MUSLIM WOMEN AND THE CIVILIZATIONAL WAR: GENDER, HINDUTVA, AND THE STRUGGLE OVER RELIGIOUS CONTINUITY

[PakistanLVR]

There is a dimension of contemporary Hindu-Muslim conflict that deserves far greater scrutiny: the struggle over Muslim women as bearers of religious and civilizational continuity.

Viewed individually, online demands that Muslim women abandon Islam, remove hijab, marry outside their faith, or convert can appear to be ordinary religious polemics.

Viewed collectively—and alongside Hindu-nationalist anxieties surrounding conversion, interfaith marriage, demographics and “Love Jihad”—a different structure becomes visible.

This is civilizational politics conducted through gender.

1. The central contradiction

In anti-Muslim and Hindutva discourse, one repeatedly encounters a striking asymmetry:

• Muslim woman leaves Islam → liberation.
• Muslim woman marries outside Islam → empowerment.
• Muslim woman rejects Islamic practice → independence.
• Muslim woman publicly attacks Islam → courage.

Yet:

• Muslim woman embraces Islam → brainwashing.
• Muslim woman wears hijab → oppression.
• Muslim woman marries a Muslim → patriarchy.
• Muslim woman defends Islamic identity → radicalism.

If autonomy were genuinely the governing principle, both sets of decisions would be respected.

They are not.

The decisive variable is the direction of religious movement.

---

2. Now examine the boundary from the Hindu side.

The “Love Jihad” discourse provides the inverse case.

Hindu women forming relationships with Muslim men have repeatedly been portrayed within Hindu-nationalist politics as victims of manipulation, conversion or an alleged demographic strategy.

The symmetry is revealing:

• Hindu woman moving toward Islam = civilizational loss.
• Muslim woman moving away from Islam = liberation.
• What initially appears contradictory becomes internally coherent when analyzed through the framework of civilizational competition.
• The issue is no longer simply whether a woman possesses agency.

The issue becomes:

Which civilization gains the family that follows her?

---

3. This is why women become strategic terrain in civilizational politics.

Civilizations do not reproduce themselves abstractly.

They reproduce themselves through human beings.

Marriage creates families.

Families produce and socialize children.

Children inherit language, memory, customs and religion.

Religion therefore survives not merely through theology but through intergenerational transmission.

Once political movements conceptualize neighboring communities as demographic or civilizational competitors, marriage and conversion acquire strategic significance.

A woman's intimate life becomes politically charged because it can determine the religious identity of the next generation.

The bedroom becomes a border.
Marriage becomes demography.
Conversion becomes territorial movement.
Children become civilizational continuity.

---

4. The treatment of Muslim women online must be understood within this environment.

The “Sulli Deals” and “Bulli Bai” scandals demonstrated how grotesque gendered anti-Muslim hostility could become.

Images of Muslim women—including journalists and activists—were taken without consent and displayed in degrading fake online “auctions.”

This was not simply criticism of Islam.

It represented the convergence of religious hostility, misogyny, sexual humiliation and political identity.

The same broader digital ecosystem can produce another form of pressure that sounds superficially progressive:

• Take off your hijab.
• Leave Islam.
• Date outside your religion.
• Marry outside your community.
• Convert.
• Reject Islamic expectations.

The language changes from hostility to “liberation.”

But the desired religious trajectory remains remarkably consistent:

away from Islam.

---

5. “Liberation” can function as an instrument of assimilation.

There is nothing inherently wrong with criticizing Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or any other religion.
Nor is there anything wrong with an adult woman voluntarily leaving her religion or marrying outside it.
The problem arises when Muslim women's autonomy is recognized only when their decisions weaken their connection to Islam.
A Muslim woman who removes hijab possesses agency.
A Muslim woman who puts it on possesses agency.
A Muslim woman who leaves Islam possesses agency.
A Muslim woman who embraces Islam possesses agency.
A Muslim woman who marries outside her religion possesses agency.
A Muslim woman who deliberately chooses a Muslim husband possesses agency.
Anything less is not a principled defense of female autonomy.
It is an ideological preference disguised as feminism.

