No Muslim actors please; we’re Hindu..

I’m shocked that not a single Muslim star features in the shot.

I wrote a long emotional rant, which I deleted; I’m shocked. The cultural genocide of Urdu continues apace when Islam should be the common enemy.

93 thoughts on “No Muslim actors please; we’re Hindu..”

  1. Without Islam, what distinguishes “Urdu” from “Hindi”? Also, doesn’t the vast majority of “Urdu”-speakers care *way* more about being Muslim than about speaking “Urdu”?

    1. Urdu has a distinct literary tradition going back to Amir Khusro and is arguably the High Language. It is the only language they can compete with English hence why the Colonisers attacked it and Persian in the manner that it did..

      It is interlinked with Islam but it is also independent of Islam.

      Comparing Urdu to Hindi is a lot like comparing Shakespeare to Pidgin..

      Religion is a primal defence of cultural heritage.

      1. Sure there’s “Urdu literature” (though Khusro was a little more awesome that I’d have expected, thanks), but I thought that, given that the vocabulary diverges mostly for “big words”, that most (e.g.) “Urdu poetry” would become accessible to “Hindi speakers” as soon as it was written with Devanagari script (assumed: Islam’s dead), and vice-versa for the “Urdu speakers” learning Devanagari. Wrong?

        1. That is fake news.

          There is Urdu (Rekha Dakhini) Which was patronised by the scribes of Muslim courts. Written in Nasta’liq

          There was Hindustani (unwritten).

          There was a special cleansing attempt in the late 1800’s of the Urdu language that ultimately directly led to Partition and the formation of a distinct Muslim identity.

          It can to be trivialised as “big words” as it’s the linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

          The smoking gun is that Hindi has no poetic tradition; it is a in related UP dialects like Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Braj Brasha etc etc. These are NOT Hindi.

          Hindi is a Sanskritised Saffronised version of Urdu and ultimately is as organic as Hebrew or Modern Turkish (Turkish is the most natural of the three).

          Would Chinese be Chinese if it was written in the Latin Alphabet?

          Ps: I will take Hinduism any day over Islam but never that abomination called the Hindi language.

          1. I think you may be under-estimating Hindi (by which you mean modern “Sanskritized” Hindi) poetic literature.

            But it is true that it’s much younger than Urdu (again defined as including Hindostani register) and with less literature – in terms of size – generally.

            Anyway, the term “Hindi” now actually includes a lot of Urdu and the entirety of Hindostani in India. In other words, it does not reflect tatsama (that-same Sanskrit) lexicon only.

            Basically, what has happened in India is a re-labelling of the same language some people (incl most Pakistanis) would call Urdu as Hindi.

          2. Yes – the argument u advance is what Shoaib Daniyal mentions that “Urdu in Devanagari” is still Urdu and we should be grateful for that.

            But why was there a need for Devanagari; we could have had a Sanskrit-Urdu formula that supplanted English…

            The exile of Urdu from its homeland into exile in Karachi is perhaps one of the most heart-rending instances of recent South Asian history..

          3. Slapstik is correct. Growing up on Bollywood and its surrounding ecosystem you would be forgiven to think that “Hindi” is really a poor cousin/poor man’s Urdu. It s only when i read more in Hindi literature and stuff i had a feeling that Hindi (not the heavily urdu-ized one) can still hold its own in terms of original ideas and thoughts. You can give it a try if you are interested and know how to read Devanagari.

          4. Reply to Saurav..

            When I was in Mahaballipuram; I saw a group of 4 white-skinned Europeans, light eyes passing the round.

            I immediately realised that they were Israeli, their mannerisms and such. However when I heard their Hebrew, it was with such a strong German/European accent and I’m sure they were native Israelis (maybe on break from the mililtary etc).

            I can’t possible comment much further but in many ways this is analogous to modern Hindi; both languages have a vibrant literary and commercial output but they lack the authenticity that makes people burst into art. The Arabic and Yiddish language traditions lend themselves to artistic creativity.

            It’s what differentiates Persian, Urdu & Arabic; all of them are High Languages (Urdu is the most creolic of the three but in many ways extraordinarily vigorous as well) but their speakers are able to rely on rich poetic traditions and word-play. They are some of the best that Islam has to offer and should be defended.

