@@sanilyadav1450 first u need to be study that people why they become terrorist, Islam is not teach to kill someone u missguiding to other first study there history go to kuku FM and read there history or else I'll send u the links there history why they become teroor, plz don't blame to islam
In whatever is going on that is politics bcuz of bjp every Muslims are angry on this government and rss bajarangi some other stuff this groups are showing angry on muslims because we are following only one God and we have one profhet and in ur relegion there is nothing like that if I tell the truth about some Hindus what they are doing actually nw ull not answer anymore if u want den I'll show real not real nw say in ur comments redicilaisation
How did this 'Anchor' get his job?? Is the bar set this low in Indian journalism? When a Muslim man refuses to share stage with Taslima, this anchor begs him to share his views on 'global trends'??? Seriously? He should have confronted the muslim man for refusing to engage in debate!! Also, see how this clueless 'anchor' tries to deceive audience as if Dhaka attackers were attacking a bunch of muslims praying!! Those terrorists specifically attacked non-muslim foreigners!!! Who is this guy fooling????
Radical islam is less prevalent in india but that is like saying the fire is spreading less in one area over another. The problem exists here as well and denying it is not helpful.
Radical Islam,lol.Since the KKK killed people just for being Black,thats Radical Christianity?When the Americans killed entire race of Native Americans,that was Radical Christianity?When Gujarat Massacres happened was that Radical Hinduism?When Sanghis were jailed for Bomb Blasts,that was Radical Hinduism? #SHAME
I must appreciate the courage of the lady, she was so calm when that cleric left and other when other people said she's making false statements. In other platforms she have told that what she speaks aren't mere her views or interpretations but what she have read and what she have learned.
Sardar g ap k guru ko koi bhura bhala kahay ap usko marne pr ao ge k nahi wo to phr dice chor kr ja rha hai mai ap k guru nanak ko gali du ap mjh se bt kro ge k mjh se laro ge ya wha se chale jao ge
Vikram, when Maulana said one can practice other religions along with Islam he was talking of countries where Muslims are in minority, wherever they are in majority, they don't allow people from different faiths to preach their religion except for one or two.
imam is criticising Isis because it is a a representation of the ultimate shia Sunni battle. not because imams are rational and secular. y are imams silent on Kashmiri pandits being thrown out of Muslim dominated Kashmir. y not imams speak against Sharia. y not burqas which is the mobile jail for women. y not on 54 year old man marrying a 6 year old kid.
The purpose of this show was to establish the fact that Terrorism have no religion. This show was hell bent on showing Muslim itself as victims. And they would have become successful if Bukhari won't have walked out of studio. The anchor was spineless half-man. Look, how he cut RSS spokesperson (4:10) from supporting Taslima Nasreen but didn't stop Firangi from attacking Tarek Fateh (11:50) - Randi TV at is best.
I watched a news report just now when NDTV shown a report that traders in Kashmir did not meet Home Minister and then shown few Kashmiri talking against India and old picture of Kashmir stone throwing. I also saw debate by former Home Ministers of India more or less stated that Kashmir protests are due to wrong policy of India. I also saw Ghulam Navi Azad speaking Pakistani language as why a person thrown out of Pakistan is allowed to debate in India. The total picture emerges is that anti National political parties are now coming out in open to support separatists cause supported by channels like NDTV, India Today, ABP showing old TV stories repeatedly about fight between security forces and separatists and not the point of view of security forces. This appears to be a sinister plan.
tarekji salute to u. u really brave man. u prove u son of Hindustan. Indian government should take seriously Mr. fateh and cancel 370 immediately and send all help to baloochistan
It is one of the rare debates I have witnessed on fundamentalism, radicalisation in Islam where for the first time the core of the problem was touched upon. I have visited many Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Indonesia, Bangladesh and from a distance could analyse the issue little dis passionately. The core issue of the problem is petro dollars which has created a new neo rich class in countries like Saudi Arabia for whom it is what we call in India chhapar pyar ke. They were not very educated to ,make proper use of this and came under wrong influence of Mullahs. Mullahs misguided these neo rich to use it for making whole world Islamic under the impression this money will accelerate the process. The petro dollars are being passed on to poor countries to spread the negative aspects of Islam. This is the really issue. Indian Muslims are little different as there gene has Indian which by nature is not as aggressive as those in Middle East.