---

6. This is where the civilizational dimension becomes impossible to ignore.

Hindutva is not simply a theological disagreement with Islam.

It is a nationalist project concerned with the historical and political character of India, Hindu identity, demographic power, conversion and the relationship between religious communities.

Islam likewise represents far more than private theological belief to Muslims.

It carries institutions, family structures, historical memory, rituals, law, culture and mechanisms of inter-generational transmission.

Consequently, conflict between Hindu majoritarianism and Muslim communal identity inevitably extends beyond arguments over scripture.

It reaches:

history
territory
demography
marriage
conversion
religious visibility
family formation
and cultural reproduction.

That is the architecture of a civilizational struggle.

---

7. Muslim women therefore occupy a uniquely important position.

If a community's continuity depends partly upon transmitting identity between generations, women inevitably become targets of political narratives about emancipation, conversion and marriage.

That does not mean every individual encouraging an interfaith relationship consciously thinks:

I am participating in a civilizational struggle.

Ideologies rarely require every participant to understand the entire structure.

Narratives diffuse.

Social norms develop.

Talking points become normalized.

Eventually people reproduce political assumptions without consciously articulating the worldview from which they originated.

That is precisely why cultural power can operate more effectively than explicit political organization.

---

8. This framework also explains the extraordinary obsession with Muslim women's clothing.

Hijab is not merely fabric within civilizational politics.

It is visible evidence that assimilation has not occurred.

A visibly Muslim woman communicates religious continuity in public space without saying a word.

That is why debates supposedly concerning women's liberation so frequently become fixated upon whether Muslim women should remove religious clothing rather than whether women themselves should decide what to wear.

The real test is straightforward:

• Does her autonomy still count when she chooses visible Islam?
• If not, the argument was never fundamentally about clothing.
• It was about what the clothing represents.

---

9. Muslims should understand what is being contested.

This does not require paranoia, hostility toward Hindus, or imagining that every Hindu participates in an organized campaign.

It requires political literacy.

When an ideological movement treats demographics, conversion and interfaith marriage as questions of collective survival, Muslims should recognize that seemingly private debates can acquire a larger civilizational meaning.

A civilization survives because succeeding generations choose to carry it forward.

That makes cultural transmission consequential.

And that makes Muslim women's freedom consequential as well.

---

10. The ultimate test

When someone claims to want to “liberate” Muslim women, ask:

• Would you defend her freedom to remain Muslim?
• Would you defend her decision to wear hijab?
• Would you respect her decision to marry a Muslim?
• Would you accept her decision to teach Islam to her children?
• Would you still call her empowered if she became more religious rather than less?

If the answer changes according to the direction of her religious identity, then female liberation is not the governing principle.

Civilizational alignment is.

And Muslims should stop allowing the language of women's liberation to obscure what is sometimes a much older political objective:

assimilation presented as emancipation.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

There is a dimension of contemporary Hindu-Muslim conflict that deserves far greater scrutiny: the struggle over Muslim women as bearers of religious and civilizational continuity.

Viewed individually, online demands that Muslim women abandon Islam, remove hijab, marry outside their faith, or convert can appear to be ordinary religious polemics.

Viewed collectively—and alongside Hindu-nationalist anxieties surrounding conversion, interfaith marriage, demographics and “Love Jihad”—a different structure becomes visible.

This is civilizational politics conducted through gender.

1. The central contradiction

In anti-Muslim and Hindutva discourse, one repeatedly encounters a striking asymmetry:

• Muslim woman leaves Islam → liberation.
• Muslim woman marries outside Islam → empowerment.
• Muslim woman rejects Islamic practice → independence.
• Muslim woman publicly attacks Islam → courage.

Yet:

• Muslim woman embraces Islam → brainwashing.
• Muslim woman wears hijab → oppression.
• Muslim woman marries a Muslim → patriarchy.
• Muslim woman defends Islamic identity → radicalism.

