Muslim painter booked for his paintings of nude Hindu Gods. Set Him Free Provided
Mortayee
he shows as not being hypocrite and paints Mohammad, Fattyma or is it
Fatima and Allah in nude as well.
M F Husain booked for his paintings of nude gods
February 07, 2006 01:52 IST
Noted painter M F Husain has been booked for hurting sentiments of
people through his paintings depicting nude gods, Deputy Chief Minister
and Home Minister, R R Patil said Monday.
A case was registered against Husain on Saturday and the state police
is conducting a probe into the allegations made against the painter,
Patil said.
Several right wing Hindu organisations have raised a cry against
Husain's series of paintings depicting Hindu gods and goddesses in the
nude.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad has demanded that Husain be placed under
arrest for hurting sentiments of the majority community.
Meanwhile, state Bharatiya Janata Party president Nitin Gadkari has
also extended support to the demand for Husain's arrest, saying that
the renowned painter has hurt religious sentiments.
Mirza Ghalib
Freedom of expression is being violated." Remember, Lalu is
also secular by persuation.
By the way, Mohammad looks pretty handsome in the sketches by
the Dane artist. So what is this fuss about?
Seeker
stuff, but when a man draws Hindu gods, he loses his so "called freedom"
Indian style.
Every mandir I went to had nude hindu gods and godesses. How does it hurt
the majority community?
"Mortayee" <mort...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1139270732.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Seeker
"Mirza Ghalib" <mgha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139272137.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Surely the "secular" Hindus will howl in unison: "This is Fascism.
> Freedom of expression is being violated." Remember, Lalu is
> also secular by persuation.
>
> By the way, Mohammad looks pretty handsome in the sketches by
> the Dane artist. So what is this fuss about?
do you have the link? The fuss is because most Muslims don't believe that
the picture of the prophet be drawn lest it be used as an object of worship.
James Calivar
Mortayee
Mohammad, Koran and Islam, yet see nothing wrong in blowing other
religious icons (literally in the case of Bamyan Buddhas).
FYI, Muslim painter Hussain had painted in nude religious icons, which
are always held and shown by 800 million Hindus utmost respect.
I just want him to show less hypocrisy and paint Ayesha and Mohammad
in nude (it will also be approriate); it is not that I am asking him to
show reality, such as Mo ejaculating over or into 6yr little Ayesha
orifice. This truth will be too traumatic for any decent human being.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Seeker wrote:
> You show what a hypocrite you are. Criticising Muslims over the cartoon
> stuff, but when a man draws Hindu gods, he loses his so "called freedom"
> Indian style.
>
> Every mandir I went to had nude hindu gods and godesses. How does it hurt
> the majority community?
Which gods and goddesses did you see in the nude?
> "Mortayee" <mort...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote ...
habshi
Hanuman's tail
http://www.artswithoutborders.com/ArtsNet/Artartswork.aspx?title=Hanuman%20with%20Sita&prodid=5480&gs=O
There is nothing wrong with the naked body ma nature has given
us.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Then, there would be nothing wrong in painting a naked Muhammad riding
a naked Burak, right? So, why doesn't someone paint it?
citizenoftheplanetearth
Mortayee wrote:
> You are a typical Muslim, hypersensitive in the most extreme about
> Mohammad, Koran and Islam, yet see nothing wrong in blowing other
> religious icons (literally in the case of Bamyan Buddhas).
>
> FYI, Muslim painter Hussain had painted in nude religious icons, which
> are always held and shown by 800 million Hindus utmost respect.
>
> I just want him to show less hypocrisy and paint Ayesha and Mohammad
> in nude (it will also be approriate);
What hypocrisy? There is a fine line drawing nude pricture of just
anyone versus a revered prophet of a religion. Decent human beings
draw the line. There is no excuse for such behavior. Freedom of
speech, may ass.
> it is not that I am asking him to
> show reality, such as Mo ejaculating over or into 6yr little Ayesha
> orifice. This truth will be too traumatic for any decent human being.
What evidence did you have that she was 6 year old when the marraige
was consumated? None. BTW, we know an Indian guy who is married to
somone that their parents made arrangement when he was 5 or 6 year
old. And this is modern time _ this arrangm,ent was made in 2oth
century - and he is in IT. Wasn't Mahatma Gandhi also married to
someone that he had to was engaged at age 12 or 13 or less. The point
is when you guys attach Mohammad, you guys throw away the time and the
context (of culture) he was living in. It may be entertaining to
westerners to draw such pictures but why don't they draw about the
catholic popes of the past ( in a later period than Mohammad lived)
having sex with uncountable concubines? Let's wee the West do that in
the name of Free Speech. Theh I will support tham drawing Mohammad
nude.
koolf...@gmail.com
ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Seeker wrote:
> > You show what a hypocrite you are. Criticising Muslims over the cartoon
> > stuff, but when a man draws Hindu gods, he loses his so "called freedom"
> > Indian style.
> >
> > Every mandir I went to had nude hindu gods and godesses. How does it hurt
> > the majority community?
>
> Which gods and goddesses did you see in the nude?
;-)
Seeker
routinely in Hindu temples. Do a search on the web and you will find many
pictures of nude hindu gods in temples.
So why is it offensive when the "Muslim painter" painted hindu gods in the
nude?
"James Calivar" <amheis...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:5zWFf.11807$rH5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Seeker
> You are a typical Muslim, hypersensitive in the most extreme about
> Mohammad, Koran and Islam, yet see nothing wrong in blowing other
> religious icons (literally in the case of Bamyan Buddhas).
I personally have no problem with any one making fun of the Koran, Mohammed
or Islam. You have been doing so for years, I have never asked you to stop.
In fact, your making fun of the Koran, Mohammed or Islam does not change
them one bit. They are still held in the same exalted esteem as before.
>
> FYI, Muslim painter Hussain had painted in nude religious icons, which
> are always held and shown by 800 million Hindus utmost respect.
But the point is, Hindus paint their gods in the nude all the time. So why
the problem when a Muslim painter does it? Which god did he paint in the
nude?
>
> I just want him to show less hypocrisy and paint Ayesha and Mohammad
> in nude (it will also be approriate); it is not that I am asking him to
> show reality, such as Mo ejaculating over or into 6yr little Ayesha
> orifice. This truth will be too traumatic for any decent human being.
The key difference is that Muslims themselves don't paint such pictures of
Mohammed and Ayesha.
Seeker
news:43e93507...@news.clara.net...
Thanks for the link. There is no frontal nudity in it.
Seeker
news:1139362867.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Once again, you use wrong logic. It is routine for Hindus to paint their
gods in the nude. Muslims don't do that. Muslims don't beleive in painting
Muhammed lest he will be an object of worship.
Seeker
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139318567....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Seeker wrote:
>> You show what a hypocrite you are. Criticising Muslims over the cartoon
>> stuff, but when a man draws Hindu gods, he loses his so "called freedom"
>> Indian style.
>>
>> Every mandir I went to had nude hindu gods and godesses. How does it hurt
>> the majority community?
>
> Which gods and goddesses did you see in the nude?
Sita, Shiva, Rama, etc. etc.
James Calivar
I think we're getting confused here. Maybe I am. I'm thinking that
you're defening the Islamic beliefe that Mohammed should not even have
his face shown. I interpreted your response to be a jab at "Muslim
painters" showing Hindu gods in the nude.
All i'm trying to say is that these cartoons are innocuous at best. To
take offense at them is to use them as an excuse to air one's
frustrations and anger. There is nothing inherently bad in the
depiction of Mohammed - partuicularly in these cases - and to pretend
otherwise is to play into the hands of fundamentalist Islamic
interolerance .
Seeker
> All i'm trying to say is that these cartoons are innocuous at best. To
> take offense at them is to use them as an excuse to air one's frustrations
> and anger. There is nothing inherently bad in the depiction of Mohammed -
> partuicularly in these cases - and to pretend otherwise is to play into
> the hands of fundamentalist Islamic interolerance .
Aha! Finally we have a breakthrough. This is my point exactly; however, I
take it a step further. The "fundamentalists" like OBL wouldn't like
anything better than to pit average Christians against average Muslims. By
Muslims showing such a strong reaction and by Western nations getting angry
at Muslims for not understanding free speech, OBL's goals are a step closer
to reality.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Seeker wrote:
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> >> Every mandir I went to had nude hindu gods and godesses. How does it hurt
> >> the majority community?