            Islam may have fallen from grace but there is no reason why Islamicate culture should suffer along with it..

      2. Amir Khusro wrote in “Hindavi” as well as Persian, but not Urdu [though one may call it a predecessor, in the same way Awadhi and Brajbhasha are of Hindi]. His Hindavi verse would be more understandable to a typical Hindi speaker than a typical Urdu speaker of current times. In Zihal-E-Miskin, he in fact alternates between Hindavi and Persian in each line, and there is a clear language switch in alternate lines [there is no borrowing of Hindavi words into Persian and vice-versa] – which indicates that there was a clear distinction and line between the two and borrowing of Persian words was at a very low extent. Arguably, it was Persian which was the High language [royal correspondence, edicts, courts] and not Urdu. Both Shivaji and Guru Gobind Singh wrote their famous letters to Aurangzeb in Persian, not Urdu or Deccani etc. Even the language of the Mughal Court and East India Company was Persian , only replaced by Urdu at the end of the 18th century. The first use of the term Urdu , as per most sources, is also in this period. That would make it at best a 100 years older than Hindi [though certainly both have older predecessors]

      3. “Comparing Urdu to Hindi is a lot like comparing Shakespeare to Pidgin..”

        lol. pot. kettle. black. before accusing others of bigotry zaraa apne girebaan mein jhaankiye huzoor.

        1. Why is it bigoted?

          I would make the same example for Ottomanish to Modern Turkish..

          Please don’t communalise it – u know I rabidly dislike Islam but I defend Islamicate High culture (narrow tightrope I know).

          And you know I think Muhammad is a pedophile-

          1. What I meant is that you are welcome to your admiration of Urdu (I share it) but the casual dismissal of Hindi as “Pidgin” is … shall we say a bit … cavalier ?

      4. Urdu is as useless today as the English Shakespeare used with its highly convoluted ways of saying simple things.
        No one goes around saying “thou” and “dost” and stuff. People use street terms like “y’all”.

        I am not sure Urdu will be able to keep up even in Pakistan. What is the Urdu term for computer? Is it used even in official communication?
        We used to have a ‘Sanganak Vibhaag’ in college.

        The future belongs to Hinglish with adequate ‘Urdu’ borrowings.

        I’d recommend a trip to Benaras-Allahabad in case you want to get disabused of the notion that Hindi is not a high language.

        Also, someone here mentioned Awadhi as a predecessor of Hindi. Don’t think that’s accurate.

        Awadhi developed parallel to khadi boli and has a much more glorious past. It used to be the language of poetry in the north more so than either Hindu and Urdu.

        Both Hindi and Urdu get far too much attention because they were spoken around Delhi. Much of the rest of the country doesn’t care.

        1. Urdu will do just fine in Pakistan (unless you are talking about the purely literary variety of the language). It is the lingua franca of the entire country and anyone who has been to school can read and write it. A language that helps 200 million people to communicate with each other can hardly be called “useless”.

          Computer in Urdu is computer. Not sure why this is a problem though. Languages adopt words from other languages all the time.

          1. By Urdu I meant the kind of high register Zac was referring to.
            Normal people talk in Hindustani which is increasingly becoming Hinglish or whatever you people call it in Pakistan.

          2. Yes Hindustani is wonderful in street markets but cannot be the language of High Culture..

            Hinglish is a vulgar monstrosity; I suspect I prefer Chennai to the rest of India as I only hear Tamil & English.

          3. Of course that’s why it’s called Tanglish register and not just another type of English but the thing is that whatever Tamil they speak in Chennai or in any urban centre (which there are a lot in Tamil Nadu) (and increasingly in rural areas), is exactly identically like Hinglish (and Tenglish, Kanglish, Manglish, Benglish, Marathi-lish, etc.- god these all names sound so awful to the ears!), which I’m sure you don’t really dislike lol. And this process cannot be reversed and it does not have as much bad history as people perhaps imagine, I think, because most of this Anglicisation of the spoken language has happened after Independence and taken place at least significantly under the aegis of people’s will (though of an unconscious/subconscious kind and not conscious).

      5. Linguists consider “Urdu” and “Hindi” to be two registers of the same language, Hindustani. Languages are defined by their grammar and Urdu and Hindi are grammatically identical. There are vocabulary differences, but not enough to make them different languages. For political reasons, the Sankritized version of the language is called Hindi and the Persianized version is called Urdu. The different scripts are the main issue.

