Saif Kareena
 
Open Letter to Saif Ali Khan: Why must Pataudi brides convert to Islam to marry?

A response to an article in the Indian Express of Saif Ali Khan regarding conversions and Love Jihad.

(Note: This piece was sent by an IndiaFacts reader, supporter and well-wisher who wishes to remain anonymous. You can follow the author on Twitter at )

Dear Mr Saif Ali Khan,

This is in response to your article in the Indian Express, available online at this link:  http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/intermarriage-is-not-jihad-it-is-india/99/

You begin by stating, “I am the son of a sportsman”. At the risk of sounding crass, may I ask if you are the son of a single parent? After all, you haven’t mentioned anything about your mother. I find it strange that at the beginning of your piece, you omit any reference to your female parent but somewhere in the middle of your article, you say, “It is like saying women don’t have a part to play in India.” If you forget to mention your mother’s role yourself, how can you object to others who ignore the role of women in society?

Next you claim, “I am more Indian than any Hindu or Muslim I know because I am both.” May I ask how you are Hindu and Muslim ‘both’ when both your parents are Muslims? In 1998, you had said that “My grandmother was the centre for all our religious education. (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/august98/saif.htm).” The context indicated that you were talking of your paternal grandmother, and the language implied that she was the only centre for all your religious education. As your paternal grandmother was Muslim and she was the only ‘centre for all (y)our religious education’, how could you be Muslim and Hindu ‘both’?

As a child in England, you told your headmaster that you are “a Muslim (sic)” in order to get the privilege of waking up late. As an adult  in India, are you telling your readers that you are Hindu and Muslim ‘both’ in order to enjoy the privileges being secular brings?

May I ask how you are Hindu and Muslim ‘both’ when both your parents are Muslims?

Next, on your parents’ marriage, you say, “The royals had their issues; the Brahmins theirs.” By the word ‘royals’ if you mean your father’s family, then don’t you think that the word ‘feudal’ would be more appropriate for them? On the other hand, by the word ‘Brahmins’ if you mean your mother’s family, then may I know why you refer to their caste? While writing about ‘issues’ created by the two sides, you conceal the ethnic identity of your father’s side but reveal the religious identity of your mother’s side. Why?

Pataudi Sharmila

You then allege that “extremists on both religious sides issued death threats.” May we know at least a few details of those who  issued these death threats—a few things like when, where and how? And it would also help if you told us what action your parents took against these intimidators? Till the time you publish some evidence of this allegation, people will have a few doubts about it. You see, such assertions will lead to these logical questions:

While writing about ‘issues’ created by the two sides, you conceal the ethnic identity of your father’s side but reveal the ethnic identity of your mother’s side.

First, why would the ‘extremists’ on your father’s side issue any threat when he (a) did not discard his religion, and (b) got your mother to embrace his? Wasn’t it a win-win situation for his side? Second, how is it that your mother could discard her parental religion despite ‘extremists’ on that side supposedly issuing death threats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharmila_Tagore#Personal_life)? In the forty-four years since that marriage, how many attempts have been made on her life by those ‘extremists’? Or, in the forty-one years that your father lived after the marriage, how many attempts were made on his life?

Instead of substantiating your allegation, you declare, “But the marriage still happened — the fact that my grandmother also had to fight to marry the not-as-wealthy and therefore not-so-suitable nawab of Pataudi might have helped things along.” Even here, it is clear that by the word ‘grandmother’ you mean your father’s mother. Though, in all probability, it was she who insisted on your mother converting to Islam—http://www.magnamags.com/stardust/blast-from-the-past/SHARMILA-TAGORE-%E2%80%93-WHAT-I-REMEMBER%E2%80%A6-AND-WHAT-I-WANT-TO-FORGET/3235.

Mr. Saif, if you consider acceptance of Islam to be the most important aspect for a marriage, then you may well credit your paternal grandmother for having ‘helped things along.’ In that sense, the fact that your Oxford-educated father did not object to her insistence of getting your mother converted must also have ‘helped things along.’ On the other hand, if you ever accept your mother’s mother as your grandmother too, you may realize that it was she who actually ‘helped things along.’ Had she and her husband (your maternal grandfather) asked your father to convert to Hinduism, chances are the marriage would never have happened. Even if they had insisted that their daughter retain her religion, the marriage might not have happened. It is because they did not think of religion at all that the marriage happened. Isn’t this a more logical explanation? The credit, if any, for your parents’ marriage should go to your maternal grandparents (who were Hindus) and not your paternal grandmother (who was Muslim).

Saif - Amrita

Then you write, “We grew up on real-life romantic stories about our elders marrying for love and not worrying too much about tradition.” May I ask which tradition was it that your elders did not worry ‘too much about’? Here’s a pointer to the answer: were you ever told any story of inter-religious love culminating in marriage without the non-Muslim partner becoming Muslim?

You then allege, “When Kareena and I married, there were similar death threats”. Are you sure that such a serious allegation is not merely your attempt to play victim? The same questions that I asked you on the matter in the connection of your parents’ marriage apply equally to you: how, where, when, and what action did you take? And if you have not taken any action against them, we have a right to know why.

In the two years since your marriage, how many attempts have been made on your lives by those who issued the death threats? If death threats were received during your parents’ marriage and also during your second marriage, how is it that there were no such threats after your first marriage – when you married Amrita Singh?

Instead of substantiating your allegations, you say, “When we purified our new home, we had a havan and a Quran reading”. Well, the fact is that the former does not preclude the latter – it is the latter which denigrates the former. The ‘havan’ says nothing against Islamic readings whereas the ‘Quran’ is virulently against non-Islamic practices.

were you ever told any story of inter-religious love culminating in marriage without the non-Muslim partner becoming Muslim?

Next you lament that “Our religions are based on fear.” Isn’t this an attempt to play the balancing game? Just because Abrahamic religions like Islam ‘are based on fear’, do you have to paint Dharmic faiths like Sanatan Dharma with the same brush? With playful gods like Krishna and colourful festivals like Holi, how can Sanatan Dharma / Hinduism ever be ‘based on fear’? Hindus can make fun of their Gods with complete freedom, without the fear of having their throats cut. I suppose you know what will happen if as much as an unkind letter is said about Allah. If Dharmic faiths were ‘based on fear’, would your mother and your first wife have lived peacefully after discarding these faiths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amrita_Singh)?

And then you write, “The Old Testament spoke of a Promised Land”. How is it that you have written of the Old Testament in this article but not of the Rig Veda or Bhagavad Gita? As you have claimed to be Hindu and Muslim ‘both’, why is there no evidence of your knowledge of Hindu scriptures? Or, as I asked earlier, was that claim only to get the privilege of being ‘secular’?

Next you say, “I know good people are scared of marrying their daughters to Muslims.” Do you mean to say that Muslims are happy to get their own daughters married to non-Muslims? If they are, why do so many Muslims keep their daughters covered from head to toe or get them married (to Muslims, of course) during puberty itself?

And further, “I have always thought of Islam as the moon, the desert, calligraphy and flying carpets, the thousand and one nights.” Isn’t it strange that you have written of what you ‘always thought of Islam’ but not what you ever thought of Hinduism? How is it that you thought of ‘the moon’ but not of Surya the sun god, ‘the desert’ but not of the Himalaya mountains, ‘calligraphy’ but not of Ajanta paintings, of ‘the thousand and one nights’ but not the Mahabharata? May I, once again, point to your claim of being Hindu and Muslim ‘both’?

On Islam, you also write, “I have always thought about it as a religion of peace and submission.” Is that the reason for your mother and your first wife ‘submitting’ to Islam as a prerequisite to getting married into the Pataudi family?

If Dharmic faiths were ‘based on fear’, would your mother and your first wife have lived peacefully after discarding these faiths

Then you claim, “The good news is that no one needs to convert from their religion to get married. The Special Marriage Act, when applicable, is the paramount law of the land.” Well, the Special Marriage Act was in effect from 1954 (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/4234/) and your parents got married fifteen years later in 1969 – did you ever ask them why your mother needed to convert from her religion instead of getting married under that Act?

And then, “A major concern in today’s India is that we keep deleting our past.” Well, Mr. Saif, it is not ‘in today’s India’ that the deleting of our past has started. It started in medieval India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath#Timeline) itself, and was brutal, barbaric and prolonged.

And then you try your hand at victim mongering with, “To say Muslims don’t have a role in India is denying their importance and contribution.” Isn’t this another attempt to play victim? Otherwise, when you want to discuss the ‘importance and contribution’ of Muslims in India, would you also discuss their role in killing millions of Hindus and destroying thousands of temples since the medieval ages? Also, Mr. Saif, can we openly discuss the role of Muslims in the forced conversions of Hindus and in the Partition of India?

Saif Kareena

Continuing this streak of Islamic victimhood, you ask, “Why do we need to deny Islam?” Isn’t this an example of the old Latin saying suppressio veri, suggestio falsi (suppress the truth & suggest the false)? You not only suppress the truth that it is Islam which denies the validity of Dharmic faiths but you also speak the untruth that Islam is being denied its validity by Dharmic faiths!

And although your mother and your first and second wife (Kareena Kapoor Khan) converted to Islam for marriage and your siblings and your children are all Muslims, you claim, “I don’t know what ‘love jihad’ is.” This being the reality of the record of your family’s marriages, and you still claim that you don’t know what ‘love jihad’ is, it can only mean that you know well what hypocrisy is.

With the same hypocrisy, you claim, “I know intermarriages because I am a child of one and my children are born out of it.” Isn’t this a double whammy of the Latin saying suppressio veri, suggestio falsi?

Mr. Saif, can we openly discuss the role of Muslims in the forced conversions of Hindus and in the Partition of India?

First, you suppress the truth that your mother converted to your father’s religion for marriage and then suggest the untruth that theirs was an ‘intermarriage’! Second, you suppress the truth that your first wife too converted to your religion for marriage and then suggest the untruth that yours was an ‘intermarriage’! May I know how they could have been ‘intermarriages’, in any meaningful manner, when both the spouses (in both the marriages) follow the same religion whether by birth or by conversion? For it to be a true ‘intermarriage’, the basic requirement must be that the spouses follow different religions – correct? The moment one of them converts to the other’s religion, both of them have the same religion – right? How can the marriage between spouses who have the same religion be an ‘intermarriage’?

Without understanding what a true ‘intermarriage’ is, you assert, “India is a mix.” In that case, why did your family homogenise that ‘mix’ by getting the brides converted to the grooms’ religion? Even if the brides converted ‘voluntarily’, it would only mean that they were liberal – not their grooms. In fact, more than the brides, their maiden families (your maternal grandparents and your previous in-laws, respectively) were the true liberals since they did not object to the conversions of their daughters. What does that say about your family which insisted on (or, at least, were happy with) the conversions of their daughters-in-law?

In order to prove your family’s secularism, you claim, “I am the product of such a mixed marriage and my life has been full of Eid and Holi”. Aren’t you practising the Islamic concept of taqiyya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya) here? Are you sure that you celebrated Holi all your life? As a child, weren’t you threatened by your Muslim servants that playing Holi would result in being “flayed in heaven with cat–o–nine–tails” (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/august98/saif.htm)? When the atmosphere at your home was so Hinduphobic, how can you claim that your ‘life has been full of Eid and Holi’?

How can the marriage between spouses who have the same religion be an ‘intermarriage’?

You top up that taqiyya with another one when you claim, “We were taught to do adaab and namaste with equal reverence.” If you ‘were taught to do adaab and namaste with equal reverence’, how is it that you spoke of ‘adaab’ alone as coming “naturally” to you in 1998 (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/august98/saif.htm)? Had your family really been so open-minded, why is it that “the servants were all devout Muslims?” (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/august98/saif.htm)

And one more taqiyya follows, “My children were born Muslim but they live like Hindus (with a pooja ghar at home), and if they wanted to be Buddhist, they would have my blessing. That’s how we were brought up.”

Had your upbringing really been so secular, how is it that your mother and your first wife converted to Islam? Had you really  been brought up that way, why did you say that “With my maternal grandparents I never discussed religion?” (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/august98/saif.htm)

Pretending to be secular, you write, “It is our differences that make us who we are.” May I know why your family wiped out the differences by getting the daughters-in-law converted to Islam?

Then you lament, “We are most certainly not a secular country.” Isn’t it quite pathetic to assert that you are a secular family but we ‘are not a secular country’?

  • Had we not been ‘a secular country’, would your mother have been so popular even after discarding the majority religion?
  • Had we not been ‘a secular country’, would your father have been so popular even after getting his wife to convert to a minority religion?
  • Had we not been ‘a secular country’, would you have been so popular even after getting both your wives converted to a religion which caused the Partition of this country?
  • Had we not been ‘a secular country’, would so many Presidents, Vice-Presidents, one Prime Minister, Chief Justices, Governors, Chief Ministers, Army Chiefs, Navy Chiefs, Air Chiefs, Police Chiefs, sports stars, film stars etc. be from ‘minority’ communities? In fact, is there ANY other country where considerable numbers of people from minority communities have risen to such positions?
  • Had we not been ‘a secular country’, would the population percentage of the largest ‘minority’ been increasing every census?

As you have relatives in the neighbouring country of Pakistan, would you kindly tell us whether that country also should become secular or grow more and more Islamic?

And finally, towards the end, you write, “Teach our children about god and his thousand names”.

Well, dharmic faiths like Sanatana Dharma believe not only in ‘thousand names’ of god but in millions of gods. In fact, pagans like Hindus believe not only in male gods (for whom you have used the pronoun ‘his’) but also female deities. Perhaps, you and the male members of your family could learn some true secularism from them. So there is no need for you to teach Hindus what they already know.

And if you still haven’t understood, here it is: the Pataudi family’s precondition that non-Muslim brides must convert to Islam in order to marry its male members is but one of the ways in which Love Jihad is practiced.