> >
> > Which gods and goddesses did you see in the nude?
>
> Sita, Shiva, Rama, etc. etc.
At which temple?
mgha...@yahoo.com
the offer of a little food and water, and garlanded before you
leave for work. Heavens will not break loose with this act. We
Hindus do it every morning. We are doing o.k.
Mortayee
citizenoftheplanetearth wrote:
> Mortayee wrote:
> > You are a typical Muslim, hypersensitive in the most extreme about
> > Mohammad, Koran and Islam, yet see nothing wrong in blowing other
> > religious icons (literally in the case of Bamyan Buddhas).
> >
> > FYI, Muslim painter Hussain had painted in nude religious icons, which
> > are always held and shown by 800 million Hindus utmost respect.
> >
> > I just want him to show less hypocrisy and paint Ayesha and Mohammad
> > in nude (it will also be approriate);
>
> What hypocrisy? There is a fine line drawing nude pricture of just
> anyone versus a revered prophet of a religion.
A prophet who was terrorist, rapist, slave-owning, slave-trading,
slave-promoting, pedophile, vicious mass murderer, therefore requires
exposure and discussion.
> Decent human beings
> draw the line.
Decent human are not afraid to tell the truth and expose indecent
humans and their dirty deeds.
There is no excuse for such behavior. Freedom of
> speech, may ass.
>
Asslifter would be precise.
>
> > it is not that I am asking him to
> > show reality, such as Mo ejaculating over or into 6yr little Ayesha
> > orifice. This truth will be too traumatic for any decent human being.
>
> What evidence did you have that she was 6 year old when the marraige
> was consumated? None.
Islamic evidence, read Bukhari a bonafide Muslim.
>TW, we know an Indian guy who is married to
> somone that their parents made arrangement when he was 5 or 6 year
> old.
Firstly, this India guy is not prophet claiming direct line to Alloo.
He was 5 or 6 yr when his marriage arranged means he did not abuse his
power and stranglehold, like shameless dirty Mohammad to organise a
rape of little girl.
Moron, if he was 6yr old his bride is not going to be baby when he
married her.
>Wasn't Mahatma Gandhi also married to
> someone that he had to was engaged at age 12 or 13 or less.
Gandhi married Kastura when both were of similar age.
>The point
> is when you guys attach Mohammad, you guys throw away the time and the
> context (of culture) he was living in.
Sexual abuse and rape of little girls by old men is repulsive no matter
what context and culture, beside as prophet he should have known better
and set a better example.
Clearly he was sexual deviant who would have been confined and required
treatment for his illness.
It may be entertaining to
> westerners to draw such pictures but why don't they draw about the
> catholic popes of the past ( in a later period than Mohammad lived)
> having sex with uncountable concubines? Let's wee the West do that in
> the name of Free Speech. Theh I will support tham drawing Mohammad
> nude.
?
Mortayee
Seeker wrote:
> "Mortayee" <mort...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1139312576....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > You are a typical Muslim, hypersensitive in the most extreme about
> > Mohammad, Koran and Islam, yet see nothing wrong in blowing other
> > religious icons (literally in the case of Bamyan Buddhas).
>
> I personally have no problem with any one making fun of the Koran, Mohammed
> or Islam.
Even if you did who cares.
>You have been doing so for years, I have never asked you to stop.
No one has time for hypocrite SOBs.
> In fact, your making fun of the Koran, Mohammed or Islam does not change
> them one bit.
It is called telling the truth, which is nicely backed by 9/11, 7/7,
Beslan, Bali, Paris, attacks on Rushdie, Taslima, Sudanese and
Egyptian, and now by threat of murder, beheading and embassies burning.
>They are still held in the same exalted esteem as before.
>
So are Hitler and Ganges by their followers, but it does not hide the
fact.
> >
> > FYI, Muslim painter Hussain had painted in nude religious icons, which
> > are always held and shown by 800 million Hindus utmost respect.
>
> But the point is, Hindus paint their gods in the nude all the time.
I will ask you to give one example, just one.
>So why
> the problem when a Muslim painter does it?
Christian paint Christ and God often as jokes in cartoon, so what if
they painted Mohammad?
>Which god did he paint in the
> nude?
Is that even relevant?
> >
> > I just want him to show less hypocrisy and paint Ayesha and Mohammad
> > in nude (it will also be approriate); it is not that I am asking him to
> > show reality, such as Mo ejaculating over or into 6yr little Ayesha
> > orifice. This truth will be too traumatic for any decent human being.
>
> The key difference is that Muslims themselves don't paint such pictures of
> Mohammed and Ayesha.
That is Muslim perogative, but they have no right to ask for
understanding and respect for their beliefs from any kaffir, especially
since they have been involved in smashing countless Kaffir places of
worships and icons.
In Kashmir, even now one can see pavements to many many mosques are
paved with Hindu Icons that were taken from smashed Hindus temples; to
humiliate Hindus they were used to pave mosques.
People with such a backward hatefilled religion are hardly in position
to demand that the people should respect their religious sentiments,
especially when cartoonists are merely telling the truth.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Seeker wrote:
> >> You show what a hypocrite you are. Criticising Muslims over the cartoon
> >> stuff, but when a man draws Hindu gods, he loses his so "called freedom"
> >> Indian style.
> >>
> >> Every mandir I went to had nude hindu gods and godesses. How does it hurt
> >> the majority community?
Mohammad did carry out terrorists acts, how revealing this in cartoons
hurts Muslims?
ime...@comcast.net
I would rather prefer your mother riding a hot dog or donkey dick.
Wouldn't that be natural? And fun to watch too. i mean, from purely
artistic point view.
habshi
majority country and is a great tribute to the tolerance of Hindus.
excerpt
Nude Mother India creates furore!
Piyush Roy (HT Style)
Mumbai, February 8, 2006
Advertisement
Maqbool Fida Husain is back where he finds himself often - in the
middle of a controversy over his nudes. This time, he is in the firing
line of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti and Vishwa Hindu Parishad over a
painting, Bharath Mata, which has a nude woman's outline resembling
the map of India.
The artist had earlier faced the ire of hardline Hindutva groups for
portraying goddesses Laxmi, Saraswati and Durga, as well as the
revered mythical characters Sita and Draupadi, in the nude.
The latest controversial painting, which featured in an ad for the
February 6-8 auction by the Chennai based Apparao art Auctions, has
already been taken off the sale. However, the controversy refuses to
die down as the Samiti has filed a police complaint against Husain.
ime...@comcast.net
Seeker wrote:
> "Mortayee" <mort...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1139312576....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> But the point is, Hindus paint their gods in the nude all the time. So why
> the problem when a Muslim painter does it? Which god did he paint in the
> nude?
>
Which Hindu God or godesses you saw in nude? Name a temple?
You might be tempted to point to Ajanta/Illora carvings. But none of
the hindu god or godesses are represented in Ajanta/Ilora carvings.
They are not worshipped by hindus and they are not hindu temples where
any worship or puja or arti are being offered by hindus. They are
perverted secular art of bygone era and they are mainly held in high
esteem by modern secularist perverts. They had to be tucked away and
hidden in caves, and that shows how far away and removed they were from
any mainstram.
You might be tempted to point to Jain a monument where naked Mahavira
is depicted - we have a jain sect called Digamber Jainism where their
Tirthinkars are depicted in nude pose. Jains are athiests - they don't
have gods or godesses. So jain statues do not depict any god or
godesses.
You might be tempted to point to bare-breasted statues in some exterior
temple carvings in some regions - agains they are not godesses. Muthys
of Hindu gods and godesses are found inside the temples and not on
exterior carvings. External carvings depict apsaras, celestial maids -
they don't have names and they are not worshipped - On the contrary,
they offer worship to hindu gods and godesses.
i welcome you to show me nude god or godesses or temples.
On the contray, muhammud routinely had sex with camels and allah. That
is what inspires MF hussan's perversions but he is afraid of Islmaic
fatwas to paint them. So he takes out his depravity upon hindus as
hindus are soft target.