        “Islam should be the common enemy”– There is a difference between Islamism and Islam. An entire religion being an “enemy” makes zero sense to me.

        1. The sooner “Cultural Muslims” denounce the Cult of the Holy Pedophile the better we can go about saving Islamicate Culture, which is precious and important. Hazrat Asia will be its patron Saint for she has put right what a billion Muslim could not; calling out Islam for what it is ..

          1. An entire religion cannot be an “enemy”. This is ridiculous. If someone said “Hinduism” or “Christianity” is the enemy, those would be equally bizarre statements.

          2. Hinduism and Christianity were the enemies Pre-Secularisation..

            Christians aren’t literalists nor are Hindus but Muslims palpitate at the thought of their little quran being defiled.

            Religion should be much stronger than that

        2. +1008 Kabir.
          Awesome comment. I agree with all of it. I mean for real. [Zack, many of my favorite people in the world are muslim . . . . 😉 many of my favorite spiritual masters from the past too.]

          A question if I might. When you say “Persianized”, what version of Pharsi are you referring to?

          I would love to learn ancient Farsi and ancient Avesta. Sigh. Sadly I am not the wise Slapstik.

          Honestly Urdu and Hindi sound the same to me. Maybe because I “LOVE” me some Shia and Sufi (including Kabir) devotional songs and try to research the meaning of Persianized Urdu words in the songs. Is the difference between them analogous in some fashion to the difference between Brazilian Portuguese and Portugal Portuguese?

          1. I meant that there are two registers of Hindustani. The Sanskritized one is called “Hindi” and the Persianized one is called “Urdu”.

            The languages sound the same to you because they are basically the same. If you use more Persian and Arabic words, you are speaking Urdu. If you use more Sanskrit based words, you are speaking Hindi. Ultimately, they are only classified as separate languages for political reasons. The fact that they are written in totally different scripts is an issue, but script is not language.

          2. A language can be written using different scripts, does that make it a different language? Urdu can be written using the Roman alphabet, but the vocabulary and grammar remains Urdu.

  2. When I was a toddler/kid, my older cousins used to tease me asking “Who’s your favorite, Shah Rukh Khan or Govinda”.

    I used to reply Govinda. In later years as a kid, I kept being reminded that my initial choice was Govinda not SRK lol.

    As a grown adult, I reflect on why intrinsically I must have liked Govinda over a Shah Rukh Khan. I mean, Govinda is so sweet sounding and is literally the name of Shri Krishna. On other hand, a name like Shah Rukh Khan falls in the same category as the early dawn braying of the azaan, it must be an epigenetic memory embedded into us nice Hindus of the terror of skull mountains by everyone from Timur to Ajmal Kasab.

    I for one support Hindu actors only. Think why blacks are pulling down statues of Confederate generals and Ku Klux Klan riders all over America. Why should the surviving ex dhimmis care for Muslim celebs? Scales of genocide are similar…

    1. I agree Islam is a menace and must be combatted but the same should not be extended to the Urdu language, which is the supreme flower of the East..

      1. How are the irreligious Muslim actors of Bollywood in any way the sole upholders of Urdu high culture in Bollywood? I’d say the lyricist Gulzar is the only one fit for that title and Gulzar is Hindu.

        Actors just read scripts. They’ll play Hindu Muslim Jat Dalit anything you want them to, Priyanka Chopra even played the role of a mongoloid boxer from Manipur lol.

        1. Yes I agree people like Gulzar are important but it so happens Indian Muslims grow up speaking Urdu etc.

          They are a reasonable proxy..

          If I said sole I was wrong but the majority – sole in terms of on-screen..

