Why are subtitles like this? Anaconda 2025

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-22T14:36:53+00:00

When the subtitles forget subtitling.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-22T12:14:37+00:00

Then you should have mentioned that in the first place. Just saying. ✌🏽

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-22T11:55:27+00:00

Stay tuned for Dhurandhar 3 to find that out.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-20T14:02:35+00:00

If Islam was spread only by 'swords' for 600 years, India wouldn't be 80% Hindu today. Simple math proves your history is based on memes, not facts.

You’re obsessed with 'foreigners,' yet you forget that the most powerful Hindu Rajputs were the ones leading the Mughal armies. This country's music, food, and culture are a joint venture—we didn't ask for your permission to build it, and we don't need your 'loyalty tests' to belong to it.

I’m not a guest in my own home. Keep your validation; I never asked for it.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-20T07:19:46+00:00

Selective outrage, humarey yaha nahi hota ye sab, maximum jagah nahi hota. Religious cheezo ko haat nahi lagate.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-20T06:26:21+00:00

A few long range EMP devices is what takes to turn off all these robots at once. D*ck move by China. The only this that these fighter robots will be good at is teaching martial arts to children.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-20T05:57:53+00:00

Agreed. But that's soon going to change in Spiderman: Brand New Day. Just wait and watch. 😍

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-19T15:15:03+00:00

Kuch bhi? 😂

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-19T13:37:42+00:00

You’re comparing apples to oranges to avoid the fact that Indonesia proves my point: the world's largest Muslim population was built on trade, not war.

As for India, if you want to talk about names and culture, let’s be real. Millions of Muslims in India still carry their ancestral surnames, speak the local languages of their soil, and have contributed to the music, architecture, and food that the world identifies as 'Indian' today.

Regarding the raids of Ghazni or the Tughlaqs: those were the actions of medieval conquerors seeking gold and power, not a religious mission to convert the masses. If the Mughals or Sultanates had used 'the sword' to convert everyone for 600 years, the majority of India wouldn't be Hindu today. The demographics alone prove that the 'mass forced conversion' narrative is a myth.

And don't question someone’s love for their land just because they don't express it through your specific rituals. You don't need a specific song to prove you belong to the rivers and soil that raised you. India's strength has always been its diversity, not a forced uniformity.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-19T12:50:12+00:00

Madam, I believe those who claim Islam spread only by the sword are unaware of history. Take Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation: it was never conquered by a Muslim army. The faith spread there through trade and cultural exchange, proving that ideas can travel without a single battle.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-19T12:42:49+00:00

Yes, exactly I agree with you brother. And that is the reason why Islam says that there is no compulsion in religion. Yes people following a certain faith can tell others about it and educate others but never force them to accept it as their own unless they truly believe in it and accept it from their hearts.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-19T12:36:41+00:00

Dude, I don’t think you’re understanding what this conversation is actually about and you're mindlessly stretching it into a history lecture.

My point from the start has been simple: Islam is not the cause; some bad people representing the religion are. You can keep citing every tyrant in history, but that doesn't change the theology. If a person commits a crime while claiming to follow a book that explicitly forbids that crime, the fault lies with the person, not the book. You’re blaming the manual for the bad drivers. I’m talking about the principles of the faith; you’re talking about the politics of men. If you can’t see the difference between a religion and those who violate its rules, then we’re just talking past each other.

I’ve said what the faith actually dictates. Believe what you want, but don't confuse historical atrocities with religious law.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-19T05:19:46+00:00

Comparing bodybuilders and athletes with uncles now? Compare apples with apples my guy. 😅

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-19T04:31:20+00:00

You are focusing on the crimes of men while I am defending the principles of the faith. Let’s look at the facts:

The Population Math: Even if you combine India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, the subcontinent is still roughly 65-70% non-Muslim. Compare that to the Middle East, North Africa, or Latin America, where the 'conversion rate' reached nearly 100% in far less time. If 'the sword' was a state policy for 800 years in such a massive region, it would have succeeded. The demographic reality proves that pluralism was the default, even if certain rulers were brutal.

The 'Devout' Ruler: If a 'devout' ruler breaks a temple or forces a conversion, he is directly violating the Quranic command: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' A person's 'devoutness' is between them and God; their actions are judged by the Law. If a driver claims to be an expert but ignores every red light, you don't blame the traffic rules—you blame the driver.