Mortayee
imem...@comcast.net wrote:
> Seeker wrote:
> > "Mortayee" <mort...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1139312576....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > But the point is, Hindus paint their gods in the nude all the time. So why
> > the problem when a Muslim painter does it? Which god did he paint in the
> > nude?
> >
>
> Which Hindu God or godesses you saw in nude? Name a temple?
>
>
> You might be tempted to point to Ajanta/Illora carvings. But none of
> the hindu god or godesses are represented in Ajanta/Ilora carvings.
> They are not worshipped by hindus and they are not hindu temples where
> any worship or puja or arti are being offered by hindus. They are
> perverted secular art of bygone era and they are mainly held in high
> esteem by modern secularist perverts.
They are work of art and shows people had not been brainwashed with
Islamoid/Abrahaiamic crap which looks down on human body.
>They had to be tucked away and
> hidden in caves, and that shows how far away and removed they were from
> any mainstram.
Speculative.
>
> You might be tempted to point to Jain a monument where naked Mahavira
> is depicted - we have a jain sect called Digamber Jainism where their
> Tirthinkars are depicted in nude pose. Jains are athiests - they don't
> have gods or godesses. So jain statues do not depict any god or
> godesses.
Hmm.
>
> You might be tempted to point to bare-breasted statues in some exterior
> temple carvings in some regions - agains they are not godesses.
Still they are in full view for the visiting public and not tucked away
as you wanted to point away nudity in Ajanata and Allora.
Muthys
> of Hindu gods and godesses are found inside the temples and not on
> exterior carvings. External carvings depict apsaras, celestial maids -
> they don't have names and they are not worshipped - On the contrary,
> they offer worship to hindu gods and godesses.
Yet in nude! So nudity was not viewed as something to be ashamed, which
is healthy.
>
> i welcome you to show me nude god or godesses or temples.
There are not. But even if there are so what is the big deal?
ime...@comcast.net
Mortayee wrote:
> imem...@comcast.net wrote:
> > Seeker wrote:
> > > "Mortayee" <mort...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:1139312576....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > But the point is, Hindus paint their gods in the nude all the time. So why
> > > the problem when a Muslim painter does it? Which god did he paint in the
> > > nude?
> > >
> >
> > Which Hindu God or godesses you saw in nude? Name a temple?
> >
> >
> > You might be tempted to point to Ajanta/Illora carvings. But none of
> > the hindu god or godesses are represented in Ajanta/Ilora carvings.
> > They are not worshipped by hindus and they are not hindu temples where
> > any worship or puja or arti are being offered by hindus. They are
> > perverted secular art of bygone era and they are mainly held in high
> > esteem by modern secularist perverts.
>
> They are work of art and shows people had not been brainwashed with
> Islamoid/Abrahaiamic crap which looks down on human body.
>
>
>
>
>
> >They had to be tucked away and
> > hidden in caves, and that shows how far away and removed they were from
> > any mainstram.
>
> Speculative.
Provide examples than.
>
>
> >
> > You might be tempted to point to Jain a monument where naked Mahavira
> > is depicted - we have a jain sect called Digamber Jainism where their
> > Tirthinkars are depicted in nude pose. Jains are athiests - they don't
> > have gods or godesses. So jain statues do not depict any god or
> > godesses.
>
> Hmm.
If you don't have anything to say, why comment that nobody can
understand?
>
>
> >
> > You might be tempted to point to bare-breasted statues in some exterior
> > temple carvings in some regions - agains they are not godesses.
>
>
> Still they are in full view for the visiting public and not tucked away
> as you wanted to point away nudity in Ajanata and Allora.
We have boliwood strutting out far more lewdness in full public glare
and you don't see any uproar over it. That is what boliwood stands for
and if MF were to focus of them for his porn, it would be more truthful
- boliwood would vie to be his subjects too. But why debase religious
icons that are secred to others? What prevents him from debasing icons
of his own faith or other non-hindu religions? The issue is not nudity
- the issue is debasing that which is held as sacred and depicting them
contrary to people's religious beliefs.
>
>
> Muthys
> > of Hindu gods and godesses are found inside the temples and not on
> > exterior carvings. External carvings depict apsaras, celestial maids -
> > they don't have names and they are not worshipped - On the contrary,
> > they offer worship to hindu gods and godesses.
>
>
> Yet in nude! So nudity was not viewed as something to be ashamed, which
> is healthy.
Many ancients tribes were topless. You can still find few in africa.
Ancient temples depicted dress code of their times. It was never viewed
as sexual or vulgur. But we live in different times and our dress code
and sensitivities are different. We live in a sexually-charged culture.
Nudity invokes sexuality. But talk is cheap. If you are not ashamed of
nudity, I invite your mother or sister to go nude in public.
>
> >
> > i welcome you to show me nude god or godesses or temples.
>
> There are not. But even if there are so what is the big deal?
It may not be for you. So I dare you to post nudes of your mother and
sister here.
Gods and godeses represent religiosity, spirituality, scaredness,
civilizational spirit. Nudity is associated with sexuality, base human
instincts, animal urges - associating gods and godesses with them is
antithetical, contrary and it amounts to defling nand debasing them.
Seeker
news:1139421506....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
True. Different beliefs, different practices. In Islam oneness of Allah and
the abstraction of His image are very important. So, the first creed (kalma)
of Islam says that there is no god, but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger
(rasool). Therefore, this is the most fundamental belief of Islam.
Granted, in Hinduism, various deities really represent different faces of
the one godhead, but Islam strictly forbids such personification.
We must respect each other's beliefs.
The first time the cartoons were published, they were ignored. But the
second time the wider publication incensed some Muslims.
I think the message the Europeans are sending is that they are sick and
tired of violent fundamentalism. This message in itself is very valid. And I
endorse this view. However, do Europeans really have the moral grounds to
denounce terror? Look at what the Europeans did to the people of the
countries they colonized. In India signs like, "No dogs or Indians allowed"
were common. Also, many Indians were brutally killed. Africa is on the other
extreme for being the recipient of European terrorism..
Seeker
news:1139381918....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
subi...@concert.com
promised u 72 willing nude virgins ... provided you convert, of course.
Seeker
news:1139455908.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> have you ever hear bin to Islamic paradise? well, the proped have
> promised u 72 willing nude virgins ... provided you convert, of course.
Subir, you retard ;) where have you been? BTW, the 72 virgins are not nude.
subi...@concert.com
... the problem is when musla clowns crack "Hindus paint their gods in
the NUDE .. ALL the time" jokes so seriously! hahahahaha
citizenoftheplanetearth
Mortayee wrote:
> citizenoftheplanetearth wrote:
> > Mortayee wrote:
> > > You are a typical Muslim, hypersensitive in the most extreme about
> > > Mohammad, Koran and Islam, yet see nothing wrong in blowing other
> > > religious icons (literally in the case of Bamyan Buddhas).
> > >
> > > FYI, Muslim painter Hussain had painted in nude religious icons, which
> > > are always held and shown by 800 million Hindus utmost respect.
> > >
> > > I just want him to show less hypocrisy and paint Ayesha and Mohammad
> > > in nude (it will also be approriate);
> >
> > What hypocrisy? There is a fine line drawing nude pricture of just
> > anyone versus a revered prophet of a religion.
>
> A prophet who was terrorist, rapist, slave-owning, slave-trading,
> slave-promoting, pedophile, vicious mass murderer,
That's your version. Even Mahatma Gandhi wept for having nothing more
to read about this great man when he finished reading the Biography of
Mohammad.
gaurave...@gmail.com
" A Veggie among a Veggie or more
porularily to say a JAIN"
Do u feel the same way as we
do
I am a Jain & Indian Native . Jainism is the most profoundly religion
on earth , It has nothing to do with the HInduism.
Hindus have come late in India, where they generated . The jains have
the history as of Mankind.
Jains have the nude male gods. The nudity is not in sense of Sex is
taken here, We people take it as Conqueror on earth. The Tirthankars (
Jain Gods ) 24 in number of a lakh year of time , have birth on earth .
They conqueror everything for Salvation.
The Jain society is the most profound, richest society in world.