  3. One cannot presume that they were explicitly excluded without further evidence – its not as if Modi has not posed with Muslim celebrities before [e.g Salman Khan and him had publicly flown kites once]. Moreover, its a self-composed delegation that met him, rather than it being a set of people chosen by him, the PMO or the ministry. Its possible that they themselves chose not to be a part of the delegation, whether to avoid controversy or criticism or otherwise, as is their prerogative [this had happened during the Netanyahu Bollywood meet as well – when Imtiaz Ali and someone else were the only Muslims who attended]

      1. The key distinction that I wished to point out is that [without further evidence] when a delegation from business/industry meets a person X [rather than the person or his office inviting a list of guests], it is the delegation that would be assumed to have decided the composition [in the absence of evidence to the contrary].
        The equivalence you pointed out would indeed hold IMO if one could show that Modi or his PMO pre-selected these actors to meet him , which at the moment there is no particular evidence to suggest given it was a delegation. There is no record of Modi not having posed with Muslim celebrities [Salman Khan and Irfan Pathan being prime examples]

          1. I would not say deliberate though, Modi desperately needs as much good press as he can have now, and I dont think his base really minds a photo or two with the Khans and all. For all you know, it could really be the other way round considering the Muslims actors no more need to kowtow to Modi considering he doesn’t seem as invincible politically as he used to.

          2. Yes I think that too..

            I would happily support the RSS/BJP if they embarked on a campaign to renationalise all Mosques etc.

            The Indian Muslim community in India needs to sharpen up; ditch Islam, keep Urdu and be less ghettoised.

            I would ban the Azaan except for maybe 5 minutes on Friday Jummah as a cute cultural token. Also I would enforce strict Azaan regulations ..

          3. Zack wrote:

            “The Indian Muslim community in India needs to sharpen up; ditch Islam, keep Urdu and be less ghettoised.”
            I assume you have been joking about this recently. How is “Islam” defined.

            “I would ban the Azaan except for maybe 5 minutes on Friday Jummah as a cute cultural token. Also I would enforce strict Azaan regulations ..” This has got to be a joke.

            You realize that many of the mosques are visited by Hindus, paid for by Hindus, built by Hindus. Many of the largest muslim centers in India are visited by more nonmuslims than muslims. Including Shirdi, Ajmer, Nizamuddin Auliya, Kabir, virtually all Sufi places and Irfan Shia (Sufi) places.

            Hindus and Hinduttva would revolt against a rule like this. The BJP is deeply dependent on the support of twelvers, sixers, sufis, ahmedis, liberals, muslim femnist females. Many of their political leaders are muslim. No way in the world the BJP would ever risk losing their muslim base.

            Remember many Hinduttva want to promote what they call Hindu muslims or Swadeshi muslims or Bharatiya muslims (or any other phrase you prefer). And incorporate Indian Islam into themselves. Why would they risk this?

            What you can say is:
            —all Azaan singers must be super high quality
            —all Azaan sound systems must be super high quality
            —all Azaans for various mosques in a specific area need to be coordinated so that they don’t conflict with each other
            —volume should be within reasonable limits (versus allow the volume of Azaans to be much higher than the volume from non-Islamic spiritual centers)

            Heck I think that Kabir and most Indian conservative Sunnis would agree with the above. Too bad no one in India has to courage to propose anything like this other than a few Indian muslims.

  4. Some woke folks on twitter are disappointed with Mr Sindh (Padmavaat controversy) and Ms Bhatt for not showing any spine unlike their wife and father respectively, by boycotting Modi. With Rajkumar Rao too since they felt their original hero Nawazudin has ditched them by playing Thackrey

    1. I like Modi and I like his anti-Islam stance but I can’t accept the disrespect and cultural genocide of Urdu-speakers.

      No Muslim actor is actually religious but they are important to the survival of Urdu culture, which is paramount.

      1. Zack, Modi would be outraged by being called anti-Islam. Many of this best friends are muslims. For real.

        Modi publicly eulogizes Mohammed pbuh as a great prophet and spiritual master. In a way that appeals to minority muslims and liberal muslims but apparently offends Islamists and some conservative Sunnis.

        Modi is a spiritual and religious man of the sarva dharma sarva sresht sarva bhaava mold. The head Swami of the Ramakrishna organization (which believes all religions are true) turned down Modi’s request to become a monk. Modi would never criticize Islam. It is haram for almost all orders of Hindus to do this. [Yeah I know Ajivikas and Chaarvaakas and a couple others might criticize Islam.]

        Zack, Hindus deeply frown on any criticism of spiritual masters no matter the religion.

