The funniest part about pig politicisation is that it is based on ignorance. Hindus and Christians can eat all the pork they want and keep pigs as pets—that does not bother Muslims.
‘No indication’ transplant was cause, says hospital on death of US patient Richard Slayman who made history as the first living recipient of a genetically modified pig kidney.
The 62-yr-old with end-stage kidney disease was operated on at Massachusetts General Hospital. Previous animal organ transplants have been done outside human body or in brain-dead humans.
The study was conducted by researchers from Sweden’s Linköping University. Details of the Phase 1 trial and its outcome published last week in scientific journal Nature Biotechnology.
In Mizoram, a total of 526 pigs are confirmed to have died of the viral disease this year, while 111 of them are suspected to have died of the illness.
Procedure by researchers at University of Alabama at Birmingham described in a scientific paper published in 'American Journal of Transplantation' on 20 January.
In 1997, India had seen a similar operation, when a transplant surgeon from Assam had conducted a pig-to-human heart and lung transplant in Guwahati. The patient, though, died a week later.
Pigs show remarkable intelligence in a number of complex cognitive tasks. They can respond differently to different sounds, and are masters at spatial learning tasks.
Rather than functioning as conventional propaganda, the video operates as a device for interpretation, subtly shaping expectations about future developments in China’s naval trajectory.
By pairing Indian drone engineering with Japanese semiconductor expertise, the two firms aim to develop more advanced autonomous systems tailored to both defence & commercial use.
American objectives are unmet. They neither have muscle nor motivation to resume the war. As for Iran, the regime didn’t just survive, it’s now led by more radical individuals.
Do Muslims even realize why Hindus are becoming increasingly angry? Muslims see themselves as Muslims first, Indians second (if at all). Hindus see Muslims as belonging to India only because it benefits them.
Did Iran need to collect donations from poor Shias in Kashmir? No. But it did so to remind them where their loyalties should lie. Bahrain and even Pakistan told protesting Shias to go to Iran if they loved Iran so much. India did not because of the trouble Muslims would create in the country if it did so. Hindus see instances of Muslim disloyalty every day.
Muslims are being manipulated every day by Saudi, Qatar and Iran. And creating fault lines within the countries they live in. Their countrymen, whether in Europe, India or parts of Asia, see them as disloyal and dangerous.
Muslims have taken performative religion and religious passive-aggressive actions to a fine art. Did you see so many women in burkhas and head coverings all over the world 20 years ago ? And taking over entire roads for namaz and forcing others off the roads has been a time-honored tradition in India.
When one religion makes passive-aggressive performance such a big part of itself, you should expect others to do the same. Sadly, none of this has anything to do with actual religion.
So let me get this straight.
Mandatory cow sacrifices because kuff*r worship the cow – this is personal freedom of religion.
But someone keeping a pet they worship – this is meant to target your beliefs even when 1. the said belief is pre-existing and 2. it’s literally their pet in their home.
Maybe now is the time to preach: ‘Look away if you’re offended’?
Putting up the picture of a woman praying to a pig is actually a subtle way of showing Hinduphobia.. which Ms. Amana may not have realized, and hence condoned
This is not politicisation at all.
Hindus are assertively stating that they are completely vexed with Islamists/musleems, and their hostility towards Muslims. There are large issues at play here that The blogger doesn’t understand and will never get it.
When extremist groups explicitly claim to act in the name of Islam (or any religion), they’re asserting themselves as representatives, and that claim shapes how outsiders perceive the broader community, fair or not.
When a community’s institutional or political leadership either enables, excuses, or fails to clearly condemn members’ actions, there’s a collective dimension. 3xample…You see muslims in JK donating Gold and cash and what not for Iran. Have you seen any of them donating or contributing or consoling the 26 Hindu Pahalgam victims’ families of Izzlamik terrorism.
Those Hindus keeping pigs as pets are openly protesting against Izzlam and it’s lack of checks and balances. Wake up and see, smell and taste the reality of Hindus lived experiences, in their own country.
Reverence for all life – including board/pigs – a concept very evidently completely foreign to Abrahamics, is not a political strategy but deeply rooted in the Dharmic ethos. We were all (including, we believe, those who deny it) incarnated as different forms of life and will be reincarnated as them. This is why we see all life as sacred.