When question comes of the nude statues. We have the largest stone
statues, metal statues in the whole world. Whom we worship with dignity
& pride.
Our asthetics are lay man, they also roam full nude, with no
possessions with them at all.
we have thousands of asthetics in India, main center of Jainism
Jainism is totally different from Buddism, Hinduism, Sikhism & have
history most previous to them all.
for more information u can log on tonumerous jain websites,
www.jainworld.com
www.yja.org
www.jainsamaj.org
www.jainheritagecentres.com
The largest single stone statue of the world :: nude ::
www.shravanabelagola.com
I welcome ur queries & all other question. U can directly mail to me at
gaurave...@gmail.com
--
Thanks & Regards,
Gaurav Jain
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Seeker wrote:
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> >
> > Seeker wrote:
> >> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> >
> >> >> Every mandir I went to had nude hindu gods and godesses. How does it
> >> >> hurt
> >> >> the majority community?
> >> >
> >> > Which gods and goddesses did you see in the nude?
> >>
> >> Sita, Shiva, Rama, etc. etc.
> >
> > At which temple?
> >
> Street side temples in Bombay.
Did you take any pictures?
koolf...@gmail.com
Seeker wrote:
> <mgha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1139421506....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > What is so wrong if the prophet is given some respect and love by
> > the offer of a little food and water, and garlanded before you
> > leave for work. Heavens will not break loose with this act. We
> > Hindus do it every morning. We are doing o.k.
>
> True. Different beliefs, different practices. In Islam oneness of Allah and
> the abstraction of His image are very important. So, the first creed (kalma)
> of Islam says that there is no god, but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger
> (rasool). Therefore, this is the most fundamental belief of Islam.
>
> Granted, in Hinduism, various deities really represent different faces of
> the one godhead, but Islam strictly forbids such personification.
>
> We must respect each other's beliefs.
>
> The first time the cartoons were published, they were ignored. But the
> second time the wider publication incensed some Muslims.
>
> I think the message the Europeans are sending is that they are sick and
> tired of violent fundamentalism. This message in itself is very valid. And I
> endorse this view. However, do Europeans really have the moral grounds to
> denounce terror? Look at what the Europeans did to the people of the
> countries they colonized. In India signs like, ". Also, many Indians were brutally killed. Africa is on the other
> extreme for being the recipient of European terrorism..
No dogs or Indians allowed"
were common....
dont forget you were an indian then during the british rule,the muslims
were given no preveledge....the dogs ment you too.....besides all
that,you are a even today a machod halfhindu paki son of raped
devdasi.....you are not a sandnigger are you,any arab claims,you are
his direct progeny.....the paternity test results of your daughters is
yet to be confirmed,who their bilogical father is.....
Romanise
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Did you take any pictures?
"In India I wanted to take a picture of a Ganesh statue, but I was told
I did
not have the freedom to take a picture of Ganesh." Jul 7 2005, 4:12 am
"The people running the temple (it was a like a shop on the street)
told me
angrily to not take a picture of Ganesh. Everyone I asked told me that
Hindus don't like pictures of Ganesh taken. Yet no one has been
courageous
enough to tell me why. " Jul 8 2005, 2:36 am
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.culture.pakistan/browse_frm/thread/4303431fc7b1e340/1af252eae1aee623?q=ganesh+picture+seeker+romanise&rnum=1#1af252eae1aee623
Looks fellow had a whale of time getting arsefucked by Shiva and Ram
statue and Sita atatue must have arsefucked him with her nipples.
Mortayee
habshi wrote:
> The man is my hero ! It takes guts to do this in a Hindu
> majority country and is a great tribute to the tolerance of Hindus.
>
Hindus have never had any problem with sexuality, female or male
nudity, apart from ill-informed idiots islamified morons Muslim
wannabes.
BUT, Hussian should only be allowed to do that if renouces Islam.
subi...@concert.com
dedicated its life to engaging in clever duets with indoo retards!
yalahahaha
Seeker
news:1139462550.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I tried to. They told me to put the camera away or they will break it. It
was an expensive Cannon A2E with a 28-70mm L series lense. I didn't want
them to break it.
Seeker
> In Kashmir, even now one can see pavements to many many mosques are
> paved with Hindu Icons that were taken from smashed Hindus temples; to
> humiliate Hindus they were used to pave mosques.
Most of what you wrote was idiotic nonsense.
The Hindu icons in questions are the shivalingams? Why don't you make more.
This is the problem with worshipping stones.
Seeker
news:1139434809....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On the contray, muhammud routinely had sex with camels and allah. That
> is what inspires MF hussan's perversions but he is afraid of Islmaic
> fatwas to paint them. So he takes out his depravity upon hindus as
> hindus are soft target.
You are crazy.
Panzer
Seeker wrote:
> Street side temples in Bombay.
me up. Dont post for the sake of posting, back it up with some proof.
street side temples usually have ganesh or shiva in them. They actually
dont have intricate carving s of gods and godesses.
Seeker
news:1139638250....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well, if Hindus won't let me take pictures of these temples then how am I
going to prove anything. If you notice, Shiva was one of the gods I
mentioned in my post.
Now, my questions to you:
- Why can't I take a picture of Ganesh naked or not?
- Why such fuss over nudity from a religion that gave the world Kama Sutra?
- Are Hindus becoming puritanical like Muslims?
Seeker
> Hindus have never had any problem with sexuality, female or male
> nudity, apart from ill-informed idiots islamified morons Muslim
> wannabes.
>
> BUT, Hussian should only be allowed to do that if renouces Islam.
Not only are you crazy but also stupid.
Mirza Ghalib
Do not count Khajuraho. That reflects the whimf a certain despot
at a certain period of Indian History.
tripur...@yahoo.com
Seeker wrote:
> <mgha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1139421506....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > What is so wrong if the prophet is given some respect and love by
> > the offer of a little food and water, and garlanded before you
> > leave for work. Heavens will not break loose with this act. We
> > Hindus do it every morning. We are doing o.k.
>
> True. Different beliefs, different practices. In Islam oneness of Allah and
> the abstraction of His image are very important. So, the first creed (kalma)
> of Islam says that there is no god, but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger
> (rasool). Therefore, this is the most fundamental belief of Islam.
>
> Granted, in Hinduism, various deities really represent different faces of
> the one godhead, but Islam strictly forbids such personification.
>
To tell you the truth, the Infinite Formless God *cannot ever* be
worshipped by man. That is impossible as the Infinite can never be
objectified as being "external" for worship. Worship can *only be * for
the Other, other than the worshipper. The Infinite can never be the
Other as it is Infinite. Worship of the Infinite is a hoax in history.
There is no such thing. It is man made. Hence this worship of the
fomless Infinite is a cult and false
Worship has to be of the *Finite which represents the Infinite*
Hence islam is false
Q.E.D
subi...@concert.com
belive me, we tried! on the other hand, we got actual picture of naked
musla houris in musla heaven ..... yalahahaha
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> You are a typical Muslim, hypersensitive in the most extreme about
> Mohammad, Koran and Islam, yet see nothing wrong in blowing other
> religious icons (literally in the case of Bamyan Buddhas).
>
> FYI, Muslim painter Hussain had painted in nude religious icons, which
> are always held and shown by 800 million Hindus utmost respect.
>
> I just want him to show less hypocrisy and paint Ayesha and Mohammad
> in nude
Or he could announce that other artists must be equally free to paint
Ayesha and Mohammed in the nude and urge Shabana Azmi to announce this
too.
> Seeker wrote:
> > You show what a hypocrite you are. Criticising Muslims over the cartoon
> > stuff, but when a man draws Hindu gods, he loses his so "called freedom"
> > Indian style.
> >
> > Every mandir I went to had nude hindu gods and godesses.
You're bullshitting, of course! I have been to many more temples than
you have and haven't seen any nude gods or goddesses.
> > How does it hurt the majority community?
How would it hurt Muslims for some artist to paint a 56 year old man
ravishing a girl looking like this and for him to title the painting
"Muhammad and Ayesha"?
http://www-ec.njit.edu/~newrev/v2s3/elli/news.htm
hrr...@gmail.com
others beleif.
One disrespect brings another. Global conflict starts in this
way........
Pls enrich the image of human. We are all human being. We should try to
be better than the beast!