Thanking You,
Sincerely Yours ,

A communal, bigoted, Hindu fascist

IndiaFacts Staff articles, reports and guest pieces
  • RamKumar Chute

    Could the author please describe why Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are forced to be labelled as Hindus against their will under the constitution?

  • Bhuvan Chaturvedi

    Please write an open letter to the two Mrs Pataudis for having no qualms about converting. Do they not have any pride in being Hindus? Also their families – the Tagores and Kapoors – what spineless people! We had people like Guru Tegh Bahadur and Sambhaji who suffered extreme torture but did not convert. Some years back in my own family, one girl became victim of love jihad. Her father told her that if she converts, she would be dead in his eyes, and he kept his word. This sounds terribly feudal and all that, but there are some values and principles that require sacrifices to be upheld.

  • Rajni

    royal from village patodi these moronic titles nawab have no meaning in democratic India does this moo-ran know there is no place for title nawab in Indian democracy his mother after conversion to islam has lost her mind by Anointed Nawab Of Pataudi titel on her son it is height of hypocrisy

  • jadumandir

    But a majority of 80% of Hindu Indians will still support these supreme hypocrites by going to watch them and their dumb movies! The fault lies greatly with us, the Hindus. Repeating over and over again that we are truly secular thus sounds extremely hollow now! This is how the muzzies rule over us and still do in bollywood!

  • skn

    Can the author shed more light on this article in wake of Langur ali khan naming his new-born as Taimur ali khan??

  • Reshma

    In Islam or christianity, one can convert into the belief from the heart and embrace that religion. But in Hinduism you need to be born a Hindu…u cant convert to Hinduism. So if one starts going to temple or practice Havan or Pooja or pray to Lord Ganesha etc…at the end, hindus just look at you and say…he/she is just pretending to be secular…but he is not. Even if muslim girls dont wear hijab or even sport a Bindi…they would say…she is a confused muslim. Btw if Hindusim is sucha sacred religion…then why cant Dalits convert to Brahmins?

    Reading all these comments one realize that People have really lost their democratic beliefs. Probably they should start forming constitutions based on religion. If you have a mixed society with people from all kinds of religious groups in the same country, its only imperative that some may end up liking or loving another person from another cast or religion…they may end up marrying and they may both decide on a certain way of life for each other and their kids ?! It cud be secular and they may do their wedding formalities as per one particular religion for convinience sake. Else why do we see sharmila in bindis and not with a viel or hijab ? Why dont u all leave the judgement to God on their religious values. Who are we all to judge them ?

  • Prinz

    Well said ! U have exposed Jihadis hiding behind secular facade. All Filmy khans r same. Indians by passport and PAKIs by Heart. Luckily today’s kids understand this. And one who don’t will get it by reading such perfect articles. Next time proudly write your name as VIRAAT HINDU 🙂

  • Ranjit Ballal

    SAK is not necessarily a very intelligent and knowledgeable person. The write up in IE is probably written with someone’s help. Just live him alone. Pataudis are a modern Muslims and certainly not brides in burqa or stopping them from visiting temples or practice their own religion. So please leave him alone, it is not worth wasting your time on these people, they are just Muslim in name.They drink alcohal and eat pork sausages.

  • Hocus Pocus

    this is the fault of our govt. after partition, the rules shud have been all muslims in muslim india—pak and bangladesh. and all non muslims in india. and islam not a recognized religion of india as it is not compatible with our constitution. no muslim shud be allowed to live, own property or have citizenship in india as they have muslim india. any non muslim citizen of india who wants to convert to islam shud be allowed to do so, but he/she needs to move over to muslim india—pak/b’desh, as our populations shud always be separated with borders.

    then their would be no “communal hindu”

    saif is just using taqqiya and the art of victimhood muslims use, and the one sided biasness that muslims have, where tolerance and “secularism” is only one sided when its for the use of muslims and islam. he is a total islamists. i personally beleive that his father as well as his other male relatives shud have been assasinated. maybe that would have made his fraternal grandparents flee to muslim india—pak.

    islam is peace, but i dont want to live in a muslim country….lol!

  • Dr. MS

    To sign it the way you did was stupid. Why give yourself a title that will be circulated as just that.

    Let me ask this, “Why do you Hindu men raise stupid dumb insecure daughters that convert easily when they are seduced, loved or invited into a grand marriage?” Why?

    If you treated your women with respect, equality and with the right attention (where love does not come with too many social levies ; care does not come with constraints ; respect does not come with too many restraints and inclusion does not come with indictments) women would not feel the need to search elsewhere for love or respect or belonging. Emotional adventure and curiosity are a different thing, and a good thing: as men and women who take love risks are strengthened by intimate experiences across class, caste, sectarian, religious, ethnic, national lines. India was founded on the latter.

    But conversion by our pretty women directly correlates to men producing or raising or validating only “pretty dumb women”…who in the end go to the highest bidder or to the one biggest bluster (with no content). What does that say about the kind of daughters you birth, raise and exclude or include?

    I married way across all lines and boundaries and I did not convert. Men who want conversion would never attract me. But clearly I am an exception in a country where women, like gigi dolls either shake their head in agreement to everything, or run off with the first “nice or attentive” idiot or cunning manipulator in town.

    You Hindu men must respect your intelligent women and not attack them the way some of you have attacked me over and over again, even on the net. I do not convert…but I don’t trust many of you either. You don’t draw my attraction or my trust.

    And these women who convert are beautiful women who are not always smart or strong. What does that say about their Hindu families or their upbringing or their cultural priorities? These guys who convert them know how to pick them, how to pick their brains or emotions…and then convert them.

    Hindu men, after all these experiences which has been historical, must keep your smart women from converting. Because once they start converting Hindus will really weaken in the genetic pool and their strengths.

    Hindu men, out of weak ego, petty provincialism, arrogance, rigidity and lack of unity, have depended on compliant congenial servile, forever nurturing mothering, women to feel good about themselves. And this has distanced smart intelligent educated single women (including older women) ; bold brave divorced women and widows (who need sympathy and support).

    Historically the gene pool of Hindus have become weak because the kind of women who should be included, respected, having children, raising children and in leadership, have been ostracized or excluded by weak stupid egotistical Hindu men. And now you are paying the prize. Lot of dumb pretty (some fair) women are born to stupid Hindu men married to pretty bimbos…and then they convert. What did you expect?

    Now start breeding with amazingly smart women, strong women, warrior women, leadership women and even older women. And if you cannot breed with them at least promote them to leadership positions. You cannot afford not to.

    Let dumb weak insecure women go. Now keep your smart strong women…and get them into leadership roles.

  • shuaiz

    some of article is good while some of it is baseless allegation.
    kareena kapoor didn’t convert

  • SuchindranathAiyer

    Taqiya, Murram, Kitman (suppressio veri, suggestio falsi) and so on flow in the blood of the Mussalman like the Quran and the Hadiths. This entire article hinges on the principal falsehood of the Indian Republic and other suicidal nations. The assumption that Moslems are not Moslems necessitating that it be established that, indeed, they are. Over and over again. As if this makes any impression on the ruling scum of the World’s “Democracies” who imitate the Struthonian principles of their vote fodder whom they have kept less educated and aware than even themselves! “Struthonian” was coined from “Struthos” (Ostrich in Greek) that buries its head in the sands, by Arthur Koestler. “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” (To supress the truth and suggest the false: a legal maxim from Roman Law)

  • Hera Ahmed

    What are you talking about when u say ” the muslim’s role in the forced conversion of Hindus?” Really??!!* sarcastically * if Hindus were converted forcefully you think that India which has a majority of Hindus would keep quiet?? Forget all that! If actually muslims had to convert Hindus, we had years of Mughal rule! Do u think that any of u ‘ Hindus’ would even remain?? U would all supposedly be Muslims and would not even be writing this damn piece of article!! And plus do you know dude that you are really making hell of an accusation by stating that islam is the reason why India split! Is islam also the reason why India further split into states??? Stop mixing political reasons with religious ones!! And what love jihad are you talking about?? If a Hindu girl marries a muslim man, its love jihad! And if it happens vice versa?? What is that?? Love dharam?? And I am not a big fan of the Pataudi family and their ways, but mr. Communal, bigoted Hindu fasict, ur facts are wrong! 100% wrong! Kareena Kapoor did NOT convert to Islam ! If the pataudis were practising your so called love jihad they wouldn’t have let this be! They would have forced Kareena to convert as well! And they wouldn’t have let their daughter marry a non muslim as well!! So basically ur conclusion was 110% WRONG!

  • ashok v patil

    If Saif conisders himself an Indian, He must think himself as a hindu also. If he thinks he belongs to both religions, He must atleast name his children with Hindu names. Visit temples. Attend Bhajans etc….

  • Pingback: Marriage Law (Amendment) Bill: Bahut bure din for Hindu families | IndiaFacts()

  • Pingback: Dear Aswathy Senan: A Hindu woman married to a Muslim man | IndiaFacts()

  • Rocky John

    Clear Case of Love Jihad..Every Muslim thinks only religion religion and religion…….Even Shahrukh Khan Why was he dying to produce 3rd child so he has to use a surrogate. Don’t he know anything about Bacche 2 hi Acche………or For Muslims Bacche jyada se jyada acche.

  • Peter Aremone

    Nailed it in the head – this fellow Saif is just another ISIS like jihadi bent on slaving non-muslim girls to ensure reproductive holocaust of non-muslims.

  • Pallavi Kapoor

    Rubbish,how could an indian express writer write like this.When god created us he doesn’t created such differences,then who are we to distinguish people on the basis of religion,caste or creed.Grow up man!! All developing countries are growing because they don’t give heed to such things.

    I am Hindu but still worship at mosque,church and gurdwara.Grow up if u guys want a prosper nation.These are pity issues.LIVE AND LET LIVE.

  • atul

    Read all the comments made by my fellow indians. Its good that all of you are expressing your views. dont forget one thing RELIGION HAS BEEN INVENTED BY HUMANS and that is the reason there are so many of them. Each group wants to believe that there invention(religion) is the best and flawless. We all believe in one thing though that there is a creator who created this universe and we worship him in different forms. How can any man made invention( religion) be perfect when even the creators products (humans and other lifeform) have flaws. the creator has given us a far superior brain than other lifeforms to identify our flaws and overcome them. The creator wants us to be good human beings. Identify the flaws in your religion and let go of them .dont say my religion is flawless coz then you will be fooling youself. This is my reply to all your comments . i hope most of you will agree.

  • Bhuvika

    looks like my comment was deleted. that’s a surprise move from someone who clearly believes in freedom of speech and expressing ones views. though my post had not a single cuss word or disrespect intended. Applaud to you.

  • Bhuvika

    you proved to be an excellent journalist. with so much time to do so much research.
    but sadly it is people like you who spread hatred.
    the new gen muslims even if they try to stick to the teachings of peace of their faith will eventually be pushed towards hatred by such in depth and cruel postmortem of every word they utter. beautifully you have showed the wrong as worse and right as wrong. of course there some wrongs but he is human after all. you truly are a master of your art.
    where does all this anger come from? any personal past bad experience that has left permanent scar on your soul? Allah bless you! by that i mean may the creator of this universe bless you which one faith believes truly that is just one energy and not idols. thats their belief why do you have a problem with that? thats why they cant be dubious and believe in their teachings and still believe in other Gods. because many in past and i agree many took the path of violence and cruel acts and mayb still do how can you generalise that all and each and every person of this faith is the same?
    i am a hindu married to hindu but intercaste had to change my entire name alongwith surname, give up all rituals the way they were done at my mothers house and learn from scratch all ritual, language, cooking style everything to be finally able to get respect and acceptably from my husbands family and extended family and trust me it has left scars on my being but i had no choice. My new house was more god fearing than my previous so more poojas, more fasting or else husband would die or poverty will sneak in.
    so yes this is indian culture a wife does change everything for her husband. The west makes fun of it and simply cannot understand.
    similarly its fine if you cannot understand that mayb the wives were eventually ok to make this change for being accepted in the extended family and in general in their new life. i have seen muslim women marry hindu men and accepting their rituals and religion.

    i as a person say i am an artist’s daughter. that was my dad. mom was a house wife. not that i love or respect or give less significance to my mothers role in my life. but we usually tend to grow up idolizing one of our parent. its human nature.

    maybe you have read The Bhagwat Geeta through and through and can quote from it every word it says. but tell me how many hindus are like you? so maybe this person you decide to attack has read the Quran and not the Geeta in depth. he is an actor not a religious scholar. if at heart he feels both hindu and muslim by this age let him be. how is he responsible for his mothers religion conversion? how old was he when he got married first? mayb he did not have much say that time. we all go through this in our lives. our beliefs change, we as people change whats wrong in that. why should someone laugh at something i say now just because years back i had said something else.

    well half way through i had to stop reading because i seriously could not understand who has given me the right to read through this interference in some one else beliefs and life.

    i hope you dont have enough time to run my lines one by one through a rollercoaster. i am scared.

    • Paroma Das

      Why are you so “scared” of your lines being run through one by one? Because it would expose your Hindu-hatred?

      You say, “Allah bless you” & then say “i am a hindu married to hindu” – are you inspired by Saif’s taqiya?

      And just because you believe Allah to be “the creator of this universe”, why are you trying to impose your belief on others? But your claim that “one faith believes truly that is just one energy and not idols” reveals your Islamic supremacism & iconoclasm.

      You also write, ” they cant be dubious and believe in their teachings and still believe in other Gods.” By trying to hide the intolerance of Muslims for other faiths, you betray your real faith once again.

      When you say, “mayb the wives were eventually ok to make this change for being accepted in the extended family”, don’t you thnik that such families should not claim to be secular, liberal, open-minded etc?