As long as the Caliph had sufficient warriors ready for combat, the citizen was exempt from being drafted in the offensive jihad. But when more soldiers were needed, no true Muslim could ignore the call of their spiritual and political leader. This principle is still in place today. Thus, al Baghdadi, as the legitimate successor of the Prophet Mohammed, not only has the right to wage wars of conquest, but can demand the participation of all Muslims in these conflicts, as well as demand their migration to the Caliphate.
How did this 'Anchor' get his job?? Is the bar set this low in Indian journalism? When a Muslim man refuses to share stage with Taslima, this anchor begs him to share his views on 'global trends'??? Seriously? He should have confronted the muslim man for refusing to engage in debate!! Also, see how this clueless 'anchor' tries to deceive audience as if Dhaka attackers were attacking a bunch of muslims praying!! Those terrorists specifically attacked non-muslim foreigners!!! Who is this guy fooling???? This is really sad state of Indian journalism.
Tasleema was not given sufficient time to speak her. We understand her agony since Long time. lf we are declared as secular country then Taslima should be given Indian citizenship
Developed after the death of the Prophet Mohammed by the Ulema (the global community of Muslim religious scholars), jihad was an elaboration of the teachings of the Koran and of the Prophet. However, there are two types of jihad: the great jihad, which is mostly spiritual, that is, the daily fight of each individual against his or her temptations; and the small jihad, the physical fight against an enemy. What interests us here is this latter type, whose concept has evolved through the centuries, while the great jihad has remained unchanged. Formulated when Islam was already a superpower, the idea of the small jihad reflected an imperial spirit. It was a tool to protect the community of believers. Religious scholars of this period further distinguish two forms of small jihad: defensive and offensive. The former was the obligation of all members of the community to take up arms against the enemy to safeguard Islam. The offensive jihad, on the other hand, could be called only by the Caliph, the ruler of the community. Its task was to spread Islam, not to protect it. The jihad that the Islamic State is waging falls into both of these categories.
Is this the standard of ndtv and their hosts? One guy insulted a guest lady, and the host didn't interrupt; instead, he pleaded for him to stay while another molana again passed personal comments to another guest, and the host seemed to be pleading again. These a small-minded illiterate hosts. The only qualification they have is that they can speak English. They neither have any knowledge of the subject nor about the guests and have no brain of their own.
Vikram is more bigger hypocrite than Barkha Dutt. He says don't give example of Kashmir. Is he mean to say that Kashmir is not in India. This shows their mind set.
2 of the "clerics" made it very clear right is first 15 minutes what "intolerance" is. But thankfully we were not discussing "intolerance". We are discussing "radicalization". Can't we see that this "intolerance" is a clear symptom of "radicalization"?
This is wrong he should share dias if tasleema Nasreen is there what of it you can criticize her your views could be different from her but saying this that i can't share its totallly stupidity
Anchor asks very first panelist , Tariq Bukhari, regarding the wave of radicalization around the world and do we need to worry about it in India. Mr. Bukhari speaks on lengths about how we have been able to fend off radicals because how much we respect each other's religions and we are tolerant of each other....next minute he walks out of the debate without any provocation. If there's anything they do not agree upon, the only civilized way would be to go through the debate on this platform and let out your differences. No, no, no not in islam!! How dare a woman debate(ARGUE) with a man. GAWD, THESE HYPOCRITES.....UNFUCKIN' BELIEVABLE!!
Taslima Mam & Tarek Sir need to read Quran atleast once with open mind with whatever language they know before they die as they understood Islam exactly opposite way. Thank god being Indian Muslim while Staying together with other religious people I learnt Basics of all religions are Brotherhood and oneness of God. No religion teaches us to do wrong things. My teacher use to say Half knowledge is very dangerous by seeing them Now I can say these are the namunas ...Now What can I say Get well soon maamu & Maami....
