Momins doing what they do best when they see women

Non-Muslim women are “easy meat” and “women of the right hand.” It is the duty of infidel women to make themselves available to momins on demand. It is not for nothing that Allah has put brain of momins in their penis.

Tension in Aligarh After Harassment Incident

Tension gripped Atrauli area here after a girl was allegedly eveteased by three youths of a community. The girl who was on her way to college was allegedly accosted and harassed by three motorcycle-borne youths yesterday, police said.

The girl raised an alarm and bystanders nabbed one of the youths, while the other two escaped, they said. There was tension in the area following the incident as leaders of different saffron organisations reached there. Senior district officials soon rushed to the spot and another culprit was nabbed.Police said a strict vigil is being maintained at Atrauli and neighbouring villages.

Uttar Pradesh has been on tenterhooks since outbreak of violence in Muzaffarnagar and surrounding districts over an eveteasing incident.

Meanwhile, Jats are sore at PM, Sonia for visiting only Muslim relief camps. So what has changed?Didn’t Nehru and Gandhi doing the same during Partition riots? So which Hindu idiots have been voting to bring these Congress traitors back to power again and again?

To uplift your mood, here a good article about Modi being the opposite of everything that Nehru, that juvenile idiot, stood for.

Narendra Modi as the anti-Nehru
Narendra Modi represents the comprehensive philosophical counter to the Nehruvian consensus
Rajeev Mantri | Harsh Gupta

India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru defined the philosophical debate in Indian politics till his death in 1964. The worldview he espoused has come to be known as Nehruvian. It entailed pervasive state control over the economy, an idealistic stance in foreign affairs, and special consideration to certain communities in domestic policy.

But the Congress was far from a one-man or one-ideology party in the 1950s—it was a big tent with a vibrant right wing, too. Its decline as a political institution began under Nehru, who was the first prime minister to abuse Article 356 and dismiss Kerala’s elected state government in 1959. Even if Nehru was not inclined to take this position, he reportedly allowed himself to be overruled by the Congress president, his daughter Indira Gandhi, whom he had gotten installed as party president. This Stalinist template, where no distinction is made between party and state, and the executive is debased at the expense of the party, was pioneered by Nehru and has been followed by almost all successive Congress prime ministers: Manmohan Singh has only elevated it to a new high. The emasculation of inner-party democracy accelerated under Indira Gandhi, was continued by her son Rajiv Gandhi and has been dutifully carried forward by his wife Sonia Gandhi.

Jivatram Bhagwandas Kripalani opposed Nehru vigorously on the issue of allowing separate personal laws for Muslims in 1955, charging him with communalism on the floor of Parliament. C. Rajagopalachari quit the Congress at age 80 in 1959 to establish the Swatantra Party, espousing economic liberalism. “The Congress Party has swung to the Left, what is wanted is not an ultra or outer-Left…but a strong and articulate Right,” Rajaji wrote in his essay Our Democracy. The Swatantra Party was later hounded by Indira Gandhi, who nationalized industries to decimate Swatantra Party’s financial backers. It was a classic case of destroying economic freedom to kill political freedom.

But Nehru’s most formidable ideological opponent was Vallabhbhai Patel, and it was Patel’s death on 15 December, 1950, that accelerated India’s tilt towards the left.

Patel’s worldview was substantively different from Nehru’s in many important spheres. Despite opposition from Nehru, Patel got a mosque shifted—whether one agrees with it or not—to rebuild a temple at Somnath that had been repeatedly destroyed over the centuries by Muslim invaders. Mahatma Gandhi gave his blessings to Patel but wanted no public funds to be used for the construction of the temple. On China, their views differed with Patel advocating help to Tibet when it was invaded—and Patel turned out to be right. On Kashmir’s accession to India, Patel’s realism was again overruled, and Nehru needlessly internationalized the issue by inviting intervention from the United Nations.

On economic issues too, they had significant differences, with Patel repeatedly opposing Nehru’s demand for establishing the Planning Commission. It was on Patel’s insistence that the Commission was given an advisory role only, with its policies subject to the Union cabinet’s review and approval. Nehru wanted to define the purpose of planning as the elimination of “the motive of private gain in economic activity or organization of society and the antisocial concentration of wealth and means of production.” Patel prevailed over him and got this language deleted.

That Nehru sought to endow an unconstitutional body with such sweeping powers only betrays his affinity for a centralized, anti-market, if not communist, approach to economic development.

Their positions on zamindari abolition and the use of eminent domain for land acquisition further illuminate their philosophical leanings. Patel wanted compensation as market price plus 15%, while Nehru favoured no compensation. Patel also successfully supported Rajendra Prasad for President of India, and Purushottam Das Tandon for Congress party president in 1950, not just for ideological reasons but also to show Nehru that he couldn’t always dictate terms. Only Patel commanded the political heft to counter Nehru, and with his demise, the right wing within the Congress lost its strongest ballast.