If autonomy were genuinely the governing principle, both sets of decisions would be respected.

They are not.

The decisive variable is the direction of religious movement.

---

2. Now examine the boundary from the Hindu side.

The “Love Jihad” discourse provides the inverse case.

Hindu women forming relationships with Muslim men have repeatedly been portrayed within Hindu-nationalist politics as victims of manipulation, conversion or an alleged demographic strategy.

The symmetry is revealing:

• Hindu woman moving toward Islam = civilizational loss.
• Muslim woman moving away from Islam = liberation.
• What initially appears contradictory becomes internally coherent when analyzed through the framework of civilizational competition.
• The issue is no longer simply whether a woman possesses agency.

The issue becomes:

Which civilization gains the family that follows her?

---

3. This is why women become strategic terrain in civilizational politics.

Civilizations do not reproduce themselves abstractly.

They reproduce themselves through human beings.

Marriage creates families.

Families produce and socialize children.

Children inherit language, memory, customs and religion.

Religion therefore survives not merely through theology but through intergenerational transmission.

Once political movements conceptualize neighboring communities as demographic or civilizational competitors, marriage and conversion acquire strategic significance.

A woman's intimate life becomes politically charged because it can determine the religious identity of the next generation.

The bedroom becomes a border.
Marriage becomes demography.
Conversion becomes territorial movement.
Children become civilizational continuity.

---

4. The treatment of Muslim women online must be understood within this environment.

The “Sulli Deals” and “Bulli Bai” scandals demonstrated how grotesque gendered anti-Muslim hostility could become.

Images of Muslim women—including journalists and activists—were taken without consent and displayed in degrading fake online “auctions.”

This was not simply criticism of Islam.

It represented the convergence of religious hostility, misogyny, sexual humiliation and political identity.

The same broader digital ecosystem can produce another form of pressure that sounds superficially progressive:

• Take off your hijab.
• Leave Islam.
• Date outside your religion.
• Marry outside your community.
• Convert.
• Reject Islamic expectations.

The language changes from hostility to “liberation.”

But the desired religious trajectory remains remarkably consistent:

away from Islam.

---

5. “Liberation” can function as an instrument of assimilation.

There is nothing inherently wrong with criticizing Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or any other religion.
Nor is there anything wrong with an adult woman voluntarily leaving her religion or marrying outside it.
The problem arises when Muslim women's autonomy is recognized only when their decisions weaken their connection to Islam.
A Muslim woman who removes hijab possesses agency.
A Muslim woman who puts it on possesses agency.
A Muslim woman who leaves Islam possesses agency.
A Muslim woman who embraces Islam possesses agency.
A Muslim woman who marries outside her religion possesses agency.
A Muslim woman who deliberately chooses a Muslim husband possesses agency.
Anything less is not a principled defense of female autonomy.
It is an ideological preference disguised as feminism.

---

6. This is where the civilizational dimension becomes impossible to ignore.

Hindutva is not simply a theological disagreement with Islam.

It is a nationalist project concerned with the historical and political character of India, Hindu identity, demographic power, conversion and the relationship between religious communities.

Islam likewise represents far more than private theological belief to Muslims.

It carries institutions, family structures, historical memory, rituals, law, culture and mechanisms of inter-generational transmission.

Consequently, conflict between Hindu majoritarianism and Muslim communal identity inevitably extends beyond arguments over scripture.

It reaches:

history
territory
demography
marriage
conversion
religious visibility
family formation
and cultural reproduction.

That is the architecture of a civilizational struggle.

---

7. Muslim women therefore occupy a uniquely important position.

If a community's continuity depends partly upon transmitting identity between generations, women inevitably become targets of political narratives about emancipation, conversion and marriage.

That does not mean every individual encouraging an interfaith relationship consciously thinks:

I am participating in a civilizational struggle.

Ideologies rarely require every participant to understand the entire structure.

Narratives diffuse.