Staying In Gulf Countries doesn't confirm that he has learnt it properly. I am learning self from past 10yrs and before that my mother taught me basics of Islam. If you want to know whether Tarek sir has learnt or not like me then just once read Quran, may be now I can suggest you just Chapter2 then still you want to know more then keep going. What I can think about these people is they learnt like for example Newton's 3rd law states that :"There is equal and opposite reaction" Then they start telling others See there is always opposite reactions or they tell like if you are equal then people will start opposite reactions bla bla.... They need to learn Correct newton's 3rd law:"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" so that they cannot add/remove anything by themselves in understanding and explaining others
radicalization of Muslim youth shud not be neglected thinking the number of Muslim youth being radicalised out of total number of Muslims is a very small %. v got c wat is the damage that can happen. only 11 persons from across the border did .Mumbai attacks. another extreme example is kasab in his 20years killed so many people only on one day and for the rest of his life he lived peacefully. when one day out 20years expressed as percentage is almost equal to 0 and so according to Vikram even kasab is peaceful person
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor's note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that 'fighting' is sanctioned even if the fitna 'ceases'. This is about religious order, not real persecution.] Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'). Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers. Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…" Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense? Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. The targets of violence are "those who disbelieve" - further defined in the next verse (13) as "defy and disobey Allah." Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people. Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end." Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals." Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember." Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..." Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, "Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability." Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..." Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
Allways nice to watch"those typical athiest / agnostic who has experience just in indian way of debate" these typical athiest would be out of topic within a minute at higher level debate"
One has to know the Holy Quran or Holy Bible to question it,all anybody knows about Islam is from hearsay,from the media,from the Subscribers of Islam.If you swear at someone tomorrow or beat someone up,does that mean the Faith you Subscribe to is Profane and Violent? #SHAME
Miss taslima nasrin... You speak so fearlessly... History will never forget you..
@Your true fan from earth
Osama and Bagdadi are enough to end Islam.
@@sanilyadav1450 first u need to be study that people why they become terrorist, Islam is not teach to kill someone u missguiding to other first study there history go to kuku FM and read there history or else I'll send u the links there history why they become teroor, plz don't blame to islam
Mullah ji, even Al-Qaida and Al-Nusra is against ISIS. That doesn't mean they are not radical organizations.
Never bring any Mulla for debate in India.
Aare chutya ye hijra dikh rahi h ye kahi se aurat nhi lagta salo and bhakt
@@AnwarAli-yc4vv Salo , Hijra , Chutiya , itna jeher kese banaaye ho apne shareer me bhai .
The speaker leaving because of Taslima's presence is a proof of the Islamist radicalisation in India.
well, she's something of an immature islamophobe
In whatever is going on that is politics bcuz of bjp every Muslims are angry on this government and rss bajarangi some other stuff this groups are showing angry on muslims because we are following only one God and we have one profhet and in ur relegion there is nothing like that if I tell the truth about some Hindus what they are doing actually nw ull not answer anymore if u want den I'll show real not real nw say in ur comments redicilaisation
Anchor is presstitute- not allowing Taslima & Tarek Fateh speak. Sick man.
shashi prabha , I agree with you,instead this big mouth mulla is uttering all the stupid things,
Y NDTV h Congress ka chennel
It's NDTV u cnt expect anything else
Yes because it is Randitv
Secular hai vai
VIKRAM DOES NOT HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND UP TO THESE ISLAMIC MAZHABI.,
Taliban also denounced ISIS. That doesn't make them peaceful.
right!
Googly 🤔
Ya
Both are fighting because of political reasons, not religious reasons.
Nonsense,He has no ability to talk with Taslima.
Why
I've never seen such a stupid man in my life before! He could be one of the radicals in disguise!