Seeker
news:1139699065....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Very fallacious. You don't understand what infinite is. God is beyond
infinite and not bound by your concepts of infinite.
>
Seeker
news:1139711643....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> calm down, Sicko, there ain't no picture of nude hindu gods ....
> belive me, we tried! on the other hand, we got actual picture of naked
> musla houris in musla heaven ..... yalahahaha
Can you send me these pictures. I sure would like to peek.
Seeker
Hindu Ass-shafter would be even more precise.
Seeker
news:1139715687.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mortayee wrote:
>> You are a typical Muslim, hypersensitive in the most extreme about
>> Mohammad, Koran and Islam, yet see nothing wrong in blowing other
>> religious icons (literally in the case of Bamyan Buddhas).
>>
>> FYI, Muslim painter Hussain had painted in nude religious icons, which
>> are always held and shown by 800 million Hindus utmost respect.
>>
>> I just want him to show less hypocrisy and paint Ayesha and Mohammad
>> in nude
>
> Or he could announce that other artists must be equally free to paint
> Ayesha and Mohammed in the nude and urge Shabana Azmi to announce this
> too.
Simply idiotic. There are prohibition against such art in Islam. Hinduism
has not such prohibitions.
>
>> Seeker wrote:
>> > You show what a hypocrite you are. Criticising Muslims over the cartoon
>> > stuff, but when a man draws Hindu gods, he loses his so "called
>> > freedom"
>> > Indian style.
>> >
>> > Every mandir I went to had nude hindu gods and godesses.
>
> You're bullshitting, of course! I have been to many more temples than
> you have and haven't seen any nude gods or goddesses.
No, You're bullshitting, of course! How do you know you have been to more
temples then me?
>
>> > How does it hurt the majority community?
>
> How would it hurt Muslims for some artist to paint a 56 year old man
> ravishing a girl looking like this and for him to title the painting
> "Muhammad and Ayesha"?
> http://www-ec.njit.edu/~newrev/v2s3/elli/news.htm
Even more idiotic. Islam forbids such depiction. Hinduism does not.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Seeker wrote:
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1139715687.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Mortayee wrote:
> >> You are a typical Muslim, hypersensitive in the most extreme about
> >> Mohammad, Koran and Islam, yet see nothing wrong in blowing other
> >> religious icons (literally in the case of Bamyan Buddhas).
> >>
> >> FYI, Muslim painter Hussain had painted in nude religious icons, which
> >> are always held and shown by 800 million Hindus utmost respect.
> >>
> >> I just want him to show less hypocrisy and paint Ayesha and Mohammad
> >> in nude
> >
> > Or he could announce that other artists must be equally free to paint
> > Ayesha and Mohammed in the nude and urge Shabana Azmi to announce this
> > too.
>
> Simply idiotic.
The obligation to tolerate such paintings must be imposed equally on
Hindus and Muslims. Inequality in the matter is a violation of
secularism. One way to ensure equality would be to introduce a
moratorium (temporary stay) on requiring Hindus to tolerate such art
which moratorium would last until such time as the state can find ways
to impose an the requirement equally on all others including, of
course, Christians, Muslims and Sikhs.
> There are prohibition against such art in Islam. Hinduism has not such prohibitions.
Really? Then, why have Hindus produced no nudes of Rama, Sita, Krishna,
Radha, Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvati, etc.?
> >> Seeker wrote:
> >> > You show what a hypocrite you are. Criticising Muslims over the cartoon
> >> > stuff, but when a man draws Hindu gods, he loses his so "called
> >> > freedom"
> >> > Indian style.
> >> >
> >> > Every mandir I went to had nude hindu gods and godesses.
> >
> > You're bullshitting, of course! I have been to many more temples than
> > you have and haven't seen any nude gods or goddesses.
>
> No, You're bullshitting, of course! How do you know you have been to more
> temples then me?
You don't seem to have spent much time in India. In the time you've
spent there, you couldn't possibly have been to more temples than I.
> >> > How does it hurt the majority community?
> >
> > How would it hurt Muslims for some artist to paint a 56 year old man
> > ravishing a girl looking like this and for him to title the painting
> > "Muhammad and Ayesha"?
> > http://www-ec.njit.edu/~newrev/v2s3/elli/news.htm
>
> Even more idiotic. Islam forbids such depiction. Hinduism does not.
Where can we find such a depiction by Hindus?
Abraham
> "Mirza Ghalib" <mgha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1139272137.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Surely the "secular" Hindus will howl in unison: "This is Fascism.
>>Freedom of expression is being violated." Remember, Lalu is
>>also secular by persuation.
>>
>>By the way, Mohammad looks pretty handsome in the sketches by
>>the Dane artist. So what is this fuss about?
>
>
> do you have the link? The fuss is because most Muslims don't believe that
> the picture of the prophet be drawn lest it be used as an object of worship.
WHY WOULD I WANT TO WORSHIP AN EVIL, THIEVING, RAPING, MURDERING, CHILD
MOLESTING BASTARD LIKE MOHAMMAD?
>
>
>>Mortayee wrote:
>>
>>>he shows as not being hypocrite and paints Mohammad, Fattyma or is it
>>>Fatima and Allah in nude as well.
>>
>
>
Seeker
news:ulPHf.17877$vU2....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Seeker wrote:
>> "Mirza Ghalib" <mgha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139272137.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Surely the "secular" Hindus will howl in unison: "This is Fascism.
>>>Freedom of expression is being violated." Remember, Lalu is
>>>also secular by persuation.
>>>
>>>By the way, Mohammad looks pretty handsome in the sketches by
>>>the Dane artist. So what is this fuss about?
>>
>>
>> do you have the link? The fuss is because most Muslims don't believe that
>> the picture of the prophet be drawn lest it be used as an object of
>> worship.
>
> WHY WOULD I WANT TO WORSHIP AN EVIL, THIEVING, RAPING, MURDERING, CHILD
> MOLESTING BASTARD LIKE MOHAMMAD?
Because you might be related to him indirectly by rape ;-)
Seeker
news:1139432990.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> habshi wrote:
>> I quite liked MF Hussain's painting of Sita nude riding
>> Hanuman's tail
>> http://www.artswithoutborders.com/ArtsNet/Artartswork.aspx?title=Hanuman%20with%20Sita&prodid=5480&gs=O
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with the naked body ma nature has given
>> us.
>
> I would rather prefer your mother riding a hot dog or donkey dick.
> Wouldn't that be natural? And fun to watch too. i mean, from purely
> artistic point view.
Would you really? I would rather watch a young and tight Sita lusting after
Hanuman's tail as though that was the Lord's penis.
Romanise
> I would rather watch a young and tight Sita lusting after
> Hanuman's tail as though that was the Lord's penis.
Still unuhappy being chased away from getting arsefucked by elephantgod
on mumbai street?
Seeker
"Romanise" <jos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139819558.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dimwit, and potty-mouth Romanise is longing to be "arsefucked by
elephantgod." Now, how sick is that.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> >
> > habshi wrote:
> >> I quite liked MF Hussain's painting of Sita nude riding
> >> Hanuman's tail
> >> http://www.artswithoutborders.com/ArtsNet/Artartswork.aspx?title=Hanuman%20with%20Sita&prodid=5480&gs=O
> >>
> >> There is nothing wrong with the naked body ma nature has given
> >> us.
> >
> > a naked Burak, right? So, why doesn't someone paint it?
>
> Once again, you use wrong logic. It is routine for Hindus to paint their
> gods in the nude.
How do you know? Show me a Hindu's nude painting of Krishna, Rama,
Saraswati, Lakshmi or Parvati.
> Muslims don't do that. Muslims don't beleive in painting
> Muhammed lest he will be an object of worship.
If Muslims don't do it, a non-Muslim can do it. If some Muslims start
worshipping the nude Mohmammed on Burak, then other Muslims can expel
them from Islam.
Romanise
> >> I would rather watch a young and tight Sita lusting after
> >> Hanuman's tail as though that was the Lord's penis.
> "Romanise" <jos...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Still unuhappy being chased away from getting arsefucked by elephantgod
> > on mumbai street?