  5. // But why was there a need for Devanagari; we could have had a Sanskrit-Urdu formula that supplanted English… //

    Well, devanAgarI is a surely a better script for Urdu (or Hindi or whatever you choose to label the language as), no? It is mapped better to local phonetic inventory. And very easily extendable to the gutturals /q/, /gh/, fricative /x/ and voiced sibilant /z/ – the four main consonantal phonemes in Urdu that occur in borrowed words. The rest like /ayn/, /sawd/, /dawd/, /zhe/ etc are all remapped, i.e. have no new phonetic value in Urdu.

    E.g. no Urdu speaker actually pronounces the glottal stop /ayn/ in ‘arab (let alone whether Urdu speakers can at all). So, no need for extra symbols beyond the 4.

    Besides, unlike Arabic – which is based on the system of tri-consonantal roots where vowels are secondary – Urdu is an IE language and marking of vowels/diphthongs is very necessary. For that reason again devanAgarI trumps Nastaliq.

    The only reason why a Muslim would not like the idea of writing in devanAgarI is religion (or some sort of quasi-religious cultural hangover). The symbols remind Muslims of Arabic. And the written word carries much more emotional significance in orthodox Islamic culture than it does in orthodox Hindu – where spoken word reigns supreme. The central canon of Hinduism is called shruti (that which is heard) for a reason. And bad pronunciation is the cardinal sin in Sanskritic high culture.

    Humans of course make decisions based on much more than plain utilitarian calculus. But I think India’s choice of devanAgarI over Nastaliq is as much a result of Muslim separatism as a cause of it. The majority of Urdu-speaking Muslims were not interested, until very recently using fora like, in trying to win over Indians to the Urdu cause with love and a sense of belonging. The camaraderie did happen in some niche sub-cultures within UP, but never really at a scale to reach a popular tipping-point. Much of the Urdu culture remained exclusive and exclusionary in the run up to the Partition.

    1. Perhaps – I wouldn’t be surprised if Latin alphabet suits Chinese better than its own script ..

      As for the exclusionary basis of Urdu I agree with you, which is why all Urdu-lovers must call out against the cult of the Holy Pedophile..

      1. // Latin alphabet suits Chinese better than its own script //

        LOL now that’s a thought 🙂

        Positive advertisement is always better than negative advertisement. Though I think either way, English is going to be the top dog in India. The age of elves and hobbits is over….

        1. // Latin alphabet suits Chinese better than its own script //

          Banish the thought. Mandarin is a tonal language. There are as many as 5 different tones for a single syllable, each having a different meaning. It will be chaos!

      2. Few years ago I started a project with a girl from Taiwan (left unfinished) to write Chinese texts in Serbian phonetic alphabet. This alphabet is the simplest in the world, 1 letter=1 sound, and anyone can learn to read Serbian without mistake in 5 minutes. Four-five years old kids in Serbia can read texts without complicated scientific words. There are 30 letters but could be accommodated for specific Chinese voices. This thing could provide opportunities to foreigners to quickly learn to read Chinese and simply use a dictionary. It would be easier for Chinese, too, because they could also quickly learn to read instead of spending years to learn to read (and draw) thousands of signs.

      3. PS. On my first view of the photo I was thinking that it was taken in Serbia. Two guys from his right and especially a girl from his left are some of typical faces. Moreover, one of these guys is showing a Serbian saluting sign (three fingers).

      4. “which is why all Urdu-lovers must call out against the cult of the Holy Pedophile..”

        Innocent question. What are you referring to? Is this part of a multi-level multi-layered long term Murshid Jagguji type performance?

        Do you believe that the account of Sahih Bukhari (second holiest book of Islam) is 100% factually accurate? You know that many muslims (twelvers, sixers, secretly many Sufis) are not sure that Hazrat Aisha really had a profound romantic physically generated event when she was 9. Many muslims believe she was older. Or that she was referring to some type of mystical transcendent meditative samadhi kundalini orgasmic experience that was not physical coitus with the holy prophet, PBUH. Or an astral or causal projection event.

        Disputes over whether this event happened or not are a major reason that the great Islamic civil war started in 632 AD and has lasted 14 centuries. A civil war where Islamists have killed over 100 million moderate muslims.

        Zach, surely Báb and Bahá’u’lláh would not blindly follow the conservative Islamist Sunni line 100% against the minority muslims, liberal sunnis, femnist sunnis and atheist sunnis? If they don’t, then why should we?