The anchor clearly was wriggling and twisting in his seat whenever he heard comments suggesting reform and the truth in Islam.
yes , you r right
right
this anchor is just another chutiya who just shits his pants before asking the right questions
How did this 'Anchor' get his job?? Is the bar set this low in Indian journalism? When a Muslim man refuses to share stage with Taslima, this anchor begs him to share his views on 'global trends'??? Seriously? He should have confronted the muslim man for refusing to engage in debate!! Also, see how this clueless 'anchor' tries to deceive audience as if Dhaka attackers were attacking a bunch of muslims praying!! Those terrorists specifically attacked non-muslim foreigners!!! Who is this guy fooling????
Correct.
I am Hindu and greatest admirers of Tasleema mam
Tasleema is a great woman
Why she is a great woman.please show some reasons.
@@shahariahmirza466 she left islam thats a great move as a woman
@@shahariahmirza466 Because she talks about oppression on muslims in Islam
Radical islam is less prevalent in india but that is like saying the fire is spreading less in one area over another. The problem exists here as well and denying it is not helpful.
Radical Islam,lol.Since the KKK killed people just for being Black,thats Radical Christianity?When the Americans killed entire race of Native Americans,that was Radical Christianity?When Gujarat Massacres happened was that Radical Hinduism?When Sanghis were jailed for Bomb Blasts,that was Radical Hinduism? #SHAME
+Travis Miller the answer is yes.
+Travis Miller u talk about gujrat and y r u blind on Kashmiri pandits being thrown out of Kashmir?
True religious fundamentalist always end up acting violently. Denial will only make matters worse.
@@religionofpeace782 your blind hate may say so but does not make it true
Taslima is great
Taslima is a Noble Lady. I love her.
support taslima !
support tasleema
good
why she is not even Indian
So wat I'd she is not Indian. Atleast she is speaking truth.
She is a lot better than many of our pseudo seculars
They can humiliate a woman so much in public, just imagine what they would be doing behind closed doors.
Punjabi Muslim- Tarek Fatah👍
Bengali Muslim- Taslima Nasrin👍
UP Urdu Muslim- Firangi mahli👎
I must appreciate the courage of the lady, she was so calm when that cleric left and other when other people said she's making false statements. In other platforms she have told that what she speaks aren't mere her views or interpretations but what she have read and what she have learned.
It was bad for anchor to cut short discussions of tarekh n tasleema...
CHECK THE WHOLE DEBATE IN its official site .....
Tasleema Nasreen.... Respect for you.
I support Taslima mam
Perfect Tariqji!!
Vickhram cuts off Tareq whenever he talks, that is unfair for a journalist to,do,such thing.
Epic: 180 cr muslims in India!!
The anchor was really high!!
lol, running away..😂 are bhai qstn answer nai honge to Sudhro kese tum log..
Baljinder Sidhu gall ta thik hege pajiee, enna ne ni sudharna.
Sardar g ap k guru ko koi bhura bhala kahay ap usko marne pr ao ge k nahi wo to phr dice chor kr ja rha hai mai ap k guru nanak ko gali du ap mjh se bt kro ge k mjh se laro ge ya wha se chale jao ge
@@harisalansari6242 तेरे इस्लाम जैसा पाजी के गुरु ने नहीं सिखाया
Haris Al Ansari caught a radical on TH-cam. Hundreds like u exist
@@harisalansari6242 muslims killed our gurus when they did not accept Islam ....Isalm is anti humanity
this gaylord anchor doesnt wanna take point of taslima, tarek , rss sir, but he takes accord of what mullahs says at once, without any specific logic.
Ndtv for you
good work Tasleema
taslima nasrin was telling truth but anchor don't want her view because taslima saying fact &if fact generate ndtv khatre ma just like islam
Mohit Sahu lol what is the proof she is telling truth
@@abdulrahmanabdulrahman7004 lol what is the proof that whatever written in quran is true
@@dr.animeshjain287 so what is the proof that whatever written in quran is not true?And what proof do you want, doctor sab?
Vikram, when Maulana said one can practice other religions along with Islam he was talking of countries where Muslims are in minority, wherever they are in majority, they don't allow people from different faiths to preach their religion except for one or two.
Taslima, the future of us
when that claric was insulting Taslima I was missing Arnub Goswami
17:07 Jay panda sir totally nailed it .every religions as good part and bad part but most religions are able to cope with modernity much better ...