> Seeker wrote:
> Dimwit, and potty-mouth Romanise is longing to be "arsefucked by
> elephantgod." Now, how sick is that.
Your wanting Ganesh arsefuck you became evident only when you imagined
Rama Staue in temple being in nude. In fact Bombaywala would have
gladly arsefucked you if you had just agreed to wait few days while
they protected Ganesh from mosla arse when they had put him in special
worship.
Seeker
news:1139852855.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Seeker wrote:
>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139362867.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > habshi wrote:
>> >> I quite liked MF Hussain's painting of Sita nude riding
>> >> Hanuman's tail
>> >> http://www.artswithoutborders.com/ArtsNet/Artartswork.aspx?title=Hanuman%20with%20Sita&prodid=5480&gs=O
>> >>
>> >> There is nothing wrong with the naked body ma nature has given
>> >> us.
>> >
>> > Then, there would be nothing wrong in painting a naked Muhammad riding
>> > a naked Burak, right? So, why doesn't someone paint it?
>>
>> Once again, you use wrong logic. It is routine for Hindus to paint their
>> gods in the nude.
>
> How do you know? Show me a Hindu's nude painting of Krishna, Rama,
> Saraswati, Lakshmi or Parvati.
Hindu worship penises of their gods. That is nudity.
>
>> Muslims don't do that. Muslims don't beleive in painting
>> Muhammed lest he will be an object of worship.
>
> If Muslims don't do it, a non-Muslim can do it.
Once again you continue to use your own feelings as the basis for an
argument. What is acceptable to Muslim and what is acceptable to a Hindu are
two different things. Through preponderance of evidence we know that Hindus
don't care if their gods are depicted in the nude. Muslims find such
depiction offensive.
If I were to use your wrong logic, then should a Hindu say that he should be
able to marry four women just because a Muslim is able to do it?
>If some Muslims start
> worshipping the nude Mohmammed on Burak, then other Muslims can expel
> them from Islam.
The problem is your information is based on quick websearches. You don't
have an understanding of Mohammed and Islam.
Mortayee
Seeker wrote:
> "Abraham" <abr...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
> news:ulPHf.17877$vU2....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > Seeker wrote:
> >> "Mirza Ghalib" <mgha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1139272137.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>Surely the "secular" Hindus will howl in unison: "This is Fascism.
> >>>Freedom of expression is being violated." Remember, Lalu is
> >>>also secular by persuation.
> >>>
> >>>By the way, Mohammad looks pretty handsome in the sketches by
> >>>the Dane artist. So what is this fuss about?
> >>
> >>
> >> do you have the link? The fuss is because most Muslims don't believe that
> >> the picture of the prophet be drawn lest it be used as an object of
> >> worship.
> >
> > WHY WOULD I WANT TO WORSHIP AN EVIL, THIEVING, RAPING, MURDERING, CHILD
> > MOLESTING BASTARD LIKE MOHAMMAD?
>
> Because you might be related to him indirectly by rape ;-)
>
Speaking from your own experience of being related by rape.
Seeker
>
> Seeker wrote:
>> "Abraham" <abr...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:ulPHf.17877$vU2....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> > Seeker wrote:
>> >> "Mirza Ghalib" <mgha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1139272137.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >>>Surely the "secular" Hindus will howl in unison: "This is Fascism.
>> >>>Freedom of expression is being violated." Remember, Lalu is
>> >>>also secular by persuation.
>> >>>
>> >>>By the way, Mohammad looks pretty handsome in the sketches by
>> >>>the Dane artist. So what is this fuss about?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> do you have the link? The fuss is because most Muslims don't believe
>> >> that
>> >> the picture of the prophet be drawn lest it be used as an object of
>> >> worship.
>> >
>> > WHY WOULD I WANT TO WORSHIP AN EVIL, THIEVING, RAPING, MURDERING, CHILD
>> > MOLESTING BASTARD LIKE MOHAMMAD?
>>
>> Because you might be related to him indirectly by rape ;-)
>>
>
> Speaking from your own experience of being related by rape.
Hehehehe. Mortayee didn't want to be left out of the claim to his fathers'
holy land of Saudi Arabia.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> Have you ever been to a Hindu temple? Hindu gods are depicted in the nude
> routinely in Hindu temples. Do a search on the web and you will find many
> pictures of nude hindu gods in temples.
Post a link to such a web page.
> So why is it offensive when the "Muslim painter" painted hindu gods in the
> nude?
>
> "James Calivar" <amheis...@yahoo.com.au> wrote ...
> > In the nude is quite different than being depicted at all
Seeker
news:1139870925.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Seeker wrote:
>> Have you ever been to a Hindu temple? Hindu gods are depicted in the nude
>> routinely in Hindu temples. Do a search on the web and you will find many
>> pictures of nude hindu gods in temples.
>
> Post a link to such a web page.
http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/erotica/khaju.htm
Seeker
Having been "arsefucked " by many Bombaywala and elephants you are nothing
but a dimwit, potty-mouth idiot.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > Seeker wrote:
> >> Have you ever been to a Hindu temple? Hindu gods are depicted in the nude
> >> routinely in Hindu temples. Do a search on the web and you will find many
> >> pictures of nude hindu gods in temples.
> >
> > Post a link to such a web page.
>
> http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/erotica/khaju.htm
There are no figures of gods here; there are only figures of men and
women in erotic poses.
subi...@concert.com
naked gods on the streets of bombay! yalahahaha
<just as we thought, like ALL muslims, all talk ,,,, no naked god
picture only sanctimonious bitching about ALL hindu "liars & cheats"!>
Seeker
Where did I say that I took pictures of the naked ganesh?
<subi...@concert.com> wrote in message
news:1139880851.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Seeker
news:1139874618....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yeah right. These are gods on a temple. You have been provided an evidence
so stop going on a tangent.
subi...@concert.com
to doubt that any statute must be that of gods!
you have bieen provided evidence of musla logic ... so go figure ...
yalahahaha
subi...@concert.com
true as the whores moaning in heaven?
yalahahahaha ougy yucksbarooo
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> >> >> pictures of nude hindu gods in temples.
> >> > Post a link to such a web page.
> >> http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/erotica/khaju.htm
> > There are no figures of gods here; there are only figures of men and
> > women in erotic poses.
>
> Yeah right.
Not quite. It's people and animals. The horse being humped by a man is
an animal, not a god.
> These are gods on a temple.
> You have been provided an evidence
What is the evidence that they are gods? What are the gods' names?
Seeker
<subi...@concert.com> wrote in message
news:1139886988.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> so you don't have pictures?
I never said I had the pictures. Your hindu paradise of India threatens with
violence to anyone who attempts to take a picture of Hindu gods.
>so we have to accept a muslim's word to be
> true as the whores moaning in heaven?
When did you matha made it to heaven. Hehehehehe
>
> yalahahahaha ougy yucksbarooo
>
Seeker
news:1139887166.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Seeker wrote:
>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>> > Seeker wrote:
>
>> >> >> pictures of nude hindu gods in temples.
>> >> > Post a link to such a web page.
>> >> http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/erotica/khaju.htm
>> > There are no figures of gods here; there are only figures of men and
>> > women in erotic poses.
>>
>> Yeah right.
>
> Not quite. It's people and animals. The horse being humped by a man is
> an animal, not a god.
And that is a reference to Hindu gods haveing sex with dead horses. So, we
see you Hindus making temples with naked gods that you later redact and
claim are not gods. If you hindus can't decide which of these are gods and
which aren't. How do you expect anyone else to know the difference.
The point is proven that hindus have nudity in their own mandirs and hence
it is accepted in the religion to depict religion in the nude. If a muslim
furthers this throught process you start barking like a dog and say that he
should be shot and that Mohammed should be drawn in the nude.
Show me one Muslim Masjid adorned with a nude picture.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1139887166.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Seeker wrote:
> >> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> >> > Seeker wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> pictures of nude hindu gods in temples.
> >> >> > Post a link to such a web page.
> >> >> http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/erotica/khaju.htm
> >> > There are no figures of gods here; there are only figures of men and
> >> > women in erotic poses.
> >>
> >> Yeah right.
> >
> > Not quite. It's people and animals. The horse being humped by a man is
> > an animal, not a god.