      You ask, “how is he responsible for his mothers religion conversion?” But why is he praising his paternal granny who probably insisted on his mother’s conversion? Why is he silent about the pain which his MATERNAL grandparents must have undergone when his mother left their religion & embraced another? If his maternal grandparents were okay with Sharmila’s (renamed as Ayesha) conversion, it would prove that THEY were secular – not his paternal grandmother.

      You defend Saif by asking, “how old was he when he got married first?” But how old is he when he wrote that article in ‘The Indian Express’ claiming to be secular? Why can’t he at least admit that he was an Islamist earlier & so was his paternal family?

      You call this letter an “interference in some one else beliefs and life”. You hide the fact that it was SAIF who was boasting about the secularism of his beliefs & life. When he is ready to show off his family, why can’t he also face criticism for the same? Also, it is CONVERSION which is an “interference in some one else beliefs and life.” Hindus don’t convert people of other religions – that is why Hindu-majority countries are essentially secular.

  • GameChanger

    Two consenting adults marry, one decides to adopt others religious philosophy, why is that a problem, again?

    • Paroma Das

      Yes – why should Islam award the death sentence for those who leave it (apostates) & adopt another religious philosophy?

  • GameChanger

    The only thing honest about the article is how it is signed, else the person seems deeply confused.

    • Paroma Das

      Can you give any example of the writer’s ‘confusion’ or would that be too confusing for you?

      • GameChanger

        Absolutely. Islam provides a complete legal system to its followers which is robust and consistent as a legal system should be. So if one wishes to marry within that legal system, ie to perform Nikah which is a legally binding signed contract, then both the parties signing to it should accept the law under which they are signing the contract else the contract is null and void. That is the reason if one of the spouse, renounces Islam, the marraige automatically gets annulled. If someone wants to marry another person under anyother faith than there is no compulsion to convert. Infact there can be numerous examples where interfaith marraiges happen where muslims marry under civil law without any conversion. I hipe I cleared the confusion.

        • Paroma Das

          Instead of having “cleared” any confusion, you have only EXPOSED your confusion.

          When you claim that “Islam provides a complete legal system”, it exposes your confusion about legal systems – your claim exposes that you are unaware of the absolute necessity of legal systems being completely SECULAR. By bringing in Islam, a religion related to a particular community, you are COMMUNALISING legal systems.

          As you are more interested in Islam than in secularism, you will not be able to catch the HYPOCRISY of Saif Ali Khan’s article in which he disguises his & his paternal family’s communalism as secularism. After all, Islam is against secularism – especially when Muslims are in a majority.

          • GameChanger

            I am not obliged to respond to prejudices only to logical arguments.

          • Paroma Das

            But you better disguise your Islamic supremacy as secularism before it gets called out for what it is.

          • GameChanger

            I have never used the word secularism in my post so you may be imagining things. As far as Islamic superamacy, it is a superior religion compared to the older pagan beliefs which is evident why so many people the world over convert to Islam.

          • Paroma Das

            I never said that you “used the word secularism” – why would you when you (being an Islamist) do not believe in it? – so it is YOU who are imagining things.

            And “so many people the world over convert to Islam” is because it is an under-confident & anxious cult which keeps hunting for neo-converts in order to assure the existing flock that it is taking them along the only ‘true’ path. Unlike Islam, “older pagan beliefs” are confident & self-assured – they do NOT look for converts since they do not believe that any one path can be the only ‘true’ path.
            In the medieval ages, Islam got converts through the sword; in the modern ages, it gets converts through petro-dollars. Unlike Islam, “older pagan beliefs” are neither violent not wealthy.

            So, Islamic supremacism is nothing to be proud of – but the choice is yours.

          • GameChanger

            The fact that you are worried about, like the author of the letter, that pagans convert to Islam to marry muslims is not the best show of self confidence that you talk about in the last post.

            All I am saying in my original post is, that if Islam is not the law of the land, the marrying couples are not required to solemnise their marraige under Islamic law in which case there is no requirement to convert. If they however, do choose to solemnise the marraige under Islamic law, both parties in the contract should accept that law and thus be muslims. How tough is that to understand.

            I am not saying anything against yours or any other religion, I am just pointing out a logical reason why non muslims convert to Islam when getting married.

          • Paroma Das

            Even if the letter writer is “worried about” pagans converting to islam, I do not see him/her advocating the death penalty for those who leave – this is in direct contrast with islam which is SO worried about muslims converting out (apostates) that it has mandated the death sentence for them according to your so-called “complete legal system”. So, between them, who is more confident of its faith?

            When you write of “marraige under Islamic law”, you again expose your ignorance about law in a secular country – you seem not to know that India is a secular country & other secular countries like the USA or UK do NOT have any religion-specific laws even for marriage. In fact, that is why the Constitution of India has directed a Uniform Civil Code for ALL citizens irrespective of their religions. And I am writing about secularism because Saif & I are both citizens of India which remains secular (even after suffering a communal Partition). How tough is that to understand?

            You think “I am not saying anything against yours or any other religion” but then you are saying everything in favour of YOUR religion & THAT is the symptom of Islamic supremacism (which is nothing to be proud of really).

            You claim to be “pointing out a logical reason why non muslims convert to Islam when getting married.” However, you conceal the REAL reasons – that muslims are indoctrinated / brainwashed from childhood into believing that theirs is the only ‘true’ faith & hence they try to convert non-muslims who give more value to human feelings like love than to beliefs of religious supremacy.

          • GameChanger

            The last time I checked uniform civil law was not yet implemented in India.
            Secondly, as far as who is brainwashed one just need to read your posts and mine.

          • Paroma Das

            The UCC is not implemented in India yet only due to the tolerance of those whom you derisively call “pagans” for their less-tolerant Islamic co-citizens.

            After reading your supremacist claims on Islam’s conversions, surely readers will know “who is brainwashed”.

          • GameChanger

            I agree with you there, but then those pagan religions are still around in India because of the tolerance of the Muslim rulers who ruled the country for a thousand years. We should recognize both 🙂

          • Paroma Das

            Yes, “the tolerance of the Muslim rulers who ruled the country for a thousand years” is seen from the 1000s of temples which were demolished or desecrated & mosques erected atop the ruins, from the records of those rulers who have proudly written about the 1000s of kafirs they killed for refusing to convert, from the Jauhar performed by 1000s of Hindu women to avoid being abducted by muslim hordes, from the jaziya imposed by muslim rulers on non-muslim subjects etc.

            And “those pagan religions are still around in India” not because of any ‘tolerance’ by muslim rulers but because of their vast numbers – the natives were just too many to kill or convert. Another reason was the advent of the Europeans, particularly the British, which put an end to the barbaric muslim rule.

          • GameChanger

            The problem is that the emerging neo facists of India twist history to fit their twisted narrative. May I remind you that every Mughal king since Akbar had a Hindu wife, who were allowed to follow their religion. You will even see the temple in the royal palace in Agra, which clearly does not paint a picture of kings who were out their killing and converting people.

          • Paroma Das

            The easiest way to win a debate is to call the opponent names like “neo facists” & their dismiss their arguments as “twisted narrative.”

            If “every Mughal king since Akbar had a Hindu wife”, how is it that none of those kings let their DAUGHTERS or SISTERS marry Hindu men? Why were all the Hindu-Muslim marriages so one-way? Also, if the kings were so secular, why is it that all the children born out of Hindu wives were brought up as Muslims? Why did secularism go thus far and no further? Or was it just taqiya to fool Hindu subjects?

            The fact is that the muslim kings FORCED Hindus to give their daughters in marriage to them but never let any muslim woman marry Hindus. Moreover, all the Hindu wives were converted to Islam – Akbar was the only 1 to give them some amount of religious freedom. His son Jahangir & grandson Shahjahan hated Hindus, not to speak anything of the Hindu hatred of Akbar’s great grandson Aurangzeb. The only good thing about them was that they did not try to hide their Islamic supremacism – the facts are well documented in books like Ain-i-Akbari & Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri.

          • GameChanger

            Can you remind me of any Hindu dynasty where inter religious marraige was a custom for centuries? Clearly shows how broad minded the Mughals were.
            By the way Ain e Akbari is the constitution of Akbar, it does not a historical record.

          • Paroma Das

            “how broad minded the Mughals were” I have already posted earlier – how their “inter religious marraige” was merely one-sided, indicative of coercion & taqiya.

            If you claim that Ain-i-Akbari was “not a historical record”, perhaps you want some videographic evidence of Akbar’s cunning. Last time I checked the video had not been invented during the Mughal era.

          • GameChanger

            I think the onesided nature of marraiges was because muslims did never find the same intellectual appeal in the local religion. As i said earlier that Islam is a more advanced and intellectually appealing compared to the older pagan beliefs.

          • Paroma Das

            I think the onesided nature of marraiges was because muslims, being religious supremacists, are never able to accept that theirs need not be the only ‘true’ religion. As I said earlier that Islam is much more violent & barbaric compared to the older pagan beliefs.

          • GameChanger

            The thing about truth is that it is alway one and only.

          • Paroma Das

            The thing about truth is that it is ALWAYS more than one – unless if you refuse to see it, of course.

          • Guest

            Actually… that story is false.Mughal king did not have a hindu wife who did not convert. That is just a fairy tale.

  • Jainesh
  • স্মৃতিলেখা চক্রবর্ত্তী

    A Brutal, harsh truth spoken like a true brutal!
    Here’s a salute, from one Hindu fascist to another…

  • RajeevS

    Beautiful. Kya joota maara hai bhigo ke..

  • Sujata Patnaik

    “communal,bigoted, Hindu fascist”….that was the killer stroke!, what a brilliant, reasoned, deadly rebuttal..poor saif, who probably had his piece ‘ghost-written’ should now ask the same pr-ghost to respond to this….

  • ritu kaur

    Mr. Chatrpati akula and Paroma..U all r same..U r among those people who also want to use UNGLI..If anybody doing a right thing U can’t see it..Ap bs usko ungli karoge..Poor Saif.He was jst trying make his point k dere is no existence of LOVE JIHAAD n all..Even those two people who fell in Love knows how it comes !! Politician use It becz of their own profit & thnx 2 U guyz who made it possible..dats why I used DUMB word..becz U all r educated bt! n Both of U Mr. Chatrpati n Paroma..I’m nt here to show How Strong I’m in arguments..uske lie Parliament bna hai

    • Chatrapathi Akula

      Oh! Wait a sec! Yo people, you reading here? Someone’s doing the right thing here itseems….! Alright enlighten me! Who is doing right and What? If you are going to tell me that Love Jihad doesn’t exist…well I am sorry to say, it does! There can be no better proof than UK itself. Where I live, the newspapers have open calls to Muslim men, to seduce Sikh women, girls into marriage and convert them. Girls as young as 13 are drugged and raped. If UK is not proof enough, check out Denmark or Netherlands. You will have enough proof if you look enough at Europe. So if your ilk tells us that Love Jihad is some conspiracy BS, no one here is so low in IQ to not be able to comprehend it. So get your facts right first.

      • Shubhangi Raykar

        Not only does it exist but is allowed to perpetrate because of the politically coward behaviour of the British Police.

  • Sabeer Abdulla

    ” With playful gods like Krishna” – Oh boy !!! Is the author aware of a huge tome called the Mahabharatha, of which the Bhagavad Gita is a part of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita] ? And if so, has he read it ? In it Krishna as the charioteer of Arjuna and conscience keeper, counsels Arjuna to kill in the name of Dharma Yudh (Jihad, anyone????), even if those he’s supposed to kill is his own family. Very playful that !!!

    And this is the person whose article we are supposed to take seriously, especially when it accuses others of hypocrisy (,to put it mildly) ?

    • Paroma Das

      What you derisively call “a huge tome” is what knowledgeable people know as the LONGEST EPIC IN THE WORLD – the Mahabharata.

      And ‘Dharma Yudh’ is to be fought against immoral people like the Kauravas who refuse to return even a single plot of land to their cousins Pandavas though the latter underwent 14 years of exile in forests. On the other hand ‘Jihad’ is to be fought against kafirs like Hindus who refuse to accept that there is no god but allah and that mohammad is his last prophet.

      However, you are free to believe that Krishna is more violent than allah. Such belief would not be proof of your “hypocrisy” but of ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM.

      • GameChanger

        Interesting, the kauravas were immoral because they won in the game of dice while Pandavas were epitome of morality even though they were ready to put everything including their wife at stake.

        • Paroma Das

          Pandavas were NOT moral but then they underwent 14 years of exile in forests. But you would want them to be denied even a single plot of land after their return just because Krishna supported them. A great sense of justice you have!

          • GameChanger

            Do you really think that anyome who gambles away their kingdom ever deserve to rule it. Gimme a break!

          • Paroma Das

            Didn’t the Kauravas ALSO gamble? Didn’t they break their side of the agreement after the Pandavas returned from 14 years of exile? But you think that it was alright for THOSE gamblers & turncoats to rule – but when genocidal paedophiles have ruled in medieval deserts, I can see why you would have liked Kauravas to rule ancient India.

          • GameChanger

            Honestly, I dont care who should rule ancient India but in my opinion ones who are ready to gamble away the future of their subjects and their wives – which they are supposed to protect have no business to ever rule again or even to get back their wife for that matter. But thats just my logical mind, you are free to differe.

          • Paroma Das

            It was NOT a question of ruling but just getting back the Pandavas’ share of property after having suffered 14 years of exile in forests due to their misdemeanor.

            So, it is NOT your “logical mind” but your HINDUPHOBIC mind which wants to question Lord Krishna’s support to Pandavas in their struggle for justice.

          • GameChanger

            That “property” was part of the kingdom. But its ok, i dont want to argue on mythological folklore.

          • Paroma Das

            Of course, it was “part of the kingdom” – in fact, that itself shows that the Pandavas were NOT keen to conquer OTHER kingdoms but only to get their rightful share in their ancestral kingdom.
            And, after arguing so much, you declare “i dont want to argue” – LOL!