This philosophy has existed since long before the Abrahamic faiths even entered the scene with claims of the supremacy of man over nature. It is far from a politicisation – Dharma is not so malleable as to be modified to target the beliefs and practices (no matter how rational or not) of others.
Honestly, as a Muslim, this doesn’t deter me at all, I’m not going to avoid streets just because there are pigs. The idea that this would intimidate people feels disconnected from reality.
What it does highlight, though, is a kind of growing tribalism,where actions are less about genuine belief and more about signaling identity in opposition to another group. It stops being about religion and becomes more about ‘us vs them.’
If something is being done mainly to provoke or mark territory, it reflects insecurity and polarization at a local level rather than strength or conviction. In the end, this kind of behavior just deepens divisions without actually solving anything.
Well written article. Unnecessary politicization of religion is happening. Message of Varaha is being muddled by stupidity.
Do Muslims even realize why Hindus are becoming increasingly angry? Muslims see themselves as Muslims first, Indians second (if at all). Hindus see Muslims as belonging to India only because it benefits them.
Did Iran need to collect donations from poor Shias in Kashmir? No. But it did so to remind them where their loyalties should lie. Bahrain and even Pakistan told protesting Shias to go to Iran if they loved Iran so much. India did not because of the trouble Muslims would create in the country if it did so. Hindus see instances of Muslim disloyalty every day.
Muslims are being manipulated every day by Saudi, Qatar and Iran. And creating fault lines within the countries they live in. Their countrymen, whether in Europe, India or parts of Asia, see them as disloyal and dangerous.
Muslims have taken performative religion and religious passive-aggressive actions to a fine art. Did you see so many women in burkhas and head coverings all over the world 20 years ago ? And taking over entire roads for namaz and forcing others off the roads has been a time-honored tradition in India.
When one religion makes passive-aggressive performance such a big part of itself, you should expect others to do the same. Sadly, none of this has anything to do with actual religion.
So let me get this straight.
Mandatory cow sacrifices because kuff*r worship the cow – this is personal freedom of religion.
But someone keeping a pet they worship – this is meant to target your beliefs even when 1. the said belief is pre-existing and 2. it’s literally their pet in their home.
Maybe now is the time to preach: ‘Look away if you’re offended’?
Carl Jung said that you eventually become what you worship. Let’s see where this ends up.
Putting up the picture of a woman praying to a pig is actually a subtle way of showing Hinduphobia.. which Ms. Amana may not have realized, and hence condoned
This is not politicisation at all.
Hindus are assertively stating that they are completely vexed with Islamists/musleems, and their hostility towards Muslims. There are large issues at play here that The blogger doesn’t understand and will never get it.
When extremist groups explicitly claim to act in the name of Islam (or any religion), they’re asserting themselves as representatives, and that claim shapes how outsiders perceive the broader community, fair or not.
When a community’s institutional or political leadership either enables, excuses, or fails to clearly condemn members’ actions, there’s a collective dimension. 3xample…You see muslims in JK donating Gold and cash and what not for Iran. Have you seen any of them donating or contributing or consoling the 26 Hindu Pahalgam victims’ families of Izzlamik terrorism.
Those Hindus keeping pigs as pets are openly protesting against Izzlam and it’s lack of checks and balances. Wake up and see, smell and taste the reality of Hindus lived experiences, in their own country.
Reverence for all life – including board/pigs – a concept very evidently completely foreign to Abrahamics, is not a political strategy but deeply rooted in the Dharmic ethos. We were all (including, we believe, those who deny it) incarnated as different forms of life and will be reincarnated as them. This is why we see all life as sacred.
This philosophy has existed since long before the Abrahamic faiths even entered the scene with claims of the supremacy of man over nature. It is far from a politicisation – Dharma is not so malleable as to be modified to target the beliefs and practices (no matter how rational or not) of others.
Honestly, as a Muslim, this doesn’t deter me at all, I’m not going to avoid streets just because there are pigs. The idea that this would intimidate people feels disconnected from reality.
What it does highlight, though, is a kind of growing tribalism,where actions are less about genuine belief and more about signaling identity in opposition to another group. It stops being about religion and becomes more about ‘us vs them.’
If something is being done mainly to provoke or mark territory, it reflects insecurity and polarization at a local level rather than strength or conviction. In the end, this kind of behavior just deepens divisions without actually solving anything.