Initially, “Mr. Jinnah showed that he was for a common front between the Muslims and other non-Muslim minorities.” But later he passed in 1939, a resolution in favor of Pakistan. About this, Dr. Ambedkar observed that he has done disservice to Muslims. He explained what would happen if Pakistan came.

Pakistan is worse than useless
Ambedkar said:


“Take an all-India view. Can Pakistan prevent the establishment of Hindu Raj at the center over Muslim minorities that will remain in Hindustan? It is plain that it cannot. What good is Pakistan then? Only to prevent Hindu Raj in Provinces in which the Muslims are in a majority and in which there could never be Hindu Raj. To put it differently Pakistan is unnecessary to Muslims where they are in a majority because there, there is no fear of Hindu Raj. It is worse than useless to Muslims where they are in a minority, because Pakistan or no Pakistan they will have to face a Hindu Raj. Can politics be more futile than the politics of the Muslim League? The Muslim League started to help minority Muslims (in India) and has ended by espousing the cause of majority Muslims (in Pakistan). What a perversion in the original aim of the Muslim League. What a fall from the sublime to the ridiculous. Partition as a remedy against Hindu Raj is worse than useless.”

So what did the Muslims achieve by getting Pakistan? They achieved Muslim rule in Provinces, which in any case were to be ruled by the Muslims, even in undivided India.

What did the Muslims lose by getting Pakistan? They put more Muslims under Hindu Raj more than the number escaping Hindu Raj, by creating Pakistan. Because the population of Muslims in India is more than in Pakistan.

Kashmir problem

A few points on Kashmir. Present day conception is that Kashmir problem is the main bone of contention between two countries. I have written an article “Kashmir problem from Ambedkarite view point”.

www.ambedkar.org/jamanadas.

I supported the view of Dr. Ambedkar, who had suggested partition of Kashmir. Jagan Fadnis has said that Kashmir was an independent nation from Aug.15, 1947 till Oct. 27, 1947. It was because Pakistan put their armed forces there, as infiltrators, that the Hindu ruler Hari Singh asked for help from India and Indian troops were sent to Kashmir after Hari Singh signed a pact of accession with India. Does the question occur to Muslim intelligentsia, what was the need of putting military in Kashmir? Was not Kashmir a predominantly Muslim state? Why then the action by military? Similarly was not East Pakistan a Muslim state? Why military action there? Views of Dr. Ambedkar on the Linguistic Provinces would be very useful to understand the problems.

Are we really fully sovereign?
Today both India and Pakistan pretend to rule their own countries. Are they really fully independent and sovereign? Can they really negotiate with, say for example, Iran for a pipeline without consent of USA? If we are willing to surrender to wishes of America, can we not ourselves solve our own problems by negotiations? If so, what is wrong in a Confederation?

Let us see who is opposed to such an idea in India. Immediately after “independence”, the Hindu terrorists used to clamor for Akhand Bharat. Later they stopped all such talk. When some junior members tried to speak of Akhand Bharat, the seniors snubbed them. Since then only the non-Brahminical elements talk of it.

Ground Realities
If the principle of complete autonomy of provinces is accepted, as VTR says, the Confederation of Pakistan, Bangla Desh, India (and Muslim areas in Kashmir) can be a strong country. Not only it is feasible, but it is most desirable for both Muslims and non-Muslims of the sub-continent.

By this time people from both sides of border have realized that they cannot wish away the nation across the border. Why not try to learn to live with the realities? And the best way to do so is to have a confederation. Whether the ruling dignitaries like it or not, the masses should strive for it from both sides of the border.

http://dalitvoice.org/Templates/sep2007/articles.htm
Reply

Kurisu
01-14-2008, 06:02 PM
There are religious extremists in every religion, if we could get rid of them the world would be a much better place.

As for shariah in europe, I don't know if that would happen. the trend in recent years has also been for countries to move to secularism and tolerance, so that's another reason i wouldn't expect to see religions ruling countries beyond the ones now, and with atheism on the rise now after the communist-blip and atheists more likely to choose the radical life extension technologies becoming available, hopefully we will see tolerant, secular atheism become the norm, and not fundamentalism (whether theist or atheist).
Reply

Fishman
01-14-2008, 06:15 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Well, I can see what they're afraid of, I kinda support their goal, yet I do not support their rhetorics.
Europe is facing a far greater threat than the Hindus are. "Genuine" Europeans' birth rates are very low, much lower than those of teh hindus and they aren't getting higher anytime soon, whereas the muslim birth rates are high and are slowing down very slowly, which makes it possible for muslims to overrun the Europeans in a matter of centuries if not decades. What could that mean? the installment of shariah? Religiously controlled art and the press? Quranic sexual norms? the new prohibition? You may all this great and wonderful, however I and most Europeans see them as a threat to our rights an liberties, a threat to our society and its history etc.
:sl:
Oh noes! Muzlims are takig over teh world!!!1111oneone!!11!