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            This is all anachronistic. In those days playing dyut was supposed to be done by kings and noble men

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            BTW, it was Draupadi who sowed the war seeds! 🙂

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            BTW, it was Draupadi who sowed the war seeds! 🙂

        • Shubhangi Raykar

          They won deceitfully. shakuni cheated them.
          Kauravas did several other things. Krishna had asked for at least five villages for five brothers which also the egotist Duryodhan refused and said he would not give the soil on the end of a needle.

          • GameChanger

            This is how I see it- they play the game of dice which you say was perfectly legal at that time. Were shameless enough to treat their wife as a commodity and wager her in the game. They lost, started behaving like a loser cry babies, the krishna guy begged to kaurvas to give 5 villages but they did not want to part from their spoils from the game which seems perfectly legitimate, the pandavas should have walked away instead of fighting for something they had legitimately lost.

      • Sabeer Abdulla

        “What you derisively call “a huge tome” is what knowledgeable people know as the LONGEST EPIC IN THE WORLD” – No, a “huge tome” means just that, it’s huge (aka long) and it’s a tome (https://www.google.co.in/search?q=define+tome) : ” a book, especially a large, heavy, scholarly one.” synonyms: volume, book, work, opus, writing, publication, title. There’s nothing derisive about it except what you project onto it from yourself.

        “And ‘Dharma Yudh’ is to be fought against immoral people like the Kauravas who refuse to return even a single plot of land to their cousins Pandavas though the latter underwent 14 years of exile in forests.” – The fact that you fail to see the similarity to the Prophet Muhammed PBUH being exiled from Makkah by the Quraish and returning triumphantly after 13 years, either shows you’re ignorant of the history of Islam which you are “discussing” or just plain blind to facts if you knew the history. And not to mention you think the Pandavas who were exiled can fight for their home land even against their own relatives but Muslims cannot fight against people who take away their lands ??

        “On the other hand ‘Jihad’ is to be fought against kafirs like Hindus who refuse to accept that there is no god but allah and that mohammad is his last prophet.” – Again, ignorance showing through.

        “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” Qur’an Ch.2:V.256 (http://quran.com/2/256)

        FYI, jihad is the same as dharma yudh aka to fight against evil, not against unbelievers. Kafirs are by definition “people who know but don’t accept the truth” and commit evil acts knowing that those acts are evil.

        “you are free to believe that Krishna is more violent than allah” : Yeah, tell that to Shishupala [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishupala].

    • Dr. Maulik Vyas

      Valid point and upvoted. BUT the difference is the Dharma Yuddha (or Jihad in your terms?) was over and it has been never carried on till date! Said that, people became more civilized and tamed which I think lacks in the community ‘in concern’.

      • Sabeer Abdulla

        “Said that, people became more civilized and tamed” – Not according to hindu scriptures. After the death of krishna at the end of the Mahabharatha, the Kali Yuga started which is the age of vices meaning people become worse. So either the dharma yudh had no effect or people are becoming worse because no dharma yudh is happening. fighting against the vices and injustice in society is dharma yudh, which is the same definition as for jihad.

        “which I think lacks in the community ‘in concern'” – Every community has its bad elements but that doesn’t automatically mean that it is endorsed by the religion. Besides, what makes you say that the Muslims are not as civilised and tamed as the others ? Because they stand up for their rights and won’t give up without a fight ?

        • Guest

          Ha ha ha ha ha…

          What makes anyone say??… Just google terror attack… you’ll get your answer.

          Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Peshawar, Australia, Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Israel, Netherland… just to name a few.

          • Sabeer Abdulla

            “Just google terror attack… you’ll get your answer” – I’ve got better sources than the first link on the first page of google searches.

            According to Europol’s (that’s the European Union’s police force, FYI) statistics, less than 2% of terrorist attacks are even related to religious fundamentalism. The rest are by separatist groups. Of course, being ignorant as you are and not bothered enough to rectify that situation by anything more than cursory searches on google, you wouldn’t know that.

            Here, (try to) improve your knowledge.

            [https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/te-sat-2014-european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2014]

            [http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/]

    • Dr. Maulik Vyas

      Valid point and upvoted. BUT the difference is the Dharma Yuddha (or Jihad in your terms?) was over and it has been never carried on till date! Said that, people became more civilized and tamed which I think lacks in the community ‘in concern’.

    • Shubhangi Raykar

      You seem to be in mood to forgive the offences of Kauravas and their crony rajas. Dharm yudh is to punish them and reestablish the dharma.

  • usha krish

    I request TNIE not to publish articles from the likes of Mr.Khan.
    The roaring response from a reader like me is just the balm on the wound.
    Jai HIND

  • Jack Jack

    nailed it

  • ritu kaur

    Ridiculs article..actually U didn’t get the message at all or U didn’t want 2
    & vitasta ghosh U have done a gr8 Job..Bt koi faida nai,,They all just want 2 do politics in every aspect..they dnt care about their country even,,n Clap 4 Mr. Jainesh 2 for his idiotic views..I have never seen a dumb man like him..

    • Paroma Das

      Your words “Ridiculs”, “politics”, “idiotic” & “dumb” show how strong your argument is.

    • Chatrapathi Akula

      First of all do you realize that for one you haven’t spoken about what’s ridiculous about the article but you have the ostentatiousness to judge it. On the other hand Vitasta a has done nothing to contribute expect imply that the article is islamophobic, funny even is how certain people like herself fail to realize their islamophility. You seem to care about the country more it seems, is it the Idea of India sort of India? What’s funny is how dumb the arguments, name calling, etc., ilk of this kind makes and observe them from outside the country in relation to how the public debate is in say where I live. Where is your argument at all? In the comment you made except for name calling! You’re telling me, this is the best your ilk can do?

  • indrajit

    His great great grandfather took side of Afghani invaders when Marathas got engaged in 3rd Panipath WAR

  • Vitasta Ghosh

    Dear Communal, bigoted, Hindu Fascist, that is a poorly written article of an Islamophobiac. First thing, you in no way have been appointed as the spokesperson for the women who have been married Pataudi Family. I do not remember Kareena or Sharmila making you their representatives on an issue as personal as this one. Did you ever consider they had been given a choice of not converting? And yet they chose to convert!! May come as a surprise but that is true. Some people are more open-minded than you are. Moreover, you clearly have not understood some of the articles that you have provided links for in this open letter. For ex: the part where you mention “as a child in England, you told your headmaster that you are “a Muslim (sic)” in order to get the privilege of waking up late.” the truth is he regretted saying that because the privilege was taken away from him because Islam prayers are done very early in the morning. May be you thought nobody will take the pains of going through the entire article in the link, so let me just write whatever I can to make my letter look good!! This is just a pathetic attempt at picking up a fight which does not need to be fought, at least not by somebody as manipulative and biased as you! Leave them alone. They are happier and content than you could ever be with your sad life. I think its very irresponsible journalism!

    • Chatrapathi Akula

      Wassup, Islamophile! Neither have the same persons asked you to defend them. So stfu! And move on. They were given a choice of not converting you say, so again since you defend them, care to explain then why didn’t they retain their religion? Or in any case you can’t answer for them…answer this question for those women who are forced to convert to Islam after marriage..can you do that?

      • Vitasta Ghosh

        Let me correct you!! I am not an Islamophile. I don’t believe in religions. I think its a big farce and I do not care who converts or does not or whatever they want to do with their lives. I don’t judge people based on their religions! That is extremely illogical to do it! My point here was who gave the blogger the right to judge the conversion in this case. He does not know them personally, does he!! Neither Kareena or Sharmila have spoken about their plights after the conversion!! You guys are so naive and closed-minded that you just presume that their conversion was forced upon them. Open your minds and ask the same question to the ladies who converted instead of attacking the men here!! I pity the women who are forced to convert and I think nobody should be doing it against their will! In case you do understand what I am trying to convey feel free to write back in a civilised way. Don’t have to be rude to people just because you are hiding behind the screens of your computer.

        • Chatrapathi Akula

          If you feel, that me calling you can Islamophile and asking you to StFu and move on is rude, then enlighten me what is calling the author’s article islamophobic, stressing his satire of him being communcal, bigoted and fascist? Ooo…wait! I know, that’s hypocracy, and that’s for the third time, you’ve shown it. Since, you claim believe in religions and they are farce, I agree with you, that you are right religions are a farce, not much less than people who claim the same. Coming to the point that you’ve stressed so much, that the author doesn’t know the subject in question, let’s see, the subject in question doesn’t need an entry in an encyclopedia, now do they? Or let’s do something else, you make a list of what the author needs to know about the subject in question, and I as a foreign living Indian will write an open letter asking the same – “Listen, author, it seems like you need to know this stuff about the subject in question, please make these corrections since some people feel that its illogical to ‘judge’ people based on their religion”. Yeah, let’s do that. On the other point about voluntary conversion, the author has made it clear, which you again ignore to speak about, is that it makes the women liberal, not the other way around. So you’ve gone in a hyperbole over there. I won’t make a the mistake of accusing you of being close minded and neither have you the same, else we can get into the debate of who is and not, which is pointless. You know what’s more useful to the country than pity which no one deserves from you or cares or needs? What are you going to do about it other than pity for these women? The fact that you pity changes nothing except for what we call here, quackery for the sake of making it sound politically correct. Do you even read what you write or not?

          • Vitasta Ghosh

            Ok since you repeatedly feel the need to ask me if I read what I write, I must answer and say yes I do. But clearly you did not read the entire piece because I am not the one who called the author a communal, bigoted and hindu fascist, the author calls himself that and seems to me takes pride in being called the same. Please check the sign off of the article for the same! I am not a people pleaser Mr. Akula. I don’t feel the urge to be politically correct. To be honest here, I do not even understand what is that you are trying to defend, authors bigotry or your naivety towards this whole issue. I will rest my case now, I really don’t have anything to say to close-minded people such as you! You may start living your “foreign living Indian” life and stop worrying about issues that you do not understand or are too brainwashed to try and understand.

          • Chatrapathi Akula

            Well, there you have it, I clearly have written, that you stress the satire made by the author, which you haven’t clearly comprehended. Right, we get to the point of my defence now. I am defending against voices like yourself, as simple as that. I am defending against weak arguments, that don’t have the skill to rebut arguments but just end up calling names or outright just negating issues or denying their existence or even better, just call names in the names of false perceptions of ‘-isms’. Okay! Now what’s the intent behind quoting my life? I live outside the country, doesn’t mean I don’t have a say in issues that I am concerned with and follow everyday. Unlike you, if you do, I don’t sit down and listen to the Indian or British Media yapping about how secular they are and their farce, in your words. You neither have the say as to what I should take part in and not. For that matter, I have even pointed out your close-mindedness, which clearly is evident from the arguments you make. Your claims of religions being a farce, shows your ignorance or shall I say, carelessness or negligence or sheer arrogance towards the subject? Claims of us/me being close-minded/naive, bigoted, without telling us what the contrary case is shows, exposes your argument. Now again, will you realize it? No, the next will be again, similar to the arguments in tune, call names or better side-tracking issues, “I don’t have anything to speak to close-minded people like you”, Atleast your arguments have shown that you have nothing to offer as far as getting to the truth is concerne, evident from the Ad Hominems you make. But again, I accept what you say, that you are correct, that religion is as farce as the people who claim it to be so. We can have a debate as to why so. Neither have you shown, what according to you is non-close-mindedness is nor what is according to you non-bigotry is. I am sorry, if you say that inter-religious marriages need to be taken with an open-minded, I agree they should be within reasonable conditions/reasons for the same, I suggest you re-read the article in question and see from the author’s point of view. What it seems is difficult for you to understand is the fact that the outlook towards things in the article. I am stressing again, you perceive the article to what you perceive it to be. The fact that you aren’t able to see beyond this article, tells me – well, I need not say it. You should be able to guess it. Anyhow, like I said earlier and I will say it again, we can have a debate as to who is close-minded and not, naive and not, bigoted and not, as far as this article is concerned that shouldn’t have been an issue but you have made it one.

          • Chatrapathi Akula

            Oh one more thing, I missed, I don’t have a need to ask you nor did I need an answer to that satirical/rhetoric question in perspective.

    • Paroma Das

      Did you ever consider that even the MEN in the family (MAK Pataudi & Saif) could have converted to Hinduism instead of getting their respective wives converted to Islam? Or do you think that they never had that “choice” of converting out of Islam? Perhaps you know that the punishment of apostasy (leaving Islam) is death.

      • Vitasta Ghosh

        Clearly you have failed to understand my point or rather I have failed to convey it!! I am not judging the Khans or Kapoors or Sharmila or any of the convertees and convertors. I am solely judging the writer for this biased and manipulative piece which is trying to put some people that we know nothing about (personally) in bad light! And what is worse is that it only promotes friction between two communities, which is as it is a huge challenge that this country needs to overcome. As far as the choice is concerned I think of all the people here Kareena is the most headstrong (or so we know) person here. So if she thought it was against her will or she wanted Saif to convert to Hinduism she would have made him do it for her!! So what this might mean is she did not think it was necessary for Saif to do it or she does not give a flying shit about converting to whatever religion she was asked to convert to! Why cant we just accept that people dont take it as seriously as some of us are making it look.