Just as with Swami Vivekananda, leftist intellectuals are confused whether to re-appropriate the legacy of Patel, or to escalate their attacks to make them toxic for the right. They are tempted to try re-appropriation because of the titanic stature of these individuals, but at the same time they are unable to reconcile the liberal views of Patel and Vivekananda with their own collectivist dogma, which they have managed to label as liberal.
In such a political-historical context enters Narendra Modi. His economic record has been debated threadbare. There have been cases where newspapers have published false data, perhaps in their eagerness to bring down his record, and then retracted. Nobody credible doubts that Modi’s tenure as Gujarat chief minister has accelerated Gujarat’s economic progress.

Modi’s critics argue that he may be a good administrator, but he isn’t inclusive and is autocratic. He has been said to be insufficiently reformist. Above all, Narendra Modi is not secular—he is painted as someone who is too divisive and obdurate to lead a diverse nation like India.

This is an inaccurate narrative. The word inclusive has become a euphemism to justify irresponsible government spending, often based upon identity, and it is parroted by all who believe in the type of socialism that kept India impoverished for decades. Even the darling of the self-described secular crowd, JDU’s Nitish Kumar, is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist from the Ram Manohar Lohia school of thought.

Kumar’s government already receives over 75% of its revenue from New Delhi, yet he agitates for more. The sustainability of his Bihar model will be determined by his ability to extract taxpayer funds remitted from other parts of India. Essentially, Kumar is willing to barter political support in exchange for even more funds from New Delhi.

This kind of parasitic growth is unsustainable and undesirable. Not only does it hurt the poor, it weakens India’s federal structure by centralizing power in New Delhi and by making states dependent on Union government handouts. To quote economist Frédéric Bastiat, Kumar seems to believe in the fiction that everyone can live at the expense of everybody else.

In stark contrast, Modi stands out as the only major Indian political leader since Atal Bihari Vajpayee to advocate that government has no business to be in business. No mass leader in recent times, even from the BJP, has been as explicit in expressing this view on the role of government. India has witnessed economic growth since 1991 because the government stepped back from areas where it had no reason to be in the first place. It is economic liberalism that has catalyzed economic growth in India, and strong doses of it are the need of the hour. Modi has spoken unequivocally in favour of federalism and decentralization, too, calling for flexibility to state governments in designing welfare schemes.

In India, one is branded communal if one doesn’t support state welfare of citizens based on religious criteria. This is a hideous perversion of secularism. Can UK’s prime minister or the US president get away with saying that any one community has the first right over the country’s resources? Yet, in India, Manmohan Singh said exactly this for Muslims, and is considered secular. The hideousness of secular politics has plumbed new depths in recent times. During a rally at Azamgarh at the time of the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, Congress parliamentarian Salman Khurshid said that the Congress president “wept bitterly” on seeing images of the encounter that took place at Batla House. Congress leaders like Digivijay Singh insisted the encounter was fake before a judicial verdict was delivered. Tears were shed for the terrorists killed in the encounter, but apparently there were no tears shed for policeman Mohan Chand Sharma, who was murdered by the terrorists at Batla House.

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government has gone so far as to advocate special courts for Muslims to expedite trials for them. Don’t members of other communities deserve speedier justice?

Patel had severe disagreements with Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad over the allocation of housing in Delhi that used to be occupied by Muslims who, after partition, migrated to Pakistan. Nehru and Azad insisted that only Muslims should stay in those homes, whereas Patel held that no secular government could take such a stand. The gatekeepers of secularism would have charged Patel as communal today, just as they attack Modi as communal for upholding the same principle.

Patel unreservedly condemned the methods adopted by communists as being against the rule of law – he said that “their philosophy is to exploit every situation, to create chaos and anarchy, in the belief that, in such conditions, it would be possible for them to seize power.”
The same charges – fascist, communalist, capitalist—made against Patel during his lifetime and since his demise have been levelled against Modi. This only shows that the Nehruvian consensus has never been so threatened in India as it is today—and those wedded to Nehru’s ideas will do everything they can to prevent the implosion of this consensus.

Rajeev Mantri and Harsh Gupta are co-founders of the India Enterprise Council.



Filed under Uncategorized

25 responses to “Momins doing what they do best when they see women

  1. noor

    Muslim is someone who believes and is struggling to practice and live by the way faith prescribes for him/her.

    Momin is one who has already achieved that and already lives the way the faith prescribes

    • Jaipal


      Your shit belief-system called “ASSLAM” deserves to be
      trashed. Your so-called “prophet” was a paedophile
      who sexually abused a little girl known as Aisha.