    2. “The only reason why a Muslim would not like the idea of writing in devanAgarI is religion (or some sort of quasi-religious cultural hangover). The symbols remind Muslims of Arabic.”

      Kind of agree, but there are counter examples too. Remember, East Bengal Muslims revolted, violently, against the very same Arabic letters. Turks of Turkey willingly decommissioned these letters from their language.

      So, it is kinda complex.

      1. That’s not true because the reasons for changing scripts were definitely cloaked in religious ones. Why should we write in a script that was never our own..

        1. But others (Hindus) should definitely write in a script that came from Arabia and is inferior to their own native scripts.
          Or at the very least, accept infusion of Perso Arabic words when perfectly good native words exist.

        2. Switching to a different script , as long as it is adequate for the language, is a good idea as it signals looking at the world through different glasses as it were and removes one of the ever present reminder of the cultural burden and overload.

  6. Zach, honestly who cares? The world has real problems. Kids are starving in Africa. Who cares about a picture with a bunch of movie stars, models and entertainers? Seriously?

    This is a crowd that caters to self absorbed teenage girls with 16 million instagram followers who have zero content or substance. Whose followers love to watch them eat bananas.

    This is not high Islamicate syncretic culture or Bharatiya culture or pan Arya (Iranic/Turan/SAARC/South East Asian) culture. Who cares about this “culture”?

    Why worry about surface level passing clouds? Isn’t Brown Pundits about deep intuition (Vijnayamaya Kosha) and deep feeling (Ananda Maya Kosha) stuff?

    Bharotshontan, I have seen speeches by Shah Rukh Khan and am deeply impressed by his sterling intellect and character. [Trust me, I am not as impressed by the large majority of “hot” actresses and actors.] I love and admire the way Shah Rukh Khan is letting his wife remain a proudly practicing Hindu and raising his own kids as practicing Hindus. If this isn’t the model for syncretic high Islamicate culture, or Hindu Islam; then I don’t know what is.

    India’s 240 million muslims are leading the global reformation and modernization of Islam. The entire world should be extremely grateful to them and proud of them. It is no exaggeration to say that Indian muslims are saving the entire world from burning down. Inshallah Indian Islam will move from perfection to perfection. Now and always.

      1. I liked SRK over Govinda by the time I got in my senses lol, I was just making a comment on the innate sensation of phobia just from a name…

        I think rickshawala looking SRK became popular in the 90s due to acting talent and for the first time Bollywood got a rickshawala looking Indian male as prime protagonist unlike the Amitabh or Dev Anand or Raj Kapoor’s of the yesteryears. The rickshawala masses of IndoPak loved seeing one of their own getting to fawn over gori gori heroines for the first time.

        Then SRK pulled a Sammy Sosa in the 2000s. I lost respect for him since. You can’t have rode to success on back of your rickshawala looks and then turn around promote light supremacy to compete with upstarts like Hrithik. I knew when SRK started the bleaching cream ads, the rickshawala masses were going to get the message “we can become white and beautiful also”. The man promoted something toxic when he was in prime position to reverse it.

  7. This is absolute nonsense.
    Traditionally Muslim actors – Shahrukh, Salman and Aamir — have LED bollywood. And they have also many times been welcomed and greeted by Modi.
    The reason why you don’t see them is because they just happened not to be there. And plus their time is over. All three of them are greying, and perhaps for the first time in 20 years none of them had a hit in 2018.

    Dont read abuse into anything and everything.

    1. Please Ranbir Kapoor is a two-bit actor. I know Bollywood is waiting for the era of the Khans to be over but we all know India is shutting out the their true heir; Fahad Khan

      1. Oh come on. Fahad is decent actor not some true heir to anything. Most of the hype is due to his looks and look where hrithik is today

          1. Ranveer Singh is a much more plausible successor [if there really is something like that] [long string of successes from 2013 onwards – this is when even Fawad was active, not that Fawad is not a strong actor] right into current times. Another one could be Ayushmann Khurana [everything he’s touched since 2013 except Meri Pyari Bindu has turned to gold pretty much – Vicky Donor, Dum Laga Ke Haisha right down till Badhai Ho]

            Hrithik was certainly as or more popular than Fawad, except in a different time period – specifically in the 1999-2010 period – the craze about him post Kaho Naa Pyar Hai was phenomenal – he was just super-picky with his movies which hurt him.