>
> And that is a reference to Hindu gods haveing sex with dead horses. So, we
> see you Hindus making temples with naked gods that you later redact and
> claim are not gods. If you hindus can't decide which of these are gods and
> which aren't. How do you expect anyone else to know the difference.
Simple. Profane stuff goes outside a temple. Sacred stuff goes inside.
> The point is proven that hindus have nudity in their own mandirs and hence
> it is accepted in the religion to depict religion in the nude.
The profane is not religion. It is a contrast with the sacred.
> If a muslim furthers this throught process you start barking like a dog and
> say that he should be shot
Who said he should be shot? Even if it were to be made an offense, it
would not be a capital offense.
> and that Mohammed should be drawn in the nude.
If there is freedom to draw one sacred figure in the nude, there must
be equal freedom to draw any other sacred figure in the nude in order
for secularism to prevail. That doesn't mean that Mohammed SHOULD be
thus drawn if no one feels like drawing them thus; it only means that
IF anyone feels like drawing such figures, then they MUST (not merely
should) be EQUALLY free to draw Jesus, Mary, Mohammed, Nanak, Moses or
any other sacred figure in the nude.
> Show me one Muslim Masjid adorned with a nude picture.
Show me one picture by a Hindu, of a nude Saraswati.
subi...@concert.com
gods! <yalahahaha>
your down-to-earth musla terrorists have already killed anyone who
dares question the wisstoom that is yalahahaha
subi...@concert.com
btw, those 72 virgin whores in paradise are not only nude, they are
cleanly shaved <promise by yalahahahaha>!
Romanise
> Having been "arsefucked " by many Bombaywala and elephants you are nothing
> but a dimwit, potty-mouth idiot.
For years now it is you who are crying not being allowed near ganesh
and his aparatus, though you did have whole of shivalingum up your arse
but still crying.
an...@sci.sci
> in nude (it will also be approriate); it is not that I am asking him to
> show reality, such as Mo ejaculating over or into 6yr little Ayesha
> orifice. This truth will be too traumatic for any decent human being.
Although animals humping other animals is a cause of embarrassment when
it happens unexpectedly during TV talk shows such as Jay Leno, in
nature programs such as on PBS and Discovery Channel it's a common
thing to witness. Very few people get upset, if they know in advance
the program is showing uncensored reality. In a documentary that shows
the truth about Mohammed, I see nothing wrong in portraying what really
happened, including what he did to Ayesha. Maybe if they are shown the
truth, they won't worship Mohammed and consider him faultless. Then
they can start to treat their religion with an open mind just as we
should treat everything. For example, we don't treat scientists as
faultless. When we find somebody like Hwang Woo Suk, we remove his
priviledges, such as free airline flights and money for research. We
don't act like he's a scientist so he couldn't have committed fraud.
The same reasoning should be applied to popular religious people such
as Jesus and Mohammed and various Popes. If a Pope consorted with the
Nazis to murder Jews, or Mohammed raped a 6-yr-old girl, or Jesus did
something equally horrendous, the truth should be admitted.
Seeker
mother.
<subi...@concert.com> wrote in message
news:1139890590.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Seeker
news:1139890439.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> you swore on your mullah's child bride that you saw naked pictures
> gods! <yalahahaha>
I saw indeed.
>
> your down-to-earth musla terrorists have already killed anyone who
> dares question the wisstoom that is yalahahaha
Why are you so stupid?
Seeker
news:1139889167....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You expect non-Hindus to understand this?
>
>> If a muslim furthers this throught process you start barking like a dog
>> and
>> say that he should be shot
>
> Who said he should be shot? Even if it were to be made an offense, it
> would not be a capital offense.
>
>> and that Mohammed should be drawn in the nude.
>
> If there is freedom to draw one sacred figure in the nude, there must
> be equal freedom to draw any other sacred figure in the nude in order
> for secularism to prevail.
If one draws his sacred figures in the nude, then he has no right to object
to anyone painting his sacred figures in the nude.
Seeker
Pujari, you are the ones who pour butter on shivalingam and then shove it up
your arse. We are not into dick worhip,
Romanise
> Pujari, you are the ones who pour butter on shivalingam and then shove it up
> your arse. We are not into dick worhip,
It is well established that you have arrived at newsgroups looking for
dicks to plug you tight. Even your friend Syed tried to add a reluctant
pakistani muslim born plugger to the list.
It is not just hindus or Indians you want them all, hindus christians
Indians Iranians.
Now isnt that right reward for marrying a brahmin woman
an...@sci.sci
> revered prophet of a religion.
I'm concerned about the use of the word "of". How would anybody
determine whether some drawing is *of* the prophet Mohammed, or *of*
somebody else, or merely *of* a generic abstraction of a race of
people? Consider for example Al Jolson who used to wear make-up to look
like a negro. Was his make-up an image of some particular negro that
you can name, or merely a generic negro?
Suppose your young child draws a cartoon *of* mommy. It doesn't look
the slightest bit like the way mommy really looks, but it's the child's
attempt at an expression of the child's view of mommy, so if the child
says it's a drawing of mommy then you accept it's a drawing of mommy.
Is that how the cartoons *of* Mohammed are determined? A newspaper asks
for drawings of Mohammed, and a bunch of drawings are submitted, and
every last one of them is accepted as a drawing of Mohammed just
because the artist says so, regardless of whether the drawing looks
more like a generic middle-Eastern man, or a generic man of any other
part of the world but wearing Islamic clothing style, or a pregnant
woman, or a newborn baby, or a Neandertal, or a chimpanzee, or a
leopard, or a crocodile, or a striped bass (fish), or a tunicate, or a
termite, or a sponge, or a marigold, or an amoeba, or a bacterium, or a
globular cluster, or a barred spiral galaxy? Would any artwork
whatsoever be counted as a drawing *of* Mohammed if the artist said so?
Or is there an objective way to determine whether a given drawing is or
is not a drawing *of* Mohammed? Do we have a painting or other portrait
of Mohammed which was done while he was still alive, where he posed for
it and an artist carefully made a portrait as realistic as possible,
such as how the portrait of Mona Lisa was made? Do we then use such a
known portrait of Mohammed as a standard for comparison, asking in each
case whether a particular drawing looks like the same person or not?
> What evidence did you have that she was 6 year old when the marraige
> was consumated?
That's a good question. But first what evidence do we have that
Mohammed actually existed as a specific person, rather than as a
post-fact abstraction of more than one person or a myth? In the case of
Jesus, there's no evidence he really existed. The Gospels were written
long after he was supposed to have died, by people who never met him in
person, writing on behalf of long-dead people who were supposed to have
known him in life. For all we know Jesus is a myth like Moses, not a
real person. So is the situation with Mohammed any different? Is there
any trustworthy evidence that he really existed, that he wasn't
concocted after the fact? If he is known to have existed, then we get
into the details of his life. Is there any trustworthy evidence as to
what he did or said or wrote?
> we know an Indian guy who is married to somone that their parents
> made arrangement when he was 5 or 6 year old. And this is modern time
Yes. Arranged by parents when 5-6 years old, but not actually married
and sleeping together and engaging in sexual activities until 12 or 14.
We need to check the evidence carefully as to what it meant for
Mohammed to have Ayesha as his slave-wife, whether he took "liberties"
with her or was somehow constrained not to take any "liberties".
> Mahatma Gandhi also married to someone that he had to was engaged at
> age 12 or 13 or less.
Well that's not bad at all. Women reach puberty around that age, so
they could not only engage in sexual intercourse but also get pregnant
and then bear children 9 months later. There are medical and social
reasons why it's not a good idea to start as soon as it's possible, but
it's natural and reasonable if the society permits. But is there any
evidence that Gandhi actually had sexual intercourse with her
immediately after getting married? If so, still that doesn't compare
with Mohammed.
> when you guys attach Mohammad, you guys throw away the time and the
> context (of culture) he was living in.
I'm not aware of any species of animals where adults have sexual
intercourse with children who are only half the age of puberty.
It's completely unnatural, an abuse of a child, for him to do that.
The culture doesn't matter.
Culture matters when it's a question of sex at 12 in Chile, or sex at
14 in the Italy, or sex at 16 in Pennsylvania, or sex at 18 in Oregon.