Social norms develop.

Talking points become normalized.

Eventually people reproduce political assumptions without consciously articulating the worldview from which they originated.

That is precisely why cultural power can operate more effectively than explicit political organization.

---

8. This framework also explains the extraordinary obsession with Muslim women's clothing.

Hijab is not merely fabric within civilizational politics.

It is visible evidence that assimilation has not occurred.

A visibly Muslim woman communicates religious continuity in public space without saying a word.

That is why debates supposedly concerning women's liberation so frequently become fixated upon whether Muslim women should remove religious clothing rather than whether women themselves should decide what to wear.

The real test is straightforward:

• Does her autonomy still count when she chooses visible Islam?
• If not, the argument was never fundamentally about clothing.
• It was about what the clothing represents.

---

9. Muslims should understand what is being contested.

This does not require paranoia, hostility toward Hindus, or imagining that every Hindu participates in an organized campaign.

It requires political literacy.

When an ideological movement treats demographics, conversion and interfaith marriage as questions of collective survival, Muslims should recognize that seemingly private debates can acquire a larger civilizational meaning.

A civilization survives because succeeding generations choose to carry it forward.

That makes cultural transmission consequential.

And that makes Muslim women's freedom consequential as well.

---

10. The ultimate test

When someone claims to want to “liberate” Muslim women, ask:

• Would you defend her freedom to remain Muslim?
• Would you defend her decision to wear hijab?
• Would you respect her decision to marry a Muslim?
• Would you accept her decision to teach Islam to her children?
• Would you still call her empowered if she became more religious rather than less?

If the answer changes according to the direction of her religious identity, then female liberation is not the governing principle.

Civilizational alignment is.

And Muslims should stop allowing the language of women's liberation to obscure what is sometimes a much older political objective:

assimilation presented as emancipation.

Please exit the schools or colleges wherever you learnt this garbage. Thanks.
In fact, in most Indian cities, people simply don’t have the time or interest to keep an eye on what is happening in their neighbours’ homes. Whether two unmarried people are living together, or a family is Hindu or Muslim, the majority of people simply don’t care.

It may be different in some villages or very small towns, where people tend to know more about each other’s lives and sometimes interfere or have opinions about what others are doing. Even there, however, most people simply ignore it and move on.
A few politically motivated incidents may get highlighted and amplified, but they don’t represent the reality of the entire country.

I personally know several intercaste and interfaith couples around me, and nobody treats it as some extraordinary issue. People generally live their own lives and mind their own business.

 

[El Sidd]

Religious discussions are not allowed.

 

[PakistanLVR]

Please exit the schools or colleges wherever you learnt this garbage. Thanks.
In fact, in most Indian cities, people simply don’t have the time or interest to keep an eye on what is happening in their neighbours’ homes. Whether two unmarried people are living together, or a family is Hindu or Muslim, the majority of people simply don’t care.

It may be different in some villages or very small towns, where people tend to know more about each other’s lives and sometimes interfere or have opinions about what others are doing. Even there, however, most people simply ignore it and move on.
A few politically motivated incidents may get highlighted and amplified, but they don’t represent the reality of the entire country.

I personally know several intercaste and interfaith couples around me, and nobody treats it as some extraordinary issue. People generally live their own lives and mind their own business.

Your response actually illustrates the problem: you are rebutting an argument I did not make.

I never claimed that every Hindu in India sits around monitoring Muslim households, nor that ordinary Indians cannot coexist peacefully. Of course millions of Hindus and Muslims live alongside one another without incident, and of course interfaith couples exist.

That does not refute the political phenomenon I described.

The relevant question is not whether your neighbors personally care who marries whom. The question is why interfaith relationships, religious conversion, Muslim women's religious identity, and the alleged phenomenon of “Love Jihad” have become subjects of organized political mobilization in India.

If this were merely a handful of irrelevant incidents, “Love Jihad” would not have become a nationally recognizable political concept. Religious conversion and interfaith relationships would not repeatedly enter electoral rhetoric, legislative debates, court cases, organized campaigns, and national media.