      No one gives a shit about your shitty cult here, Noor.
      Take a hint, now fuck off, you dumb Muslim shit.

      • @Jaipal
        It’s ‘Pedophile’, not ‘paedophile’. From now on please respond in Hindi/Sanskrit, or some other pagan languages that is so rich with ‘tu tu mai mai’ vocabulary. A monotheist language like English is not your forte. In fact you should consider English as a ‘haram’ language. Anyways, we are informed by print/electronic media of so many men raping children, even 3, 5, 9 years old by Sanatan Dharmics every day . Hindus are not famous for having much control between their legs. Those who build the temples of Khajuraho, and Vatsyayana who wrote Kama Sutra were great Hindus. And to tell you the truth, I am mighty proud of them.

        • S

          It’s both – spellings are different in British and American English. Now that you’re down to attacking spellings and your cheap ways again, can we ask the Admin to zap all your posts, just for fun.

        • Indian Realist

          Dude, English was invented by the Brits when they were still pagan. It is one of the worst languages in the world, but got lucky because Brits knew how to swing a sword better than the natives.

        • Jaipal


          Again, you only know how to evade my arguments but never
          have the brain to understand my points.
          Basically, you have a rock for a brain.

          About rape, I told you already that those men are not following
          their religion, therefore Sanatan Dharma is not to blame.
          There is more to a Hindu than just being one for namesake.

          What you mean that Hindus are not famous for having much
          control between their legs? Hinduism teaches concepts like
          sense-control and Brahmacharya/celibacy. Islam on the other
          hand does not!

          You have no understanding what Khajuraho stands for.
          In Khajuraho temples, if you look carefully, the sex-sculptures
          are no more than 10% of the total number of illustrations.
          The other 90% show other day to day activities on the walls.
          Also note that all worldly activities depicted on the walls are on
          the outside and not within the inner sanctorum. The lesson
          here is when you go inside the temple, you forget about wordly
          matters and focus only on God. That is the intended meaning.
          Since you don’t know anything about Hinduism, you obviously
          come to wrong conclusions.

          About Vatsyayana, he wrote Kamasutra not to promote immorality
          but to inform about the body and need for self-control.
          Again you have misinterpreted what Vatsyayana intended to convey.

          • Jaipal


            About Khajuraho, you can read this:


            Khajuraho is not about sex.

            • Indian Realist

              Even it is is about sex, there is nothing wrong with it. Monotheists have a guilt complex about sex and make a fetish out of it, but why should we also pretend to be embarrassed or ashamed about sex? Monotheists can have their medieval phobias.

              • Yeah, we have no guilt complex. Probably that explains why Indians are notorious for incest. And why not? If Pitah (father) Brahma can do what he did to his *******, it should be kosher for all of us. After all we are his children

                • Indian Realist

                  Sex has to be enjoyed dude. What’s wrong? Don’t hide under the bed and beg for forgiveness from Allah the moment you get an erection. I think you urgently need to get laid. Remember: The prophet too used to get an erection several times a day and he put it to good use with female slaves — I think he managed to personally capture 70 of them including some damsels barely in teens. He did not even mind humping them in front of their captive parents. So why are you ashamed?

                  • I am not ashamed of something as interesting as sex. After all I am a Hindu and Vatsayana is my teacher. Moreover, being an atheist I am comfortable with women of both, pagan and monotheist stable. But I am happy that you side stepped the ‘incestual Indians’ and the ‘Brahma’ sting in my post. I was expecting a lousy incoherent protest and readied myself with some more examples from the scriptures. Anyway I am sure I will have another opportunity to use them in future. I was talking about Hindus and Prajapati Brahma. But seriously, why do you have to bring Allah, or Muhammad into this? Unless, you want to judge Hindus and Brahma by the standard of Allah and Muhammad. Pretty funny indeed.

                    • Indian Realist

                      The much-feared “Brahma sting” in your post is nothing but missionary propaganda that you seem to have lifted off from some website. Sex is good and it seems you really need to let off some steam from both ends. Try to get laid. You will enjoy it. If Prophet can hump half a dozen in a single night, what is your issue?

  2. Which hand those women belonged to whom Babu Bajrangi’s men raped?
    Which hand the Devdasis of the temples belong to who are religiously screwed by pious Brahmin priests?
    Which hand the women of the poor dalits and OBCs belonged to who have been raped for centuries by the mighty landlords belonging to the upper caste Hindus?
    And finally was Indra, the celebrated king of heaven (Swarg) is/was a Momin? When he raped Ahalya, the wife of Rishi Gautam?
    A ‘Rape’ is a ‘Rape’. Period. No one rapes while reading from Geeta, Vedas, or Quran and Hadith. During the partition riots while Hindu women were abused by fanatic Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus did no less where they had the strength of number. Equally there were many instances where Hindus saved Muslims and Muslims saved Hindus alike.