      2. Fahad is just good looking. Ranbir and Ranveer have some real mettle and a body of good work behind them.
        They shall be taking up the khanate mantle (or have already!)

  8. Its a bit saddening to see that Pakistanis are more obsessed with Indian cinema rather than developing their own industry. I cant think of any other country that acts this way. In fact, there are states within India that curb Hindi cinema (via taxes, discriminatory laws or outright bans) so that their own cinema gets more space.

    Are Pakistanis that uninterested in their own stories ?

    1. Yes it’s lovely to see how all the Pakistanis have been cleansed from the pictures..

      Any Pakistani who disavows the Cult of the Holy Pedophile is a natural ally of India..

      India needs to be anti-Islam and pro-Pakistan; they are the other way round

      1. I think you are confusing religion and nationalism. Even Pakistanis who “disavow” Islam are not necessarily going to be India’s allies.

        As for India being “anti-Islam”, being anti 14% of your own citizens seems counterproductive.

        1. Why – if we don’t accept the Cult of the Holy Pedophile, why would we not be pro-India and pro-Urdu?

          Unless a Cultural Muslim accepts that Muhammad was a Pedophile (a 53 year old man shtupping a 9year old girl qualifies) then they are no Cultural Muslim/Islamicate Ally but instead simply a Muslim.

          The mistake the Pakistan Movement was mixing Urdu (which is a noble cause) with Islam.

          We mustn’t do the same thing but clean Urdu of the stench of Islam.

          1. You realize the Pakistan Movement was about the concerns of British Indian Muslims and not just Urdu right?

            Your remarks about the Prophet of God and Hazrat Aisha are needlessly offensive. All I can say is that 21st century standards of behavior cannot be applied to the 7th century.

          2. Of course it can. It is vulgar and paedophilic; Aisha could not possibly be in a position to consent.

            Liberalism is an exacting creed. The inviolability of consent is one of those a 9yr old girl cannot rightfully give consent to a sexual relationship with a man 40 years older to her.

            At the very least it is vulgar and not a model of imitation.

            Mohammed was a pedophile at worst and a lecher at best. More men (and women) have to disavow his actions instead of beating around the bush. I would not want to know Muhammad and I would fear for my Pre-pubescent daughter if he was around.

            He committed genocide against the Jews in Madina, launched offensive wars in Mecca, was iconoclastic in the Kaabah destroying centuries and millennia of heritage.

            Islam has made a tremendous High Culture because of Iran not Muhammad, who could not read or write.

            Pakistan must rid itself of Islam except in a fun Church of England style with some smells and bells and maybe coupled with a Constitutional Monarchy. Islam is now a nuisance and a menace. Any Pakistani liberal who is not firmly and loudly against Islam is a traitor and a hypocrite.

            If you make it clear that you are a Muslim and not a Cultural Muslim; and that the religion is more Important that our High Culture then I’ll stop out of respect to your “religious” beliefs.

            But you and INDTHINGS must be clear what is more important; Urdu or Islam because they are no longer the same things. The Mughals, Urdu and our Sacred High Culture can no longer be left to Muslims or a garbage religion like Islam to defend.

            But you must be honest and not equivocate.

          3. It is ahistorical to apply 21st century standards to the 7th century. Girls were married off young at that time. There is some debate about whether their marriage was consummated before she reached puberty or not.

            “Cultural Muslim” does not mean that the Prophet of God or his wives should be disrespected. That’s not going to win you any friends or lead to any kind of meaningful dialogue.

            Your views on Islam are hardly the model of “liberalism”. In fact, they read like a right-wing screed. “Garbage religion” indeed. Do you even read what you post?

          4. You are avoiding the question Kabir.

            Muhammad engaged in sex with an underaged girl; is that a good thing or a bad thing?

            If he is a model of emulation; should we emulate that?

            My views on Islam is calling bullshit when I see it and it seems Islam is pretty bullshit these days.

            You claim to be a liberal but you hedge at calling out bad behaviour when it’s done by the Holy Pedophile.

            I am genuinely guessing if Genghis Khan had come up with a religion; it would have been very similar to Islam.

            The cause of Urdu is far tip sacred to be contaminated by Islam.