There is also a very specific asymmetry worth examining:

When a Hindu woman moves toward Islam, Hindu-nationalist discourse can portray her as manipulated, deceived, or the victim of a demographic conspiracy.

When a Muslim woman moves away from Islam, anti-Muslim discourse can portray precisely that movement as emancipation.

My argument concerns that asymmetry and what it tells us about gender, religious boundaries, demographic anxiety, and civilizational politics.

Saying, “I know interfaith couples and nobody around me cares,” does not answer that argument. It is an anecdote about your social environment.

Both things can simultaneously be true: millions of ordinary people can peacefully mind their own business, while organized ideological movements politicize precisely these issues.

In fact, distinguishing ordinary Hindus from political Hindu nationalism is important. Criticism of Hindutva is not an accusation against every Hindu.

So instead of telling people to “exit the schools or colleges” where they learned something you disagree with, engage the actual thesis:

Why has the movement of women across Hindu-Muslim religious boundaries become politically significant enough to produce national narratives about conversion, marriage, demographics, and “Love Jihad”?

That is the discussion.

Your neighbors minding their own business does not make that documented political phenomenon disappear.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Your response actually illustrates the problem: you are rebutting an argument I did not make.

I never claimed that every Hindu in India sits around monitoring Muslim households, nor that ordinary Indians cannot coexist peacefully. Of course millions of Hindus and Muslims live alongside one another without incident, and of course interfaith couples exist.

That does not refute the political phenomenon I described.

The relevant question is not whether your neighbors personally care who marries whom. The question is why interfaith relationships, religious conversion, Muslim women's religious identity, and the alleged phenomenon of “Love Jihad” have become subjects of organized political mobilization in India.

If this were merely a handful of irrelevant incidents, “Love Jihad” would not have become a nationally recognizable political concept. Religious conversion and interfaith relationships would not repeatedly enter electoral rhetoric, legislative debates, court cases, organized campaigns, and national media.

There is also a very specific asymmetry worth examining:

When a Hindu woman moves toward Islam, Hindu-nationalist discourse can portray her as manipulated, deceived, or the victim of a demographic conspiracy.

When a Muslim woman moves away from Islam, anti-Muslim discourse can portray precisely that movement as emancipation.

My argument concerns that asymmetry and what it tells us about gender, religious boundaries, demographic anxiety, and civilizational politics.

Saying, “I know interfaith couples and nobody around me cares,” does not answer that argument. It is an anecdote about your social environment.

Both things can simultaneously be true: millions of ordinary people can peacefully mind their own business, while organized ideological movements politicize precisely these issues.

In fact, distinguishing ordinary Hindus from political Hindu nationalism is important. Criticism of Hindutva is not an accusation against every Hindu.

So instead of telling people to “exit the schools or colleges” where they learned something you disagree with, engage the actual thesis:

Why has the movement of women across Hindu-Muslim religious boundaries become politically significant enough to produce national narratives about conversion, marriage, demographics, and “Love Jihad”?

That is the discussion.

Your neighbors minding their own business does not make that documented political phenomenon disappear.

Again you firing In the air... No ground reality.

The simple fact is that most people generally don’t care much about what is happening in other people’s homes or personal lives.
For example, a Muslim family lives right next to my house. Whenever I meet the elder person, I greet him and say good morning, but I don’t even know his name or much about his family. That’s just a simple example from my own neighbourhood.

My society has more than 300 families living here, yet I probably know only 20–30 people personally, and even among them, I don’t know the family background or personal details of most of them.

That is how life is for the majority of people in cities. People are busy with their own jobs, families and problems. They simply don’t have the time or interest to keep track of who is living with whom, or whether someone is Hindu, Muslim, intercaste, interfaith, married or unmarried.

Of course, there are exceptions, particularly in some villages and very small towns. But isolated incidents that receive political or media attention should not be presented as if they represent the everyday reality of all of India.

 

[PakistanLVR]

Religious discussions are not allowed.

This isn't a theology debate, this is a conversation about an assault on the Islamic civilization/identity by going after its women. If you don't like it, then hop then f**k off you silly lunatic. As a matter of fact, don't even comment on my threads cause its nothing but debbie downer comments.

 

[El Sidd]

This isn't a theology debate, this is a conversation about an assault on the Islamic civilization/identity by going after its women. If you don't like it, then hop then f**k off you silly lunatic. As a matter of fact, don't even comment on my threads cause its nothing but debbie downer comments.

Moderators will close this thread as it does not conform to laid out forum rules.

If you do not want certain people to comment on your threads, you can put in a disclaimer.

There's no need for Sufi profanities.

 

[falcon34]

It's not just Muslim, christians, Jews all do it men and woman, it's the men too be it India or west both genders fk around, it's just cause of social media what woman have been for so long is coming to light, nobody gives a fk about what men do. Woman get the limelights in this.
For example I know jew/Muslim, jew/Christian and Hindu/Muslim couples , majorities of these are the Muslim men doing it. Its not even even.
While the hookup culture is different, us Mae sab papi han equally men and woman

 

[p200]

This is an excellent write up. It follows the exact same pattern as feminism and colonialism. According to Yasir Qadhi this hatred between Hindus and Muslims and the caste system was instigated by and ressurected by thr British to keep India weak.

 

[Master Chief]

Your response actually illustrates the problem: you are rebutting an argument I did not make.

I never claimed that every Hindu in India sits around monitoring Muslim households, nor that ordinary Indians cannot coexist peacefully. Of course millions of Hindus and Muslims live alongside one another without incident, and of course interfaith couples exist.

That does not refute the political phenomenon I described.

The relevant question is not whether your neighbors personally care who marries whom. The question is why interfaith relationships, religious conversion, Muslim women's religious identity, and the alleged phenomenon of “Love Jihad” have become subjects of organized political mobilization in India.

If this were merely a handful of irrelevant incidents, “Love Jihad” would not have become a nationally recognizable political concept. Religious conversion and interfaith relationships would not repeatedly enter electoral rhetoric, legislative debates, court cases, organized campaigns, and national media.

There is also a very specific asymmetry worth examining:

When a Hindu woman moves toward Islam, Hindu-nationalist discourse can portray her as manipulated, deceived, or the victim of a demographic conspiracy.

When a Muslim woman moves away from Islam, anti-Muslim discourse can portray precisely that movement as emancipation.

My argument concerns that asymmetry and what it tells us about gender, religious boundaries, demographic anxiety, and civilizational politics.

Saying, “I know interfaith couples and nobody around me cares,” does not answer that argument. It is an anecdote about your social environment.

Both things can simultaneously be true: millions of ordinary people can peacefully mind their own business, while organized ideological movements politicize precisely these issues.

In fact, distinguishing ordinary Hindus from political Hindu nationalism is important. Criticism of Hindutva is not an accusation against every Hindu.

So instead of telling people to “exit the schools or colleges” where they learned something you disagree with, engage the actual thesis:

Why has the movement of women across Hindu-Muslim religious boundaries become politically significant enough to produce national narratives about conversion, marriage, demographics, and “Love Jihad”?

That is the discussion.

Your neighbors minding their own business does not make that documented political phenomenon disappear.

@Raj-Hindustani will never answer these allegations directly. He will obfuscate and misdirect to satisfy a very precise agenda. He is well known around these parts as what I like to call a "mask holder".

The mask holder disregards the patently demonstrable anti-muslim agenda of hindutva, BJP, RSS, the Indian nation state, and will misdirect the casual observer to plaudits received by the same entities for supposed "economic reform and revival". Congress Party perform the exact same function, knowingly or unknowingly.