I wish people would stop repeating this racist and fascist argument. Muslims only form a small minority in western countries, but their influence is exaggerated to extreme levels. Wait a few decades, and watch as Muslim immigration subsides and is replaced by Eastern Europeans, and I bet people will be complaining about them overruning Britain.
And if this overruning did happen, then surely it would not be a problem as everybody would be Muslim, and therefore agree with it?
:w:
Reply

Kurisu
01-14-2008, 06:20 PM
And if this overruning did happen, then surely it would not be a problem as everybody would be Muslim, and therefore agree with it?

The majority would be, everyone else wouldn't.
Reply

Amadeus85
01-14-2008, 07:43 PM
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Abdul-Raouf
[B]
Hindus urged to curb 'Muslim threat' by having big families

Whats wrong with that? If you were a Hindu you would also think like them.
Reply

Muezzin
01-14-2008, 07:50 PM
Do people not realise how insulting it is to be accused of being too... numerous? Of the need to procreate to 'compete'? Seriously, what the heck is this? The Dark Ages?

If people want kids, they should have them because they want them, not to compete with the Joneses/Patels/Ahmeds. The latter reason is just disgusting - it assumes that the newer culture/religion/ethnic group is a threat that must be dealt with, and, repellantly, uses children as the medium of protest.

If the few Caucasion families in a city block traditionally made up of African-Carribeans suddenly decided 'oh, there are too many blacks around, let's breed to catch up and overtake them!' I'm sure people would be up in arms about it.

Similarly, if the few Christian families in a traditionally Jewish neighbourhood did the same thing, the Jews would be rightly offended. The same thing goes for the few Muslim families in a Hindu or Sikh neighbourhood for that matter.

If however, each of the families in question just wanted more kids, just because, there's nothing wrong with that. It's a question of motive. And 'breeding out' competing groups should not be countenanced in modern society.

Go forth and multiply. But not to compete with a group you perceive as a threat.
Reply

Kurisu
01-14-2008, 07:56 PM
Let us not forget that is says quite clearly that they are radicals.
Reply

Muezzin
01-14-2008, 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by Kurisu
Let us not forget that is says quite clearly that they are radicals.
Quite right.

Though that makes the fact that certain people on the forum have agreed and will agree with such stances all the more disturbing.

Also, this rapes/killings stuff is off-topic.
Reply

Kurisu
01-14-2008, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Quite right.

Though that makes the fact that certain people on the forum have agreed and will agree with such stances all the more disturbing.
I agree with what you said 100%, children should be a physical embodiment of the love that the parents feel for each other and not a contest. It's exactly this thing that hinders integration and understanding.
Reply

Amadeus85
01-14-2008, 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Do people not realise how insulting it is to be accused of being too... numerous? Of the need to procreate to 'compete'? Seriously, what the heck is this? The Dark Ages?
Well I understand your point but still you should try to understand those people who are concerned about their own people/country. How we can blame them that they are concerned and that they worry? I think that it just shows that they are good citizens.
On the other hand, are you sure that also muslims dont think like those hindus in countries where they are majority but living with sizeble minorities? Dont they do this to keep the country muslim and not to let it become hindu/budhist/christian or jewish?
Reply

Muezzin
01-14-2008, 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
Well I understand your point but still you should try to understand those people who are concerned about their own people/country. How we can blame them that they are concerned and that they worry? I think that it just shows that they are good citizens.
Good citizens wouldn't have kids to compete with a perceived threat, they'd have kids because they wanted kids, and would instill their offspring with the values of their country, culture or religion.

On the other hand, are you sure that also muslims dont think like those hindus in countries where they are majority but living with sizeble minorities? Dont they do this to keep the country muslim and not to let it become hindu/budhist/christian or jewish?
They probably do. It's still wrong, whoever does it, and whoever has children to compete with the threat of the week has serious issues. I don't subscribe to this theory of 'well, everyone does it, therefore it's okay', because it's not okay.
Reply

Kurisu
01-14-2008, 08:24 PM
Do as you would have done unto you.