        • Chatrapathi Akula

          First of all, both of your comments don’t see the point made by the author, for one thing, in the same lines as you commented in your first, you have not been appointed to defend either Saif or his family or in fact as you feel, the ‘threat’ from people like us to Indian religious harmony. We can have a debate about who really is a threat and what defines one. So putting that aside, you have also missed the point the author made that, in the case that it happens that the women’s side either converts out of free will or doesn’t give a shit about it to put it in your words…it makes them liberal but it doesn’t mask the point or throw away the truth that the male’s religion aka tradition demands that the female side if a non-Muslim be converted even if it’s a male. So your point specifically to saif is absurd since it goes beyond him. The article is trying to throw light on this practice and hypocracy in the Indian intellectuals and media about this issue. The fact that all religions are the same, and by calling a spade a spade someone is going to get hurt is absolute BS as long as it is true. This point you totally seem to ignore or not get or don’t bother speaking about. So it’s not the author who is biased but you, which you have evidently failed to realize in both your comments. In the second comment you contradict yourself by saying that the author brings about someone’s life you know nothing about in a bad light..,now that’s absurd don’t you think? If you don’t know that person how can you judge if the person is put in bad or good light? In fact what would you know if the bad or good lightof that person is true? Then you say, by doing this we are promoting friction, I agree that it has to be overcome.,but you dont speak about the real problematic community here. In fact you have remained silent about those who make protests and proclaim of their dominance to come and doing all sorts of crazy S to that extent, but when you find this author speak the truth about their tradition it becomes attack on Indian religious harmony? Are you high? Do you even read what you’ve written?

          • Vitasta Ghosh

            I do not see the author making this article generic in any way! All I see is, him attacking Saif and his family personally for his choice of words or actions! I am not defending anybody but I am against the piece because I think it does not add any kind of positivism, intellect or awareness about the critical issues that could have been discussed using this space that has clearly been wasted for something which does not effect us! As far as your comments are concerned I kind of have a feeling that they are more about proving me wrong rather than putting across your own point of view, which I am completely ok with! Whatever works for you sparky! If me being high is the only the thing you could infer from my comments then so be it!! What more can I say?

          • Chatrapathi Akula

            Yad bhavam tad bhavati – In case you don’t know, “You perceive as per your mental makeup”. So I need not comment about the first point. The fact that positivism, in the popular definition means to negate/ignore/denounce the negative is you know what I call it right? BS! That’s right BS! Since so far, in all the comment’s I made you don’t see my points either and perceive them to be an act to prove you wrong, again read my first line. You don’t perceive that this is not a critical issue, since you see it only for what you perceive it to be, Saif and his family. But you fail to look beyond the subject, and apply to the millions of women across the world. Forget, India for a second, and look at Europe, look at African nations, look at Indonesia, look at Chechnya, will you say the same? You seem to perceive that people like myself do not care about critical issues or intellectual debates or any of the sort and embrace petty/shoddy articles or hate mongering, well, I am sorry to say, you are wrong. But one thing that can be debated and I am open for the same, is your definition of ‘-isms’ , is not the same as mine. Example being Positivism, Fascism, Intellectualism, Secularism, Liberalism, Commualism, what not……! You can say anything you want really, we won’t attack you, we won’t issue threats against your life, or for that matter we won’t even care after few days. So go ahead and say whatever you want and can, while I will rebut point by point.

          • Paroma Das

            You have written, “All I see is, him attacking Saif and his family personally for his choice of words or actions!” However, you do not see that it is SAIF who paraded himself ‘and his family’ in his article – that too totally ignoring his maternal grandparents & his in-laws (the first set, certainly) who were the REAL seculars unlike his father & himself who got their respective wives converted ‘voluntarily’.

            In your earlier comment, you feared, “what is worse is that it only promotes friction between two communities”. As religious conversion means discarding one religion and adopting another, don’t you think that it is CONVERSION which ‘promotes friction between two communities’?

            When the author signed off as “A communal, bigoted, Hindu fascist”, his/her self-deprecating satire was not name-calling of OTHERS. On the other hand, it is YOU who is name-calling others in your comments.

            You claimed, “I do not care who converts or does not”. Well, it is SAIF’s family which cares ‘who converts or does not’. Not only that – instead of honestly ADMITTING his family’s history of conversions, he brazenly claims that they are secular! Nevertheless, you attack the LETTER writer!

      • Dr. Maulik Vyas

        Do you have a ‘choice’ to boycott your Hindu husband’s religion and rituals? Are you allowed to stay away when they are performing their pujas/yagyas? Again, as I said earlier, a girl marrying a boy from ANY RELIGION has to follow what husband’s family practices. The matter turns into a moot point because here, the religions are entirely different. My wife, though brahmin, HAS to follow what all we (different brahmin) do. Her KULDEVI is changed now who is our kuldevi, it’s hers too! WHY?

  • bansi

    The open response is informative and factual

  • N.Paramasivam

    This actor is not fit for any response. During our young days, I adored Md. Azaruddin for his cricket, like so many fellow Indians. But later when he was caught red handed in “match fixing” he told Media that he was hounded because of his religion Islam. That day he fell deep down in so may Indians regards. Like this, Sharmila Tagore, Amrita Singh, Kareena Kapoor are the people to be blamed. Kareena atleast maintained her self esteem and stood ground that she will not convert, for the sake of marriage. But the other two, ran behind as though there are no other men in world, leaving behind their rich cultural religion.
    The article is a super write up. Point by point rejoinder to the person, who thinks that he is intelligent and Indians are fools.
    Again, our Bollywood also to be blamed. They have not learnt any lesson from 26/11 or from Kasab mis-adventure. Emboldened by these Maharashtrians, the Bollywood under Aamirkhan used to send letters, signed by sicu people, advising other Indians of good moral values.

  • disqus_3L5yI4ePRl

    Rubbish! This is some jobless person who has nothing better to do than dissect the life of Saif Ali Khan. I agree that no one should be asked to convert their religion in order to get married, but what’s even more short-sighted is someone writing a whole thesis on it. Religion is immaterial, it is a personal right and choice, and it should not dictate how we view people or how the world is run…

    • Dr. Maulik Vyas

      spot on!

      • Paroma Das

        If “Religion is immaterial”, as disqus_3L5yl4ePRI claims it to be, why did SAIF’s family convert their brides to Islam?

        • Guest

          Go tell the muslim leaders that religion doesn’t matter and see what reply you get.Until then stfu with your champuness.Bloody 1d1ots

          (For your benefit,some verbal gems of the secular muslims)-

          -In Hyderabad, our Muslim population has crossed 50%, and now we are in
          majority. Therefore I demand the Administration to impose restrictions
          on celebration of Hindu festivals such as Ram-navami, Hanuman Jayanti
          etc. In the Bhagya-Lakshmi temple, near Char-Minar, we have already
          shown our strength by stopping the ringing of the Bell/gong. We Muslims
          will ensure that this temple is also destroyed. (Akbaruddin Owaisi,
          Sansad, Majlis-e-Ittehadul-Musalmeen, (AIMIM), Hyderabad, India.)

          -Hindus shouldn’t make the mistake of considering Indian-Muslims any
          different from the Pakistan-Muslims. If India may dare to attack
          Pakistan, then 25 crore Indian Muslims will join Pakistan Forces and
          fight against India. (Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament, MIM,
          Hyderabad.)

          -I regret the continuing of massacre of Hindus & Buddhists in
          Bangladesh, but Bangladesh is an Islamic Nation and not Secular. Now, the Muslims are in majority here. Under the circumstances, if Hindus & Buddhists want to live safely, they should either convert to Islam or go to India.(Begum Khalida Zia, President, Bangla National Party.)

          -Hindu-Leaders may wear a Muslim cap any number of times, but we
          Muslim-Leaders will never put a Tilak. Let Hindus may give any amount of
          respect to our Namaz, but we Muslims will surely boycott “Vande
          Matram”, because in Islam both Secularism & Patriotism are haram
          (prohibited/unclean). (Azam Khan, Leader, Samajwadi Party, U.P.)

          -In the face of our strength (might), Hindus are not able to build even a
          single Ram-Temple in their own country. Do Hindus have the spunk to
          even stall the construction of a Mosque in Saudi-Arabia, Pak or any one
          of the 56 Islamic countries? (Maulana Sayyad Ahmad Bukhari, Shahi Imam,
          Jama Masjid, Delhi.)

        • Jainesh

          Sorry I accidentally made the comment to you.Deleted it but it’s now displayed as a guest comment.

    • Paroma Das

      You say “Religion is immaterial” but Saif’s family does not believe so & that is why THEY convert their brides to Islam. You should attack THEM for believing that ISLAM is the only true religion.

      • disqus_3L5yI4ePRl

        I believe that no one should ATTACK anyone, live and let live… religion is the most stupid thing to have discourse over, it was needed at a time when policing people was not possible, moral and ethical dogmas were spread by use of stories and creation of Gods and Goddesses. Sure, believe in what you will, that’s your choice, but lets not keep fueling a fire that should have, in all fairness, died a long time ago

        • Jainesh

          Go tell the muslim leaders that religion doesn’t matter and see what
          reply you get.Until then stfu with your champuness.Bloody 1d1ots.

          (For your benefit,some verbal gems of the secular muslims) –

          -In Hyderabad, our Muslim population has crossed 50%, and now we are in
          majority. Therefore I demand the Administration to impose restrictions
          on celebration of Hindu festivals such as Ram-navami, Hanuman Jayanti
          etc. In the Bhagya-Lakshmi temple, near Char-Minar, we have already
          shown our strength by stopping the ringing of the Bell/gong. We Muslims
          will ensure that this temple is also destroyed. (Akbaruddin Owaisi,
          Sansad, Majlis-e-Ittehadul-Musalmeen, (AIMIM), Hyderabad, India.)

          -Hindus shouldn’t make the mistake of considering Indian-Muslims any
          different from the Pakistan-Muslims. If India may dare to attack
          Pakistan, then 25 crore Indian Muslims will join Pakistan Forces and
          fight against India. (Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament, MIM,
          Hyderabad.)

          -I regret the continuing of massacre of Hindus & Buddhists in
          Bangladesh,
          but Bangladesh is an Islamic Nation and not Secular. Now, the Muslims
          are in majority here. Under the circumstances, if Hindus & Buddhists
          want to live safely, they should either convert to Islam or go to
          India.(Begum Khalida Zia, President, Bangla National Party.)

          -Hindu-Leaders may wear a Muslim cap any number of times, but we
          Muslim-Leaders will never put a Tilak. Let Hindus may give any amount of
          respect to our Namaz, but we Muslims will surely boycott “Vande
          Matram”, because in Islam both Secularism & Patriotism are haram
          (prohibited/unclean). (Azam Khan, Leader, Samajwadi Party, U.P.)

          -In the face of our strength (might), Hindus are not able to build even a
          single Ram-Temple in their own country. Do Hindus have the spunk to
          even stall the construction of a Mosque in Saudi-Arabia, Pak or any one
          of the 56 Islamic countries? (Maulana Sayyad Ahmad Bukhari, Shahi Imam,
          Jama Masjid, Delhi.)

          • disqus_3L5yI4ePRl

            Wah wah! You are the perfect example of why religion based arguments should not be taken seriously

          • Jainesh

            Here’s a practical playful experiment for you Champu,if you personally have know any muslim ask him/her if they’d accept Prasadam.If they deny then ask for the reason.

        • Guest

          No one is attacking anyone. Saif posted an open letter in a mainstream media newspaper. This is just a point by point reply. Maybe you should have asked Saif to have kept quiet then instead of attacking the author now who is just highlighting the hypocrisy in Saif’s letter.

  • V.malviya

    v saw many times tht so many hindu gals have to marry with muslim guys for exmple:ameer khan,srk,arbaz khan,saif ali…etc bt hw many muslim gals marry with hindu guys!!!…nybody can tel me…????? muslim gals ko koi motivate kyon nahi karta ki u can marry with hindu guys..!!!

    • Jainesh

      Islam proscribes against it.They cannot.They will not.

  • Rabblerouser666

    There’s one sect of Islam, Ismailism, that doesn’t ask for conversion, on the contrary, makes conversion extremely difficult. One must go through years of learning, understanding, use of intellect and acceptance from the heart in order to convert. The philosophy of Ismailism is that God can be found through any path. No religion has a monopoly on God. Everyone must follow their own truth. So, naturally, no need for conversion.

    • Jainesh

      And pray,what does that little piece of useless digression serve?Are you trying to increase our GK about the muslim sects? Are you an advertiser for the Ismailis?
      Do Ismailis speak for the whole of muslim community?Is their point of view accepted by all major sects of islam?

      Anybody who accepts islam,whichever sect,cannot be intellectual to begin with or must hv taken that decision after dispensing with every critical faculty and intellect.

    • Sam

      Jinnah, that paragon of secularism, was an Ismaili and he disowned his only daughter for marrying a non-Muslim (Parsi). Never mind that he himself had married a Parsi. So there you have it; Muslim men can marry non-Muslims (and convert them, conveniently of their “own accord”), but Allah forbid a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim and/or converting out of the faith, or that the children of these “interfaith” marriages (an oxymoron since these interfaiths very quickly become one faith – Muslim) become anything but Muslim. These protestations of tolerance by Muslims like Saif Ali Khan are like Henry Ford saying that you can have any color you like (for your car) as long as it is black. One can’t fault Khan for peddling his taqiyah anymore than a faulting the scorpion for instinctively stinging. But Hindus who lap this nonsense unreservedly do deserve the fate of the foolish frog who attempted to carry the scorpion across the river.

  • Jainesh

    India has had two PM’s from a minority community … Manmohan Singh our immediate previous PM and Rajiv Gandhi (coverted to Catholic faith prior to his marriage,never converted back as far as I know).

    • Shubhangi Raykar

      Is that so? I did not know this. Then Priyanka and Rahul are also Christians. No wonder she chose Robert Vadra who is a Christian because his mother is a Christian though the father was a Hindu.

  • disqus_WIYER5Cffh

    Who cares if you are Hindu or Muslim. Stop fighting over religion you retards.

    • Paroma Das

      It is SAIF’s family which cares “if you are Hindu or Muslim.” Otherwise, why would they convert the non-Muslim brides to Islam? Not only do they practise such open communalism, they also claim to be secular! But those who call out their hypocrisy are “retards.”

  • Al-Taqiyya101

    Whoaa Slamdunk!!