Except one
Vikram was never allowed to speak Tarikh Fatah & Taslima Nasrin. He is so prejudiced
The great taslima and taricfatah
She is great lady
tarek fateh grt
modi grant him indian citizenship
Respect to Taslima Ma'am... You are a wonder-woman & great inspiration.... Loads of Love from a Hindu Indian
Whenever its a question of kashmiri pandits. Anchor is like lets have a broader question :D :D
this Bukhari is radicalisation at its best, it's right before our eyes
Tarekh Fateh you are a great man Sir.. I wish all Muslim people think like hm
I don't like ndtv
Each and every Imam in mosque near my area have rejected and cursed ISIS. Ignorance of Tarek Fateh and Taslima Nasreen is absolutely epic.
imam is criticising Isis because it is a a representation of the ultimate shia Sunni battle. not because imams are rational and secular. y are imams silent on Kashmiri pandits being thrown out of Muslim dominated Kashmir. y not imams speak against Sharia. y not burqas which is the mobile jail for women. y not on 54 year old man marrying a 6 year old kid.
There is a difference between me saying Jesus loved everyone and with the same mouth saying that abortionists should be killed.
Do they reject violence based Jihad?
It will only be valid if those imams are speaking against Sharia.
Imams and Muslims go on Streets to protest against Israel where as they remain silent on Kashmiri pandits though thrown out of their home land
Only because India is Hindu majority, the Muslims here are a bit civilised....
Jehadi sponser channel. I thought Barkha Dutt was the only mental case but, this host can give her a good competition.
How do so many people write outright hateful and derogatory things in the comments and get away?
The purpose of this show was to establish the fact that Terrorism have no religion. This show was hell bent on showing Muslim itself as victims. And they would have become successful if Bukhari won't have walked out of studio. The anchor was spineless half-man. Look, how he cut RSS spokesperson (4:10) from supporting Taslima Nasreen but didn't stop Firangi from attacking Tarek Fateh (11:50) - Randi TV at is best.
Fateh is real punjabi .. Hats off to such sons of guru gobind and Buddha
I watched a news report just now when NDTV shown a report that traders in Kashmir did not meet Home Minister and then shown few Kashmiri talking against India and old picture of Kashmir stone throwing. I also saw debate by former Home Ministers of India more or less stated that Kashmir protests are due to wrong policy of India. I also saw Ghulam Navi Azad speaking Pakistani language as why a person thrown out of Pakistan is allowed to debate in India. The total picture emerges is that anti National political parties are now coming out in open to support separatists cause supported by channels like NDTV, India Today, ABP showing old TV stories repeatedly about fight between security forces and separatists and not the point of view of security forces. This appears to be a sinister plan.
tarekji salute to u.
u really brave man.
u prove u son of Hindustan. Indian government should take seriously Mr. fateh and cancel 370 immediately and send all help to baloochistan
It is one of the rare debates I have witnessed on fundamentalism, radicalisation in Islam where for the first time the core of the problem was touched upon. I have visited many Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Indonesia, Bangladesh and from a distance could analyse the issue little dis passionately. The core issue of the problem is petro dollars which has created a new neo rich class in countries like Saudi Arabia for whom it is what we call in India chhapar pyar ke. They were not very educated to ,make proper use of this and came under wrong influence of Mullahs. Mullahs misguided these neo rich to use it for making whole world Islamic under the impression this money will accelerate the process. The petro dollars are being passed on to poor countries to spread the negative aspects of Islam. This is the really issue. Indian Muslims are little different as there gene has Indian which by nature is not as aggressive as those in Middle East.
there are no negatives in the Quran. quote one I will accept.
As long as the Caliph had sufficient warriors ready for combat, the citizen was exempt from being drafted in the offensive jihad. But when more soldiers were needed, no true Muslim could ignore the call of their spiritual and political leader. This principle is still in place today. Thus, al Baghdadi, as the legitimate successor of the Prophet Mohammed, not only has the right to wage wars of conquest, but can demand the participation of all Muslims in these conflicts, as well as demand their migration to the Caliphate.