 

[Neojinnah]

Please exit the schools or colleges wherever you learnt this garbage. Thanks.
In fact, in most Indian cities, people simply don’t have the time or interest to keep an eye on what is happening in their neighbours’ homes. Whether two unmarried people are living together, or a family is Hindu or Muslim, the majority of people simply don’t care.

It may be different in some villages or very small towns, where people tend to know more about each other’s lives and sometimes interfere or have opinions about what others are doing. Even there, however, most people simply ignore it and move on.
A few politically motivated incidents may get highlighted and amplified, but they don’t represent the reality of the entire country.

I personally know several intercaste and interfaith couples around me, and nobody treats it as some extraordinary issue. People generally live their own lives and mind their own business.

You don't need the entire populace obsessing over the lives of Muslim people. Just a few radical Hindu groups with state support and mindless savage Sanatani zombie followers are enough to make life hell for minorities. And that is the case in India. State backed outfits filled with perverts and sex pests who obsess with Muslim women and urge their followers to harass them for marriage.

 

[Master Chief]

Again you firing In the air... No ground reality.

The simple fact is that most people generally don’t care much about what is happening in other people’s homes or personal lives.
For example, a Muslim family lives right next to my house. Whenever I meet the elder person, I greet him and say good morning, but I don’t even know his name or much about his family. That’s just a simple example from my own neighbourhood.

My society has more than 300 families living here, yet I probably know only 20–30 people personally, and even among them, I don’t know the family background or personal details of most of them.

That is how life is for the majority of people in cities. People are busy with their own jobs, families and problems. They simply don’t have the time or interest to keep track of who is living with whom, or whether someone is Hindu, Muslim, intercaste, interfaith, married or unmarried.

Of course, there are exceptions, particularly in some villages and very small towns. But isolated incidents that receive political or media attention should not be presented as if they represent the everyday reality of all of India.

Doesn't matter who "cares" or "doesn't care" in general society.

What matters is what the people you vote for actually do.

Stop obfuscating.

 

[Master Chief]

You don't need the entire populace obsessing over the lives of Muslim people. Just a few radical Hindu groups with state support and mindless savage Sanatani zombie followers are enough to make life hell for minorities. And that is the case in India. State backed outfits filled with perverts and sex pests who obsess with Muslim women and urge their followers to harass them for marriage.

You get it mate. You definitely get it.

 

[Master Chief]

The fundamental problem that outwards facing Indians, such as the revolutionary cabal we are blessed with in our very own dear pdf, need to contend with on a day to day basis when trying to enact "damage control" is that their leadership and representatives across the spectrum of saffron hatemongering simply cannot enact their schemes quietly.

If they behaved 1% as cunningly and shrewdly as their fathers in Tel Aviv, it would be very difficult to counter them when they ask for evidence of the saffron agenda. Yet, as is their wont, they just have to adorn full ceremonial dress and rail vocally against their perceived "enemy" in language that dalitised hordes can understand.

This simultaneously illustrates the benefit and the disadvantage of keeping 90% of your nation's population uneducated and cognitively retarded - they make great vote bank zombies but at the same time, you have to spell out the plan for them loud and clear, which the rest of us also hear by default.

 

[hussain0216]

Hindus are obsessed

Hindus is a disgusting cheap chapri vulgar culture and that's the bottom line



Their yatras and culture show this


The strength of the Muslim community is it's faith

Islam is what keeps the family and community strong
So as long as Muslim women and men remain faithful to islam and their community
The Muslims will win just through sheer strength of Muslim families



Certain communities Hindus especially are retarded and obsessed,
Obsessed about Hindu women becoming Muslims and marrying/dating Muslim men

And obsessed with trying to date, sexualised, marry Muslim women


Part of it is a THOUSAND YEARS of Muslim domination where they feel Muslims screwed Hindu women for centuries and cucked Hindu men

So trying to corrupt Muslim women sooths the Hindu mental humiliation they feel



It's a act of war

And it's vital Muslims across the world are active in defending Muslim women, children and family

The whores and feminists especially need to be called out


Hindus are detestable, I despise them and their idolatry