    Totally owned saif!!

  • Vasan

    Excellent! I hope this gets as much circulation in the social media as the original drivel from Saif got in the secular media!

  • Bharat

    Very valid points raised by the author. I would like to see Saif’s response to this open letter.

  • munusamy ganapathy

    Can we see the facts and numbers of hindu and muslim women kidnapped during partition riots.Though muslims are numerically less in number the number of muslim women kidnapped/missing was far higher than the hinduwomen and the number of women traced too after few months of partition has a high number of muslim women

    Good liberal,secular question you asked-why should the women convert?Extending the same why cant we ask why should women need to go out of her house and being advised to forget her parents and adopt her husbands parents as new parents and live in the house of her bridegroom in most religions including hindus.When this changes the conversion of women will drastically reduce and converting to the husbands family/customs is no way less painful than choosing a new religion

    In south India post death there exist certain customs for relatives like avoiding functions,celebrations/specific diets for a fixed period.Everything is based on the boys side.Lady cannot attend the function of her brothers marriage if she lost her uncles brother or their children but boy can have hefty meal and enjoy all celebrations even in the event of inlaws death.All religions treat the women as dirt by forcing them to abandon even their parents and here we see wolves crying for abandoning the religion while doing nothing to help women have equal rights irrespective of religion

    • Jainesh

      It’s not hinduism but a perversion of hinduism which has led to the various social ills including the most well known stick used to beat hinduism,namely the varna vyavastha and the jati pratha,

  • Prasad

    A very good one. It takes a lot of thinking to be so analytic and incisive. The last line regarding is really the most accurate explanation of the term “love jihad”.

    Best regards

  • Dhirendra Singh

    Impression after reading this long text (not even a logical narration): some people just pollute internet with their english.

    For Your Common Sense; vedic dharam (havan) did not mention about islamic practises, as there was no islam then.

    Think before you speak.

    • Shan

      Alright! But why the insistence of conversion whenever someone marries a Muslim? Why? A Hindu never does! Bottom line is how much ever a Muslim is educated their dogmatic views never changes. They live by their tenets and force their spouse too to follow… and then cleverly call themselves secular.

      • cookiee

        Not all Muslim spouses insist on converting…mine certainly didn’t and I’m hindu too..yet I’m doing so of my own will. ..not every conversion is forced, we can’t generalise ☺

        • Paroma Das

          You write, “Not all Muslim spouses insist on converting…mine certainly didn’t and I’m hindu too..yet I’m doing so of my own will.”

          If you are converting to Islam, whether of your own will or due to spousal insistence, can you STILL call yourself a ‘hindu’? Or have you started practising taqiyya already? Anyway, once you are a Muslim, you will not be able to convert to ANY other faith because apostasy is punishable with death in Islam. So, good luck to you!

        • Jainesh

          And another dumb twit.

        • Shubhangi Raykar

          What are you doing of your own will?

    • Paroma Das

      Are you trying to say that just because Islam came 1000s of years after Vedic Dharm, it was not wrong for the former to denigrate the latter? I would rather think that BECAUSE Islam came 1000s of years after Vedic Dharm, the former should NOT have denigrated the former. In the religion I follow, we are taught to RESPECT our ancestors, not INSULT them. What does YOUR religion teach you?

      • Namit Vig

        Peaceful Denigration is totally fine but SLAYING IDOLATORS, fighting TILL THERE IS NO RELIGION BUT OF ALLAH’s shouldn’t be or should it be?

        • Paroma Das

          What do you mean “Peaceful Denigration is totally fine”? Does Vedic Dharm denigrate any other faith, even if ‘peacefully’? It is your ‘Peaceful Denigration’ which ULTIMATELY leads to ethnic cleansing.

          • Namit Vig

            Okay. Fantastic. Then go believe in the stone age theory that Earth is flat. Universe came to be in a week. God is male not female. Women are half as intelligent as men. Evolution is a farce. Criticizing ideology does not mean advocating ethnic cleansing. Had there been no criticism we wouldn’t have been this advanced. Go and first read the scriptures yourself especially in the Quran and Hadiths. Followers of almost every faith except for religion of peace don’t take their scriptures seriously.

            If criticizing barbaric practices like the one done by IS,Taliban (and yes their practices are taken from their book) is bad, then go and live there as a non-muslim. You will surely do fine.

          • Guest

            Do you realize that both Paroma Das and you are actually saying the exact same thing… that the so called religion of peace is bad? BOTH are saying the same thing. lol Then why argue?

        • Shubhangi Raykar

          NO Denigration is not fine.

    • Jainesh

      Another dumb 1d1iot

  • Hahahaa dear Saif Ali Khan Quran 9:29 says to kill all the non-believers and Quran 8:12 tells to chop off the head of Non-Muslims.

    So if your dear Kareena Begum is indeed Hindu as you say she is, it is time you chop off her head. Karan Johar also for being gay cause Gays are not accepted by Islam.

    • Bhuvika

      This biggest problem with the teaching of quran are not the written word but its understanding. quran is a peotry. if a line is picked up from a peotry and discussed upon it will always have different perception for every person. every verse is linked and cannot be held in isolation.

      Some non-Muslims either through ignorance or Islam-bashing continue taking the verses of the Holy Quran out of context and its history to justify their false propaganda. In order to gain a proper understanding of many verses in the Holy Quran, it is important to understand and know the historic context of the revelations.

      Quran 9:29 :

      Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

      Please note : 1) Fight here does not in any way suggest physical violence
      also
      2) please note the word Willingly

      Quran 8:12 : The verse 8:12 is one such verse which is misinterpreted. it was specifically revealed for the war that was happening at that time. if anyone wishes to get thier facts right with an open mind The verse and its brief explanation follows: http://www.islam101.com/terror/verse8_12.htm.

      and worry not. studying the truth for curiosity will not convert you.

      • The only one here who misunderstands Quran is you. Stop interpreting it the way you please. Leader of ISIS is Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi who is a Phd. in Islamic Studies & speaks fluent Arabic. Surely he knows is Quran more then you.

        Read of Safia & Rayhana of Banu Qureyza tribe. If you truly are a girl and not a Jihadi doing Taqiyya you would know what Islamic Prophet was.

  • Surya Samaddar

    Thanks to social media and independent playforms, people like Saif (although I still think that he, on his own, as an individual, is genuine) cannot get away with this “assumed ignorance of masses”

  • HarishNayak

    Writing to saif is waste, he ca not read or understand.

  • Krishna iyer

    Very objectively presented exposing Saif;s hyprocrisy. He will no doubt have to refer this to his legal advisors to reply if any because he does not have any iota of intellect to understand. I who read Saif’s views was aghast in the first place as to how such an immature and stupid view could be found fit for publication. Nice to see this rebuttal.

  • Avinash

    @ Dr. Maulik Vyas, you missed the hypocrisy of Saif Ali Khan.

    • Dr. Maulik Vyas

      Not at all. I read between the lines! 🙂

      • ami nn

        i think u just read between the line leaving lines…

  • Dr. Maulik Vyas

    Firstly, it’s Mr. Khan and not Mr. Saif! 😛 Okay, why making Saif a ‘scapegoat’ for what his parents/grandparents did! Probably you are confused between what Saif’s parents/grandparents did and what is HE aiming to do. Secondly, Aishwarya Rai becomes Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and SO Kareena Kapoor becomes Kareena Kapoor Khan. No need to BOLDFACE the word Khan. That’s how we all Indians practice it, don’t we? Not to forget that our ancestors were too rigid, stubborn or whatever adjective you think of than what we are. Furthermore, our grandchildren will be FAR liberal than what we are. A child should not be questioned for the thing that their grandparents did AGES BACK. And TOP OF ALL, I’m Brahmin! A ‘so-called’ super-hindu what the world believes LOL:P

    • mack

      I don’t think u get the point, because you are too liberal than your future grandkids.

    • ami nn

      you are raised SICKULAR

      • Dr. Maulik Vyas

        SICKULAR 😛

    • Shan

      Between Aishwarya and Abhishek there was no conversion of any one to any religion. That is the vital point on which the whole article is based upon.

      • Dr. Maulik Vyas

        Exactly. So, that’s not the matter of conversion but the ritual we follow. A girl HAS to adopt husband’s surname. Hadn’t Aishwarya dared keeping her surname, she’d have been definitely Aishwarya Bachchan. My point was making ‘khan’ boldface digresses.

        • Paroma Das

          You asked, “why making Saif a ‘scapegoat’ for what his parents/grandparents did!”

          Firstly, Saif is NOT ‘a scapegoat’ but DIRECTLY responsible – his OWN wife (the 1st one, certainly) got converted for marriage & it was HE who gave Arabic names (Saif & Ibrahim) to BOTH his children. After such un-Hindu & pro-Muslim activities, should he claim to be Hindu and Muslim “both”?

          Secondly, if Saif can publicly PRAISE his parents & grandparent (the paternal one) for what they supposedly did for secularism, why can’t others publicly CRITICIZE them for what they did in the NAME of secularism?

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            The article talks MORE about what his parents/grandparents did and little about what he said; smartly, the heading began with his statement thought Also, a lot of advices and allegations on Saif, no two words of advise to Kareena? I certainly would have opposed if Kareena is NOT spotted in any mandir, or doing pooja after her marriage. But that’s not so. Is she banned doing all those things? I cannot think of. Is she forced to adopt what all the ‘so called’ Royal Family practices dharmas? I further cannot think of. And before you jump on criticizing me, let me clarify – I don’t like Saif. Nor do I support muslims! I call a spade a spade. I blame someone of their wrongdoings not their religion. The naked truth is all the terrorist activities involves people from that community, the rest too are thirsty of blood of each other. Open any top 100 news on any channel -raping own daughters, setting women fire due to dowry, murders, robbery and murders that all happen among us too. Again, just want to prove that condemn the wrongdoing, not the religion. ALL are same when it comes to brutality. A video showing the brutality – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quvkfkU-KZk WHAT DO YOU CALL THESE PEOPLE? Do you know their religion? Read about them and you’ll understand me better.

          • Paroma Das

            You say, “The article talks MORE about what his parents/grandparents did and little about what he said” But that is because SAIF’s article keeps talking about the so-called secularism of his parents/grandparents & even himself. The fact is that his family, including himself, is highly communal and THAT has been exposed in this article.

            Even if Kareena has gone to a mandir after marriage, does Saif’s mother (Ayesha Khan aka Sharmila Tagore) go to any mandir? What is wrong in criticizing the mother when Saif has written so much about the ‘secularism’ of his family?

            Yes, “raping own daughters, setting women fire due to dowry, murders, robbery and murders” ARE committed by Hindus but then NO scripture in the Hindu religion tells its followers to commit such crimes. However, terrorism is committed by Muslims BECAUSE the Quran TELLS its followers to kill kafirs. I suggest that you check http://www.alisina.org. to know what that the Quran is NOT like any other religious book.

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            Who FOLLOWS dharma these days? Do we? Fuhhget what those scriptures say; they were written thousands of years back based on environment, people’s mentality THEN. What makes us different from animals is we have our own volition. What was written THEN and what should we practice NOW requires a pragmatic approach that will never come in any butthead’s brain. Do you get my point? Don’t we laugh when people (NO RELIGION PLEASE) take oaths in police department, courts, schools, and above all when become PMs, CMs or netas (LMAO)!

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            Who FOLLOWS dharma these days? Do we? Fuhhget what those scriptures say; they were written thousands of years back based on environment, people’s mentality THEN. What makes us different from animals is we have our own volition. What was written THEN and what should we practice NOW requires a pragmatic approach that will never come in any butthead’s brain. Do you get my point? Don’t we laugh when people (NO RELIGION PLEASE) take oaths in police department, courts, schools, and above all when become PMs, CMs or netas (LMAO)!

          • Jitu

            “Yes, “raping own daughters, setting women fire due to dowry, murders, robbery and murders” ARE committed by Hindus ”

            Really??

            Who says raping their own daughters is committed by Hindus only??
            The Nirbhaya case culprit directly responsible for the death of the victim was a muslim boy whose name and identity the media protected.

            US leads in the number of rapes and out of 10 top countries… 5 are first world countries. Am sure Hindus are not going and raping daughters in Sweden.

            Go google for Romania cultures and Amish community rapes. You will be shocked with the number of rapes and the percentage of which are incestuous. And… a vast majority are not reported so the numbers are significantly higher.

            If you still have doubts… just read up on Pakistan’s rape stats and the percentage that goes unreported.

            Comparatively… Indian are much better.. irrespective of religion. Just because the media shouts at the top of it’s voice and says India is a rape capital does not make it a rape capital. Google for yourself and see the statistics. It may not be the safest place. But it definitely is better than many countries and almost all Islamic nations.

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            In fact the India’s number is lower in the list of the rapists. And rapists are from all walks and all religious identities.So called smart and suave people are more dangerous- the likes of Tarun Tejpal.

          • SJK

            People with prefixed notions and agenda are not open to any logic pr proofs. They shout themselves hoarse repeating lies in the hope that repeated often, their lies would be accepted as truths.

          • Pallavi Kapoor

            aptly said,its not religion or caste or creed.BASICALLY ITS basic difference in nature of people.As said beauty lies in the eyes of beholder,so people vary because of their nature not bcoz of their religion.Being Indian I am proud of AbduL Kalam and of Kalpna chawla too.People are respected bcoz of their deeds

          • Pallavi Kapoor

            aptly said,its not religion or caste or creed.BASICALLY ITS basic difference in nature of people.As said beauty lies in the eyes of beholder,so people vary because of their nature not bcoz of their religion.Being Indian I am proud of AbduL Kalam and of Kalpna chawla too.People are respected bcoz of their deeds

          • Guest

            Apologetic pseudo secularism.

          • Guest

            “I blame someone of their wrongdoings not their religion.”
            That’s the typical pseudo-secular rant to legitimize every ill perpetuated in the name of Islam. Nothing new there.