Taslima is the real hero......
Taraq fatah speaks truth so many Muslims don't like him🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hats off... to the patience of Taslima Nasreen
for the first time I like an NDTV DEBATE
Love you TASLIMA NASRIN MAM
WE INDIAN ALWAYS SUPPORT EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO OPPRESSED BY GADDAR MAULANA.
Why so much reluctance to reformation?
Ex Muslim and now I am an Atheist.
How did this 'Anchor' get his job?? Is the bar set this low in Indian journalism? When a Muslim man refuses to share stage with Taslima, this anchor begs him to share his views on 'global trends'??? Seriously? He should have confronted the muslim man for refusing to engage in debate!! Also, see how this clueless 'anchor' tries to deceive audience as if Dhaka attackers were attacking a bunch of muslims praying!! Those terrorists specifically attacked non-muslim foreigners!!! Who is this guy fooling???? This is really sad state of Indian journalism.
Tarek Ji Telling The Truth.
Tasleema was not given sufficient time to speak her. We understand her agony since Long time. lf we are declared as secular country then Taslima should be given Indian citizenship
Every one has their own definition of radicalisation and want to impose on others, respect should be mutual for all religion..
Would you respect a religion which says kill people of all other religions?
Respect to Tariq Bukhari
He ran away from a lady. He is your hero? You muslims are so strange. Oh wait. Muhammed also ran away from mecca.
Developed after the death of the Prophet Mohammed by the Ulema (the global community of Muslim religious scholars), jihad was an elaboration of the teachings of the Koran and of the Prophet. However, there are two types of jihad: the great jihad, which is mostly spiritual, that is, the daily fight of each individual against his or her temptations; and the small jihad, the physical fight against an enemy. What interests us here is this latter type, whose concept has evolved through the centuries, while the great jihad has remained unchanged.
Formulated when Islam was already a superpower, the idea of the small jihad reflected an imperial spirit. It was a tool to protect the community of believers. Religious scholars of this period further distinguish two forms of small jihad: defensive and offensive. The former was the obligation of all members of the community to take up arms against the enemy to safeguard Islam. The offensive jihad, on the other hand, could be called only by the Caliph, the ruler of the community. Its task was to spread Islam, not to protect it. The jihad that the Islamic State is waging falls into both of these categories.
brave woman .........
Is this the standard of ndtv and their hosts? One guy insulted a guest lady, and the host didn't interrupt; instead, he pleaded for him to stay while another molana again passed personal comments to another guest, and the host seemed to be pleading again.
These a small-minded illiterate hosts. The only qualification they have is that they can speak English. They neither have any knowledge of the subject nor about the guests and have no brain of their own.
Vikram is more bigger hypocrite than Barkha Dutt. He says don't give example of Kashmir. Is he mean to say that Kashmir is not in India. This shows their mind set.
2 of the "clerics" made it very clear right is first 15 minutes what "intolerance" is. But thankfully we were not discussing "intolerance". We are discussing "radicalization".
Can't we see that this "intolerance" is a clear symptom of "radicalization"?
Miss taslima nasrin.... History will never forget you
This is wrong he should share dias if tasleema Nasreen is there what of it you can criticize her your views could be different from her but saying this that i can't share its totallly stupidity
Bukhari is weak speaker ndtv should not have called him
Taslima needs to increase her tempo. She seems high on opium.
ha ha ha....
NDTV how can you let someone insult your channel?
He just walked away by saying if she is there i can not talk. It's also insult of taslima mam.
Beautiful full voice Taslima Nasrin
A big ✋ for Madam Taslima
Amazing, not the usual ndtv commentator here.