The hindu's could set an example for the muslims just as the muslims could set an example for the christians/jews and so on.

All the while people hate each other there will be hate. If people started to love each other... guess what there will be?
Reply

Amadeus85
01-14-2008, 08:24 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin

They probably do. It's still wrong, whoever does it.
You see it as wrong, I see it as wise.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-14-2008, 08:26 PM
Originally Posted by Kurisu
All the while people hate each other there will be hate. If people started to love each other... guess what there will be?

Fraternising? Oh Lordy no way! :P

I agree though, but it'll never happen but nice to see some optimism.
:D
Reply

Kurisu
01-14-2008, 08:27 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
You see it as wrong, I see it as wise.
This argument is as stupid as the "OH NO! the white race is dying out! quick churn out as many white kids as possible!" argument for the exact same reasons.
Reply

Muezzin
01-14-2008, 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
You see it as wrong, I see it as wise.
You don't think there's an alternative than simply breeding because 'we need to compete with X group'? You don't feel that children should be brought into this world because of the love their parents wish to share? You feel instead that it is 'wise' to have a child in order to preserve the ethnic/cultural/religious purity of the country in question, rather than having a child because raising one is what both parents want?
Reply

Trumble
01-14-2008, 08:29 PM
There's far too many people in the world as it is and the population continues to increase exponentially. Excess breeding for this reason is utterly ludicrous. :-\
Reply

Kurisu
01-14-2008, 08:30 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor

Fraternising? Oh Lordy no way! :P

I agree though, but it'll never happen but nice to see some optimism.
:D
I know, it's a bit of a lofty goal, :okay: but i think humanity can get there one day. So far the only methods tried have been to try and paint everyone one colour; Hitlers vision of the "Aryan Race" and such. Instead of trying to paint everyone one colour, we should just admit we're different colours and see that having difference makes us collectively stronger.
Reply

Amadeus85
01-14-2008, 08:38 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
You don't think there's an alternative than simply breeding because 'we need to compete with X group'? You don't feel that children should be brought into this world because of the love their parents wish to share? You feel instead that it is 'wise' to have a child in order to preserve the ethnic/cultural/religious purity of the country in question, rather than having a child because raising one is what both parents want?
Well sure sure, I would agree with that just if all the people agree with that. I would even say, that those Hindus would agree with you, only if there were no muslims who really insist on muslims families to have many children in order to outnumber those pagans (I dont think like that about Hindus of course).
Reply

aamirsaab
01-14-2008, 08:58 PM
:sl:
Right so instead of saying: ''Hey folks let's stop breeding'' we'll say: ''Hindus, let's breed faster!"

I'm sorry but I honestly cannot take that seriously. What kind of a fool (in the real world, where you word actually means something!) says things like this? And, probably more importantly, which fool takes it seriously?!
Reply

Muezzin
01-15-2008, 10:17 AM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
Well sure sure, I would agree with that just if all the people agree with that. I would even say, that those Hindus would agree with you, only if there were no muslims who really insist on muslims families to have many children in order to outnumber those pagans (I dont think like that about Hindus of course).
And yet again you seem to be placing the blame on Muslims for overbreeding. And yet again I will say 'if people are reproducing merely to outnumber another group, that is wrong, regardless of their religion, even if they're Muslim. If people are just having lots of kids because they like it, more power to them'.

We're going in circles here, and either you're missing the point or just being pedantic.
Reply

جوري
08-24-2012, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
There's far too many people in the world as it is and the population continues to increase exponentially. Excess breeding for this reason is utterly ludicrous. :-\
God wants us to multiply man =).. much of the earth is uninhabited and it is frightened folks that make life miserable for the rest..
If you look at your average white sloth vs. your average say Somalian, you'll notice one is eating for 6 while the other is not eating at all.. you'll then naturally conclude what's wrong with that picture.. Some folks just are hungry for everything and in their own fear and impotence wish to impose on others the raw ills that they have naturally brought upon themselves with all the deadly sins they commit including greed and love of money, they prefer money over children so by the time they're ready to afford those super Hitler's dream cuties they've already run out of the essence of life :p

best,
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-13-2009, 07:26 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2008, 02:08 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-2008, 02:47 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!