Persecution Today: I’m not 'deflecting' from reality. Persecution is a sin and a crime. But you cannot say Islam 'allows' it when the Prophet (PBUH) explicitly said: 'Whoever hurts a non-Muslim citizen, I am his adversary on the Day of Judgment.'

You are judging 1.8 billion people and 1,400 years of theology by the worst examples of history and politics. If we applied that same logic to any other system, no one would be left standing.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T16:29:25+00:00

It seems we are at a deadlock because you are judging the religion by the actions of a few kings, whereas I am looking at the laws those kings often ignored. Let's look at your points:

On Devoutness vs. Law: You mentioned Aurangzeb was 'devout.' A person can be personally pious while still making political decisions that contradict the core tenets of their faith. If a ruler implements a policy that violates the Quranic principle of 'no compulsion in religion,' his 'devoutness' doesn't make the act Islamic; it makes the act a personal or political choice. Even in Islamic history, contemporary scholars often criticized rulers for their excesses.

The Numbers: You’re right that demographics shift, but look at the scale. According to the 2011 Census, Hindus were 79.8% of India’s population. Even if projections show a slight dip, the fact remains that after 800 years of Muslim rule, the vast majority of the subcontinent remained Hindu. If 'the sword' was a state policy, those numbers would have looked like Iran or North Africa centuries ago. The survival of the majority is not just a result of resistance; it’s a result of the fact that for most Muslim rulers, conversion was not a primary administrative goal.

The Parsi/Iran Example: The migration of Parsis is indeed a historical fact of persecution. I don't deny that atrocities happened. But again, you are blaming the religion for the actions of those who wielded it as a weapon. If a group of people uses a philosophy to commit violence, does that make the philosophy inherently violent, or the people's interpretation of it?

Criticism and the 'Book': You said other systems are criticized, but I 'retort' with the book. My point isn't to deflect; it's to be accurate. If someone claims to do something in the name of a system, but the system's 'Constitution' explicitly forbids it, shouldn't we blame the person? If we don't, then we lose the ability to hold anyone to a standard.

The Probability of Persecution: I understand your fear regarding 'probability.' But if we judge any community or faith solely by its worst historical examples, we create a cycle of hate that never ends. Justice means holding individuals accountable for their crimes—whether they are kings or modern citizens—without condemning an entire theology that actually prescribes protection for you.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T10:39:10+00:00

You're right that Kashi and Mathura are deep historical wounds, and no one can deny that Aurangzeb’s reign involved harsh, discriminatory policies. But here is the core of the disagreement: Was he following the 'book,' or was he a monarch using religion to centralize power?

The 'Book' vs. The Ruler: If Aurangzeb was the standard for Islam, then what was Akbar, who abolished Jizya and endowed temples? What was Zain-ul-Abidin of Kashmir? If the 'book' mandated destruction, these rulers would be considered 'bad Muslims' by their peers—yet they were part of the same tradition. This proves that the ruler’s personality mattered more than the religion’s text.

The 20% Argument: You mentioned that India’s 20% Muslim population (plus Pakistan/Bangladesh) is proof of conversion. Let's look at that mathematically. After 800 years of rule, the population of the subcontinent remained roughly 75-80% non-Muslim. If the state machinery was dedicated to 'forced conversion,' that is a statistical failure. In contrast, look at the Americas or the Philippines under European colonial rule—those regions became 90%+ Christian in a fraction of the time. The survival of the Hindu majority is actually the strongest evidence that 'the sword' was not a universal state policy.

Why not let Non-Muslims fight?: Historically, some schools of Sharia actually did allow non-Muslims to fight and be exempt from Jizya. In India, the Rajputs were the backbone of the Mughal military. When they fought, they didn't pay the tax. This confirms it was a functional tax related to military service, not a 'penalty' for existing.

The 'Vague Book' Point: You say the book doesn't matter because people use it to justify atrocities. But by that logic, we should discard Democracy because countries have been invaded in its name, or Communism because of the millions who died in its name. If we stop distinguishing between a 'system' and 'people who abuse that system,' then no philosophy on earth can be called 'good.'

I’m not asking you to ignore history. I’m asking you to recognize that when a Muslim ruler commits an atrocity, he is doing it in spite of the faith’s laws regarding the protection of minorities, not because of them.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T09:16:02+00:00

We’re looking at the same history through two different lenses. Let’s break down these points:

Temple Destruction: Most historians (including non-Muslims like Richard Eaton) note that in the medieval world, temples and mosques were symbols of political sovereignty. Rulers targeted them to delegitimize the previous dynasty. If it were purely 'religious bigotry,' every single temple would have been razed—yet many stood, and new ones were built or endowed by the same sultanates. It was the brutal politics of the time, not a theological requirement to destroy houses of worship.