<http://ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm>
But at 5 or 6, no, culture doesn't matter.
> It may be entertaining to westerners to draw such pictures but why
> don't they draw about the catholic popes of the past ( in a later
> period than Mohammad lived) having sex with uncountable concubines?
If there's any evidence for that, I think such cartoons would be a good
idea. How old were the concubines? Let me guess. They were at least 12
years old, so this wouldn't at all be comparable to what Mohammed did
to Ayesha, right?
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> > There is a fine line drawing nude pricture of just anyone versus a
> > revered prophet of a religion.
>
> I'm concerned about the use of the word "of". How would anybody
> determine whether some drawing is *of* the prophet Mohammed, or *of*
> somebody else, or merely *of* a generic abstraction of a race of
> people? Consider for example Al Jolson who used to wear make-up to look
> like a negro. Was his make-up an image of some particular negro that
> you can name, or merely a generic negro?
>
> Suppose your young child draws a cartoon *of* mommy. It doesn't look
> the slightest bit like the way mommy really looks, but it's the child's
> attempt at an expression of the child's view of mommy, so if the child
> says it's a drawing of mommy then you accept it's a drawing of mommy.
> Is that how the cartoons *of* Mohammed are determined? A newspaper asks
> for drawings of Mohammed, and a bunch of drawings are submitted, and
> every last one of them is accepted as a drawing of Mohammed just
> because the artist says so, regardless of whether the drawing looks
> more like a generic middle-Eastern man, or a generic man of any other
> part of the world but wearing Islamic clothing style, or a pregnant
> woman, or a newborn baby, or a Neandertal, or a chimpanzee, or a
> leopard, or a crocodile, or a striped bass (fish), or a tunicate, or a
> termite, or a sponge, or a marigold, or an amoeba, or a bacterium, or a
> globular cluster, or a barred spiral galaxy? Would any artwork
> whatsoever be counted as a drawing *of* Mohammed if the artist said so?
Yes; in the case of the Israeli girl who drew Mohammed as a pig,
Netenyahu explained that she was punished because of "our esteem for
the prophet Mohammed".
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> M F Husain booked for his paintings of nude gods
> Noted painter M F Husain has been booked for hurting sentiments of
> people through his paintings depicting nude gods, Deputy Chief Minister
> and Home Minister, R R Patil said Monday.
Is there a law against hurting sentiments of people? Can Jyotiba
Phule's modern successors be booked for hurting sentiments of
Chitpavans?
> A case was registered against Husain on Saturday and the state police
> is conducting a probe into the allegations made against the painter,
> Patil said.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> "Panzer" <panz...@walla.com> wrote ...
> >
> > Seeker wrote:
> >> Street side temples in Bombay.
> > this is rich seeker!, sita and rama!!!!! HOHOHO man u seriously crack
> > me up. Dont post for the sake of posting, back it up with some proof.
> > street side temples usually have ganesh or shiva in them. They actually
> > dont have intricate carving s of gods and godesses.
>
> Well, if Hindus won't let me take pictures of these temples then how am I
> going to prove anything.
Tell me the location of the temples. I have hardly any contacts in
Mumbai but I'll see if I can rustle up someone to verify your story.
> If you notice, Shiva was one of the gods I mentioned in my post.
>
> Now, my questions to you:
>
> - Why can't I take a picture of Ganesh naked or not?
> - Why such fuss over nudity from a religion that gave the world Kama Sutra?
Have you heard of "The Perfumed Garden"?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=6cp&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=nefwazi+%22the+perfumed+garden%22&spell=1
> - Are Hindus becoming puritanical like Muslims?
As far as they are concerned, the purport of your photography might be
to ridicule the images in whatever place you're going back to.
Seeker
Brahmin women have tight pusy. I am always happy to bed them.
Seeker
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140044199....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Seeker wrote:
>> "Panzer" <panz...@walla.com> wrote ...
>> >
>> > Seeker wrote:
>> >> Street side temples in Bombay.
>> > this is rich seeker!, sita and rama!!!!! HOHOHO man u seriously crack
>> > me up. Dont post for the sake of posting, back it up with some proof.
>> > street side temples usually have ganesh or shiva in them. They actually
>> > dont have intricate carving s of gods and godesses.
>>
>> Well, if Hindus won't let me take pictures of these temples then how am I
>> going to prove anything.
>
> Tell me the location of the temples. I have hardly any contacts in
> Mumbai but I'll see if I can rustle up someone to verify your story.
It was somewhere near the Victoria terminus.
>
>> If you notice, Shiva was one of the gods I mentioned in my post.
>>
>> Now, my questions to you:
>>
>> - Why can't I take a picture of Ganesh naked or not?
>> - Why such fuss over nudity from a religion that gave the world Kama
>> Sutra?
>
> Have you heard of "The Perfumed Garden"?
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=6cp&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=nefwazi+%22the+perfumed+garden%22&spell=1
>
>> - Are Hindus becoming puritanical like Muslims?
>
> As far as they are concerned, the purport of your photography might be
> to ridicule the images in whatever place you're going back to.
So they are ashamed of thier religion and gods.
Romanise
> > dicks to plug you tight. Even your friend Syed tried to add a reluctant
> > pakistani muslim born plugger to the list.
> > It is not just hindus or Indians you want them all, hindus christians
> > Indians Iranians.
> >
> > Now isnt that right reward for marrying a brahmin woman
> Seeker wrote:
> Brahmin women have tight pusy. I am always happy to bed them.
Brag all you can, the lady dumped you for younger Indian dicks and you
are in search for thicker and thicker dicks for your arsehole.
Romanise
> > Tell me the location of the temples. I have hardly any contacts in
> > Mumbai but I'll see if I can rustle up someone to verify your story.
I have lived on and off for 2 years on Modi Street just across VT,
locality if any in the area that can have street side temple and it
bnever had nor it ever will. The area is exclusively Gujarati Parsi
mix. From VT to Crawford Market, to Dhobi Talaw, to Kala Ghoda, to
various port sides none can support any temple or templets.
Only after advent of Bajarang Dal street side temples came into play
as organised posturing against muslim dargahs obstructing streets. The
action has forced hands of municipalities to finally clear the dargahs
to widen narrow streets.
Seeker is a liar.
Seeker
Did you learn this level of vulgarity from gita? Apparantly, you know a lot
about thick dicks in your arsehole.
Seeker
You have been living off the Queen Mama's dole for the last 20 years, what
the hell do you know what is happening around VT area. You are a liar and
you are obsessed about thick dicks in yoru arsehole. Such a shameful person
you are.
Romanise
Since 1947 they have got some milage by licking christian arse of
western white trash, lying about India and its hindus.
Seeker wrote:
> You have been living off the Queen Mama's dole for the last 20 years,
What is the basis for claiming that?
> what
> the hell do you know what is happening around VT area.
You forgot it was I who pointed your relatives locality in Mumbai, it
is much farthe from VT on the opposite site of Modi Street.
Seeker
> That is to muslim scums like seeker.
>
> Since 1947 they have got some milage by licking christian arse of
> western white trash, lying about India and its hindus.
India is doing a good job giving itself the bad name.
>
>
> Seeker wrote:
>> You have been living off the Queen Mama's dole for the last 20 years,
>
> What is the basis for claiming that?
A very well respected poster names Syed did some independant study and found
this truth about you.
>
>> what
>> the hell do you know what is happening around VT area.
>
> You forgot it was I who pointed your relatives locality in Mumbai, it
> is much farthe from VT on the opposite site of Modi Street.
You lied there too.
Seeker
news:1140040300....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mortayee wrote:
>> M F Husain booked for his paintings of nude gods
>> Noted painter M F Husain has been booked for hurting sentiments of
>> people through his paintings depicting nude gods, Deputy Chief Minister
>> and Home Minister, R R Patil said Monday.
>
> Is there a law against hurting sentiments of people? Can Jyotiba
> Phule's modern successors be booked for hurting sentiments of
> Chitpavans?
Can you do us all a favor and instead of posing these questions that most of
us can't understand (e.g. who is Jyotiba Phule and what is Chitpavans), why
not state your position with a brief explanation of terms so the rest of us
can understand. In the absense of this you come across as a troll.