Telling her to face the wrath of Allah is a direct threat, for the Qur’an tells Muslims that they are the executors of the wrath of Allah: “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, and he will lay them low and give you victory over them, and he will heal the hearts of people who are believers, and he will remove the anger of their hearts.” (Qur’an 9:14-15)
“‘Face the wrath of Allah’: Islamists abuse Aamir Khan over Muslim daughter’s engagement with Hindu partner, call him names,” OpIndia, November 19, 2022:
On Friday (November 19), Bollywood actor Aamir Khan was abused by Islamists with the choicest of expletives after the images of his daughter Ira Khan’s engagement with her long-time Hindu boyfriend Nupur Shikhare went viral on social media.
Ira and Nupur, a celebrity fitness trainer, got engaged in Mumbai and the event was attended by Aamir’s ex-wives, Reena Dutta and Kiran Rao, as well his new ‘romantic interest’ Fatima Sana Sheikh. The duo have been in a relationship for over two years.
After the engagement concluded and images of the event surfaced on social media, Aamir Khan was abused for allowing his ‘Muslim daughter’ to be partners with a ‘Hindu man.’
“Aamir G*andu change your Muslim name,” wrote one Masab Khan. Another Islamist claimed in Urdu that the inter-faith engagement between the Bollywood actor’s daughter and her Hindu partner was the consequence of his adulterous behaviour.
“Shame on her,” remarked one Islamist. One Mohammed Arshad Raza insinuated that Aamir Khan forgot (all rules of the Islamic Faith) after acting in the movie ‘Ghajini’ where the protagonist was shown to have short-term memory loss.
One Mohammed Waheed Pasha asserted that Aamir Khan was never a ‘real Muslim’ and that he was an idolator (mushrik), based on his daughter’s engagement with a non-Muslim man.
“Indian Muslims are Muslims by name… They even marry kafirs (a derogatory term for non-Muslim communities),” wrote one Atif Cheema. Besides, there were comments labelling Aamir Khan as ‘g*ndu’ and wondering whether Ira Khan dawned an underwear for the engagement.
Besides cursing the Bollywood actor, one Islamist even went to the extent of labelling the engagement between Ira Khan and Nupur Shikhare as ‘Sanghi jihad.’ Some even suggested that it was a case of ‘love jihad’ and ‘reverse love jihad.’.
For starters, Nupur didn’t pretend to be a Muslim while courting Ira i.e. no angle of impersonation or identity fraud. At the same time, he did not force her to convert to Hinduism….
tim gallagher says
allah doesn’t exist and never has. But , of course, what these totalitarian Muslims scum mean by allah’s wrath is that some evil, barbaric Muslim will seek to murder her for not following all the other muslim robots in their slave like way of life.
James Lincoln says
Good point, tim.
If muslims just left it up to the fake “allah”, nothing would happen.
But it’s unlikely that muslims will leave it at that…
tim gallagher says
Like you, James, I don’t believe that there is a God that is as evil as this thing, allah. Unfortunately, Muslims never seem to leave it to allah to punish Muslims who step out of line, but rather they seem to always think it is up to them to go after any Muslims who dare to step out of line. They just love doing the non-existent allah’s dirty work
Fitna says
Spot on Tim and James. Ofc there is no Allah, which is why Muslims carry out ‘his’ wrath on the supposed ‘evil-doers.’
By extension this is true of all religions. It’s only our fellow humans that claim a god exists and is on their side, but meanwhile they carry out their vendettas against their enemies using their own hands.
For example, Christian opposition to LGBT, Abortion, Euthanasia…no god ever commanded anyone to be against these things. These insane and stupid rules were invented by primitive humans from the Bronze Age.
Today Christians wrongly thinking their god is against these things are fighting to force their beliefs on non-Christians. While they don’t generally use violence like the Muslims, in most cases (though sometimes they’ve murdered doctors and bombed abortion clinics), they are still hell bent on forcing their religion on everyone else.
I mean the answer couldn’t be any simpler and it’s in all their religious texts…”God will punish them.” That’s all the instructions they need. If I was a Christian or a Muslim, I’d just go about my daily life, let people do whatever they want, because they’ll pay for it on Judgement Day, right?
And I if was mistaken in my views, great, then I didn’t stop the unbelievers from enjoying their lives and who knows maybe I was wrong and they were right?