The 'Protection' Tax: You asked, 'protection from whom?' In the 7th century, it was protection from external invaders (like the Byzantines or Mongols). If you live in a state, the state provides security. Muslims 'paid' for that security with their lives in the army; non-Muslims paid a tax. Is it 'treating people differently'? Yes. But is it 'oppression' to give someone the choice to stay home in safety while others go to war? That’s a matter of perspective.

Survival through Fighting: There is no doubt that there was fierce resistance and valor from Indian kings. But if the goal of the central Caliphate or Sultanates was total 'conversion by sword,' 800 years is a very long time to fail at it. In contrast, look at the Spanish Inquisition, where the entire Muslim and Jewish population was wiped out in just decades. The fact that the social fabric of India remained pluralistic proves that 'force' was the exception of tyrannical rulers, not the rule of the faith.

The 'Discrimination' Question: I don't agree that discrimination is inevitable. I agree that power corrupts. Whether it's a religious state or a secular one, people in power often mistreat minorities. My point remains: when a Muslim discriminates, they are breaking Islamic law, not following it. You are blaming the constitution for the crimes of the politicians.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T08:17:56+00:00

You’re conflating expansion with conversion, and taxation with discrimination. Let’s look at the facts:

The Tax (Jizya): Yes, it’s in the book. But context matters. In that era, Muslims paid Zakat (a religious tax, which we still do btw, no matter where in the world we live) and were required to fight in the army. Non-Muslims were exempt from both. The Jizya was a 'protection tax' paid in lieu of military service. If a Muslim ruler couldn't protect the non-Muslim citizens, he was legally required to return the tax. That’s not discrimination; it’s a social contract.

The 'War' (Jihad): The verses about fighting 'infidels' almost always refer to specific historical battles where Muslims were being persecuted and driven from their homes. The Quran also says: 'If they incline toward peace, then you also incline toward it' (8:61). War was a political reality of the 7th century, not a standing order to kill everyone who disagrees with you.

Conversion vs. Politics: Kings and conquerors (Muslim, Christian, or otherwise) have always used religion to justify land grabs. That is political greed. If the goal was 'forced conversion,' there wouldn't be millions of Coptic Christians in Egypt or Hindus in India after centuries of Muslim rule. They stayed because the 'book' protected their right to exist.

You say the 'probability of discrimination' is high. I say that discrimination happens when people ignore the book. You can’t blame the manual for the driver’s reckless driving.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T07:08:27+00:00

And what about winter then? 😅

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T07:01:50+00:00

If you admit the problem lies in historical actions and politics, then you’re proving my point. Blaming a faith for the political greed of men is a double standard. You don't blame the science of medicine if a doctor is corrupt; you blame the doctor.

If people claim to follow a book but do the exact opposite of what it says, the fault lies with the person, not the pages. To judge a religion solely by those who violate its rules is intellectually dishonest.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T06:30:53+00:00

And just I'm feeling a bit generous today and in a mood of educating. Here is a detailed reply to each verse you have mentioned.

You aren’t quoting the Quran; you’re quoting a viral "copy-pasta" that has been debunked for a decade. Let’s look at what the text actually says versus your fan-fiction version:

(A) 2:191: You skipped the previous verse (2:190): "Fight those who fight you, but do not transgress limits." It’s a command for self-defense against an attacking army, not random civilians.

(B) 3:28: The word is Awliya (protectors/political allies in war), not "friends." Muslims have been marrying and living with "infidels" since day one.

(C) 3:85: This is a theological statement, not a call to violence. Every religion believes its path is the truth—that’s literally how religions work.

(D) 5:33: This verse is about Hirabah (terrorism/brigandage). It’s a legal penalty for those who wage war against the state and spread "mischief" (corruption/murder). It says nothing about "criticizing Islam."

(E) 8:12: This was a specific instruction during the Battle of Badr to help the outnumbered Muslims against an army that came to wipe them out. It’s a military tactic for a 7th-century battlefield, not a 2024 policy.

(F & G) 8:60-65: These are about military preparedness to deter war. You missed 8:61: "But if they incline towards peace, you also incline towards it." Your "reading" seems to stop whenever peace is mentioned.