    • Shlok

      @Cynical, you never seem to learn, do you? All of us have been concerned about your mental health. You really need to go to Agra to get yourself checked up. How many times have you made stupid, unsubstanstiated and baseless allegations,and when we have answered you have just kept quiet and moved on to a new allegation.

      What did you say, that Indra had raped Ahilya? Read what Valmiki has to say about Ahilya in 1.48:19. She knows that it is Indra, she is overjoyed that the king of celestials himself desires her, and loses her good sense, in plain words she commits adultery.

      So, it was not rape, as you and your sycophants and bootlickers are making it out to be. So yes Gautam curses her and Indra is cursed as well.

      And what does Ram do after releasing her from her curse? Valmiki Ramayana says that he and Lakshman touch Ahilya’s feet in reverence. (1.49.17).

      Can we expect any reply to this? 1st of all, a woman, oh no? And secondly an adulteress???

      About Brahma, you’ve been reading a lot of Griffth’s translations which make no sense. Would any Christian accept a Bible translated by Osama bin Laden? Would a Muslim accept the Quran translated by Netanyahu?

      So, why should Hindus accept 3rd rate translators? You can remain in awe and reverence of persons like Thapar and Doniger, but don’t impose their nonsense on us.

      I have told you and your cronies to first take a deep breath, think of what you plan to write, and only then exhale.

      • Shlok

        @Cynical, by the way, how many Hindus do you know who worship Indra, how many Indra temples are you aware of?

        • Shlok

          @Cynical, we have heard your views about Hinduism and Hindu ‘Gods’. Could you please tell us your views on Jesus Christ and the Prophet? What is your opinion about them?

          • cnm

            The point is we Hindus are the best judge of our religion, the best interpreter of our religious scriptures and understand our religion better than anybody else. We know that the Ahalya episode in the Valmiki Ramayan is all about worshiping and establishing the glory of womanhood which at times some way or other falls to disrepute. So, it is of no use or it makes no sense what these anti-Hindu bastards say or write about our religion and religious scriptures.

  3. Jaipal


    Islam, the religion, itself teaches rape as a religious duty.
    Have you actually read the Quran and Hadiths??
    Maybe you should. In Islam, non-Muslim women
    are targeted for rape. Its a religious obligation in Islam.

    Hinduism never teaches rape of women. Those Hindus
    who may rape, do so because of their character defect
    or they are not strictly following Hindu religion.

    You are so retarded, Cynical. You seem like you have a
    rock for a brain. You never seem to understand.

    • cnm


      Now be prepared to see from cynical his characteristic lines, ” what difference does it make to the victim whether Islam permits or Hinduism does not permit rape?” Why these lines? Does Cynical not know that only by implementing the morals and ethics propagated by Hinduism the incidents of rapes can be stamped out? He knows it very well. But the problem is that he is a follower of the religion called atheism which teaches that all religions are inherently evil and by obliterating these religions can there be an end to rapes or other evils. Yes, you may ask why cynical is not so vocal against Islam and Christianity as he is against Hinduism? The answer is simple– He is a cunning fellow. He knows that how much he may traduce Hinduism the Hindus will not react. On the contrary, he knows if he ever denigrates Islam he has to pay for his this act of blasphemy against Islam with his life . So better ridicule Hinduism which is a soft target.

      • Jaipal


        You are right on. Cynical is in reality a coward who
        suffers from extreme self-hate but tries to hide it by
        appealing to secularism and criticism of Hinduism and
        Hindu nationalism.

        • @Jaipal
          ‘Hindu nationalism’ is an oxymoron, as much as the ‘Muslim nationalism’ that was peddled by Md Ali Jinnah. Nations do not have religion, people have. Know the difference.

          • Indian Realist

            Not really. Islam doesn’t believe in national boundaries or nation state at all. For it, all Muslims of the world are one single nation — this is called religious nationalism because their concept of nationalism is based on religious identity. Study more before you write these type of arguments.

  4. S

    Ha ha ha ha ha ! Continue with the jokes Cynical, we all know of Pakiland, Arabia, Vatican, and Ireland that does not allow abortions because it’s a Catholic country. You’re a riot.

  5. Raghu

    @ Cynical, >>>>> Moreover, being an atheist I am comfortable with women of both, pagan and monotheist stable>>>> and an Atheist believes that Brahma actually existed and he fucked his daughter!! What an Idea Sirji.

  6. X

    So Cynical is an atheist?


    Cynical, let’s experiment. Why don’t you go over to a Muslim website and make some comments to them about Allah being false, Mohammad being a child-rapist and a savage monster. Prove that you’re an equal opportunity atheist, and link it back here.

    If you really are an Atheist, I think you’re too much of a pussy to do the above, even anonymously.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s