Islam is Islam it cannot be changed, It is a very strict religion
Anchor asks very first panelist , Tariq Bukhari, regarding the wave of radicalization around the world and do we need to worry about it in India. Mr. Bukhari speaks on lengths about how we have been able to fend off radicals because how much we respect each other's religions and we are tolerant of each other....next minute he walks out of the debate without any provocation. If there's anything they do not agree upon, the only civilized way would be to go through the debate on this platform and let out your differences. No, no, no not in islam!! How dare a woman debate(ARGUE) with a man. GAWD, THESE HYPOCRITES.....UNFUCKIN' BELIEVABLE!!
the anchor should have asked the person who left the debate in strong word the reason why he showed such intolerance
there is no different between indian muslim and other muslims
Taslima Mam & Tarek Sir need to read Quran atleast once with open mind with whatever language they know before they die as they understood Islam exactly opposite way. Thank god being Indian Muslim while Staying together with other religious people I learnt Basics of all religions are Brotherhood and oneness of God. No religion teaches us to do wrong things.
My teacher use to say Half knowledge is very dangerous by seeing them Now I can say these are the namunas ...Now What can I say Get well soon maamu & Maami....
tarek fateh stayed in Saudi n many other places and researched on Islam and Quran... and you think you know more about Quran than him?
Staying In Gulf Countries doesn't confirm that he has learnt it properly. I am learning self from past 10yrs and before that my mother taught me basics of Islam.
If you want to know whether Tarek sir has learnt or not like me then just once read Quran, may be now I can suggest you just Chapter2 then still you want to know more then keep going.
What I can think about these people is they learnt like for example
Newton's 3rd law states that :"There is equal and opposite reaction"
Then they start telling others See there is always opposite reactions or they tell like if you are equal then people will start opposite reactions bla bla....
They need to learn Correct newton's 3rd law:"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" so that they cannot add/remove anything by themselves in understanding and explaining others
+AAA ok since it have read quran please telk whther it prescribes collection of tax(jazia) from non Muslims in an Islamic country?
Anchor didnt wanna tarek fateh to speak truth ..thats why he stopped him..by speaking
Maulana also trying to hide harsh truth of his religion...
Spot on Jay Panda !!..
radicalization of Muslim youth shud not be neglected thinking the number of Muslim youth being radicalised out of total number of Muslims is a very small %. v got c wat is the damage that can happen. only 11 persons from across the border did .Mumbai attacks. another extreme example is kasab in his 20years killed so many people only on one day and for the rest of his life he lived peacefully. when one day out 20years expressed as percentage is almost equal to 0 and so according to Vikram even kasab is peaceful person
Anchor is avoiding tarek fateh view and saving muslim.
Vikram
you are excellent.
Times when NDTV was pure and unbiased
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor's note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that 'fighting' is sanctioned even if the fitna 'ceases'. This is about religious order, not real persecution.]
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. The targets of violence are "those who disbelieve" - further defined in the next verse (13) as "defy and disobey Allah." Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people.
Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."
Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."
Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, "Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability."
Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
taslima is a superhero
Zaid Hamid in Pakistan denounces ISIS too. In fact, even Al Queda denounces ISIS. So do the Ayatollahs of Iran.
So the pig grunt and walked away
Hats off to Taslima.
Bukhari himself is a radical muslim.....Insulting a lady on live program are attributes and attitude of TALIBANISM ....
Tasleema nasreen should be hailed as the true prophet...she is the one exposing adharma
THERE ARE LIARS & THEN THERE ARE REAL PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT TRUTH' , ENCOURAGE THE TRUTH,
now NDTV will not condemn these mullahs?
POOR VIKRAM.ZERO KNOWLEDGE..NOT FIT TO HOST A SERIOUS TALK SHOW.....MAY BE HE SHOLD JOIN PEACE TV
Allways nice to watch"those typical athiest / agnostic who has experience just in indian way of debate" these typical athiest would be out of topic within a minute at higher level debate"
Go to middle East and try to celebrate Diwali or Christmas with pomp and show .....If anyone can celebrate I will accept Islam is tolerant
Islam needs to reform . Only way is to question the quran
One has to know the Holy Quran or Holy Bible to question it,all anybody knows about Islam is from hearsay,from the media,from the Subscribers of Islam.If you swear at someone tomorrow or beat someone up,does that mean the Faith you Subscribe to is Profane and Violent? #SHAME