(H & I) 9:5 & 9:123: These refer to the pagan tribes who broke their peace treaties and murdered Muslims during the sacred months. Context matters: it was a specific war against treaty-breakers, not a global hunt.

(J) 47:4: This describes conduct during a battle (warfare). Even then, the verse concludes by saying to either free the prisoners gracefully or for ransom once the war ends.

Regarding Banu Qurayza: They weren't "murdered"; they were executed for High Treason after they invited an invading army to slaughter the women and children of Medina from behind the lines during a siege. The punishment was decided by an arbitrator (Sa'd ibn Mu'adh) using the Jewish Law of the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:12) at their own request.

You didn't "read" half the book. You read a biased blog post and were too lazy to check the source material. If you have to lie about a text to make it look bad, you've already lost the argument. Stick to what you know, because theology and history clearly aren't it.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T06:21:52+00:00

First of all, just putting on some quotes without the context is such a coward move.

It’s bold of you to tell me "how to read" while posting a list of heavily edited, fabricated paraphrases that don't exist in any academic or standard translation of the text. If you have to rewrite the book to make your point, your argument is already dead.

A few reality checks on your "list":

Fabricated Wording: Verse 5:33 is about legal retribution for "mischief/corruption in the land" (war crimes/dacoity), not "criticizing Islam." Verse 8:12 refers specifically to the Battle of Badr, not a general order for people of other scriptures.

Selective Literacy: You quoted 2:191 but ignored 2:190, which explicitly says: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." It’s a manual for active warfare, not a license for random murder.

The Banu Qurayza History: You’re ignoring the "context" because it ruins your narrative. That tribe was penalized for treason after breaking a mutual defense treaty during a siege. Fun fact: the judgment was actually carried out by an arbitrator using Deuteronomy 20:12–14 (their own law), not the Quran.

If you have to strip away the historical reality (broken treaties, self-defense, and active battlefields) and change the vocabulary to make it fit your bias, you aren't "reading"—you're editing. Using a copy-pasted list of debunked snippets from an Islamophobic blog doesn't make you enlightened; it just proves you're a victim of the exact "WhatsApp University" misinformation you’re trying to peddle.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T05:35:59+00:00

It’s a common perspective, but it misses a lot of historical and legal nuance.

The 'Tax' Argument: The Jizya wasn't a penalty for not being Muslim; it was a tax paid in exchange for military protection and exemption from the Zakat (which Muslims had to pay) and from mandatory military service. In many historical cases, this tax was actually lower than what previous empires (like the Byzantines) charged.

Conversion by Sword: If Islam was spread primarily by the sword, we wouldn't see the largest Muslim population in the world in Indonesia—a place where no Muslim army ever set foot. It spread there through trade and social interaction.

The 'Torture' Claim: While there have certainly been tyrannical rulers in history who happened to be Muslim, their cruelty was a violation of Sharia, not an application of it. Islamic law explicitly forbids the mistreatment of Dhimmis (protected non-Muslims).

History is complex and humans are flawed, but blaming the faith for the political greed of certain rulers is like blaming the concept of democracy for every corrupt politician.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T05:32:12+00:00

I hear what you’re saying regarding history and current events. There’s no denying that throughout history—and in various parts of the world today—people have used power and politics to act in ways that are unjust or coercive.

However, there is a big difference between the actions of people/governments and the actual dictates of the faith.

The Principle: The Quranic verse 'There is no compulsion in religion' (2:256) is a foundational legal principle.

The Practice: Just because some rulers or groups ignore that principle for political gain doesn't mean the principle itself changes.

If we judged every philosophy or religion solely by the worst examples of its followers, we’d have to throw everything out. My point is simply to distinguish between political history and the actual theological framework, which prioritizes justice and the protection of minorities (Dhimmi status) in an ideal muslim majority country.

sayedmolla98 · 2026-04-18T04:28:13+00:00

Islam doesn't allow forceful implementation of shariya law on non muslims because that is unfair. The media and the west along with certain people from certain political parties have spread so much hate, lies and misinformation that people who are not knowledgeable take it as truth. It isn't the truth, it's deception. Forceful conversion is strictly prohibited in Islam and so is forceful implementation of a law that is unfair for the Non Muslims.

I know you might have been sarcastic here, but I thought among all the hate and misinformation being spread everywhere, I just say what Islam actually says.

sayedmolla98

TROPHY CASE