Homosexuality is not evil, it’s a part of nature…no one is being harmed by it. Abortion, despite the hysterical lunacy we hear from the Right, doesn’t kill any babies at all since 99% of abortions happen in the first trimester. So they’re making a bunch of hay out of nothing.
Euthanasia is a personal decision to end one’s life, that nobody chose to have. Again nobody else is being harmed, but because insane ideas that “god gave you life” is in the heads of believers, they think they have to stop others from ending a bad life and keep suffering until they die a slow and painful death.
As the comedian Jim Jefferies once said, the holy books needed to only be 1 page long with this sentence “Don’t be a cunt.” (and I’d add, “stay in your lane.”) Meaning don’t do evil things and leave others alone…and we’d all get along a lot better.
Ofc that’s probably not going to happen, so religious wars will keep happening until religions are eliminated or die off. Thankfully in the West, Christianity is definitely going the way of Greek/Roman mythology.
In a generation Christians will be a minority in the US and they already are in many European countries, unbelievers are the majority now. Unfortunately Islam is growing at Christianity’s expense, but it’ll have to be dealt with probably more directly since it’s far more evil and dangerous.
Fitna says
One other important point to add about the so-called “Pro-Life” movement is that it is incredibly myopic and infantile.
Christians (and other pro-lifers) think that they’re doing the good, moral and right thing when they force rape-victims, teens or women who don’t want to have kids or cannot afford them, never planned for them, etc to have their baby-against their will.
If one disregards all other concerns around having a baby, it “feels” like the right, responsible, humane thing to do, I mean who wants to be called a ‘baby-killer’ right?
It reminds me of these foolish charities who collect blankets for the homeless, or donate a meal for them on Christmas. You’re putting a band-aid on a gaping wound and then go away feeling that you saved the world.
How will a blanket protect them from -30C weather or a blizzard? How will one good meal fix someone’s life when humans need to eat 3 times a day for 80 years at least?
Shouldn’t they instead work on more permanent solutions like demand our politicians allocate money to help the homeless, get them in safe place and eventually allow them to work for themselves or put them in a mental institution if they are mentally incapable?
The Pro-Life movement is also based on the same kind of childish thinking, that if you force a life into the world, then you’ve done your good deed for the day. But to raise a baby takes a LOT of money…who’s going to pay for clothes, diapers, formula?
What about the mental state of health for say a 10 yr old raped by her father or stranger and now she’s raising that child-that she never asked for, that’s she’s not mature enough to raise because she’s a child herself and wasn’t given the chance to grow up. Or a jobless teen who was used for sex, then dumped?
What about the child itself, say it’s given up for adoption, having no familial ties, thrown to the wolves in foster care homes or orphanages where they are sexually, physically and mentally abused, then go on to become criminals and sometimes serial killers or even commit suicide? Is that a good outcome for this child?
If you’re going to force women to have babies, then you should also provide money to her to raise the child and force the father to pay his fair share also. You can’t just focus on one tiny fact will disregarding the needs and input of the mother and the ramifications for all of society.
But then if you allow abortion and terminate fetuses that nobody wants, there is absolutely no harm done because the fetus is not a baby, cannot feel pain, doesn’t have a brain so it doesn’t even know it was alive.
Just another stupid idea that should’ve died out with the Bronze Age but it is here now because religion is profitable, so they continue to give life to these dead, toxic ideas which are long past their ‘best by date’ like religion itself.
Wellington says
Fitna: I am pro-choice but your assessment of the pro-life movement as infantile and replete with other negatives is, ironically, itself quite childish. Just looking at matters logically and ethically, in an Aristotelian kind of way and with all religious convictions put aside, since there is a genuine debate about when life begins, why is the fetus not entitled to the benefit of the doubt? Know full well that both you and I were once fetuses. Aren’t you glad that your mother in your instance was pro-life? And wouldn’t mankind in a Thomas More Utopia err on the side of being pro-life and not pro-choice precisely because of the Aristotelian logic I proffered above?
And homosexuality may not be evil but can you eliminate the possibility that it is and, if you do, by what measurement would you do so and which is clearly superior to the Judeo-Christian tradition on sex and marriage and which most surely does characterize homosexuality as wicked? Put another way, either the Judeo-Christian take on sexuality is correct or it is not—and there is no way to square homosexuality activity (N.B., not to be confused with homosexual leanings) with the Judeo-Christian tradition. Your turn if you care.
Fitna says
Good evening Wellington:
I am pro-choice but your assessment of the pro-life movement as infantile and replete with other negatives is, ironically, itself quite childish.
You state that you are pro-choice, but then launch into a defense of the pro-life movement. Can you clarify what you mean-where do you draw the line? The life of the mother, in the case of rape? Why stop there and not allow for other valid reasons?
You haven’t really explained why my position “is itself childish” nor does it appear you’ve bothered to address the claims I made as to why the pro-life view itself is childish.
“why is the fetus not entitled to the benefit of the doubt? “
Why is the mother not entitled to the benefit of the doubt?
The fetus/zygote could not exist without the mother. Why does a clump of cells, no brain, arms, legs, etc (its not a baby), have any “say” in this matter at all?
If someone left a child on your doorstep should the police have the right to now force you to feed and raise that child by virtue of the fact that it is at your door?
Know full well that both you and I were once fetuses. Aren’t you glad that your mother in your instance was pro-life?
So scientists have studied this and found that babies have no memory of their life before the age of 5 yrs old.
If my mother had decided to abort (and she did have an abortion before me), then I’d have absolutely no problem with that, because it was not the right time for her to raise a kid. I wouldn’t have suffered or really felt any pain because I wasn’t a formed baby at the time.
Even if I was aborted, the pain would’ve been very short and I’d be dead, never knowing what life was like. But the decision is always with the mother. Not mine, yours, the Westboro Baptist church or the states.
Conservatives are all about freedom, independence from gov’t interference, except when it comes to pregnant women. Then they have to be turned into baby factories against their will and have babies they don’t want or can’t afford. What a loving peaceful “intelligent” religion Christianity is.
“And wouldn’t mankind in a Thomas More Utopia err on the side of being pro-life and not pro-choice precisely because of the Aristotelian logic I proffered above?”
Sorry but what Aristotelian logic are you referring to? I took a few philosophy classes back in uni and liked Aristotle, I recall he was a very logical and broad thinker, but you forget some things over time.
And homosexuality may not be evil but can you eliminate the possibility that it is and, if you do, by what measurement would you do so and which is clearly superior to the Judeo-Christian tradition on sex and marriage and which most surely does characterize homosexuality as wicked?”
You’re asking me to prove homosexuality is “evil”? Isn’t that your job-assuming that you disagree with it?
Ofc I’m saying it’s not evil because I don’t see anyone being harmed and that’s really the moral baseline I use when I consider any human activity.
The “Judeo-Christian tradition” comes from Bronze Age goat-herders who knew nothing about our world or science. So to the straight men, gays probably seemed “strange” and then it was later morphed to being “evil” because it was not what they did.
The beginning of the first (and oldest) prejudices and hatred. The same logic being used towards people who are “different” or not from their tribe and we know how that all turned out.
Put another way, either the Judeo-Christian take on sexuality is correct or it is not—and there is no way to square homosexuality activity (N.B., not to be confused with homosexual leanings) with the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Why isn’t there a way to ‘square’ gay sex? Since when is Judeo-Christian (JC) the standard for anything? Homosexuality exists in all cultures and it was celebrated by the Greeks (I believe the Romans also to an extent). Most of the world doesn’t live by the JC standard…shocking I know.
Fitna says
Incidentally you might find Michel Foucault’s trilogy “The history of Sexuality” an interesting read…really deep and fascinating stuff.
In the West sexuality developed under the notion of ‘Scienta Sexualis’ while in the East it was based on ‘Ars Erotica.’
We have a more mechanistic understanding of it…whereas it more organic in the East with less concern about what is good and evil and more of a focus on pleasure.
Unfortunately the “Abrahamic religions” decided to deem alternate forms of sexual expression is ‘wicked’ and that’s why we see so much persecution today against the LGBT community, esp in the Muslim world.
Bonobo monkeys, considered the closest to humans engage in all kinds of sexual activity, including homosexuality. I guess when you’re not worried about a magic sky daddy sending you to hell, then you do whatever you enjoy.
Now I personally have no interest gay sex, but consider how much better the world would be without these silly mythologies of a Saddam Hussein (aka Allah/Jehovah) in the sky, watching you every second and preparing a punishment for you after you die?
I’m sure a part of every Theist must wonder if everything they bought into could be a lie…but they refuse to question it.
Muslims say Jesus is not real, Allah is.
Christians say Allah is not real Jesus it.
Atheists say you are both correct, neither are real.
It’s just that Theists fail to examine their own beliefs with the same scrutiny they examine others, if they did, you’d all be Atheists like me.
James Lincoln says
Fitna says,
“Unfortunately Islam is growing at Christianity’s expense, but it’ll have to be dealt with probably more directly since it’s far more evil and dangerous.”
True.
Some Christians today may be “pesky preachy” – which even irritates me – but they are – with very rare exceptions that go against the tenets of Christianity – nonviolent…
Wellington says
Thank you for your reply, Fitna. I will reply in the order you presented matters.
First, I often can irritate people on both sides of an issue—it’s a gift. I am reluctantly pro-choice but think the pro-life position has more merit, though it would take a society as moral as possible to implement it. I generally favor what exists in many European countries and that is abortion allowed in the first 12-15 weeks but thereafter only for the most exigent of circumstances—rape, incest or life of the mother (not to be confused with health of the mother). Roe v. Wade effectively opened up the way to abortion as late as a pregnant woman wanted it. It ushered in an extreme pro-choice position. Had Roe emulated what exists in countries like Italy, Germany and Ireland, pro-life people would have not liked it but it would have been a compromise grudgingly accepted by most people on both sides.
I described your take on the pro-life position childish precisely because you called the pro-life position infantile and replete with “childish thinking.” I consider neither the pro-choice position nor the pro-life position infantile or childish. Abortion is a very tough matter to deal with and good people on both sides have wrestled with this issue. Also, many pro-life organizations have extensive adoption plans and so it is a myth that such organizations don’t care about the fetus once it is born.
Pregnancy involves three—the mother, the fetus and the prospective father. It is not just a matter of the first and not the last two at all. I think the expectant mother arguably should be considered first and foremost but not exclusively. The fetus is a living organism and one of the most basic instincts in the male is to protect his offspring Here science and psychology is with me and not with only the pregnant woman mattering. And just because the fetus in its early stages could not live without the mother, hardly justifies its termination on these grounds alone. Very young children and babies would not survive minus some kind of parental care but this should not equate to having no regard for their life.
Your analogy of a baby left on my doorstep simply doesn’t hold up. I didn’t engage in any action that created this situation but huge numbers of people engage in sexual activity voluntarily and yet many want to avoid all responsibility if pregnancy ensues. Sex exists in nature first and foremost not for kissy/face, huggy/bear reasons but for the procreation of the species.
And so what if memory does not exist in someone less than five (btw, I swear I have memories from the time when I was just three or four—in fact, I am remembering one such incident, the details are not important, that occurred when I was no older than four)? This doesn’t justify terminating that life—not even close here.
About the only area where conservatives want more government is in the matter of abortion. In virtually all other matters conservatives want less government, though this doesn’t stop non-conservatives from bringing this up again and again.
It is my conviction that both logic and ethics, religious belief aside, demand that the fetus be given the benefit of the doubt. There is an honest disagreement about when life begins. Some say at conception, some with viability of the fetus outside of the womb (and which is being reduced in weeks and months more and more because of modern medical innovations and technology), some say at birth, etc. So why not give the fetus the benefit here and assume it is a living being from conception? Were you not a living being at conception, three weeks, two months?
It seems you have a rather dismal view of the Judeo-Christian ethic and tradition. I do not. I think there is much wisdom in it (so did each of the Founding Fathers of America even though some of these were skeptics about its theology as I am). I regularly told my students to read two works above all—the Bible and Shakespeare. Abraham Lincoln did so and though never belonging to any Christian sect found much wisdom in the Bible and said to an old friend of his, Joshua Speed, “…take all of this book upon reason that you can, and the balance on faith and you will live a happier and better man.” Lincoln also knew Shakespeare thoroughly of course.
Finally, I will state once again something that should be obvious to all and that is that either the Judeo-Christian views on sex and marriage are correct or they are not. If the former, there is no way to square this circle whereby one can both admire the Judeo-Christian take on these matters and completely accept many modern notion of sexuality. It’s an either/or. For the record, minus sex with children and nonconsensual sex of any kind, all else should be legal but this doesn’t equate to approbation in every case. Here I am neither conservative nor liberal.
Well, that’s about it. Thank you again for replying, Fitna.
Fitna says
“Some Christians today may be “pesky preachy” – which even irritates me – but they are – with very rare exceptions that go against the tenets of Christianity – nonviolent…”
Concurred James, while every group might have their share of extremists and lunatics, fortunately Christianity is a largely non-violent religion.
However there is a place for violence, such as in the case of self-defense from people or groups that seek to take away your freedom, for instance.
Fitna says
You’re welcome Wellington and thanks for your reply as well.
It’s a broad subject and it’d take some time to hash out and unfortunately I don’t have the time for that now, but maybe in the future I might try to address at least the key points that you raised.
Kind Regards.
Keith O says
Is there anything that Islamists aren’t offended by?
Perhaps if we tell them that air is produced via pigs farts and they have to stop breathing. Maybe that will fix the problem.
Fitna says
Lol Keith, it’d be great if they fell for it.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Funny, given that Aamir Khan is one of those woke Hinduphobic actors who’s finally been boycotted by Hindus, which is why his most recent movies bombed. At any rate, his daughter made an independent decision. I heard somebody note that the reason some muslims are fine w/ their daughters marrying Hindu or other non-muslim men are that they will not risk them being divorced, pimped around to relatives or beaten. But I do hope that Ira Khan converts to her fiance’s faith, and if and when she has kids, that she doesn’t teach them that Hinduism and islam are both simply different ways of reaching the same deity
But back to Aamir Khan – him getting cancelled now by muslims after being cancelled by Hindus is funny to watch, and couldn’t have happened to a better man
peter11 says
Funny, given that Aamir Khan is one of those Hinduphobic men
Spot on Infidel . I could not have said it better
Raja says
Infidel,
Aamir Khan and his fellow co-religionists/goons have had a telling influence on the Indian psyche. They were mocking Hinduism through their “justifying” comments and stance. And defending islam’s superstitions etc. was handled with bated elain by the islamic / Left goons. Aamir and Sania Mirza have had the knack to mock Hinduism through many events/snaps.
Hope things are changing for better with “not so desirable cancel culture”
somehistory says
“no harm done because the fetus is not a baby, cannot feel pain, doesn’t have a brain so it doesn’t even know it was alive.”
“So scientists have studied this and found that babies have no memory of their life before the age of 5 yrs old.”
Both statements are Complete and utter hogwash. As are many of the other assumptions and claims.
True Scientists have found babies do “feel immense pain” The brain stem and nerves began forming early on. The heartbeat is controlled by the brain and a baby has a heartbeat by at least 6 weeks, if not earlier. At six weeks, it can be heard by a doctor, but no one has proven it is not formed earlier.
and I recall many things that happened in my life before I reached the age of three years.
Raja says
Somehistory,
Scientists can be as stupid as any other humans; my son can vividly remember what happened at age 3. He is well opinionated about the people he saw at age 4. Though I wasn’t that sharp, a friend of mine used to say that he could still recall the events of his childhood days as 2.5 years old. It is a complex world, and it takes some wisdom to a acknowledge the same.
somehistory says
thank you, Raja. My son also remembers his babyhood and things he did at age three.
also, there was a personal account I read some years ago written by a man whose mom was a concert pianist. While pregnant, she was preparing for a special concert and was expected to play a particular piece. Every day she practiced and every day, her unborn son heard the notes.
When he was old enough to climb onto the piano bench, he played that piece without anyone having shown him. He had heard it before his birth and recalled the notes perfectly.
It has also been shown that babies recognize the voices of their siblings and fathers if these ones speak to them before birth. The unborn baby hears the voices and remembers. Just as they recognize the mother’s heartbeat after birth and are calmed by the sound while the new mom holds the baby close.
It is all so amazing and we don’t yet know all there is to know. We can add “life” to that for which we are thankful to our Creator this day, and every other.
somehistory says
When I was just a month past the age of two, my mom had a little boy. She worked in the fields alongside my dad and siblings. She would put a blanket on the ground next to a tree; sit me on the blanket with my back against the tree; put my baby brother in my lap and tie us to the tree with a folded sheet. I can recall those days, looking out across the field, feeling the bark against my back and how tired I became. and when I was not yet three, being sent to play outside by myself, which play entailed watching ants, twirling a small stick in the dirt homes of antlions in order to catch them and allow them to crawl backward across my palm, and watching a tiny oak grow.
As for being “sharp,” some of us just have better memories. Your comments always show a sharp mind.
Uma Maheswar Nakka says
Congratulations to Ira and Nupur.
Nancy says
The very famous actor Shah Rukh Khan has been married to a Hindu woman for many years. Millions of Indians love and adore him. You’d think it wouldn’t be such a big deal these days.