            Btw.. go read the history of how dowry and sati came to be a practice in India. It may tell you something about the ‘influence of other cultures’.

            And Changing the surname is a English tradition blindly adopted in the post-colonial era. Before blaming every ill of the society on Indians… you my want to brush up your history and GK bit.

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            Yes. That became common after the British rule. Sita, Draupadi, Rani Laxmi were not known by their surnames. In Maharashtra also the women’s names were written as*** bhratar*** bhratar means husband. The family name did not figure.

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            Animal sacrifice was practiced by hindus in case of certain local deities which were later accepted in the hindu pantheon. Kali in Bengal, Khandoba in maharashtra etc.
            There are protector gods or goddesses of farms which are offered a cock at many places in Maharashtra

        • Namit Vig

          Special Marriage act doesn’t require anyone’s religious conversion. That is why Dr sahab

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            Arre bhai, that’s what I’m telling over and over again. My point was NOT about act/conversion, it was all about boldfacing the word in other way.

        • ABC

          can you tell any scripture where it is written …. or by law… that girl has to take husbands name….??????????

          • Guest

            you are getting confused between scriptures, rituals, dogmas and pragmatism!

          • Guest

            you are getting confused between scriptures, rituals, dogmas and pragmatism!

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            you are getting confused between scriptures, rituals, dogmas and pragmatism, my friend.

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            you are getting confused between scriptures, rituals, dogmas and pragmatism, my friend.

      • ravi

        Kareena didn’t convert. Get your facts right

    • Haqiqat

      I was a victim of Indian Holocaust that took place in 1947. Gandhi wanted us to stay put in Pakistan. My father followed his advice and landed the whole family in trouble. We have witnessed the ghastly face of Islam. Gandhi whom people call Mahatma was a madman in my reckoning. He wanted Hindus to be killed without a fight and let Muslims take over the land, rape our daughters and sisters. He described such an act as a courageous act. What a liberal and secular leader who was happy to see Hindus killed at the hands of Muslims! And not a word against Muslim murderers! Just read on a quote from Hindustan Times on the subject:

      “On 6 August 1947, Gandhiji commented to Congress workers on the incipient communal conflagration in Lahore thus: I am grieved to learn that people are running away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore. When you suffer from fear you die before death comes to you. That is not glorious. I will not feel sorry if I hear that people in the Punjab have died not as cowards but as brave men. I cannot be forced to salute any flag. If in that act I am murdered I would bear no ill will against anyone and would rather pray for better sense for the person or persons who murder me. (Hindustan Times, 8-8-1947, CWoMG, vol. LXXXIX, p.11).”
      I have no time for this madman’s followers– liberal and secular people.

      • Jainesh

        Being a second generation descendant of the same holocaust,that too from Lahore,a thousand gashes cut open upon my heart everytime I see a Rajdeep,a Barkha Dutt,a Sagarika Ghose and their ilk tell me how I’m communal.

        When just the description of those events as my grandparents used to tell me pain me so I can but only imagine the pain of my grandparents on both sides and these “seculars” have the gall to tell me that a child should not be questioned for what their grandfathers did way back!?

        Alright then,quit cribbing about how “Babari Masjid” was “wrongly” destroyed,whitewash all history,whitewash everything.
        Pathetic.

      • Pallavi Kapoor

        Hey not everybody is same….People with good intentions can be of any religion,any country or any community.

        • Jitu

          Oh please! Tell that to the millions killed by muslim invaders. Say it to the 1million who died at partition massacred. The hundreds and thousand who are being killed around the world in the name of Islam. You want to be an ostrich and hide behind this pseudo-secularism… be our guest.

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            Even Progressive Muslims do not have the courage to utter a bad word about Islam.I knew only Hamid Dalwai who could do it.

      • Pallavi Kapoor

        Hey not everybody is same….People with good intentions can be of any religion,any country or any community.

      • Shubhangi Raykar

        after dividing the country on the basis of Islam followers having a separate nation how could Gandhi give such foolish advice?

      • Vedic_Sasthra

        True. The worst one was the kerela massacre where thousands of Hindus were killed and converted in 1921. The Muslim murderers are considered as “freedom fighters” by the communist kerela govt.

    • Jainesh

      ‘BORN BRAHMAN’, RAISED HUMAN! :p Nuh uh…Born potentially champu,raised perfectly champu. :p

      • Dr. Maulik Vyas

        Coming together of families keeping husband’s name and surname removing father’s name and surname! I’m really champu as I could not understand this! Making the society cohesive by building blocks! True, a girl after marriage not only has to leave her house but ALSO the culture (In Hindus!, don’t jump on to another religion) and has to adapt all the dogmas of her husband and his families. She cannot even put her stance to change even a bit from that rituals fully of hypocrisy. Truly, I’m champu as I again could not understand that! Enjoy your mediocre thoughts, long live! 🙂

        • Jainesh

          Such a cute “hypocritical” champu and all over the place :p
          Indeed Born Champu,”Progressively”Remains Champu :p

          Anyhow wannabe doctor-brown-sahib and certified champu gungad1n…why are stumbling all over the place? Not only do you hide behind shared mediocrity with the accepted popular champu adages of contemporary times but your champu reply betrays every possible symptom of a moth eaten flea bitten “postmodernist” champu sheep mentality channeling some populisms without real merit.

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            See the very first sentence of yours. And you talk about culture! I have heard that we win wise by arguing right things with them and win untamed fools by accepting what they say. I just applied the latter one in this case and it’s proved again. 🙂 Keep writing comments that’ll never have response now! 🙂

          • Jainesh

            Ok subaltern Champu 🙂

    • Shubhangi Raykar

      What is this crap? If there is an interprovincial marriage both the varieties are cooked. Children love to eat both. The Wife’s kuladaivat is also visited though in a patrilineal society the husband’s kuldaivat beomes the family kuladaivat.

    • Hocus Pocus

      no where in hinduism does it say a woman needs to adopt her husbands culture

  • Mikael T

    In modern India the concept of “secularism” is like a circle with its circumference everywhere but centre nowhere.

  • Gargi

    you, dear sir, totally missed Saif’s points. It wasn’t so much about his personal life as much as it was about his views on how things should be.
    It was certainly not a research paper where every point has to be substantiated by proofs and validations.

    • Paroma Das

      It was SAIF who dragged in his personal life, not anyone else. What this article has done is just paid him back in the same coin.

      Even “his views on how things should be” are questionable because he claimed that we are not a secular country – totally ignoring the MANY proofs of secularism which are all around us; some of those proofs have been enumerated in this article.

      If you think that Saif need not substantiate every point he made, isn’t that a back-handed compliment? Many others would think that a public personality like him (a Padmashri awardee) should CERTAINLY substantiate every point he makes.

    • Jainesh

      Why’d Saif feel the need to pen the particular piece? Was he convinced to write a piece? Was it written for him and he agreed to his name being used to peddle this bogus article?
      The more appalling thing is the assumption that today’s people would heed to the words of a “celeb” like wide eyed fans of the 70’s.Such despicable disdain for public’s intellect.Again not very “secular” let alone human or decent.

  • rajeev shastry

    I think saif would not anticipated this type of response.

    • Dr. Maulik Vyas

      Who, in this world, would?

  • Citizennn

    Forgive him ..he just a fat kid sitting in the end of candy line ..eating candies one after another. .

    he enjoyed amrita
    then he wanted kareena
    tommarow he can hv someone else

    he is same fat kid who got padam bhushan. .lol..
    mommy I want that. .
    now he came out preaching islam..ooops securelism. mullah safi..who most certainly have enjoyed pork…

  • malavika

    Saif is a liar, when a Muslim marries another Muslim, by no stretch of imagination can it be called inter religious marriage.

    Frankly, it is stupid Hindus who support these closet Islamfascist ,Khans of Bollywood. It is time Hindus wake up from ‘All religions are same BS’.

    • V.malviya

      i fully agreed with u malavika…..ths s only rite thngs which u written..

    • Shubhangi Raykar

      Why are the khans particularly interested in Hindu girls? or vice versa why do certain Hindu girls have affairs with muslim boys at the risk that they might have to convert?

  • Quran2221

    Islam not only demands that the bride convert – the Male must also convert as well. Obviously, since a Man often tends to dominate, the female non-Muslim is more likely to convert. The Problem is the Islamic religion.

    “And do not marry the idolatresses until they believe, and
    certainly a believing maid is better than an idolatress woman,
    even though she should please you; and do not give (believing
    women) in marriage to idolaters until they believe, and certainly
    a believing servant is better than an idolater, even though he
    should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to
    the garden and to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His
    communications to men, that they may be mindful.” Quran 2:221

    • Nishant .Saxena

      Isn’t it better both leave islam to avaoid unnecessary confusion.. soon it should be the trend.

      • GameChanger

        To your dismay, the trend today and for thelast 14 centuries is the opposite of what you wish for. The reason is that an uprejudiced human mind is always attracted to the truth that the Islam represents.

        • Paroma Das

          To your dismay, the trend today and for the last 14 centuries is the opposite of what you think it is. The reason is that an uprejudiced human mind is always repelled by the violence, barbarism, paedophilia, slave-trade, misogyny, injustice, supremacism, cultism, tribalism, medievalism, ignorance, genocides, hatred, regression etc that Islam represents.

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            How true.

        • ReproductiveJihad

          No, the reason is because Muslims are reproducing at absurdly high rates, and Muslims are born into the Cult of Islam. Expect those trends to change, to Islam’s detriment.

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            Women do not have choice about conceiving and producing. When i go to public parks and I come across women they have a child of seven or eight walking along, a child of about 5 whose hand she holds or the elder child holds, a baby whom she is holding and the woman is visibly pregnant. This is a common scene. They even come and eat nonveg food in a park which is part of a temple of Ganesha. They were told not do so as they offend the pious Hindus. but they may argue that it is a public park which actually it is not.

        • Shubhangi Raykar

          Oh! What truth are you talking about?
          Islam is a thoroughly political exclusivistic religion eager to establish Arab Supremacy by imposing it on others. There is no trend in 14 centuries and people rarely embrace Islam out of volition.

          • GameChanger

            It is documented by PEw research that Islam is the only religion which will show net positive conversions in the next 25 years and majority of these in the west where there is not pressure to convert. Read, it opens up your mind.

          • Hocus Pocus

            there are millions of muslims who want to leave islam but cant because of the death penalty. thousands have left but it’s census is unknown as they remain anonymous.

      • Shubhangi Raykar

        That would be apostasy on the part of the boy or the girl who is Muslim. that is supposed to be a great sin. moreover they have stronger sense of community which we Hindus have lost after independence and have subscribed to the criticism of some bad practices and have started thinking negatively about ourselves. That is the gift of pseudo secular politics to the only secular religion in the world.

  • Pamit

    what a bullshit article! poor !

    • Paroma Das

      Would you be able to offer any REASON for calling the article “bullshit”? Or is reason not your forte?

      • Guest

        🙂 🙂 🙂

  • Rita Putatunda

    Very good piece, and valid questions.. I wish it were a longer piece with more searching questions, such as if Saif claims to be both Hindu and Muslim, how come he and all his kids have only Muslim names.

    • Dr. Maulik Vyas

      Because our shitty culture favors fathers and their families to keep our baby’s name. Even in Hindu, it’s from BUA (Father’s sister) WHY NOT mother’s? 🙂

      • ami nn

        you are a shit not our culture

        • cookiee

          & who gives you the right to say what our culture is? He is as Indian as you are & has the right to have an opinion…is this what hindu culture taught you? I’m a hindu too by the way & bhagwan ko kabhi pasand nae aaega ki hum koi dharma ko aise insult kare

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            I don’t need any rights because I have my own volitions! What I observe, I tell it upfront. To me, it’s shitty if girl’s parents (whether hindu or muslim) lose their rights on their grandchildren especially while naming them. It’s shitty if mother loses her rights on her own newborn the moment father’s name is attached to the child. Sanjay Leela Bhansali – the word ‘Leela’ stands for his mother! It’s shitty when women are set fire even today in middle-class families. It’s shitty when a woman is NOT allowed in any religious ceremony if she’s widow or in her cycle. I have list of 1000 such points! 🙂 Again, blame the wrong-doer, NOT the religion. Azmal Kasab was hanged till death – very good and this should happen to all who commits such brutal act (The last sentence added just to make you realize that I don’t favor anyone).

          • ankur

            u have a lot of spare time boss… “neem hakim khatra e jaan”…. mere khayal se ye kahawat aap hi k jaise logon k liye bani hai….!!!

          • ami nn

            Please note by using that word I just said bad words to him ‘only him’ and you felt very bad. Dint you feel anything when he said that word for a “culture” that too “our hindu culture? what is making you to be quite on his comments?

      • Mayur

        Abe tu convert ho ja… Hamko mat sikha.. teri doctor ki degree tere pas rakh…

      • Namit Vig

        It is not about surname but religion Dr sahab 🙂

        • Dr. Maulik Vyas

          Namit, I am a learned person who have read most of the scriptures. The problem with me is I’m never led by my nose, let anyone try it including dharma or its gurus! I have lived in almost all parts of India and am quite acquainted with western culture too. I tell ONLY if I’m confirmed. As far as my comment is concerned, try to understand my point. Forget Islam for a while. Let’s talk about Hindus. If a sikh girl marries Hindu guy, their kids’ names are more likely to be of Hindu. In fact, after marriage, we change even WIVES’ names as well! If a Patel girl marries Brahmin, who gives names to their kids? Brahmins i.e. husbands’ family members. Once a child is born, the maternal parents are simply kept aside especially in naming the newborn. Do you get my point? Why only BUA keeps the name? Why all the rituals for the newborn happens from husband’s side? I have a lovable 9-yr-old daughter and have CLOSELY observed every cultural rite from janewaar (janoi) to pregnancy, sanskara, mundan and what not.

          • Namit Vig

            I understand sir. Maybe the best thing to do is do away with these surnames

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            Exactly. I hate putting my name in my daughter’s name. Why? My wife equally contributed in her bringing up. Sanjay Leela Bhansali dared to break this (yes, shitty) culture! And he has been praised by us only. ‘Leela’ is his mother’s name. He does not include his father’s name.

          • Jatin

            Ignore all these bigots. I salute your modern upbringing. India needs more people like you. Respect.

          • Paroma Das

            Yes, ignore the harsh truth – not because it is harsh but because it is true.
            India “needs” more ostriches who can dig their heads in the sand to avoid the storm.

          • Jatin

            So what solution do you offer to this so called problem of Love Jihad?

          • Paroma Das

            When you call Love Jihad a “so called problem”, then why do you ask for any “solution”?

          • Jatin

            Well, it’s people like you who are having an issue with a Muslim guy marrying a Hindu girl. Why has no one commented on just the reverse, i.e. a Hindu guy marrying a Muslim girl? Saif’s own sister Soha Ali Khan is in a relationship with a Hindu guy. Be more loving and be more humane. Don’t just fuss about religion. Always remember it’s we humans only who invented religion. Humanity is much more above religion.

          • Paroma Das

            Well, chances are Soha’s boyfriend will also ‘volunatrily’ convert to her religion. In fact, it seems that her 1st cousin married a man who converted from Christianity to Islam. Whatever the truth, can you deny that her mother & 1st sister-in-law WERE converted to Islam for marriage? Then WHO is creating a “fuss about religion”? The family which has been getting its non-Muslim spouses converted to its religion or an article which exposes their hypocrisy?

          • Jatin

            We don’t know whether she was forcefully converted to Islam. Kareena hasn’t converted to Islam and neither was her ex-wife. Even if a lady converts to Islam, she does it out of her own will. A problem will arise only if she is compelled to take up Islam against her wishes. Is that the problem we are discussing?
            Read this article as well then, http://www.santabanta.com/bollywood/40189/amrita-singh-was-never-compelled-to-convert-to-islam-saif-ali-khan/

          • Paroma Das

            Whether the conversions were ‘forceful’ or brainwashed is not the question here. The question here is whether Saif should claim to be secular even though his family has been getting its daughters-in-law converted to Islam & has been bringing up all the children as Muslims only. It is SAIF who was claiming that his family is open-minded etc. though the MANY instances of their Hinduphobia has been exposed in this article. No hypocrisy should go unexposed.

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            What do you mean by converting? Being a lady don’t you get ‘converted’ into the religion/rituals your husband and his family believes in? WHY KULDEVI OF MY WIFE BEFORE MARRIAGE AND AFTER MARRIAGE ARE DIFFERENT? 😛

          • Jitu

            Not really!

            I have replied you before. I am again giving my example. I follow some of the customs my mother practiced simply because I knew them better and kind of reminded me of her. There are a few rituals i adopted from my husband’s family as I was open to adopting them, there are many rituals my husband adopted from me and my family. In fact… there are rituals that my in-lwas have adopted from my mother simply because they were more practical.

            So… like I said… there are no hard and fast rules in Hinduism. We can be ritualistic, non-ritualistic, monotheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, agnostic, and still remain a Hindu. So please do not paint everything Hindu s evil or absurd or regressive.

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            What do you mean by converting? Being a lady don’t you get ‘converted’ into the religion/rituals your husband and his family believes in? WHY KULDEVI OF MY WIFE BEFORE MARRIAGE AND AFTER MARRIAGE ARE DIFFERENT? 😛

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            MOST OF THE Hindu boys convert to Islam

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            Sussane Khan’s kids name are ‘Hridan’ and ‘Hrihan’ I guess! It is OUR CULTURE that kids name are kept by fathers or their families.

          • Dr. Maulik Vyas

            Sussane Khan’s kids name are ‘Hridan’ and ‘Hrihan’ I guess! It is OUR CULTURE that kids name are kept by fathers or their families.

          • Jitu

            Good for you Dr. Maulik.

            I guess one should learn good from all cultures. I have friends from Philippines. I am told each child gets both his/her parent’s family names and after marriage the woman has a choice of keeping either father or mother’s family name along with the husband’s family name. Many even forgo the new surname and simply retain the two old ones.

            Aishwarya Rai Bachhan at least added the new surname to her existing one. Many of my friends have not even bothered with that. They simply continued with their maiden names.

            I am not getting into the right and wrongs of naming system. But the problem is… this naming system is not restricted to Hindus as you have pointed out or even just Indians. This system was adopted by us Indians from the British and is followed worldwide. Most characters in our Hindu literature were known by mononyms. So even the concept of surnames is not Hindu. Blaming Hinduism for some culture followed worldwide is silly.

            Btw… I picked both my kids names( I am a woman). Neither my husband nor his family picked. So there is no hard and fast rule that only father or father’s family get to pick names as you are suggesting about Hinduism.

            In fact… as someone pointed out… the whole post is about religion, religious conversion and not about names. You digressed by picking that one point about Kareena’s name in highlight.

            As far as the author questioning what Saif’s parents or grandparents did… read his letter. He glorified their actions as exemplary secularism. The author merely tried to reply his letter point wise, hence so much mention of his parents and grandparents.

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            There are many who do it.

          • Nitin Gk

            Maulik, fully agree with most of what you are saying. Look within has always provided more solutions than look within others. We have our own reforms that need done within the culture (and/or religion) that Hinduism is.
            Having put up my clear opinion about your thoughts, I’d say that this post and reactions here are clearly about calling out someone’s hypocrisy, and asking him to look within. When a statement is made in public domain, it naturally gets to be dissected. Your ramblings, valid as much as they are, belong to a different context, imho.

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            No. In Maharashtra it is different for removing the hair and Ushtavan- offering the first morsel of cooked food to the baby, Mama is required.

        • ravi

          Kareena didn’t convert. Get your facts right.

      • Sarcasticatheist

        The father’s surname being mandated was not part of hindu culture. It was a british law for identification. See other colonialists like the Spaniards. They have both their mother’s and father’s name. Dont blame these misgivings on culture but a forgotten imperialistic practice.

        • Dr. Maulik Vyas

          Whatever, didn’ our ancestors had brain or their own volition to change it then? That’s what it is. They believe so we believe, keeping our brains in safe deposits! 🙂 Again, cultural limitation -nobody dares to go against it. Ba Ba Black Sheep.

          • Guest

            Our ancestors at least the leaders were British boot-licking leftists. The first Prime Minster was not labeled as the last Englishman of India for nothing.

            More than the people, the govt. should do away with the columns… Father’s name/ Husband’s name from all forms. It would take just two or three generations to come out of the naming culture.

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            I have not come across Sita, Draupadi, Lakshmi, or Rukmini’s names changed. In fact Sita is called Janaki after her father, Vaidehi after the state, Draupadi is called Panchali,

        • Dr. Maulik Vyas

          Whatever, didn’ our ancestors had brain or their own volition to change it then? That’s what it is. They believe so we believe, keeping our brains in safe deposits! 🙂 Again, cultural limitation -nobody dares to go against it. Ba Ba Black Sheep.

      • Sarcasticatheist

        The father’s surname being mandated was not part of hindu culture. It was a british law for identification. See other colonialists like the Spaniards. They have both their mother’s and father’s name. Dont blame these misgivings on culture but a forgotten imperialistic practice.

      • Shubhangi Raykar

        Now a days it is just decorative. The parents choose the name and tell the BUA to whisper in the baby’s ear and then announce it.

  • Patil S N

    Saif Ali is keeping flowers on our ears, if he so much of secular then why he kept his kids as Muslim names.
    thinking and reading such bxxxd is waste of time. Dear writer don’t waste your valuable time for writing such BCs.

  • Haqiqat

    Wonderfully researched and argued. I salute you.
    I tried to send a comment on Saif’s article; but Indian Express chose not to publish it.
    The real Islam is depicted in the Koran-Sura “Repentence”. When Muhammad conquered Mecca he issued an edict ordering the populace to chose between converting to Islam or being slayed. It has been barbaric & zealot from its very inception. I was a victim of our Holocaust in 1947. We were given the same option by Muslims and we had to flee. Our Kashmiri Pandits were given the same choice 25 years ago and our spineless secular people have never shed a tear on that or discussed that serious issue. Their eyes are shut and do not see what is happening around them. Their ears are sealed and they do no hear the screams of the victims.
    Our silly framers of the constitution did not ban conversion of Hindus to create level playing fields. Hindus do not attempt to convert other people to their religion; then why they allowed other proselytising religions like Islam the luxury of converting us.
    Fie on those silly people!

    • Warrior

      Well said!

    • Pallavi Kapoor

      EVERYTHING IS POILITICAL.thrz no difference between people.Atleast god has not created any difference.People from different religions share same blood group,same two eyes.Being Hindu I am saying all this.Respect all,love all.this is message of god

      • Haqiqat

        Einstein defined Insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Gandhi and his acolytes have followed their trodden path on numerous occasions, which inexorably ended in disaster for Hindus. Applying the foregoing definition, Gandhi proved to be foolhardy, if not insane.
        Know your history, young lady. I suggest you read “Gandhi and Anarchy” by C. Sankaran Nair. It is an eye-opener. Gandhi helped Muslims in their bid to reinstate Khilafat during the 1920s. Their gift to Hindus in return was exactly the same that we had to endure during our Holocaust in 1947—pillage, carnage, torture, torching, rape, conversion and what not.
        I refer to another phase a couple of decades later in 1946. Riots erupted in Noakhli (now in Bangladesh) where Hindus were being killed and converted en-masse at the behest of Muslim League and Jinnah. Gandhi went there to stop these atrocities. At first Muslims used to attend his meetings; but soon stopped coming in the wake of a fatwa by Mullahs. During this mission, Gandhi was moving bare-footed from village to village in the affected areas. As his itinerary was publicised beforehand, the path he was going to take the following day was public knowledge. The path was strewn with human excrement and covered with thorns by Muslims. Gandhi’s followers were fully aware of what had been happening; as such they used to go out earlier to clean the path before Gandhi made the move. His mission was an utter failure in the end. But he learnt nothing!
        I agree people with good intentions can be of any religion. But you are not talking about the people in the mainstream; but on the periphery of these Non-Indic religions. They are not the norm but an aberration. They are not the rule but an exception. Muslim Turks perpetrated the first Holocaust against Armenians during the First World War. Christians perpetrated another one during the WWII. We had endured our Holocaust in 1947. Ours was not the first one. India’s history is peppered with such holocausts, though our silly leaders have kept their heads buried in the sand and have kept chanting “sab ko sanmati de bhagwan”. Name one Holocaust that was perpetrated by Hindus.
        Our Holocaust led to my becoming agnostic. I have no time for that fidgety and with a silly smile Baba Ramdev who left his followers in the lurch. I have no time for that pompous Yogi Adityanath with silly ideas. And people of the same ilk. I have no time for leaders either who suffer from verbal diarrhoea and who have made a mess of whatever they have embarked on. Unfortunately, our country is replete with people of this kind in the field of Religion, Media, and Politics.
        We Hindus have no identity—nothing to define us, nothing to unite us. As a consequence we remain fragmented and can easily be duped by spineless nincompoops. Muslims converted people under duress. Now our Congress leaders are giving their daughters to Muslims to prove their secular credentials. Sheila Dikshit’s daughter, Latika, is married to a Muslim. I wonder whether it was done to have the Muslim vote-bank on her mother’s pocket and prolong her tenure as the chief minister of Delhi. People like her are helping Muslims to finish their unfinished business of converting Indian Hindus amicably and legally, which they had done under duress during their rule. Aurangzeb converted the populace of Kashmir valley that had been predominantly Hindu to Islam is a case in point.
        In countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, if a non-Muslim is found to have had sex with any Muslim woman (including a prostitute), he would be sentenced to death. We Hindus have no vision and we do not know how to safeguard our interests and keep our country safe. In the name of secularism we are bartering away our security. We have to listen to a recent speech by a Muslim fanatic Akbar Owaisi. He ended it with a Muslim war-cry: against (Hindu) dushmans: Nara-i-Takbir- Allah-u-Akbar. Jai Hind was conspicuously absent. This is an eloquent testimony to their allegiance. Islam is paramount: India, inconsequential.

    • Pallavi Kapoor

      EVERYTHING IS POILITICAL.thrz no difference between people.Atleast god has not created any difference.People from different religions share same blood group,same two eyes.Being Hindu I am saying all this.Respect all,love all.this is message of god

    • Shubhangi Raykar

      Hindus have become too individualistic and lost a sense of our social presence. secular constitution’s gift.

    • iqbal

      in islam no one is forced to convert and if any person is forced
      he will not become muslim untill and unles
      his heart ddnt accept islam.

  • MOUMITA CHOWDHURY

    must be Lota Swamy ! lol

  • sammy c

    Awesome article,nailed it, right between the eyes,Saif do you have any answer to that???????

  • Atul Borkar

    very good Article. yes. Saif is acting Secular and balanced towards Hindus using his mom’s hindu past. This game is played by Salman too..although more convincingly. I think Barkha also tries it. So does Sagarika n lot of others.

    Saif is another addition. Sound innocent and sincere so you get a few Hindu’s to believe you. even better..call urself an half Hindu! I’d much rather, you show the balls to stand up and state your heart! I am a Muslim and I really want to see Muslims in a dominant and majoritarian role against Hindus in India. Coz thats what you really want.

  • Gopi Maliwal

    very good – logical, robust n civilsed.. tho a bit long read.

  • Chatrapathi Akula

    You know what?…..kiraak! 😀

  • bharat2012
    • Chatrapathi Akula

      I didn’t get it…enlighten me?