          5. I am not avoiding the question. For the millionth time, 21st century standards cannot be applied to the 7th century. Until fairly recently in history, children were considered adults when they reached puberty. Marrying a young girl is illegal and immoral today, but we are talking about people who lived in 7th century Arabia.

            I’m not going to argue about Islam with you anymore. Your views are irrational and needlessly offensive. Being “liberal” doesn’t mean I will consent to having my religion abused.

          6. So you are a religious Muslim then and not a “Cultural Muslim?”

            So your venom towards India stems from a defence of Islam and not for any love of Urdu & the Mughals ..

          7. If Muhammad was so great as you claim he is (Prophet if God and all that) why couldn’t he anticipate the trend and prohibit fornicating with 9yr olds.

            Instead he jumped right in and quite enthusiastically (as we all know Aysha was his favourite squeeze).

            When your “religion” imprisons Hazrat Asia don’t expect me to show any mercy to your Holy Pedophile.

            Feel the rage about her several bouts with martyrdom rather than some vague inanities about the Holy Pedophile. That is the true test of liberalism.

            If you admitted that your loyalty is to Islam and a particularly conservative brand of Islam; I would stop and encourage the others on this blog to also stop. However claiming to be a “cultural” & “liberal” Muslim when it is the Islam that is the most important of three well then be clear and precise.

            You can caveat with “as a Muslim” instead of “as a cultural Muslim” or “as a liberal Muslim.”

          8. I’m a Cultural Muslim. But that doesn’t mean that I go around abusing the Prophet of God. I consider that disrespectful and gratuitous.

            I don’t know where you get “venom towards India” from. I despise Hindutva, but so do many Indians. Political differences with India (Kashmir etc) doesn’t mean I don’t have a great affinity with our shared syncretic North Indian culture.

            At this point, it is better not to dignify the things you are saying about the Prophet of God with a response. The stuff you are writing is disgusting.

          9. What your people have done to Hazrat Asia is disgusting. I am simply stating facts about the Holy Pedophile.

            You are not a “Cultural Muslim”; you are a Muslim. If you accept Muhammad engaged in pedophilia (I’m even lowering the ante from having to call him a Pedophile) that would be enough for me to grant you “Cultural Muslim” status.

            There is nothing wrong with but your interest in Islamicate stems from religion not culture.

            To thine own self be true. Islam is what is important to you; everything else just follows.

            But this is exactly what Urdu, Pakistan and the Mughals need to now cleanse itself from. The Islamic taint and the Muslim association have to be removed if these three emblems are going to survive the 21st century.

            We can’t have backward thinking and Islam reeks of retrograde thinking. Muslims can’t even condemn their Pedo Prophet for heaven’s sake.

            Your venom towards India stems from Muslim nationalism plain and simple.

            Allama Iqbal was a deranged psycho – Jinnah’s big mistake as an atheist was in allying himself with the Muslim loonies like Allama Iqbal.

            Was Ghalib even a practising or religious Muslim? I suspect not..

          10. Luckily I don’t need you to certify my “Cultural Muslim” status. This is like when you asked Nida Kirmani if she had left Islam. You are not the authority that gets to determine these things for other people. I’m hardly conservative, so your attempts at psychoanalysis fail miserably.

            I was taught not to talk smack about other people’s religions.

            I have no “venom” towards India. Hindutva is not India. Having political differences (as most Pakistanis do) is not “venom”. Unless you are now taking the position that anyone who doesn’t like the Modi regime is an anti-national?

            Let’s just leave it here. I have no more time for this bigotry.

          11. Unfortunately I have to call you out as Anti-India and that you are not a representative of either Pakistan or the Mughals or our Urdu High Culture.

            You are advancing a Muslim agenda instead and all the Indian/Hindu commentators must understand and accept that.

          12. Haha! Advancing a “Muslim agenda”– that’s laughable.

            If being against the Modi regime is being “anti-India”, fine. But that’s your ideosyncratic definition.

          13. Lucky I didn’t say Islamist :/)

            I usually like Modi but his last picture hurt me deeply. That the Bollywood fraternity would betray their comrades in such a way speaks volumes..

          14. That picture is the problem with Modi? Not the fact that he was Chief Minister during the Gujarat pogroms? OK….

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits