Has Hinduism had the Longest Tradition of Continuous Religion?

Reply # 342

dear Ranjit,

I again try to elaborate my point of view.

I was trying to make a point that skilled workers or tradesmen enjoy high prestige in the science based real world where as they are considered ``kamis`` or low caste in India and Pakistan.


In the scientific and real world, ``unlicensed`` and `` unqualified`` tradesmen with no apprenticeship or hands on experience are not allowed to spoil the materials or to claim as a professional electrician or professional carpenter.

unskilled Labour is a different issue ...

The people who illegaly enter USA from Mexico side, usually work underground and they do simple labour like lifting boxes etc. and they make 3-5 dollars an hour wage.

There are millions of unskilled legalized workers in USA and Canada and they make 6-8 dollars an hour wage which comes to approx Rs 4000 a day.

I was talking about licensed and qualified plumbers, carpenters and electricians and no slave labour or illegal workers can work in their place.

It is about ``Standardization`` and quality control and governments make sure that people and workers are classified and specialized and they don`t want ``bad workmen quarrel with their tools`` kind of examples and to ruin materials also.

Workers who work on construction sites make approx 18-20 dollars an hour wage and they are required to elaborate on their resumes ,their previous experience, references and ability to read building blue prints, drawings and operate machinery, and to ensure quality etc..

During British Raj in India, students of Engineering universities were required to go to brick kilns and learn to make and bake bricks, then they were learning hands on experience about brick laying, pointing and importance of codes and neat workmanship etc.

They wanted to make sure that each and every ``brick`` of empire was well trained and well baked.

Leaders like Winston Churchill belonged to royal family but still he took courses in Masonry and brick laying in order to give dignity and show importance of tradesmen and builders of the empire.

As a role model for ordinary citizens, his photos while he was building walls were widely circulated, so that people could feel good to work with their hands and people could have pride in learning hands on skills.

In our countries we have useless and talktive story tellers, mahapandits, mullahs , chaudries, khans , wadairas and Rajpoots and we have hired prime ministers who being a role model cover their inferiority complexes and low self esteems through ``armani`` clothes and spend millions on their kitchens and then show their fat faces on TV.

Rest of the white shirts wearing government babus or divisional forest officers and Executive engineers follow him and they feel insulted if they are asked to repair heritage building of their office or to plant a sapling or touch a brick with their delicate and holy hands.

Results are in front of us ...we find honor , dignity and quality buildings and products in London and in Pakistan and India we find junk buildings , shoddy products and stiff necks in uniforms with iron rods in them....

#343 by ranjit

[I understand the discomfort that this statement may cause you.]

I`m afraid you don`t. A theory is not correct/incorrect JUST BECAUSE it may/may not cause discomfort.

It may cause YOU discomfort, but why project that onto me? :-)



[However, do you really think that once you die, you will be met by Chitragupt on the door to heaven, who will look at your life and assign you a place in heaven or hell? Do you think you will get to see Indra and the 10000 gods and the apsaras dancing? I mean, for crying out loud. Thats the same kind of delusion that the jihadis have. Once they die, they will meet Allah who will assign them houris in heaven. What utter BS!! ]

If from my posts, that is the impression you got, then it is no point discussing any of this with you.


[I guess, it is but natural and human to dream that it will turn out something like that. Just like a kid dreams of Santa Claus and is utterly convinced that Santa exists.]

Is that how you debate? By putting words into the other person`s mouth, and then debating that? :-)


[I will throw you one challenge. If there is an all powerful God - call him Allah, Bhagwan, Vishnu, Shiva whatever, why doesnt he reveal himself to all of us? Not to someone in a cave or in a dream. But directly in front of all of us and give us clear expectations of what is there before and after death. Why not remove all doubts, suspicions and ambiguity? If that being is really that powerful to control all of us, it is trivial to do this and set us all straight. Everyone will then follow one religion and no one will do any evil deed for the fear of God. It wont happen becaus such a being or force does not exist. Period!! ]

It`s too much of a challenge for me to handle. Goodbye.

:-)

Re:krishna_abcd#341
[..But saying that when we die, our neurons stop firing, and that`s it - like a flame going out - is a statement fraught with all kinds of implications. That is not to say that it is impossible that that is indeed the case - .....]

I understand the discomfort that this statement may cause you. However, do you really think that once you die, you will be met by Chitragupt on the door to heaven, who will look at your life and assign you a place in heaven or hell? Do you think you will get to see Indra and the 10000 gods and the apsaras dancing? I mean, for crying out loud. Thats the same kind of delusion that the jihadis have. Once they die, they will meet Allah who will assign them houris in heaven. What utter BS!!

I guess, it is but natural and human to dream that it will turn out something like that. Just like a kid dreams of Santa Claus and is utterly convinced that Santa exists.

I will throw you one challenge. If there is an all powerful God - call him Allah, Bhagwan, Vishnu, Shiva whatever, why doesnt he reveal himself to all of us? Not to someone in a cave or in a dream. But directly in front of all of us and give us clear expectations of what is there before and after death. Why not remove all doubts, suspicions and ambiguity? If that being is really that powerful to control all of us, it is trivial to do this and set us all straight. Everyone will then follow one religion and no one will do any evil deed for the fear of God. It wont happen becaus such a being or force does not exist. Period!!

Re:nature_lover#340

[..In USA you will notice that a ``journeyman Electrician`` makes 28 dollars an hour wage where as a professional engineer might be making 30 dollars an hour....]

It all boils down to population that drives demand/supply. The western countries are sparsely populated so even for hands-on work like masonry, carpentry, plumber, electrician etc, you do not have enough people. Therefore their wages are high, even though it doesnt take that much effort to become one. Heck, even illegal immigrants from Mexico with zero education make a decent living in the US because of the lack of available manpower to do low skill work.

As compared to that India and Pakistan are overpopulated with people who have low level skills. You can shout carpenter and a thousand carpenters will line up. Same with electricians. So how can their wages go up? Thats why professional occupations and specialized tradesmen make more money in India/Pakistan. Its not some grand social/political conspiracy by brahmins and mullahs. If you want to change that, first you will need to reduce the population density to what it is in the western world.

#338 by ranjit

[Ajeya, I am thoroughly disillusioned with all religions. We all think that religions provide a moral compass based on doing ``good`` things in this life to be in the good books of God, so as to have a good afterlife in heaven. The reality is the opposite. Religion has been misused for violence throughout human history and the misuse is even more pronounced today. If you think lack of belief in God will lead you to kill people for the heck of it, it is the other way round. It is the faith in God as per your religion, that is pushing all these jehadis and other loonies into killing innocent people for the heck of it, thinking that they will get rewarded by God afterwards.

Think of the jihadis who planted the bombs in Mumbai trains. Do you think they are just amoral villains like the kind we see in hindi films? People who kill anybody for the heck of it since they have no moral compass. No way!! The jihadis are in all likelihood very, very religious people with strong morals. They probably pray 5 times a day and consider muslim life to be very precious that needs protection. If there is natural disaster, they would provide humanitarian relief (just see the Lashkar-e-Toiba`s earthquake relief efforts in PoK). However, when it comes to people from a different religion, they have no hesitation to kill innocent men, women and children as if they are subhuman animals. Why is that? In their warped mind, they are soldiers for Islam. They are doing a good deed which will get them benefits after death from Allah.

I submit that a mind that is detached from religion (either total disbelief or nominal belief as mumbo-jumbo) is much more likely to follow a moral compass that is not driven by greed for benefits after death. Rather it will be driven by practical considerations to maximize the quality of life on earth. It will be more likely to treat people fairly and avoid prejudice. It will be much more tolerant of differences and believe in live and let live. The fantastic progress of the secular west, secular far-east countries, secular Turkey, secular Malaysia and the pretty good progress of secular India, proves this hypothesis. ]

ranjit,

Being disillusioned with religions is one thing. But saying that when we die, our neurons stop firing, and that`s it - like a flame going out - is a statement fraught with all kinds of implications. That is not to say that it is impossible that that is indeed the case - that we are nothing more than a sumtotal of atoms and molecules that blind evolution has churned up - all I`m saying is that it is very difficult to be sure. To paraphrase Somerset Maugham - you can be sure that you cannot be sure of anything. The Universe is such an amazing mystery, our own existence is so improbable and so very pointless, that it is impossible to discount anything. And that is why I was discussing what such a belief really signifies.

This is why I am so comfortable just being a human being. The term ``Hindu`` signifies my cultural upbringing. NOTHING more. I think it is quite possible for a society to live happily for a while without any religion - like the Chinese - maybe for a few generations. But I think religion will ultimately make its resurgence in China as well. Because religion is a mental crutch in a world where there are, and always will be, so many unknowns.

I`m not sure, but that`s what I think.

Don`t blame the religions. Blame the false prophets and the idiots who follow them. Or at least blame those who believe in bad things just because some prophet said so.

# 339 by Ranjit

I guess you couldn`t get my point.

There is no doubt that non scientific mullahs, pundits and cultural mythologies play important role in nation`s lives and they influence psyches of individuals and nations.

In rationality based scientific world ``hands on worker`` is no less important than those who make drawings on paper or write with pens.

In USA you will notice that a ``journeyman Electrician`` makes 28 dollars an hour wage where as a professional engineer might be making 30 dollars an hour.

``Journey man Electrician`` is a very respectable title in Europe and USA and they usually attend 4 years of technical institute after grade 12 and they do atleast 4 years of tough apprentice ship before they get that respectable title like `` Electrician``, `` carpenter``, or ``licensed mason`` etc.

Reason is very simple , you don`t see power failures, loose joints, jumbles of wires or explosions of transformers or electrocutions of innocent citizens in these countries..why...??

Becuase ``hands on work`` is what matters here...they don`t want to destroy their billions dollars equipment and materials by giving all powers to those Engineers who probably got Engineering degree from UET, Lahore at a gun point and who got the government job, because they killed 4 fellow students while they were heads of the students wings of Muslim league or People`s party.

In the real world, where we find high quality buildings, reliable machines and professional services, supervisors and senior Managers reach to higher positions through apprentice ships and through ``hands on`` experience, so that they become REALLY able to ``train`` and supervise junior engineers and tradesmen.

Scientific and prosperous nations respect and implement ``codes`` and ``specifications`` just like we Pakistanis and Indians respect and honour our mullahs/pundits and their rituals.

Re:nature_lover#337

[...Why Hindu pandits of India and talktive lazy mullahs of Pakistan look down at those people who are ``kamis``, low caste, builders, masons, carpenters , blacksmiths etc. etc. ....]

What do you do yourself? Are you a mason, carpenter or blacksmith? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldnt be posting on the internet. It is easy to preach but very difficult to practice what you preach.

Let me take it one step further. Do you have a sister or daughter? If you want her to get married, will you get a mason, carpenter, blacksmith or will you go for a doctor, engineer or MBA?

Economics is driven by supply and demand. India/Pakistan have surplus population with little education. Therefore, they can do the hands-on work like masonry, carpenter, blacksmithy etc. Since there is a lot of people like that, the wages are low and their life is hard. Even people with useless education like liberal arts are also in the same situation and end up doing some low level work to make a living. Professions that require skills require education and brains. That is difficult to acquire. Due to limited supply of people, the wages are higher and hence life for these people is better. That is why, every parent in India and Pakistan want to send their kids to convent schools and get them professional education. It has nothing to do with Pundits, Brahmins or Mullahs. Just plain economics!!

Re:krishna_abcd

[...My intention was to try to discuss with Ranjit the implications of taking the view he was taking -....]

Ajeya, I am thoroughly disillusioned with all religions. We all think that religions provide a moral compass based on doing ``good`` things in this life to be in the good books of God, so as to have a good afterlife in heaven. The reality is the opposite. Religion has been misused for violence throughout human history and the misuse is even more pronounced today. If you think lack of belief in God will lead you to kill people for the heck of it, it is the other way round. It is the faith in God as per your religion, that is pushing all these jehadis and other loonies into killing innocent people for the heck of it, thinking that they will get rewarded by God afterwards.

Think of the jihadis who planted the bombs in Mumbai trains. Do you think they are just amoral villains like the kind we see in hindi films? People who kill anybody for the heck of it since they have no moral compass. No way!! The jihadis are in all likelihood very, very religious people with strong morals. They probably pray 5 times a day and consider muslim life to be very precious that needs protection. If there is natural disaster, they would provide humanitarian relief (just see the Lashkar-e-Toiba`s earthquake relief efforts in PoK). However, when it comes to people from a different religion, they have no hesitation to kill innocent men, women and children as if they are subhuman animals. Why is that? In their warped mind, they are soldiers for Islam. They are doing a good deed which will get them benefits after death from Allah.

I submit that a mind that is detached from religion (either total disbelief or nominal belief as mumbo-jumbo) is much more likely to follow a moral compass that is not driven by greed for benefits after death. Rather it will be driven by practical considerations to maximize the quality of life on earth. It will be more likely to treat people fairly and avoid prejudice. It will be much more tolerant of differences and believe in live and let live. The fantastic progress of the secular west, secular far-east countries, secular Turkey, secular Malaysia and the pretty good progress of secular India, proves this hypothesis.

Reply #245

Echoboom looks like a Pakistani version of ``holy than thou`` Hindu pandits of backward and superstitous India.

One will find just rhetoric, plain ``dangerous`` rhetoric and nothing of substance in his black pages.

Why Hindu pandits of India and talktive lazy mullahs of Pakistan look down at those people who are ``kamis``, low caste, builders, masons, carpenters , blacksmiths etc. etc.

In Europe and USA,.. tradesmen rule the society, Winston Churchill was a qualified mason and a ``licensed`` brick layer...in civilized and healthy societies Tradesmen come to work in luxury cars and live in mansions..

In India and Pakistan ``anti work man`` mindset is a perpetual gift of the ``caste system`` which was created by crazy Hindu Pandits and adopted by their counterpart Pakistani Mullahs...

Prophet of Islam said, `` al kasib o habibullah``, a person, a tradesman who works with his hands is a friend of God...

Salvation of India and Pakistan lies not in more superstitous talks but in Scientific revolution.

#335 by kaalchakra

kaalchakra,

Yes, they don`t necessarily contradict each other.

My intention was not to delve into philosophy per se. My intention was to try to discuss with Ranjit the implications of taking the view he was taking - I wasn`t sure if he had thought things through.

It`s not important, anyway. Although these are important concepts, and lie at the heart of most of our value systems, most people could care less. People usually don`t want to think much, and few are capable of thinking on point - people usually like to be told what to do, and what to think. This is good in a way (as every father who has had a teenager in the house knows - some idiot teenagers think that they have pretty much figured out everything), but it can be bad also - for example when the faithful ``believe`` in the bad stuff.

Ajeya

Krishna

The view that one ought to maximize one` happiness and the view that one ought to reduce others` pain.

Sorry about the confusion!

(May be you could make your scenario even more interesting, and conflicted. What would one do if one of the two men could survive only by killing the other, and say, eating the victim`s body parts.)

#333 by kaalchakra

[There doesn`t seem to be a conflict between the two positions.]

I`m not sure I understood. Which two positions?

Krishna

There doesn`t seem to be a conflict between the two positions. Charvaka philosophy, to the best of my knowledge, does not promote hedonism or self-interest at the cost of consciously increasing someone else`s pain.

#327 by kaalchakra

kaalchakra,

I was familiar with sage Vrihaspati`s saying - only because it is oft-quoted. I am not familiar with sage Vyasa`s sayings (I think I`m not - I don`t know what I don`t know :)).

But what Vrihaspati is saying does not address the issue of moral relativism - he is not proposing that you do any harm to anyone - no morals involved here. And I will have to read all of Vyasa`s sayings to understand what he is trying to say.

Although you are absolutely right when you say that the issue is about moral absolutes - in fact it is also about how you define the word ``morals``.

330 by sunlight
``Om tat savitur varenyam, bhargo devasya dhimahi, dhiyo yo nah pracodayat``
``That glorious sun, whose radiance illuminates the universe, may his light illuminate my mind``
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Small mistake in translation, should have been:
``Om tat savitur varenyam, bhargo devasya dhimahi, dhiyo yo nah pracodayat``
``That glorious sun, whose radiance illuminates the universe, may his light illuminate our minds``

322 by ranjit
Is this a joke? 50% of Saudi population i.e. women cant even drive a car. Minorities have no rights. They cannot practice their faith. People from South Asia and Southeast Asia are treated like cattle. Are you saying that they are very happy? Maybe the poll is limited to the Saudi royal family.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apparently you did not read the reference I gave you. It is from New Scientist (a very well known and respected scientific magazine). The research was carried out by a professor from the University of Leicester.

FYI - partly because of the influence of the effect of yoga and meditation on people - there is now a large amount of research going on in psychology departments on happiness. This is unlike traditional psychology, which focussed on curing psychological disorders, and so was focussed more on ``unhappiness``.

If you have any evidence or data to support your opinion, I humbly request you to furnish it.

``Om tat savitur varenyam, bhargo devasya dhimahi, dhiyo yo nah pracodayat``
``That glorious sun, whose radiance illuminates the universe, may his light illuminate my mind``

#327 by kaalchakra

Gotta run. I`ll get back to you soon.

Thanks...

#326 by ranjit

[Well, if it doesnt benefit you in any manner, why would you kill that man? It is needless waste of your own time, which is limited as it is. You may want to enjoy that in peace. On the other hand, if he has something valuable that DOES make a major difference to you, you will indeed attack him and take it away since there is no law enforcement there. That is assuming he doesnt have the means to defend himself. This is just common sense, no great philosophy here!!]

You are still missing the point.

The question is not WHY you would want to kill the man.

The question is, IF someone wanted to (for whatever reason - maybe he likes to kill people, or he likes to hunt, and considers humans fair game - along with wild animals - the reason is not important), would that be okay with you?

( Now don`t tell me that it is not a valid question because it is unrealistic. Because then none of the elementary school arithmetic questions would ever get solved. :) )

ranjit, krishna_abcd

Interesting discussion about the existence and relevance of moral absolutes!

Two great and immortal traditions that have something to say to each of your two positions:

Brihaspati Principle - Maximize your happiness on this earth, since no one knows what happens hereafter:

Yavaj jeevet sukham jeevet, rinam kritvaa ghritam peebet
Bhasmibhutasya dehasya punaraagamanam kutah.

Sage Brihaspati says: As long as you live, live happily. Borrow money and drink ghee. For when this body is reduced to ashes, who knows where/how it will come back from?


Vyasa Principle -

Ashtaadasha puraaneshu Vyasasya vachanah dwayam
Paropakarah punyaaya papaaya parapeedanam.

In eighteen puranas, the Sage Vyasa sends just these two messages: By helping others one gains merit; by increasing others` pain, one commits sin.

Re:krishna_abcd#325

[Imagine a scenario where you are a man with only a few days left to live. You are stranded on a planet that is a vast distance away from earth where the only other inhabitant is also a human with a few days to live as well (for whatever reasons).

If the presence/absence of that other man on that planet makes NO difference to you, would it be then okay for you to kill that man? Because he is just a machine anyway?
]

Well, if it doesnt benefit you in any manner, why would you kill that man? It is needless waste of your own time, which is limited as it is. You may want to enjoy that in peace. On the other hand, if he has something valuable that DOES make a major difference to you, you will indeed attack him and take it away since there is no law enforcement there. That is assuming he doesnt have the means to defend himself. This is just common sense, no great philosophy here!!

Re: #324 by ranjit

[Au Contraire!! If we accept that we have a finite life span on earth and there is nothing before or after that, it is a very liberating thought. Your objective changes from chasing a fantasy in the afterworld (as the muslims do) to surviving in the best possible manner in this world.

Survival dictates that you want to prolong your lifespan and that of your near and dear ones. Hence you will submit to a legal framework that ensures that no one else kills you as long as you dont kill anyone. After survival comes maximizing prosperity. Again, you will submit to a legal framework that ensures that you can maximize your opportunities and protect your gains as long as everyone else can do the same. That takes care of all the legal/ethical behavior. Finally you want to maximize happiness given that you have limited time. That involves maintaining proper social relationships with spouse, family friends etc.

If you think about it, western civilization is based on this framework- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as articulated in the US constitution. We can see the results as they have managed to make the most comfortable, luxurious and advanced society in the world. As compared to that we have the muslims, who can only think of the afterlife as they send their children to commit suicide bombings. We Indians are somewhere in the middle but even our caste and other abominations have crept in due to an imaginary afterlife, rebirth model. After all, who will accept crap in this life, if there is no chance of afterlife or rebirth?

By the way, this framework has nothing against people who want to go to some religious place and mumble some mumbo-jumbo five times a day or once a week. You can do that as long as you keep it at a mumbo-jumbo level and dont kill anyone to impose your nonsense.]


I think you misunderstood the main thrust of my question.

You have laid out the reasons why we should have a legal framework that is unrelated to morality, but related to common interest. While I think that we should have such a legal framework for BOTH of these reasons - morality AND common interest (and these two are related in some ways, although not all ways), THIS IS NOT THE POINT I AM MAKING.

Let me re-state my question -

Imagine a scenario where you are a man with only a few days left to live. You are stranded on a planet that is a vast distance away from earth where the only other inhabitant is also a human with a few days to live as well (for whatever reasons).

If the presence/absence of that other man on that planet makes NO difference to you, would it be then okay for you to kill that man? Because he is just a machine anyway?

Re:krishna_abcd#323

[..So then if we are really nothing but robots, would you say that killing anyone is okay? There is no moral or legal provisions against destroying a mechanized toy, is there?...]

Au Contraire!! If we accept that we have a finite life span on earth and there is nothing before or after that, it is a very liberating thought. Your objective changes from chasing a fantasy in the afterworld (as the muslims do) to surviving in the best possible manner in this world.

Survival dictates that you want to prolong your lifespan and that of your near and dear ones. Hence you will submit to a legal framework that ensures that no one else kills you as long as you dont kill anyone. After survival comes maximizing prosperity. Again, you will submit to a legal framework that ensures that you can maximize your opportunities and protect your gains as long as everyone else can do the same. That takes care of all the legal/ethical behavior. Finally you want to maximize happiness given that you have limited time. That involves maintaining proper social relationships with spouse, family friends etc.

If you think about it, western civilization is based on this framework- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as articulated in the US constitution. We can see the results as they have managed to make the most comfortable, luxurious and advanced society in the world. As compared to that we have the muslims, who can only think of the afterlife as they send their children to commit suicide bombings. We Indians are somewhere in the middle but even our caste and other abominations have crept in due to an imaginary afterlife, rebirth model. After all, who will accept crap in this life, if there is no chance of afterlife or rebirth?

By the way, this framework has nothing against people who want to go to some religious place and mumble some mumbo-jumbo five times a day or once a week. You can do that as long as you keep it at a mumbo-jumbo level and dont kill anyone to impose your nonsense.

#313 by ranjit

[ Nothing happens after death i.e. it is just an end as our neurons stop firing. Man finds it hard to accept that harsh reality and creates a fantasy of afterlife - God, heaven, hell etc. ]


So then if we are really nothing but robots, would you say that killing anyone is okay? There is no moral or legal provisions against destroying a mechanized toy, is there?

Re:sunlight #321

[...Take a look at the ``World Map of Happiness`` which shows that the US and Saudi Arabia are equally happy....]

Is this a joke? 50% of Saudi population i.e. women cant even drive a car. Minorities have no rights. They cannot practice their faith. People from South Asia and Southeast Asia are treated like cattle. Are you saying that they are very happy? Maybe the poll is limited to the Saudi royal family.

#318 by ranjit
I support liberal, strictly secular, democracies with captitalist economy. That works best and has proven itself all over the world to maximize human happiness. In every other system, especially religion based systems, the people are totally miserable.
++++++++++++++++
Take a look at the ``World Map of Happiness`` which shows that the US and Saudi Arabia are equally happy. http://www.physorg.com/news73321785.html An enlarged map is here http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9642.html

````Further analysis showed that a nation`s level of happiness was most closely associated with health levels (correlation of .62), followed by wealth (.52), and then provision of education (.51). ``

Re: # 307


``After that Hindus lost political clout and hence lost their laws just as after Britain took over India, Muslims lost their Islamic Sharia laws, which were replaced by English Common Law.

But this statement is not entirely true either; just as Hindu law continued to be practiced during Muslim era, in some aspects Muslim laws were also permitted to continue in British era. After independence this continuation resumed under the tiles of Muslim Common Law, and Hindu Common law respectively. Law is not a static entity; it updates at the speed at which society progresses. This change is brought into laws by science of jurisprudence and jurisprudence can only be practiced through sovereignity. Therefore, both Islamic and Hindu laws in subcontinent have been stagnant because both Hindus and Muslims lack soveriegnity. Our respective countries were hijacked by atheists or ritualists after independence. ``

``
Practically, for all intent and purposes almost every other religion except Islam are either dead or they are dying dinosaurs- they only live on the life-support of rituals-they offer no ideology and no hope for mankind. ``



That was a perceptive anlyses. But there is another view to it.

British Common law was indeed one of the most important piece of British contribution in this sub-continent.

With the British Common Law the supressed and exploited workers, women and other oppressed members of these traditional societies in the sub-continent were able to find a way to escape out of the oppressive hold of the archaic institutions of caste, creed, religion and patriarchy. The modern cities of Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta with overwhelming British presence were the embodiment of these common laws , and by escaping to these cities the lower and exploited rungs of society could find a way to break away from the archaic social institutions spawned by the Kings and Nawabs.
The cities thrived and the common law found its best publicity in the form of the wealth of the cities. Those who preferred to live by their ``Sau Khoon Maaf`` Jagirdaars lost the liberty, equality and freedom that the cities with their common laws provided. The older laws continued to bleed the villages and perpetuated their perverse forms of slavery in the form of casteism and feudalism.
These older laws we still find in remote areas of Pakistan and India- the perverse places out of the reach of common law!!

Compare Hinduism & islam on the basis of the following criteria

``capacity to hold diversity(diverse opinions-ideas-points of views) within its fold``

hinduism wins , islam fails miserably !
hinduism is superior to islam atleast on this basis.

Re:sunlight

[...Do read a little (recent) history; you will find that atheistic governments (Communist Russia, Communist China, ...) have perpetrated much larger mass murders than any religious government.....]

That is true but I do not support aethist dictatorships either. I support liberal, strictly secular, democracies with captitalist economy. That works best and has proven itself all over the world to maximize human happiness. In every other system, especially religion based systems, the people are totally miserable. Show me any other system that can make man happy.

Secondly your contention doesnt imply that religon is benign. Just look at the violence throughout history in the middle-east, europe, south asia and elsewhere in the name of religion. The jihads, crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, holocausts etc in the name of religion. Even as we speak, we see idiots blowing themselves up all over the middle-east in the name of religion. How stupid can one get to lose one`s only chance to experience consciousness in entire eternity!!

#313 by ranjit

`` Nothing happens after death i.e. it is just an end as our neurons stop firing. Man finds it hard to accept that harsh reality and creates a fantasy of afterlife - God, heaven, hell etc. ``

Oh I don`t know if I really want to agree with your hypothesis. It is so convenient for me fantasize heaven as a worehouse. Apparantly, in that worehouse there are 72 hores per every true believer. Now isn`t that the fantasy worth blowing up for ?

#313 by ranjit
Given the amount of violence and hatred in the name of religion, I wish all religions would die out and mankind can live in peace without this nuisance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Do read a little (recent) history; you will find that atheistic governments (Communist Russia, Communist China, ...) have perpetrated much larger mass murders than any religious government. For example, if you look at the Khmer Rouge (Cambodian communists)
http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxvi/12.4.98/news/genocide!.html

``In Cambodia, some scholars estimate that atrocities committed by Pol Pot`s murderous Khmer Rouge regime resulted in the massacre of at least 1.7 million people between 1975 and 1979, annihilating roughly 25 percent of the country`s population.``

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/pol_pot.htm
``He (Pol Pot) began by declaring, ``This is Year Zero,`` and that society was about to be ``purified.`` Capitalism, Western culture, city life, religion, and all foreign influences were to be extinguished in favor of an extreme form of peasant Communism.``
[...deleted...]
``At Phnom Penh, two million inhabitants were evacuated on foot into the countryside at gunpoint. As many as 20,000 died along the way.``

``Millions of Cambodians accustomed to city life were now forced into slave labor in Pol Pot`s ``killing fields`` where they soon began dying from overwork, malnutrition and disease, on a diet of one tin of rice (180 grams) per person every two days.``

``Workdays in the fields began around 4 a.m. and lasted until 10 p.m., with only two rest periods allowed during the 18 hour day, all under the armed supervision of young Khmer Rouge soldiers eager to kill anyone for the slightest infraction. ``

``Anyone suspected of disloyalty to Pol Pot, including eventually many Khmer Rouge leaders, was shot or bludgeoned with an ax. ``What is rotten must be removed,`` a Khmer Rouge slogan proclaimed.``

``Up to 20,000 persons were tortured into giving false confessions at Tuol Sleng, a school in Phnom Penh, which had been converted into a jail. Elsewhere, suspects were often shot on the spot before any questioning.``

``Ethnic groups were attacked including the three largest minorities; the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cham Muslims, along with twenty other smaller groups. Fifty percent of the estimated 425,000 Chinese living in Cambodia in 1975 perished. Khmer Rouge also forced Muslims to eat pork and shot those who refused.``

All this cr@p talk of some retarded posters here about ``My religion is most perfect and superior to yours. Convert or die `` sounds like the childish rant of my 5 year old nephew. The other day he had some of his buddies come over to his house and was showing off his remote control ATV toy. He made the toy run over the legs of his hapless buddies until all of them agreed his toy was superior to any toys any one of them ever owned. He was so insecure he had to make a point through violence.

A great article on this topic, that I have quoted before: ``From Manusmriti to Madhusmriti Flagellating a Mythical Enemy`` by Madhu Kishwar
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/s_es/s_es_kishw_mythical.htm

``I commented in a recent TV interview that Manusmriti (and other shastric texts) have as much or as little authority for Hindus as have Madhusmriti (my writings) - or for that matter the pages of Manushi, for its subscribers.``
[...deleted...]
``The Englishmen who came as traders in the 17th century were befuddled at the vast diversity and complexity of Indian society. Having come from a culture where many aspects of family and community affairs came under the jurisdiction of canonical law, they looked for similar sources of authority in India. They assumed, for example, that just as the European marriage laws were based in part on systematic constructions derived from church interpretations of Biblical tenets, so must the personal laws of various Indian communities similarly draw their legitimacy from some priestly interpretations of fundamental religious texts.``
[...deleted...]
``the British took no steps to understand local or jati based customary law or the way in which every community ... regulated its own internal affairs ... The power to introduce a new custom, or change existing practices, rested in large part within each community. ... This tradition of self-governance is what accounts for the vast diversity of cultural practices within the subcontinent. For example, some communities observe strict purdah for women, whereas others have inherited matrilineal family structures in which women exercise a great deal of freedom and social clout. Some disapprove of widow remarriage, while others attach no stigma to widowhood and allow women recourse to easy divorce and remarriage.``
[...deleted...]
``Neither shastras nor smritis suggest that there exists an immutable, universal moral doctrine. Rather, they emphasise that codes of morality must be specific to time, person, and place, and evolve according to changing requirements. ... Manusmriti itself stresses that the business of the ruler is not to impose laws from above but that,
``a king... must inquire into the law of castes (jati), of districts (Ganapada), of guilds (Shreni), and of families (kula), and settle the peculiar law of each...Thus have the holy sages, ... embraced as the root of all piety good usages long established.`` (Mulla, Principles of Hindu Laws, 15th ed., 1986, p. 23).
[...deleted...]
Since different smritikars documented the customs of different communities, there were substantial differences in their approaches, perspectives, and precepts. But characteristically, none of the smritikars deny the authority of other smritikars or attempt to prove that theirs is the supreme, most authoritative version of a code of conduct. They acknowledge that the authority of the king and the law are derived from the people. ... The Smriti of Yajnavalkya, for instance, lists twenty sages as law givers. The Mitakshara explains that the enumeration is only illustrative and Dharmasutras of others are not excluded. Nor is the authority of any shastrakar assigned hierarchical importance.
[...deleted...]
Gandhi is one of the few modern social reformers to have understood this principle underlying the shastras. Therefore, he could unhesitatingly declare:
``My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired... I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense.`` (The Collected Work of Mahatma Gandhi, The Publication Division, Government of India, Vol. XXI, p. 246)

Re:urstruly#307

[...Practically, for all intent and purposes almost every other religion except Islam are either dead or they are dying dinosaurs- they only live on the life-support of rituals-they offer no ideology and no hope for mankind.....]

Religion can never offer any hope or ideology for mankind. It is the biggest organized hoax, a mass delusion, that preys on man`s fears on what happens after death. Nothing happens after death i.e. it is just an end as our neurons stop firing. Man finds it hard to accept that harsh reality and creates a fantasy of afterlife - God, heaven, hell etc.

If there is an all powerful God, why doesnt he/she reveal himself and show us his masterplan via Islam or any other religion and give us a tour of heaven, hell etc? It can end all bickering and everyone can follow the ``perfect`` religion. It will never happen because there is no such being like God that exists who can validate the claims of religion.

Given the amount of violence and hatred in the name of religion, I wish all religions would die out and mankind can live in peace without this nuisance. At least whatever time we get in our lifetimes, we can all enjoy that to the fullest until our demise. The Western civilization has got it right - enjoy life, be happy and make the best of what you get since this is the only chance you will ever get. Everything else is just BS.

Krishna_abcd #305 {``{``The debate arose when people like your brother Urstruly made his post #2 ``inviting`` all Hindus to ``join`` the one true faith``}

Krishna bhayya,
That was a cheap trick on the part of Urstruly Sahib to have as many Hindus as possible become suntanned. Please disregard his invitation if you are allergic to suntans.

Krishna_abcd #305 {``{``The debate arose when people like your brother Urstruly made his post #2 ``inviting`` all Hindus to ``join`` the one true faith``}

Krishna bhayya,
That was a cheap trick on the part of Urstruly Sahib to have as many Hindus as possible become suntanned. Please disregard his invitation if you are allergic to suntans.

jang #300
``this i believe to be true and makes practice of hinduism very personal, somewhat limited to family traditions, or a larger clan tradition. it also makes hinduism least uniform, since it does not make specific demands, and i argue less available to political organization in the long run.``

It also results in stuff like an individual being passive about caste oppression happening around him while also believing in advaita and unity of creation as the central tenet of his faith.

Urstruly#307:

``There have been several attempts at codifying the moral codes into laws like Manu Smiriti, Dayabhaga and Mitaksara``

I am hearing about Dayabhaga and Mitaksara for the first time. While I had read about Manu Smriti, I learnt about its contents only when I came to chowk even though the British apparently developed Hindu Civil Law based on it. But being a Smriti, it could not provide a constitutional framework akin to the Hdood in Islam. The fact that the Hindu civil laws derived from the Manu Smriti could be changed by the stroke of a pen by an agnostic Hindu shows that it was really not important to the Hindus. Contrast this with the Caste system, which the same law also tried to abolish but more than half century later, the casteist attitudes are still firmly entrenched in the psyche of the Hindus (and dare I say, even non-hindus of the subcontinent!) and are now part and parcel of Indian politics.

``Just like Islam, Hinduism is also facing a challenege from Atheists who call themselves Secularists .....``

I am not so sure of this. The Hindus would probably use their time-tested inclusive approach and let them be secularists/atheists and hindus at the same time.

Murad Sahib:

You raised a valid question, but got lost in the details of your analysis. If belilef in Vedas and associated thoughts and philosophy has a continuity, then I can assure you what you call Hinduism today has continuity, as long as these thoughts and scriptures have been around.

You cannot apply semetic religions` formulation to analyze Hinduism (as it is know today or whatever it was known earlier). The basis of semetic religions is defined code and canonical laws, the basis of eastern religions is inner search and self-discipline. Two entirely different approaches.

Anil

Re: # 304 DM

``However, religion is more than that: it involves a complete system of genesis, moral code and laws - ``

I think Hinduism stresses on all three aspects as aggressively as any so-called Abrahamic religion. It has strong tradition of laws such as inheritance, marriage, adoption and even economics. There have been several attempts at codifying the moral codes into laws like Manu Smiriti, Dayabhaga and Mitaksara - the timespan while these laws were implemented and practiced is no less than a milleneum; ranging from 1st century AD to 11th century, when Muslims invaded hindustan. After that Hindus lost political clout and hence lost their laws just as after Britain took over India, Muslims lost their Islamic Sharia laws, which were replaced by English Common Law.

But this statement is not entirely true either; just as Hindu law continued to be practiced during Muslim era, in some aspects Muslim laws were also permitted to continue in British era. After independence this continuation resumed under the tiles of Muslim Common Law, and Hindu Common law respectively. Law is not a static entity; it updates at the speed at which society progresses. This change is brought into laws by science of jurisprudence and jurisprudence can only be practiced through sovereignity. Therefore, both Islamic and Hindu laws in subcontinent have been stagnant because both Hindus and Muslims lack soveriegnity. Our respective countries were hijacked by atheists or ritualists after independence.

No law can exist in vacumm. Law can only be established by a fraternity of men under a soveriegn polity. Individuals do not and cannot practice law, they practice moral codes, which is a step below the law. Hence saying that Hindusim does not encourage fraternization, as some of the interactors are suggesting below is a fallacy. Just like Islam, Hinduism is also facing a challenege from Atheists who call themselves Secularists and pretend to be indifferent to religion. BUt in fact they are not. I think atheists have achieved their glory when they put christianity and judaism under hostage since Renaissance but now this glory is beggining to fade as they have engaged themselves in a mortal combat against Islam. Practically, for all intent and purposes almost every other religion except Islam are either dead or they are dying dinosaurs- they only live on the life-support of rituals-they offer no ideology and no hope for mankind.

#305, Krishna_abcd, {``It is the missionary zeal of these Abrahamic religions that have created the dog-eat-dog world that we see today``}

Krishna,
I agree with this statement.

{``The debate arose when people like your brother Urstruly made his post #2 ``inviting`` all Hindus to ``join`` the one true faith, and your brother Naqshbandi and other brothers started spouting about Islam being the most perfect religion - ``}

Krishna,
Again I agree with you. Both Urstruly and Naqshbandi should be attacked, looted, killed, and burned as punishment for their inappropriate posts. No one has the right to invite you to join anything. No one can claim their side to be the most perfect anything. I agree with you. They are both wrong and I will understand fully if you get your buddies to bomb their places of worship and then have them both castrated and then hanged in the Chowk parking lot.

{``But you are welcome to live with your delusions. ``}

And, Krishan, my friend, you are welcome to live with yours. Lakum dinakum wali yadin. :)

#278 by Salim_Chauhan

[No you are not. You are looking for weak points to pounce on and claim some sort of ``victory`` over a poor Musla.]

This is what is a textbook definition of an ad-hominem attack. Look up the definition, if you want.

[Rest assured, I plan to leave you alone. If others are inviting you to join their faith (Urstruly or Pat Robertson) please blame it on their bad taste and willingness to accept any Ram, Krisha, or Hari into their faith. :) ]

Whether you plan to leave me alone is not the point. It is the missionary zeal of these Abrahamic religions that have created the dog-eat-dog world that we see today. And as I have said before, Hindus do not believe in ``inviting people into`` any faith. It is an intellectual tradition, based on inquiry. Club membership-type concepts do not exist in the Hindu mindset, and ``dharma`` is considered a mode of inquiry and observation - quite different than your membership id concept. This is why there has never been the concept of ``conversion`` in Hinduism - it is as ridiculous as ``converting`` someone to Algebra, or Political Science.

I do get your clever remark about inviting ``any`` Ram, Krishna, or Hari into your faith. You probably do not realize how much contempt I have for idiots like yourself standing in line with membership tokens, so your probably will never have any idea how inconsequential your intended slight really is.



[I am content with Islam because of:

Its message of brotherhood for all
Its simplicity
Its straightforward statement that no one is superior to another - including black/white, Arab/Ajam, etc.
Its rejection of ``original sin``
Its lack of statues, images, and relationships for God.
Its discipline and equality during prayers.
Its insistence on providing charity
Its treatment of orphans and widows.
Its introduction of women`s rights as early as 7th century - Unfortunately this was not reinforced or even augmented in latter yeasrs. ]


The debate was not about whether you should be ``content`` with Islam. You are perfectly within your rights to be ``content`` with Grimm`s fairy tales, for all I care. The debate arose when people like your brother Urstruly made his post #2 ``inviting`` all Hindus to ``join`` the one true faith, and your brother Naqshbandi and other brothers started spouting about Islam being the most perfect religion - the one and only true religion, and the best thing since sliced bread - and all of this in relation to an article on Hinduism.



As I see, you have not been able to quote to me any Sura that makes your religion so remarkable. All of the points you have listed here do not explain why ANYONE has to ``belong`` to anything - they are commonsense and generally accepted universal concepts - read king Asoka`s edict a thousand years before Muhammad was born.

So why do you or anyone else need to ``belong`` to Islam or any other sect for these universal principles?


By the way - NONE of the points you listed have ANYTHING to do with Islam.

Let`s see:

[Its message of brotherhood for all ]

Except if you are a non-Muslim.


[Its simplicity ]

So are nursery rhymes. Shallowness doesn`t have to be complex.


[Its straightforward statement that no one is superior to another - including black/white, Arab/Ajam, etc. ]

Except Muslims are superior to non-Muslims. And men are superior to women.


[Its rejection of ``original sin`` ]

Who gives a flying fcuk?


[Its lack of statues, images, and relationships for God. ]

Indicating its lack of imagination.


[Its discipline and equality during prayers. ]

Unlike the hard drinking and rowdiness that is so prevalent in other ``religions``?


[Its insistence on providing charity ]

Yes. Muhammad was charitable all right. He sold those war-booty women and children for a real bargain.


[Its treatment of orphans and widows. ]

Yes. He orphaned the children of those 700, widowed their mothers and sold them all as slaves. Not to mention the countless war-booty sex-slaves he collected by widowing or orphaning them first.


[Its introduction of women`s rights as early as 7th century - Unfortunately this was not reinforced or even augmented in latter yeasrs.]

This is another one of the biggest lies disseminated by Muslims on a regular basis. BEFORE Muhammad, women had excellent rights in Arabia - the provider for his drone-like existence - his first wife - was an independent businesswoman, like many back then, and equal to men in most rights. All of that changed after Muhammad - women`s status was DEFINED in the Quran as subservient to men`s to the extent that now they could not even pray in a mosque with them. There are countless suras in the Quran that show women as being inferior to men. But you are welcome to live with your delusions.

Urstruly#299:

``I think you are defending Hinduism using wrong premis``

If I am to defend Hinduism, it does not have much chance of survival.:)


``The fact of the matter is that the only thing that is holding Hindusim together today is superstition and a regimen of rituals``

I don`t think that I can agree with this. I think that what is holding Hindus together (I do not know what is the meaning of ``holding hinduism together``) is a sense of identity forged by a common history of millenia.

Whether or not Hinduism is a religion depends upon how you define the term. You have given two definitions:

[Definition 1: `` people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life``]

I cannot see how Hinduism can qualify as a religion according to this definition since it does not have a common belief or opinion regarding the ``existence, nature and worship of deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life. Most of the Hindu treatises were written by sages who may or may not have been divinely inspired but did not claim to be the messenger of a deity or deities.

[Definition 2: ``a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. ``]

Hinduism perhaps satisfies this definition or some elements of it. But so did Greek philosophy. Indeed, I see many parallels between Greek philosophers and their Indian counterparts of roughly the same time period.

I tend to separate faith from religion. Hindus have an abundance of faith, perhaps too much of it. It is that easy acceptance of faith that allows sects like Satya Sai Baba, Sri Ravi Shankar, Biasawale or Nirankaris to flourish in India. However, religion is more than that: it involves a complete system of genesis, moral code and laws - all three Abrahamic religions provide these, with Islam perhaps doing it more competely than others.

#302 warrior, what you say is most certainly true. in modern world, when you can form groups and communities on the internet, all this sounds kinda silly..but in my experience communities like sikhs, jains, damman vanias, parsis GSBs etc who ``take care of (their own) folks`` is appealing to me...and one wishes that a divine angry-god is not necessary for charity, as it will invariably become a political tool.

Re: # 300

Jang
So what you are saying is that a religion should encourage conformance and community spirit by its laws. It is this same demand for conformance that will go out of bounds when faced with something that is dramatically different from it.

Perhaps that is why toleration is not entirely present in religions that demand conformance, as can be seen from Christianity , Islam etc. . On the flip side the personal quest will make a religion open to the vagaries of human thought and vice as is evident in Hinduism.

Both sides have problems. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

One of the greatest strengths of the hindu tradition is its mongrel like nature. Today somebody is starting a bhakti sampradaya; yesterday, ram mohun roy was convinced that reading vedas like Bible is the way to go; Ramakrishna paramahansa became convinced he was a women and a dalit at various times. Maybe there is one god, maybe there are many. Maybe god created the universe, but then who created the gods?

As DM-ji points out this, this religion-tamasha is a middle-eastern thing. While it could be considered a ``contribution``, it has both negative and positive aspects. This needs to be clearly explained to some of our interactors here. The imperial forms of islam, in which conquest, murder, loot, and slave taking are all justified in the name of religion is a disgusting aspect of this tradition. The islamo-supremacist attitudes of even quite reasonable muslims (``our religion is perfect/logical/supreme`) is another manifestation of the same.

Hindus need their own internal criticism and articulation of concepts. Without a doubt the diversity of hinduism has also allowed some bizarre cults to flourish, without a doubt many hindus have been accepting of inequalities far too easily. This is the down side of a khicchdi tradition.

But lets not throw out the key positives because of some negatives. The issue is how to work with the exhilarating diversity of hindu expression and develop means of challenging those aspects that are over the top and with little meaning in the 21st century.

#296

``Third, individual uniqueness. For Hindus, every individual is the ultimate architect of his life and must work out his salvation himself. ``

this i believe to be true and makes practice of hinduism very personal, somewhat limited to family traditions, or a larger clan tradition. it also makes hinduism least uniform, since it does not make specific demands, and i argue less available to political organization in the long run. the practice of hindutva and that of religion have remained like water and oil, almost all practicing hindus unaware of hindutva and many hindutvawadis irreligious.

i personally find this to be a deficit of hinduism, and consider it lacking in community spirit. sikhs and jain sects seem to have corrected this flaw by insisting on a specific conformance behavior and therefore evolved a useful spirit of community and (communal) charity.

DM

I think you are defending Hinduism using wrong premis. The set of beliefs that people, who call themselves Hindus, espouse, and rituals they practice qualifies Hinduism as a religion. (see the definitions below).

The correct premis, however, is that Hinduism has become so self-contrdictory that it is impossible for a Hindu to define his religion. That is the reason if you check the first 100 interacts of this thread, almost all those written by Hindus contain the phrase ``...but you wouldn`t understand it``. The fact of the matter is that the only thing that is holding Hindusim together today is superstition and a regimen of rituals- no one treads upon the path of belief any more. Is there one God or millions of gods? If there are millions of gods then where does One God fit in. It is a mind boggling endeavor, isn`t it. So the matter of fact is that Hinduism is a hodgepodge of rituals where self-interest and superstition directs oneself to diety and not a sense of duty and purpose.

Religion

Definition 1: `` people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life``

Definition 2: ``a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. ``

Re: # 287
HP
It really doesn`t matter what the religion or way of life was called. If it was called Hindu because of the name given to people that`s really fine. Judaism was named after the province of Judah. So even before it was called Judaism there were people believing in Yahweh.

Now agreed that many beliefs and their deities have been folded into Hinduism. However there has been a constant skein of thought with beliefs in the Vedas, Upanishads, etc for several centuries before the common era (BCE). Therefore it did exist. Now our current practices may vary. However by the same token Presbytarianism is still a branch of Christianity and Wahabism is still Islamic.

So whatever changes have taken place in the last few centuries does not disprove the fact that the religious thought processes existed before.

By the way Marxist historians see everything through the prism of class struggle. That is like the old saying, that, when the only tool you have is a hammer then everything begins to look like a nail.

Those who say that Hinduism is a label and not a Religion have a valid point. In my opinion, Religion as a concept itself is alien to the native ``religions`` and there is no word in Indic language that I can think of that corresponds to ``mazhab``.

There is no need for Hindus to be ashamed of this lack of ``Religion``, which is a uniquely Middle Eastern contribution to humanity. But this does not mean that people of the subcontinent do not have any continuous religion-type traditions. Indeed, what we call Hinduism may indeed be viewed as an umbrella of various faiths and traditions bound by some common rituals and concepts. These rituals have remained unchanged since the Vedic times, as pointed out by someone, and the chants and mantras used by the priests in Kanyakumari are the same as used by the priests in Amritsar. And the concepts of reincarnation, karma and a desire to acheive moksha, are also common to most faiths. Within this umbrella, there was tolerance for diverse and even contradictory hypotheses regarding the nature of the Beyond, which included monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, atheism or even hedonism. We do not know how and when the term Hindu came into being. But the ``shoe`` fitted and the people started wearing it quite comfortably.

One more longish post:


Bhikhu Parekh may be Marxist in tendency and I might not agree with every word but this article contains a fair description of the general Hindu attitude to religion, wrt its tolerance and intolerance both :

http://www.india-seminar.com/2003/521/521%20bhikhu%20parekh.htm
Some reflections on the Hindu theory of tolerance

BHIKHU PAREKH

...
Hindu theory of tolerance is grounded in and overdetermined by the following four beliefs, which have played and continue to play an important part in Hindu thought. First, primacy of conduct. Hindus hold that the ethical quality of life and not a body of dogmas lies at the heart of religion, and matters most. Religion represents a way of life, and is to be judged by the kind of life it inspires.

Beliefs are not important in themselves but only insofar as they affect one’s ability to lead the good life, and are to be assessed not in terms of their cognitive validity but their moral effects. Hindus are therefore allowed a considerable freedom of religious belief including borrowing those of other religions provided that they lead what the wider society takes to be an acceptable way of life.

Second, a dharmic view of morality. The ethically acceptable life is one lived according to dharma or a set of moral duties. Dharma is divided into two types: sadharanadharma or universally binding duties such as telling the truth, non-injury to other living beings, non-stealing, purity, freedom from envy and control of passions, and varnashramadharma or the duties pertaining to one’s caste and stage in life. Unlike the former which is the same for all, the latter is relative to and varies with the individual’s caste and stage in life. Except in the case of the renunciates who step out of the social order altogether, the good life in the Hindu view is one that meets the demands of both, especially the latter.

This idea is also extended to non-Hindu societies, each believed to have its own view of dharma which it is entitled to follow. In the traditional Hindu society, such non-Hindu communities as existed were generally entitled to live by their traditional customs and practices. According to Dharmasastras, their dharma is an integral part of their communal identity and collective inheritance, and it is an act of sacrilege to violate it.

Third, individual uniqueness. For Hindus, every individual is the ultimate architect of his life and must work out his salvation himself. Salvation is not a gift or an undeserved act of grace, but a personal achievement based on one’s karma or deeds. While sharing the atman with others, every individual has a distinct self consisting of a unique set of psychological and moral dispositions (swabhava), that is a product of his karma in his previous life and which he can and should improve upon in this one.


Every human being goes through a cycle of births in the course of a journey all his own, and builds up a distinct personality or self. No two individuals are therefore ever like or have the same moral and spiritual needs. The mode of worship, the conception of god, and the form of moral and spiritual discipline that suit one individual do not necessarily suit another. Although they all have the same destination, namely liberation from the cycle of rebirth,their paths vary.

Fourth, religious pluralism. For the Hindus the ultimate reality is infinite and cannot by definition be grasped in its totality by the finite human mind. All religions grasp some aspects of it and miss out others. Like the blind men trying to imagine the size and shape of the elephant on the basis of one particular part of it, different religions represent different and inherently partial visions of the ultimate reality and contain both truth and error.2 Even though God incarnates Himself in history, He reveals Himself differently to different societies and epochs depending on their capacities and needs. Divine self-revelation is a continuous process, and no religion can claim to offer the final and exhaustive knowledge of God.



For Hindus, all religions are so many different ways of understanding and realising the ultimate reality or what may loosely be called God. As one of the Vedic maxims asserts, ‘Truth or Reality is one, though sages call it by different names.’3 In the Bhagvadgita, Krishna says that ‘whoever comes to me through whatever route, I reach out to him,’ and that ‘all paths in the end lead to me.’4 This raises the question whether some religions might not be wholly misguided or unworthy of respect.

The Hindu response is ambiguous. Some Hindu thinkers rule out this possibility. Some others hold that every religion has a self-correcting mechanism and that a wholly misguided one is bound eventually to collapse under the weight of its errors and false promises. Most, however, admit the possibility of a false or misguided religion, and argue that a religion that violates sadharanadharma or universal moral values and enjoins murder, deception, lying, and so on is inherently suspect. In their view certain values are so central to human life that they set limits to what constitutes a religion or one worthy of respect.

These four beliefs form the basis of the Hindu theory and practice of tolerance. Since religion is concerned with the quality of life and not with subscription to a particular body of dogmas, Hindus argue that all theological and religious disputes are pointless.5 The dharmic view of morality implies that different individuals and groups should lead different forms of life depending on their caste, psychological make up, traditions, and so on, and that inducing or coercing them to do otherwise violates their moral integrity and damages their wellbeing.

The principle of individual uniqueness implies that no religion suits all equally, that the idea of a single universal religion is fundamentally flawed, that each religion should grant its adherents the freedom to adapt its doctrines and practices to their unique spiritual needs, and that we should encourage tolerance not only of other religions but also within each of them. Finally, religious pluralism implies that since all religions lead to the same destination, mean much to their members, and contain both truth and error, they deserve equal respect. As Radhakrishnan once said, ‘tolerance is the homage the finite mind pays to the inexhaustibility of the infinite.’


The Hindu theory of tolerance approaches the question of tolerance from an angle very different to that of most of its European counterparts, and has its obvious strengths and limitations. Although it does not reduce religion to morality, it takes the latter to be central to religion, and makes little philosophical and emotional investment in religious beliefs. If an individual can lead the good life by holding one set of beliefs rather than another, he is left free to do so.

This partly explains why the Hindu religious tradition has generally been able to live with vast and deep doctrinal differences and avoid sectarian quarrels. Since it expects each individual and social group to lead their own appropriate way of life, it places tolerance at the centre of morality and religion, and avoids the all too familiar monistic disputes about which way of life is the best and should be imposed on others.``

...

The message here is not one of isolation of ``Brahminism`` from the folk traditions, even in language.
http://www.kannadasaahithya.com/eng/index.php?layout=main&cslot_1=48
Flowering of the backyard

U R Ananthamurthy

We have always lived in India in an ambience of languages. In the past Shankara who wrote in Sanskrit must have spoken Malayalam; and Madhwacharya in Udupi must have spoken Tulu and Kannada, but wrote in Sanskrit; and Ramanuja who must have been profoundly moved by the Alvar saints of Tamil also wrote in Sanskrit. Each of these great philosopher-saints, who propagated Advaita, Dvaita and Visishtadvaita philosophies travelled through the whole country and had disciples all over India. They also influenced, mystic poets in the regional languages of India through the centuries. The languages they spoke and the language they used for their learned discourse fulfilled specific functions in their lives. But the two did not remain apart. What was learned philosophical speculation based on the Vedas became myth and poetry in the bhashas of the common people. Also, a profound egalitarian impulse entered into the hegemonic structure of the Indian society. The Dasas of Karnataka, Chaitanya of Bengal and the Alvars of Tamil are products of such a process within the tradition.

Something else also happened in India. Goutama Buddha didn`t choose to write in Sanskrit. He questioned the authority of the Vedas and spoke the language of the unlearned masses. So too did the Jain philosophers. Later, in the medieval period (not the dark age here as in Europe), the saint poets of India didn`t use Sanskrit but the bhashas of India. They were mystics, their experience of God was immediate and not speculative. Basava, Tukaram, Kabir, Nanak and Chaitanya, by opting for the language of everyday speech for religious experience, empowered the languages of the masses. As a direct consequence of this option, their poetry empowered the women and people of low castes who spoke these languages. The spiritual insights and philosophical subtleties which marked Sanskrit, the language of the elite classes, became thus the possession of the Indian Bhashas. These Bhashas, ever since the medieval period, have always been the conduits of egalitarian passion working through the history of India. It is a continuous process of inclusion, and not negation of any language, either of Sanskrit ``the language of the Gods`` in the past, or of Persian or English, ``the languages of the powerful ruling classes`` later on. The most recent of these great saints, who can be described as the critical insiders of Indian civilization, is Mahatma Gandhi, who wrote in Gujarati, Hindustani and English.
...
A thousand years, ago, Pampa, a great Jain poet in my language, Kannada, wrote Mahabharata making Arjuna his hero. Thus he idealized the Hindu king who he served by comparing him to Arjuna. The Lord Krishna, who is the central figure for another great Hindu epic poet, Naranappa, could not have played the same divine function for Pampa in his recreation of the old epic. Pampa was profoundly Jain in his faith. It is amazing how in the past one could work within a tradition and yet strike a new path to suit his religious faith. it is a transcreation of the Mahabharata, which allowed him to remain true to his, Jain faith, while expressing his worldly loyalty to the king of another faith. This is truly a memorable example of creative secularism in India`s past, a thousand years ago.

Pampa`s worldly concern does not end with mere official loyalty to the king. He uses his lively sense of his times to make an ancient epic embody contemporary realities. Thus, in the poetic structuring of his work he manages to imbibe into the indigenous genius of his language what Vyasa and Kalidasa could offer him in Sanskrit. He is still a model as a writer to contempoary poets in Kannada. We have not only transferred experiences of one language into another in a continuous and spontaneous act of translation in the course of our daily lives, we have also knit India together through the ages in Pampa`s way. We have. freely used Ramayana and Mahabharata for this purpose. Therefore, it is possible to say, that, apart from all the innumerable languages of India, there are two more languages, metaphorically speaking. These are the great epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata. Most of us, I would dare say, have not read these two epics `for the first time`, as a European can be said to have read his Homer.

I remember here what A.K.Ramanujan, a creative translator of Indian literature once narrated. He was collecting oral Ramayanas in the Kannada language. There are thousands of them. These folk Ramayanas are narrated from memory by the non-literate rural people. In one of these Ramayanas, as in every one of them, Rama advises Sita that she should stay back in the palace and not accompany him to the forest to which only he has been exiled. Rama argues that Sita is a delicate princess and has never known suffering, and life in the forest is dangerous. Sita argues back that as his wife her dharma is to be by his side in joy and sorrow. The heated conversation is morally edifying to the listeners. What surprises is what follows. Rama comes up with very clever reasons for Sita to stay behind and serve his old and ailing mother. Then Sita demurs coyly, but firmly: ``In every Ramayana that I know of, Sita goes to the forest with her husband. How can you then say `no` to me?`` It is obvious that this rural Sita could not have read Valmiki; she needn`t read him either. Like everyone else through the whole land, whatever be her mother-tongue, she inherits Valmiki`s story. This is an excellent example of inter-textuality in Indian literary and cultural heritage...``

Re: # 272

``So many contradictions lead to just one conclusion that Hinduism is no religion at all but a hotchpotch of pagan rites..................``


Hate Pot alias CKP -

If you could not comprehend my original contention that the only commonality amongst all ``religions`` is the belief in Body-Spirit polarity, then you obviously need to pass a course on `Sociology of Religion` as well as ``Philosophy of Religion`` in order to find answers to your undergraduate level questions-

You are raising a question from a bigoted mullah view point that Pagan Religions like Hinduism are not like (Abrahmic) Religions and hence NOT (Abrahmic) ``religion`` ( and the Islamists` supressed underlying inference about his superiority!)

My view is that all religions share this belief in Body-Spirit polarity and the question of monotheism, monism, theism, polytheism are just a question of what metaphysics you develop on this polarity.

From what we can see Hinduism is a group of sub-religions like Buddhism etc which share metaphysical and ritualistic beliefs. Hinduism is obviously a Class , a Collective of similar sub-religions. To argue about its non-existnce is like saying that Abrahmic Religions have contradictory metaphysical views and hence does not exist. This is a laughable argument.


It is really amusing to see a politician argue!!!

An alternate view

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/later.html

POST-SANKARAN ADVAITINS - AN OVERVIEW
A large number of teachers and writers have left their impress upon the advaita tradition during the 12 centuries after SankarAcArya. This page mentions only the seminal figures in the history of post-Sankaran advaita. True to the advaita spirit of not identifying with the body, our writers rarely give any clues to personal details in their texts. Consequently, all dates mentioned here rely upon the academic research that has been done within the last two centuries. Traditional details are mentioned where necessary, and it is important to remember that some historical details are still being disputed in the literature.

A list of post-Sankaran authors in advaita will have to include both sannyAsins and householders. Moreover, some householder authors took the vows of sannyAsa at a later stage in their lives, which means that some authors are known by more than one name (e.g. janArdana - Anandagiri). A general rule of thumb is that an author whose last name is miSra, or a variant of upAdhyAya, or dIkshita is a householder, while the names of sannyAsins are indicated by daSanAmI suffixes. However, there are some early sannyAsin authors whose daSanAmI suffixes are not known, such as jnAnaghana (grand-disciple of sureSvara, and author of tattvaSuddhi), his disciple, jnAnottama (the author of vidyASrI), vimuktAtman, citsukha, sukhaprakASa, amalAnanda and others. In these cases, that they were sannyAsins is known by the terms muni, yati, yogi etc. used by later commentators. The sannyAsin authors were generally associated with the four maThas established by Sankara and the other maThas established later. Thus, jnAnaghana and jnAnottama are found on the succession list of the Sringeri maTha, and Anandagiri is found on the list of the Dvaraka maTha. Meanwhile,the householder scholars formed the communities in which the sannyAsins were born, and from which the maThAdhipatis were chosen.

The name of vAcaspati miSra (9th century CE) stands out among the early post-Sankaran authors in the advaita tradition. His commentary, named bhAmatI [1], on SankarAcArya`s brahmasUtra bhAshya, is celebrated, and has given birth to a sub-tradition within advaita, called the bhAmatI school. Many commentaries to bhAmatI have been written in the course of the centuries. vAcaspati miSra is said to have written a commentary named tattva samIkshA to maNDana miSra`s brahmasiddhi, which is now unfortunately lost to us. He is also well-known as a scholar who wrote authoritative treatises in various Indian philosophical traditions, including nyAya-vaiSeshika (nyAyasUcInibandha and tAtparyaTIkA), yoga (tattvavaiSAradI), mImAm.sA (nyAyakaNikA) and sAm.khya (tattvakaumudI), in addition to advaita vedAnta. His erudition made him famous as a sarvatantra-svatantra, a title of high respect in India.

The next important author from the 10th century CE is prakASAtman, who wrote the vivaraNa [2] to padmapAda`s pancapAdikA. This work has also received a long line of commentaries from later authors, and lends its name to the other important sub-tradition in advaita vedAnta, namely the vivaraNa school. prakASAtman also wrote the SabdanirNaya and the nyAyamuktAvalI, a commentary on the brahmasUtras. sarvajnAtman, the author of samkshepa-SArIraka, pancaprakriyA and pramANa-lakshaNa [3] is another notable 10th century author. sarvajnAtman salutes his guru deveSvara in his works. The name deveSvara is usually seen as a synonym of sureSvara, Sankara`s disciple, and on this basis, sarvajnAtman is sometimes identified with nityabodhaghana. However, in the pramANa-lakshaNa, sarvajnAtman mentions the name of deveSvara`s guru as devAnanda, whose guru was SreshThAnanda. Hence, there is some confusion over whether sarvAjnAtman was a direct disciple of sureSvara or not.

sarvajnAtman was probably a younger contemporary of vimuktAtman, the author of ishTasiddhi. [4] One author named jnAnottama, who lived in the 12th century CE, wrote the candrikA on sureSvara`s naishkarmyasiddhi, and a vivaraNa to the vimuktAtman`s ishTasiddhi. This jnAnottama lived in the region of Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu. His full name in the manuscripts is jnAnottama miSra mahopAdhyAya, which indicates that unlike the jnAnottama mentioned earlier, he was a householder scholar. There is some evidence from the last verse of the candrikA that this author later became a sannyAsin by name sarvajnASrama.

Between the 9th and 13th centuries, SankarAcArya`s exposition of advaita came under attack by rival vedAntin teachers, such as bhAskara (bhedAbheda), rAmAnuja (viSishTAdvaita), nimbArka (dvaitAdvaita), and AnandatIrtha (dvaita). There was also a resurgence of nyAya-vaiSeshika philosophy around the same time, culminating in the fully developed navya-nyAya school of later times. After this period, all later authors in the advaita tradition concentrate on addressing issues raised by philosophers from nyAya, and rival schools of vedAnta. This is in contrast with the early authors whose major concerns were with the tenets of the sAm.khya, mahAyAna buddhists and the pUrva mImAm.sakas.

SrIharsha, who wrote the khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdya, [5] is an important author in the history of advaita vedAnta. He mainly addresses the nyAya school, and points out fallacies in their definitions of various concepts. Such criticisms lead to a later reworking of the nyAya system, which soon lost its earlier naive realism. After SrIharsha`s time, logical formalism took center stage, culminating in the highly formal logical system of the navya-nyAya (new logic) school. The khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdya was commented upon both by advaitins and naiyyAyikas. SrIharsha is also famous as the author of the naishAda-carita, which relates the purAnic story of nala and damayantI. He is known for using extremely difficult grammatical constructions in the sam.skRta language, and constructing sentences using words in such a way as to yield multiple meanings. For example, the word yAgeSvara can be split as yAgAnAm ISvara:, the lord of sacrifices, or as yA ageSvara:, the lord of mountains, and both meanings are significant in the same sentence. SrIharsha`s work has been commented upon by many later advaitins, and also by authors in the nyAya-vaiSeshika tradition.

citsukha, a disciple of jnAnottama, wrote a number of works, including commentaries on the khaNDana-khaNDakhAdya, brahmasiddhi and naishkarmyasiddhi. His tattvapradIpikA is more famously known as citsukhI. [6] Like SrIharsha before him, citsukha also makes effective use of the dialectical method seen in the works of nAgArjuna, the buddhist philosopher. Both acknowledge this fact, but criticize the madhyamaka school for not affirming the ultimate reality of brahman. Anandabodha, AnandAnubhava, akhaNDAnanda and anubhUtisvarUpAcArya are other important authors in the 13th century. sukhaprakASa, a disciple of citsukha, wrote commentaries on Anandabodha`s and anubhUtisvarUpa`s works. amalAnanda, a disciple of sukhaprakASa, wrote the vedAntakalpataru on the bhAmatI and also a pancapAdikA-darpaNa, thus forming an early link between the bhAmatI and vivaraNa schools.

Anandagiri (also known as AnandajnAna), a disciple of SuddhAnanda, is well-known as the author of a number of TIkAs and TippaNas on SankarAcArya`s upanishad bhAshyas. [7] anubhUtisvarUpa, mentioned earlier, was an important figure in the sArasvata grammatical tradition, and was probably another guru of Anandagiri`s. He wrote the prakaTArtha-vivaraNa on Sankara`s brahmasUtrabhAshya and a mANDUkya-kArikA-bhAshya. Both SuddhAnanda and Anandagiri are mentioned in the lineage of the Dvaraka maTha. Anandagiri is popularly known as the TIkAkAra. His tarka sangraha is a refutation of the vaiSeshika categories, and is a very popular text in the tradition. Anandagiri is probably identical with janArdana, the author of vedAntatattvAloka. Anandagiri is often mistakenly identified with toTakAcArya, an immediate disciple of SankarAcArya. The Sankara-vijaya of anantAnandagiri, a much later author, is also mistakenly attributed to Anandagiri. Needless to say, both identifications are erroneous.

By far the most important authors in the 14th century are SankarAnanda, bhAratI tIrtha and vidyAraNya. Together, the latter two wrote a number of definitive works, including the adhikaraNa ratnamAlA (also called vaiyAsika nyAyamAlA), pancadaSI, jIvanmuktiviveka, anubhUtiprakASa and vivaraNaprameyasangraha. [8] Both authors were from the Sringeri lineage, and were disciples of vidyAtIrtha (also called vidyAsankara), as attested by the evidence of the anubhUtiprakASa. vidyAraNya is traditionally known to be the guiding spirit behind the founders of the Vijayanagar empire in southern India. That vidyAraNya and bhAratI tIrtha wrote together is mentioned by their direct disciple, rAmakRshNa bhAratI, who wrote the pancadaSI-tAtparyabodhinI.

In the pancadaSI, vidyAraNya mentions SankarAnanda as another guru of his. This SankarAnanda was a disciple of AtmAnanda, and he wrote many dIpikAs on the upanishads belonging to the atharvaveda. He also wrote the AtmapurANa and the bhagavad-gItA-tAtparyabodhinI. He is said to have been a native of Tiruvidaimarudur in Tamil Nadu, and is also associated with the holy places Srisailam and Ahobilam in Andhra Pradesh. His name is also found in the lineages of a few branch maThas of the Sringeri and Puri maThas. [9] vidyAraNya is normally identified in modern literature with a mAdhava, but the identification remains controversial. The mAdhavIya Sankaravijaya is traditionally attributed to vidyAraNya. The sarvadarSana-sangraha, which is a compendium of Indian philosophical thought, presents the tenets of the major contemporary schools of thought in a hierarchical fashion, with advaita vedAnta as the ultimate truth.

There are many authors from the 14th and 15th centuries CE. The growth of the Vijayanagar empire and its vassal states in southern India was a crucial factor in the preservation and transmission of all Indian religious and philosophical traditions. Beginning with the sons of sangama, the founders of the Vijayanagar empire, the kings of the first dynasty identified closely with advaita vedAnta and regarded the SankarAcAryas of the Sringeri maTha as their gurus. A brahmasUtravRtti is even attributed to prauDhadevarAya, one of the early Vijayanagar kings. The later dynasties which ruled the Vijayanagar empire were predominantly Vaishnava, but the kings encouraged and patronized teachers from all sects and faiths, including Muslims. All aspects of traditional Indian culture found patronage in the empire. Among the texts written in the 15th century, the vedAntasAra of sadAnanda yogIndra [10] enjoys great popularity. It is often used as an introductory text in the advaita tradition. sadAnanda also wrote the vedAntasiddhAnta-sArasangraha, bhavaprakASa on the gItA and the brahmasUtra-tAtparyaprakASa.

In the 16th century, prakASAnanda sarasvatI`s vedAntasiddhAnta-muktAvalI, [11] and siddhAntadIpa, a commentary on this work by nAnA dIkshita, represent a move away from the influential bhAmatI and vivaraNa sub-schools. These two authors argue for the dRshTi-sRshTi vAda, but not many other works are found along this line. prakASAnanda also wrote a few works in the SAkta tradition, such as tArAbhakti tarangiNI. This work is also not very widely known, although the worship of saguNa brahman in the form of the Goddess has been intimately connected with the advaita vedAnta tradition, since ancient times. The SrIvidyA tradition, in particular, has been largely assimilated into advaita communities, especially in southern India.

In philosophy, the vivaraNa sub-school continued to be very important, as represented by nRsimhASrama (disciple of jagannAthASrama), who was an extremely influential teacher in the 16th century. His bhedadhikkAra [12] is an early example of the polemical debate between dvaita and advaita philosophers. He also wrote advaitadIpikA, tattvaviveka, vedAntaratnakoSa, a commentary on padmapAda`s pancapAdikA, tattvabodhinI on sarvajnAtman`s samkshepasArIraka and bhAvaprakASikA on prakASAtman`s vivaraNa. He and his disciples, nArAyaNASrama, rAmASrama and others flourished in the south and wrote many texts. One of the most famous disciples of nRsimhASrama was dharmarAja adhvarIndra, whose vedAnta paribhAshA is immensely popular. [13] All these authors of the vivaraNa school pay a lot of attention to epistemological issues, and dharmarAja systematizes the pramANas (source of valid knowledge) in pUrva mImAm.sA and advaita vedAnta.

In the 16th-17th centuries, a number of south Indian householder scholars, surnamed dIkshita, rose to prominence in the advaita tradition. The name dIkshita is used only for those who have performed certain Vedic sacrifices. Chief among them was appayya dIkshita, whose most famous work was the siddhAntaleSasangraha. [14] He also wrote the parimala on amalAnanda`s kalpataru, thus representing the bhAmatI sub-school. However, appayya dIkshita points out that the differences between the vivaraNa and bhAmatI schools are not because of philosophical disagreement on fundamental principles, but a result of differing technique and the emphasis on different issues, such as epistemology in one and ontology in the other. Like vAcaspati miSra, appayya dIkshita has also written many texts on nyAya-vaiSeshika, pUrva mImAm.sA and other schools. He also wrote the madhva-tantra-mukha-mardanam, attacking the dvaita school, and an autocommentary to it, called vidhvamsana. Many descendents of appayya dIkshita were great scholars and authors in various fields of traditional learning well into recent times, including tyAgarAja makhin of the 19th century. Popularly known as Raju Sastrigal, this scholar wrote the sadvidyAvilAsa on the famous uddAlaka-Svetaketu dialogue of the chAndogya upanishad. swAmI SivAnanda, who founded the Divine Life Society, was another descendent of appayya dIkshita.

Tradition records that appayya was initially a follower of the SivAdvaita school of the 13th century teacher, SrIkaNTha. appayya wrote the SivArkamaNidIpikA on SrIkaNTha`s brahmasUtrabhAshya. In the SivAdvaitanirNaya and the Sivatattvaviveka, appayya dIkshita tries to accommodate SrIkaNTha`s thought within Sankaran advaita vedAnta. He represents the close connections between Saivas and the followers of SankarAcArya during this period in southern India. narasimha bhAratI, who was an AcArya in the Sringeri line, and a contemporary of appayya dIkshita, wrote a commentary to the SivagItA. An earlier example of this synthesis is mallanArAdhya, who wrote the advaitaratna, to which nRsimhASrama wrote a commentary called tattvadIpana. mallanArAdhya`s name indicates that he belonged to the ArAdhya group of brAhmaNas, who greatly respected the vIraSaiva leader basavaNNa, but unlike the vIraSaivas, did not reject the authority of the vedas. A great motivating factor for this was surely the fact that south Indian vaishNava religion had given birth to two schools of vedAnta, namely the viSishTAdvaita of rAmAnuja and the dvaita of AnandatIrtha. Meanwhile, advaitins and Saivas found common cause in various social, religious and political issues, which is reflected in appayya`s works. This understanding must have been helped by the religious customs of most traditional advaitins. For example, a Sivalinga is consecrated at the site where a sannyAsin of the advaita order is buried, and advaitins themselves worship Siva and vishNu as equally valid forms of saguNa brahman. However, appayya dIkshita was no narrow sectarian. He is known to have composed a commentary on the yAdavAbhyudaya, a work of vedAnta deSika, a vaishNava leader. The inclusivistic and non-sectarian nature of the followers of Sankara is also seen from other customs and texts dating from this period.

bhaTTojI dIkshita, the great grammarian scholar from the north was a disciple of appayya dIkshita. bhaTTojI`s brother, rangojI bhaTTa, wrote advaita works such as advaitacintAmaNi and attacked the dvaita school of AnandatIrtha in his madhva-siddhAnta-bhanjanI. bhaTTojI wrote advaitakaustubha, a dIpana on nRsimhASrama`s tattvaviveka, and the madhvamata-vidhvamsana against dvaita. rangoji`s grandson, lakshmInRsimha, wrote the well-known Abhoga commentary in the bhAmatI line.

madhusUdana sarasvatI, disciple of viSveSvara sarasvatI and mAdhava sarasvatI, is the most celebrated name in the annals of the great dvaita-advaita debate. He also flourished in the 16th century. His advaitasiddhi [15] is a classic work, and most advaita teachers maintain that all the logical issues raised by the dvaita school of AnandatIrtha have been more than sufficiently answered by madhusUdana. His gUDhArthadIpikA on the bhagavadgItA is another well-known treatise. In addition, he wrote the ISvarapratipatti-prakASa, vedAntakalpalatikA, sArasangraha on sarvajnAtman`s samkshepa-SArIraka, and the justly famous siddhAntabindu on SankarAcArya`s daSaSlokI. madhusUdana sarasvatI was a great devotee of Lord kRshNa. Just like appayya dIkshita, who integrated SivAdvaita into advaita vedAnta, madhusUdana bridged the sAtvata school of pAncarAtra vaishNavism and advaita vedAnta philosophy. It is also interesting to note that madhusUdana boldly differs from Sankara in some of his interpretations of the brahmasUtras and the gItA, although he salutes Sankara and sureSvara in the most reverential terms.

madhusUdana sarasvatI is popularly reported to have been a contemporary of the Mughal emperor Akbar. It is said that on Akbar`s suggestion, madhusUdana initiated large numbers of sannyAsins from kshatriya and vaiSya communities to the daSanAmI orders, in order to form a group of martially trained ascetics to protect the people. This most probably reflects historical fact. Armed nAga sannyAsin warriors, tracing their origins to madhusUdana sarasvatI, and affiliated with the daSanAmI akhADas, were a component of almost every Rajput army in northern India, till fairly recent times. Tradition also recounts that viTThaleSa, the son of vallabhAcArya of the SuddhAdvaita pushTimArga school, studied under madhusUdana sarasvatI, who thus forms a crucial link between advaita vedAnta and many vaishNava sects in the north.

In the 18th century, sadASiva brahmendra and upanishad brahmendra were very important teachers in southern India. sadASiva brahmendra was a disciple of paramaSivendra sarasvatI (author of Siva gItA vyAkhyA and dahara vidyA prakASikA) and grand-disciple of abhinava nArAyaNendra sarasvatI, who wrote many upanishad dIpikAs. sadASiva wrote AtmavidyAvilAsa, advaitarasamanjarI and other popular works. [16] Numerous legends are reported about his saintliness, the miracles he worked and the height of his brahman realization. His simple kIrtanas are meant to teach advaita values to even the most illiterate person, and are very popular in Carnatic music today. He passed away in Nerur in Tamil Nadu, where annual ArAdhanas are held at his samAdhi-sthala. The sannyAsins in sadASiva brahmendra`s lineage lived and taught in the extreme south of India, and were widely known, but their maTha affiliations, if any, are not known.

rAmacandrendra sarasvatI, disciple of vAsudevendra sarasvatI, was popularly called upanishad brahmendra. He was the first author in the advaita tradition to write commentaries on all the 108 upanishads listed in the muktikopanishad. His commentaries are considered to be authoritative, and are quite popular among sannyAsin communities in the south. In the tradition of samanvaya used in the brahmasUtras, he harmonizes the various doctrines found in these texts, and weaves their extensive religious lore into the consistent philosophical framework of Sankaran advaita. upanishad brahmendra lived and taught in Kancipuram in the south. He established hiw own maTha at Kanci, which continues to this day, under the leadership of illustrious sannyAsins. Tyagaraja, the great composer in Carnatic music, was a disciple of upanishad brahmendra.

The 20th century.In the 20th century, there has been an enormous amount of activity....
..
This brief survey of post-Sankaran authors in the advaita tradition attests to its basic continuity irrespective of India`s numerous historical upheavals. A large number of the teachers in the tradition have remained anonymous, as they taught only select students, and did not write commentarial texts. Great teachers and authors are found from all over India, but the scholastic tradition has always been stronger in the south. The sannyAsins travelled far and wide all over India, preaching basic religious values to the masses and teaching philosophy to competent students. These teachers often lived and taught side by side with Saiva siddhAntins, viSishTAdvaitins, dvaitins, bhedAbhedavAdins, leaders of various bhakti movements, Jains, Muslims and others. As no human being lives in a vacuum, the rapid changes in India`s social, political and religious landscape made their presence felt in the personal lives of the post-Sankaran teachers in advaita. We see teachers of the stature of appayya dIkshita, madhusUdana sarasvatI and prakASAnanda sarasvatI bringing various Saiva, vaishNava and SAkta religious groups, with their own legacies, within the fold of the orthodox advaita vedAnta tradition. The leadership of teachers of advaita vedAnta contributed immensely to the inclusivistic nature of Hinduism, and encouraged a tolerant attitude towards diverse religious practices, that is so essential to a pluralistic society. However, through it all, the basic ``Great Equation`` of advaita vedAnta (Atman = brahman) has been firmly adhered to. The tradition continues to this day, and possesses an enormous amount of resilience to continue well into the future.

a very useful read.

Baig

A good article indeed. I could not rad the interacts but had always been intrigued how soft and pluralistic Indian civilization, culture or religion could survive against the onslaught of the religion like Islam with its `Islamofascism`?

#289
If people provide basis for what they say, I think it makes for a healthy debate even though I don`t understand some people`s obsession about whether Hinduism is a religion or not nor why is it is so important to them one way or the other? What I can`t stand is people`s inconsistency or selective view of history. If historians choose to root for the underdog, good for them, but then they should be consistent about it, not becomes liars reduced to denying history to uphold their theories.

My understanding is that Buddhist monastries were equivalent of feudal lords in Tibet in the past and Commies attacked many of them and destroyed them. I wonder how Indian Marxist historian worldview deals with both these uncomfortable facts which don`t fit their general narrative - that Buddhist religious establishment can be feudals served by serfs and that their egalitarian Commie brothers in arms destroyed Buddhist monastries on a large scale in modern times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_feudalism#Tibet_.2813th_century_until_1959.29
Tibet (13th century until 1959)

``In 1264 the feudal lordship over Tibet was given to Drogön Chögyal Phagpa, fifth leader of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism by the Mongolian emperor, Kublai Khan.

In 1953, the greater part of the rural population--some 700,000 of an estimated total population of 1,250,000--were serfs. Tied to the land, they were allotted only a small parcel to grow their own food. Serfs and other peasants generally went without schooling or medical care. They spent most of their time laboring for the monasteries and individual high-ranking lamas, or for a secular aristocracy that numbered not more than 200 families. In effect, they were owned by their masters who told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. A serf might easily be separated from his family should the owner send him to work in a distant location. Serfs could be sold by their masters, or subjected to torture and death.

Along with the upper clergy, secular leaders did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. He also was a member of the Dalai Lama`s lay Cabinet.``


Another uncomfortable fact is that the Indian Marxist historians` great liberating Muslims from other lands who dealt God`s(or Marxism`s) just wrath on Brahminism happily traded in Indian (predominantly Hindu) slave labor right from their first forays in whichever A.D through the Sultanates and the early and latter Mughals until the advent of the British.

http://vepa.us/dir8/ScottLevi.htm

`Hindus Beyond the Hindu Kush, Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade`

I wonder how the Indian Marxist historian world view (``Hinduism=exploitation of underclass, Buddhism and Islam=liberators of serfs from Brahminism``) deals with that uncomfortable reality as well


I suspect Indian Marxist historians deal with these facts of history by curling up into a foetal position and crying mommy or alternately putting their fingers in their ears and shouting `nananananana`.

#288 sadna

Here is how it works: political-religous formations coming from arabia copy 50% judaism + 50% christianity, hence they are a religion! Combine that with 1000 years of sunni imperialism, and you have the current situation in middle-east and western south asia.

Asian systems of thought, whether taoist, buddhist, hindu, jain etc. have a completely different orientation. Indic traditions take self-restraint as the basic starting point, it is completely different from the abrahamic traditions. Doesnt mean that there arent bad hindus or murderous buddhists, it is just that we are comparing apples to fish here.

Here is the emperor Ashoka on religion in 300BCE:

[quote]
Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart.[14] But people have various desires and various passions, and they may practice all of what they should or only a part of it. But one who receives great gifts yet is lacking in self-control, purity of heart, gratitude and firm devotion, such a person is mean.

Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds.[22] But Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this -- that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions.[23] Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one`s own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one`s own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one`s own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought ``Let me glorify my own religion,`` only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good.[24] One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

[quote]

The belief that hinduism was invented in the 19th century etc. is a staple of our left-wing intellectuals and other critics. Presumably, as nationhood is also a western invention, there never was (and never should be) a country called india! This sort of silly stuff goes on and on and barely deserves a response. It reminds me of the poor guy in peshawar who was lynched because he said mo`s parents were not muslims !

#285
OK. I said what I thought of his wilful misinterpretation of my post.

PPS #281
While using Buddhism as the pivot in their class conflict view of Hinduism, I would really like to know what Indian Marxist historians make of Sri Lankan Buddhist religious establishments` strong hold over that country`s politics for the last 70-80 years. Hindutva-ideologues are quite anti-intellectual and not really learned in their delineation of the Hindutva philosophy(in my view). In great contrast the similar modern political ideology of purist Buddhism in Sri Lanka and their recasting of theircomposite history has been provided deep intellectual roots by their entrenched, wealthy and influential Buddhist religious establishment, and is therefore much more difficult to unseat or contest on that basis.

I wonder do Indian Marxist historians in their kneejerk fashion place the Sri Lankan Hindu plantation workers in the exploitative villians` chair there too and call the powerful Buddhist religious establishment the champions of the underdog there?

#285 by swarrier

Your post has lots of merit and I generally agree with that. I picked a line just for reference, as I see no point in coping pasting the whole paragraph.

I have not disagreed that some ideas and beliefs were floating around for a long time but the point that I was trying to make was that the present Hindu religion is named after a group of people who just a millennium ago were named Hindu. So the current Hindu religion started out as a political entity. Before that, perhaps many faiths or belief systems existed and were lumped in to one Hindu religion for identity sake.

#281 by sadna

Going back to the routine....Abusing people w/o a cause and then come back and pull the victim card.
I have no intention to respond in the same language and generalize to call every hindu a bigot or an RSS agent. Even though you are RSS and I have proven it many times to the extent of showing when you copied stuff right out of the RSS web site.

After three long posts still no answer to post #279...

``The issue is whether any religion called “Hindu” existed say 2500 years ago? ``

Re: # 281
Sadna, some of HP`s questions are valid. And he`s called me some animal only once a longish time ago.-)) We have always been relatively civil to each other.

Re: #279

HP

You`ve picked the shortest and the first sentence of my previous post to question? You should read the rest of it. -) I have given adequate information to indicate that a common religious thought form existed in various parts of India modeled on the Vedas and Upanishads.

I do not have any answer as to what was present in India 2,500 years ago. However linguistic and literary data seem to date the Rigveda around 1500BCE. Now whether this religion was in use all over India is unknown but it certainly is a form of Hinduism and therefore did exist. Who knows what India was like then? Probably the plains of Central India would still have been heavily forested. Until the clearing of these forests started human inhabitation would have been fairly sparse. But to say this form of religious thought did not exist then would be to say that Judaism did not exist because a few villages followed Yahweh or Islam did not exist during the time of Muhammad because only a few Arab tribes were converts.

As to your second question, the answer is in the negative. The fact that the temples that Shankaracharya established in various parts of India should be proof that Hinduism or whatever you wished to call it existed long before Roy or anybody else coined a term. I`m not even bothering to back in time to Jaina and Buddhist ideas that borrowed very heavily from the contemporary religious thoughts that existed then.

The fact is that this particular article has some merits and a lot of speculation in it. It reads like an essay written after a few visits to the library.

If the religious establishment/center of Buddhism (and Jainism to some extent)existed in mainly their monastries or viharas, then when these were destroyed by incoming invaders and the monks/scholars killed in large numbers, Buddhism got decapitated. Since these and temples which were also attacked were also Hindu religious centers, Hinduism also got decapitated by such destruction. But in spite of such decapitation Hinduism remained alive in the folk traditions, in the village temples and the village priests, of which there were few if any Buddhist equivalents. So it was prob. for good reason that Hindu ritualism and popular tradition survived in better shape than the Hindu schools of philosophy.

I interpret the post Buddhist period of Hinduism as a sort of escapism from the horrific things and turmoil going on that time. In one way I am proud that there appears to be little discernable bitterness in most of the bhakti traditions - a number of other peoples who retained memories of being similarly devastated have created the Balkans, for example.

PS#281
Incidentally, I am quite amused by the dilemma into which the Shankaracharya`s contentions would put those, obedient to their ideology, who try to delineate class conflict in the history of Hinduism. A lot of stuff they attribute to India`s period of Buddhism/Jainism forms the entire Marxist school`s major basis for affirming their class conflict view of Hinduism`s history - their `Hinduism has been nothing but exploitative exclusivist Brahminism` view.

If, as the Shankarcharya said, Buddhists taught the Hindu sastras of philosophy, religion and learning in schools and universities alongside teaching Buddhist ones in the peak of Buddhist power in India, in order to be consistent with `Hinduism= Brahminism exclusivism`, now Marxists will have to assert that such teaching in Buddhist universities was restricted to Brahmins and barred to everyone else. Horror of horrors, Marxist historians many now be forced to say that Buddhists were casteist!!!

The Marxists` dilemma may best be solved by denying Buddhists ever touched Hindu shastras with a 10 foot pole or claimed any knowledge of them (though Buddhism took off from the many Hindu philosophical schools and Buddha himself studied in university before becoming the Buddha). For that Marxists have to deny the continuing existence of many treatises in Hinduism and Buddhism which were written explicitly to disprove each other`s philosophies following the well laid out (post Vedic/Mimansa?)scriptural rules of logic, inference etc in argumentation. Destroy the evidence, Marx can`t be wrong.

You have to admit, the bind Marxists often find themselves in is very amusing, in their ideology-dictated quest to delineate class conflict in Hinduism`s history.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

swarrier #various
I have to wonder why are you arguing with a self-declared illiterate who thinks he is omniscent merely because he gives gaalis(like the most of his compatriots). Have you ever seen him give any reference for any of his sweeping assertions except gaalis?

The foremost `debating` technique of a dishonest Paki is to wilfully misread what you post - I provided the url of my quotes in my post and wrote clearly those were a Kamkoti Shankaracharya`s words and yet in typical dishonest manner this Paki is attributing those quotes to me. Is it worth caring what this Paki says? No.

After that he wilfully misinterprets what is said, which is the second `debating` technique of a dishonest Paki. The author`s contention which I was contesting with those quotes was that the Upanishads and Sanskrit scriptures were hidden by Brahmins until the advent of the British. On the contrary they were taught in universities and schools. Is it worth caring what gloss this loser is putting on the same quotes? I don`t.

The third step of a dishonest Paki is to give the people disagreeing with him/her gaalis. That happens all the time with most of them. So what precisely is the point of wasting your reasoning and your time on such people?

#278 excellent reasons for staying the course..can you say what you find inherently offensive in ``statues, images, and relationships for God.``

#277 by swarrier

“The Vedas were definitely part of the relgious faith that I was born into.”

That is not the point of this discussion. The issue is whether any religion called “Hindu” existed say 2500 years ago? If yes, then did it have a universal name all over India?
I am sure people had some beliefs but they could be different in different areas of India.

” Roy`s native Bengal has a view of Hinduism that differs quite widely from say my native state of Kerala or my domiciled state Maharashtra.”

Could it be that it was all different religions or faiths that were later called Hindu by Roy or someone else fairly recently?

#272 Krishna_abcd {``I`m listening.``}

Krishna,
No you are not. You are looking for weak points to pounce on and claim some sort of ``victory`` over a poor Musla. Rest assured, I plan to leave you alone. If others are inviting you to join their faith (Urstruly or Pat Robertson) please blame it on their bad taste and willingness to accept any Ram, Krisha, or Hari into their faith. :)

I am content with Islam because of:

Its message of brotherhood for all
Its simplicity
Its straightforward statement that no one is superior to another - including black/white, Arab/Ajam, etc.
Its rejection of ``original sin``
Its lack of statues, images, and relationships for God.
Its discipline and equality during prayers.
Its insistence on providing charity
Its treatment of orphans and widows.
Its introduction of women`s rights as early as 7th century - Unfortunately this was not reinforced or even augmented in latter yeasrs.

Re: # 274
HP
I`m not a ``swami``, unless it`s some new jazz group I`d like to be associated with. -)

The Vedas were definitely part of the relgious faith that I was born into. At least the Adi Shankara referred to was from a place where the Vedas were a dominating influence in religious practice prior to and after he was born This further means that a common relgious thought process existed before him in other parts of the Indic lands since the Vedas did not originate in Kerala, the land where he was born.

The speculation that you have quoted is not hers. It is what she has quoted. Besides whether the religion enjoyed state patronage or not has nothing to do with whether it existed, was followed etc. Obviously temples are built with patronage and since there are ancient temples it is possible to assume that the relgion existed.

A progressive religion changes with time, if it doesn`t it has very little to say. Obviously Hinduism has had it`s own schisms and idiot savants.

Your statement after quoting Roy is also speculation and nothing more. Roy`s native Bengal has a view of Hinduism that differs quite widely from say my native state of Kerala or my domiciled state Maharashtra. The practices are still distinct from each other. Granted political leaders did use religious festivals for furthering their issues.
The performance of the Ramayan in temples in areas like Bali etc where Hinduism flourishes came long before Roy and the Brahmo Samaj etc.

Would you say that Buddhism that has such differing practices from the country of its birth to places such as Japan and China is not a religion? Would you say it existed only because it became popular after the Dalai Lama and Richard Gere? I see Buddhism as another logical descendant of Indic thought.

To me all religions are pagan (in the real use of the term) because the meanderings of a people in Judah and their delusions, hopes, beliefs, joys and sorrows are also built only of their imaginations and experiences and beliefs. There is nothing revealed there that is very different from common humanism allied to a generous dollop of superstition and some interesting musings.

As I mentioned very early on in this post, pagan beliefs gave us ideas like democracy , rational thought, mathematics, sciences etc. It is good to be pagan, perhaps not so good to be blindly religious. -)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#271 by swarrier
Swami,

“I don`t think Sadna meant that the development of Hinduism is a 19th century phenomenon.”

It does not appear that she is denying it either. What she appears to be quoting is that some books or Vedas existed for a long time. But she is NOT addressing whether they were ever part of one religious thought process or faith or not.

She further wrote, “It has inspired stories and novels. However, nobody seems to have dealt with the information that I have gained from my own historical inquiries -- that the Tamil rulers supported the Vedas and sastras in a big way.”
Here she is merely speculating.

“why would it be a political entity? I do not understand your conclusion at all. To me politics is something that is suited to government.”

Defining political entity would be a much larger debate in scope but in simple terms, it defines a people or a group of people or a unit with similar economic, cultural, and social interests. A political entity is involved in politics that does not necessarily define government or is in the government domain only.

Please refer to a comment in this article that I referred o in my post 202.

“Raja Ram Mohan Roy, in 1826, first began the use of the word Hindu to describe a religion instead of a name for the local people.”

Obviously, Raja Ram Mohan Roy did not start the Hindu religion. He created a religious identity for the people that were already known as Hindu. So my contention is that the Hindu is a political entity that was used to create one unified religion putting the existing undefined rites or beliefs that perhaps differed widely in different parts of India and were not already defined as Muslim or any other religion. ( I assume that the Indian constitution takes the same definition when it defines Sikhs, Jains and others as Hindu.)

“you have to define what you mean by ``pagan``, whether it is mentioned in a perjorative sense or whether it simply means that you do not follow any of the revealed religions.”

Well! I did not mean it in pejorative terms but I must say that the use of the word, for the lack of a better word perhaps, does invoke a pejorative use. It is true that mostly revealed religions describe others as pagan religions or rites.

THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT HINUDISM ... NOT ABOUT ISLAM .... WHY`TRE HINUDS SO OBSSESSED WITH ISLAM ......................?????????????

#266 by Salim_Chauhan

[When it comes to spiritual guidance, I am NOT particularly looking for a Pullitzer Prize winning masterpiece.]

Most obviously not. This is definitely not going to win any prizes. :)


[I want simple directions about the purpose of life, how to live a good life, and what to expect when this life ceases to exist.]

The suras you mentioned have nothing about the ``purpose of life`` or ``how to live a good life`` or ``what to expect when this life ceases to exist``.


[Whether I follow the entire Holy Koran, some parts of it, or none at all is my concern.]

Who said anything otherwise? You sound kind of defensive.


[I am very familiar with people such as you who establish a viewpoint against Islam, Muslims, and their beliefs, and then proceed to find holes, inadequacies, and contradictions to justify their negativity. You, of course are welcome to do that. If you notice, most Muslims do not waste their time trying to disprove the Hindu scriptures and beliefs - we don`t HAVE to. :) ]

Is that why the author here has to write this article, or many similar articles before? Is that why many muslim interactors on this site keep talking about ``cow piss`` and Hindus? Is that why Muslims keep trying to convert other people instead of just leaving them alone? Is that why Urstruly keeps asking Hindus to convert?

Hindus are the most tolerant bunch of humans anywhere on this planet. Jews have been mercilessly persecuted and butchered by Christians AS WELL as by Muslims for many centuries JUST for the crime of not believing in the faith of the majority community. Imagine what would have happened to the Jews if they had done to the Christians or Muslims what the Muslims have done to the Hindus for the last thousand years - killed, raped, forcibly converted, razed their temples to the ground, erected mosques in their holiest places, forced them to pay Jezia and so on. If Hindus were like the Christians, or the Muslims, they would have buried each and every Muslim alive.

So shut the fcuk up about being tolerant.


[By the way, my understanding of the sura is as follows:

``He is not born as we think of birth and He does not procreate as we think of procreation.`` ]

Good. Then let`s proceed.



Let`s look at the suras you mentioned:


[1. Our belief in the One God, our declaration of His supremacy, His mercy, and His compassion and our request that He show us the right path. ]

This signifies a belief in One God or Monotheism. Okay.


[2. Our belief in the Oneness of God and our insistence that neither is He begotten nor does He beget. ]

This means ``He is not born as we think of birth and He does not procreate as we think of procreation.``. Great.


[3. The very essence of ``Pray and let Pray`` doctrine. We are urged to tell unbelievers ``I do not worship that which you worship and you do not worship that which I worship and you will not worship that which I worship and I will not worship that which you worship. So you go your way and I will go mine.`` This is a far cry from the conversion by force charge that we are constantly plagued by. This verse should forever discount such stupid allegations. ]

Meaning Muslims do not try to convert others. (more on this later)



So tell me. Is THIS the basis of why you consider yourself a ``Muslim``? Is THIS all there is that you guys keep bragging about? If you say that it is not, then kindly mention the Sura that depicts what is so very remarkable about your religion. Because these are amongst the most common sayings in many religions.

I`m listening.

Re: # 269
HP
I don`t think Sadna meant that the development of Hinduism is a 19th century phenomenon. The first part of her paragraph was merely a quote from the article. She was trying to show that the ideas existed a long time ago so that even Buddhist schools were influenced by Vedic ideas. That is not too difficult to understand considering a large body of Buddhist thought would have been influenced by Hindu ideas.

Secondly , you left out henotheistic, pantheistic all of which exist and enmesh perfectly well within Hindu schools of thought. It could be that Hinduism is a mishmash of pagan rituals. But then you have to define what you mean by ``pagan``, whether it is mentioned in a perjorative sense or whether it simply means that you do not follow any of the revealed religions.

Now whether Hinduism is a religion or not is a question you must ask and define. After all the word religion is a Judaeo-Christian word. If it (religion) is defined by Judaeo-Christian traditions then Hinduism may not be a religion. That is fine. But some people of Judaeo-Christian traditions think it is. So then, should it be one? Practising Hindus say they follow their Dharma. That could mean ``reality`` or ``higher truths or Natural law``.

Lastly why would it be a political entity? I do not understand your conclusion at all. To me politics is something that is suited to government. Now all religions are inherently political in the sense they are used to govern a portion of your life. But Hinduism does not directly deal with governing cities, states, ( a ``polis`` so to speak.).

HP,

If hinudism is a religion, then Alif Laila is a religion as well.

#267

Some more non-sense from Balwant.

I never in my post said that any religion is rational or logical. Making up stuff to prove a non-existing point is typical RSS game to create straw men and come up with non-sense.

This thread is about Hindu religion or whatever we may call it and my post #202 by HP discusses only that and did not compare Hinduism to any other religion.
It would be best for Balwant to respond to the post and tell us how his religion Hinduism is not what I have described.

In my post, I wrote:

“Lastly, is Hinduism a polytheistic religion, a monotheistic religion or a Trinitarian (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) religion or is it henotheistic?

So many contradictions lead to just one conclusion that Hinduism is no religion at all but a hotchpotch of pagan rites that have been put together in one forced entity now known as Hinduism. That makes Hinduism a political entity rather than a religious entity.”

Balwant or any other hindu on this board has not addressed my post yet.

Secondly, The title of the article is “Has Hinduism had the Longest Tradition of Continuous Religion?” My contention is that perhaps the title is misleading as we first have to address the issue that “The question should really be whether Hinduism can actually be classified as religion at all?”

Infact, sadna in #263 petty much is saying that development of Hindu religion is a 19th century phenomenon.

I hope Balwant would try to stay on topic which is abt Hinduism and nothing else.
Bringing other religions into the discussion is just a planned distraction to steer the topic away from Hinduism.

Re: # 267

Well said...

Religions are essentially based upon paganistic idea of the polarity between the body and the spirit. All Abrahmic religions postulate this along with a number of fantastic spiritual entities. To say that one religion`s entities are ``rational`` or ``real`` or ``logical`` is plain stupid. These are essentially terms used by evangelists in every religion for `proving` that their metaphysical entities are more real than the other religion`s entities.

This idea of one religion being a hotch potch and another being a ``logical`` or ``rational`` is a typical evangelistic attitude and is a dangerous thing since it is the begining of the communal strife. There are enough studies to show what Abrahmic religions took from each other. And what metaphysical theories the Abrahmic religions took from other civilizations.
Instead of doing this we need to look at how the religious metaphysics is COMPLETELY Obliterated by scientific materialism.
It is only those like our Chowk Politician CKP alias HP who use religion as the foundation of politics and try to push identities and solidarities based upon religious ideas that want to prove other religions as somewhat ``inadequate`` or ``inferior`` - otherwise for most of us a plain old secualr liberal democratic order is good enough!!
I think the world would be much better without these mullahs trying to create havoc in trying to discuss whether Martians are really better compared to the Venusians.

krishna #253 {``The reason I asked you to show me some Suras that you think are so revolutionary is to make it abundantly obvious to anyone on this forum that there is NOTHING remarkable about the book that apparently came straight from ``God``.
``[112:3] ``Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten.``
seems to mean:
``He Who creates without a partner, and Who was not created`` ``}

Krishna,
When it comes to spiritual guidance, I am NOT particularly looking for a Pullitzer Prize winning masterpiece. I want simple directions about the purpose of life, how to live a good life, and what to expect when this life ceases to exist. Whether I follow the entire Holy Koran, some parts of it, or none at all is my concern. I am very familiar with people such as you who establish a viewpoint against Islam, Muslims, and their beliefs, and then proceed to find holes, inadequacies, and contradictions to justify their negativity. You, of course are welcome to do that. If you notice, most Muslims do not waste their time trying to disprove the Hindu scriptures and beliefs - we don`t HAVE to. :)

By the way, my understanding of the sura is as follows:

``He is not born as we think of birth and He does not procreate as we think of procreation.``

contd...#264...

For who Saad Bin Muaz was and further clarifications you`ll really need to read that discussion ...

Yaar abcd .. you have questions but doesn`t look as if you want answers. Anyway, I`ll c/p one extract from Urstruly from that thread ...

The arbitration award given by Saad Bin Muaz was under this clause .. and duly carried out.

Deutronomy Chapter 20

Verses 10-14

10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B05C020.htm

``6. After the 19th century, when the British had superseded the Mughal rulers and most of their customs, the increasing numbers of educated Hindus, began to be aware that there was little knowledge about their own history, culture and religion. Little was known about any great Hindu king, and many religious scriptures like the Vedas, the Upanishads or even the Bhagavat Gita that were mostly in the secret records of Brahmin pundits were just not known. Only the Ramayana and Mahabharat were widely enacted folktales.``



Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swamigal, the 68th Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Pitha (period of being Shankaracharya 1907-1994 approx) :

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap3.htm
``The fourteen ``abodes`` of knowledge are: the four vedas; the six Angas or limbs of the Vedas; Mimamsa, Nyaya, the Puranas and Dharmasastra. You must have seen at least references to the Vedas and the six Angas. The Tamil work Tevaram says: ``Vedamodarangamayinanai``. According to this devotional work Isvara is the form of the four Vedas and the six Angas.

The fourteen dharma-pramanas (authorities of dharma) are called ``caturdasa-vidya``. The well-known poetic work `Naisadham` mentions that Nala was conversant with these fourteen branches of learning. The poet (Sriharsa ) plays on the word ``caturdasa``: he says that ``Nala accorded caturdasa to the caturdas-vidya``, meaning he gave the fourteen branches of learning four dasas: reading, understanding what is read, living according to the teachings contained in what is read, and making others also live in accordance with them.

Caturdasatvam Krtavan kutah svayam

Na vedmi vidyasu caturdasasvapi

--Naisadham, 1. 4

All religious knowledge is encompassed by these fourteen branches of learning.

There are yet four more vidyas. If you add to the fourteen already mentioned, you will have eighteen vidyas - astadasa-vidya which are all-inclusive. Of them, the fourteen already mentioned are directly concerned with dharma. The remaining four - Ayurveda, Arthasastra, Dhanurveda and Gandharvaveda - do not directly deal with dharma. They are not dharmasthanas (abodes of dharma) but they qualify to be vidyasthanas(abodes of knowledge). The first fourteen, as already mentioned, are both dharmasthanas and vidyasthanas (abodes of dharma as well as abodes of knowledge).

The dharmasthanas and vidyasthanas are together commonly known as the sastras. The word ``sastra`` means an order or commandment. We speak of a royal ``sasana``, meaning a royal ``edict``. There is a chapter in the Mahabaharaaata in which Bhisma expounds the ordinances of dharma to Yudhisthira and it is called ``Anusasana-parva``. Aiyanar is called ``Sasta`` because he keeps the hosts of Siva under his control (through his orders ). Works on sastras incorporate the ordinances that are calculated to keep us disciplined and ensure that we tread the right path. ``

``The fourteen branches of learning were taught in our country from the remote past until the inception of British rule. Let me tell you something interesting about them. You must have read about the Chinese pilgrim Fahsien and Hsuan Tsang. The former visited India early in the fifth century A. D. and the latter in the seventh century A. D. They have both recorded impressions of their travels here and given particularly glowing accounts of the big universities of Nalanda and Taksasila. We learn about these institutions from archaeological investigations also. They were at the peak of their glory when Buddhism flourished in the country. It is noteworthy that syllabuses of both these universities included the caturdasa-vidya. Ofcourse Buddhist religious texts were also taught, but only after the student had learned the fourteen Hindu sastras. The reason : acquaintance with Vedic learning was a help to any religious community in acquiring knowledge and in character building. The Buddhists thus believed that education to be called education must include a course in the Hindu caturdasa-vidya.

In the South also these sastras we taught at gatikasthanas and other institutions established by the rajas of Tamil Nadu. In the copper-plate inscriptions, dated 868 A. D. , there is a reference to an educational institution at Bahur, between Cuddalore and Pondicerri, where it is stated that the fourteen vidyas were taught. Similarly, there was a school at Ennayiram, between Vizhupuram and Tindivanam, where the ancient sastras were part of the syllabus as evidenced by an inscription of Rajendra Cola (11th century). There are many more similar examples.

Nowadays considerable research is conducted into Tamil history. It has inspired stories and novels. However, nobody seems to have dealt with the information that I have gained from my own historical inquiries -- that the Tamil rulers supported the Vedas and sastras in a big way. There is much talk about the need for impartiality in all matters and about the importance of having a scientific outlook, but we do not see any evidence of it in practice. The Buddhists were opposed to the Vedas, but they believed that an acquaintance with the fourteen Hindu sastras was necessary to nurture the intelligence and shape the moral character of the students learning in their institutions.``

#author

This is an interesting article with some interesting factoids. But I believe it will benefit from providing a citation of your sources rather than making definitive statements of your own.

Your thesis statement is a bit misleading – nobody is making the claim that Hinduism HAS such “longest tradition of continuous religion” – whatever that means. And most religions, as well as cultures and civilizations evolve over time. Those which do not evolve, eventually loose connection to their masses, thus loosing relevancy.

#260 Boomer

Yaar, don`t concede so quickly - mian Trully is just warming up!

And NEVER make promises that are absolutely impossible to keep.

Urstruly:

OK. I concede.
How can one argue with the logic such as yours.
but I promise not to be too drab, dour and dark either..and so should you.

#256 by Urstruly

[The answers on that thread are my answers.]

Then cut and paste the most salient answers. If you can type so many lengthy posts, surely you can cut and paste a couple of paragraphs - no?

#257 by bjkumar

[Dear Ajeya,

The literal interpretation of specific lines in Holy Books is always problematic. People of most faiths are in reality mostly secular in their day-to-day dealings. Most religious rituals and the like are simply matters of habit and family training. Few people have spent the time to pore over every line of their Book – and unless one does so as part of a profession – it is perhaps to be considered a rather peculiar habit.

The bottom line is how people of any faith choose to practice their religion and whether they accord to others the same respect and freedoms that they seek for themselves. That is where the focus of discussion needs to be – not on the literal validity of individual lines in any Book.

Most practitioners of the faith do not attach significance to what is literally said if it fails to make sense. By bringing it up, you end up according undeserved legitimacy to those who do.

Sincerely,
BJK

PS: Darn, I am sounding like Kaal now. Perhaps he is another of my nicks! (That would explain his sweet words in the past.) ]


Dear bjkumar,

There is nothing you say that I disagree with. Faith is the most common commodity in this world, meaning belief that is not borne out of evidence or verifiable facts. And there is nothing wrong with faith - it is a mental crutch people need to survive - unless it is harmful to others. In this respect there is absolutely NO difference between the average Hindu, the average Muslim, the average Christian, or anybody else. This is why in a recent discussion with tahmed, when he finally said that it was his faith that he was following, I told him that just that admission increased my respect for him tremendously.

I only question people who start pontificating about their belief system being the best etc. and insisting that others are wrong. That IS the source of MOST problems around the world.

Otherwise, I don`t give a damn if you believe in Santa Claus, if it makes you happy.

And I have said this many times before.


Ajeya

#253, etc.

Dear Ajeya,

The literal interpretation of specific lines in Holy Books is always problematic. People of most faiths are in reality mostly secular in their day-to-day dealings. Most religious rituals and the like are simply matters of habit and family training. Few people have spent the time to pore over every line of their Book – and unless one does so as part of a profession – it is perhaps to be considered a rather peculiar habit.

The bottom line is how people of any faith choose to practice their religion and whether they accord to others the same respect and freedoms that they seek for themselves. That is where the focus of discussion needs to be – not on the literal validity of individual lines in any Book.

Most practitioners of the faith do not attach significance to what is literally said if it fails to make sense. By bringing it up, you end up according undeserved legitimacy to those who do.

Sincerely,
BJK

PS: Darn, I am sounding like Kaal now. Perhaps he is another of my nicks! (That would explain his sweet words in the past.)

abcd

The answers on that thread are my answers. If you are not interested in getting answers then why bother asking questions?

Echo.

we do not have luxury of Macacaing even for sometime; we are on war footing. We have to set our priorities straight; we have to know the propriety of our actions; and we have to have commitment to ourselves to do the right thing as far as priorities and properieties go.

Look the matter is simple - everything in this world is a test. and we are tested most rigorously when we are most tempted. I have realized the error of my ways of the past and I whole heartedly regret it. I wasted a lifetime away.

#252 by Urstruly

[A very comprehensive discussion on this topic was done on this Chowk thread, where almost all possible aspects of this issue were explored in detail. If you have any question after reading that thread then please let me know:


Islam in Crisis (I)

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00001875&channel=university%20ave&threshold=1&layout=0&order=0&start=0&end=9&page=1#146 ]

I don`t know how many times I have to say this to you - STOP DIRECTING ME TO WEBSITES. TYPE IN YOUR OWN ANSWER. OR AT LEAST CUT AND PASTE THE ANSWERS YOU THINK ARE MOST APPROPRIATE.

Thank you.

#251 by Salim_Chauhan

[But seriously, dude. Shouldn`t you be relying on your own good understanding, fine mind, and sense of objectivity rather than going to the ``Sword of Truth`` website to do your thinking for you? ]

You probably will never understand this, but I do not have a high opinion about the mental abilities of people who read stuff like the Quran and think that it is the best thing to have hit us humans.

Don`t fool yourself. I am not asking you these questions about the suras because I have any doubts about the Quran being the product of a very common mind trying to make up stuff to hoodwink equally illiterate bedouins. It is a very unsophisticated piece of work with wild fantasies and uneducated conjectures about most everything. And the not-so-perfect copy job from the New and Old Testaments (the prevailing religious books of that region at that time) is obvious to any educated mind.

Also, you should also have realized after a few arguments with me that you have to actually PROVE your points with me. No amount of sarcasm or emotional tantrums will prove it for you.

The reason I asked you to show me some Suras that you think are so revolutionary is to make it abundantly obvious to anyone on this forum that there is NOTHING remarkable about the book that apparently came straight from ``God``.



In any case, coming back to the sura in question:

the line

``[112:3] ``Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten.``

seems to mean:

``He Who creates without a partner, and Who was not created``

Tell me whether you agree with this interpretation. If not, please give me your translation.

Thank you.

Re: # 240 Mr abcd

``Show me how the beheading 700 unarmed men and selling their innocent and helpless women and children into slavery is ``right``. ``

A very comprehensive discussion on this topic was done on this Chowk thread, where almost all possible aspects of this issue were explored in detail. If you have any question after reading that thread then please let me know:


Islam in Crisis (I)

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00001875&channel=university%20ave&threshold=1&layout=0&order=0&start=0&end=9&page=1#146

#248 Krishna_abcd {``Could you give me the number of this sura, so that I can understand from other sources what ``neither is He begotten nor does He beget`` signifies. ``}

Krishna - the number is 112:1-4
But seriously, dude. Shouldn`t you be relying on your own good understanding, fine mind, and sense of objectivity rather than going to the ``Sword of Truth`` website to do your thinking for you?

Anyway, here is the text of Sura - 112 Absoluteness (Al-Ikhlaas)

[112:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
1. [112:1] Proclaim, ``He is the One and only GOD.
2. [112:2] ``The Absolute GOD.
3. [112:3] ``Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten.
4. [112:4] ``None equals Him.``

#248 Krishna_abcd {``Could you give me the number of this sura, so that I can understand from other sources what ``neither is He begotten nor does He beget`` signifies. ``}

Krishna - the number is 112:1-4
But seriously, dude. Shouldn`t you be relying on your own good understanding, fine mind, and sense of objectivity rather than going to the ``Sword of Truth`` website to do your thinking for you?

Anyway, here is the text of Sura - 112 Absoluteness (Al-Ikhlaas)

[112:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
1. [112:1] Proclaim, ``He is the One and only GOD.
2. [112:2] ``The Absolute GOD.
3. [112:3] ``Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten.
4. [112:4] ``None equals Him.``

#224 by zeemax on September 10, 2006 2:42am PT
Manto is a non-Muslim ... trying to pass of as an Ismaili now ... who are Muslims.

Manto is a qadiani ....

Oh boy! I feel really blessed to be born as a hindu. Even though I eat beef, and don`t go to a temple for years I do not fear anyone declaring me a non-hindu.

Will this charlatan Murad Ali Baig also write an ``Islam Unvarnished``?

Re: #244 by Salim_Chauhan


Good.

Now let us look at these three Suras:

[1. Our belief in the One God, our declaration of His supremacy, His mercy, and His compassion and our request that He show us the right path. ]

This signifies a belief in One God or Monotheism.

[2. Our belief in the Oneness of God and our insistence that neither is He begotten nor does He beget. ]

Could you give me the number of this sura, so that I can understand from other sources what ``neither is He begotten nor does He beget`` signifies.


[3. The very essence of ``Pray and let Pray`` doctrine. We are urged to tell unbelievers ``I do not worship that which you worship and you do not worship that which I worship and you will not worship that which I worship and I will not worship that which you worship. So you go your way and I will go mine.`` This is a far cry from the conversion by force charge that we are constantly plagued by. This verse should forever discount such stupid allegations. ]

Actually it doesn`t, and I`ll go into why it doesn`t. But I`ll wait until you give me the number of the Sura for 2.

Thanks.

:-)

#245 Boomer (more (yeah, one can never have TOO MUCH fun!))

[I do get feed-back from a lot more ones who do not ``participate`` here..and boy what a sea-change is now out there.]

So, are the visa application lines in front of the Islamabad US embassy any shorter now?

#245 Boomer (to Trully)

[I fully agree about your ``worm`` angle.]

In other words – “worm”, “worm” mausere bhai!

And how come you don`t take the trouble to express your ``candid`` views on regular publications - like my hometown Washington Post?

Too chicken?!!

#235 by Urstruly
Zeemax

``I believe that for every ``worm``, as you put it, there are at least 10 ears who want to listen to what we have to say...........``

Urstruly:
remember when the ``god Abba`` or the self-appointed CHOWIDAR prowled here 24/7? Now he has turmed tail; but he LURKS..I know it.

Remember how things were then?..this site was crawling with secularoon, liberaloon, munaafiquon, murtadoons?

I remember distinctly how you really engaged such kind of scum, and then you did see them through & through.

It is indeed a shame that the level of ``tolerance`` displayed here when it comes to our Nabi
(pbuh) but then one thing good is that we have become innured to such ``tolerance``. All censorship by commission, deletion, or even emission is ultimately the censor of the censor
and speaks volumes about a mindset. That I believe has been the greatest education, as far as I am concerned, imparted here.

I fully agree about your ``worm`` angle. That has been my purpose, as you would recall. The number of interacts & ``hits`` tells us where our real contituency lies and as you would recall I was the first one to mention it.

I do get feed-back from a lot more ones who do not ``participate`` here..and boy what a sea-change is now out there.

One does not converse with the converted, and this is a great place & opportunity for muslims. As I`ve already said ``if you do not go to madressa, the madressa will come to you.

and how much these guys really want it is eveidenced by the ``interest`` shown here in all subjects Islam..so much so even a ``hindu`` subject becomes a muslim-subject [ :) --I like this phrase]. There seems to be a thirst out there.

But once in a while Macaccing is good; but only once in a while and I hope you`ll be somewhat tolerant, nay a participaant too, in Macaccing [thank you HP] alongwith other muslims including Zeemax & myself.

#151 Krishna_abcd {``would like to take this opportunity to get you to do something that no other Muslim has done for me so far - could you KINDLY cut-and-paste just a few of these revolutionary suras from the Quran that has influenced you and other Muslims so much. And point out why they are so impressive?``]

Krishna,
I am leaving the cut & paste task in your capable hands. The following verses are from memory and are among my favorites:

Alhamdo lillahi rabbil alimeen. Ar rahman nir rahim. Malike yomiddin. Iyya ka naabudo wa iyya ka nastaeen. Ah dinas siratul mustaqeema siratal lazeena anamta alaihum, ghairil maghdoobe alaihim walad duaaleen. Ameen.

Qul Huwwal Laho Ahud. Allah hus samad. Lam yalid walam yulad. Walam yakullahu kofuwan ahud. :)

Qul ya ayyohal kafiroona la abudo ma tabadoona. Wala antum abadoona mabood wala ana abidum ma abudtum. Wala antum abadoona maabood. Lakum dinakum wali yadin.


Essentially, the three suras signifiy:

1. Our belief in the One God, our declaration of His supremacy, His mercy, and His compassion and our request that He show us the right path.

2. Our belief in the Oneness of God and our insistence that neither is He begotten nor does He beget.

3. The very essence of ``Pray and let Pray`` doctrine. We are urged to tell unbelievers ``I do not worship that which you worship and you do not worship that which I worship and you will not worship that which I worship and I will not worship that which you worship. So you go your way and I will go mine.`` This is a far cry from the conversion by force charge that we are constantly plagued by. This verse should forever discount such stupid allegations.

Thanks,

#194, Urstruly {``In all honesty, those people whose religion started with two colossal wars and kidnapping of a woman should be the last to point their fingers at others``}

Maulana Sahib,
In all honesty, I think that you are grossly mistaken in this statement. By all accounts, including those from Homer and the recent movie ``Troy,`` it is evident that the beautiful Helen was NOT kidnapped by Paris or his brother Hector. As far as I recall, there was only one war, the Trojan War, albeit a very long one. Perhaps you think that this long conflict mertis the designation of ``two colossal wars.``

As a resident of Istanbul, with Troy just across the Dardenelles on the Asian side, I find it necessary to stand up for Turkey and challenge your obviously pro-Greek rhetoric. By the laws of inheritence, Troy becomes Muslim while the forces of Agamemnon are Christian. As a self-proclaimed momin, your pro-Christian bias is shameful. Despite our disagreement, even your highly moralistic mind should agree that Helen had one hell of a posterior. :)

Jazakullah.

#194, Urstruly {``In all honesty, those people whose religion started with two colossal wars and kidnapping of a woman should be the last to point their fingers at others``}

Maulana Sahib,
In all honesty, I think that you are grossly mistaken in this statement. By all accounts, including those from Homer and the recent movie ``Troy,`` it is evident that the beautiful Helen was NOT kidnapped by Paris or his brother Hector. As far as I recall, there was only one war, the Trojan War, albeit a very long one. Perhaps you think that this long conflict mertis the designation of ``two colossal wars.``

As a resident of Istanbul, with Troy just across the Dardenelles on the Asian side, I find it necessary to stand up for Turkey and challenge your obviously pro-Greek rhetoric. By the laws of inheritence, Troy becomes Muslim while the forces of Agamemnon are Christian. As a self-proclaimed momin, your pro-Christian bias is shameful. Despite our disagreement, even your highly moralistic mind should agree that Helen had one hell of a posterior. :)

Jazakullah.

[#235 by Urstruly

Zeemax

I believe that for every ``worm``, as you put it, there are at least 10 ears who want to listen to what we have to say. Our job is not to put anyone in his place, instead our mission is to convey the message and perform our duty that we are charged with. When we lower ourselves down to their level, those who originally wanted to hear what we have to say, get idea that we are no different than them. We lose our credibility. So I beg you once more to focus on winning this war that has been imposed on us, Muslims, and ignore the distractions.

I intend to win this war, and I cannot do it without your help.]

I don`t know if you have ever watched ``looney tunes`` or not. But you remind me of Sylvester the cat trying to teach his son how to catch a mouse.

Re: #236 by Urstruly

Hitler`s followers could say the same thing - `` when an ``accusation``, is even right it becomes wrong`` etc. And accuse their critics of ``lowering`` themselves.

This way, nobody can accuse ANYONE of ANYTHING.

That`s obviously idiotic.

Show me how the beheading 700 unarmed men and selling their innocent and helpless women and children into slavery is ``right``.

Let`s take this one at a time.

#234 Zee

[The entire democratic system has to be dismantled and replaced with an Islamic system. ]

I thought that was already accomplished by that namesake of yours.

Zia-ul-Haque!

And old Zee has at least the heart to feel bad about it.

Not you, Trully sahib, not you!!

NEVER you!

#235
Ama trully sahib.

I bet YOU have not lifted a finger yourself – to make sure that no Mukhtaran Mais occur again. Have you?!! How very comfy of you.

Whether you call Yasser a Muslim or not is immaterial, at least he lives actually where he intends to try to make a difference (faulty methods and some falsity and all that notwithstanding). Individuals such as you, on the other hand, park your rears in foreign lands and stoke the fires of hatred from afar while yourself being cushy under the protection of the laws of those other lands.

Those other lands that put bread in your plate.

That give milk and honey to your children.

That give you everything in life that you consider worth living for – why you are there in the first place!

Those very other lands which you wish to harm by imposing your “Dar ul Islam” all over again – so life could become just like it used to be…

Back home!

Re: # 200

Mr. abcd

``Why don`t you list the accusations which are wrong? ``

Let me explain with an example how, when an ``accusation``, is even right it becomes wrong.

Consider the part of Mahabharat that deals with the story of Krishna Ji Maharj, Arjun, and Krishan`s sister Subudhra. Subudhra was originally planned to be married to one of the Kurus sons but when hostilities between Kurus and Pandwas (Krishan being a Pandwa), become more pronounced, Krishan became against marrying his sister into Kurus family. In order to cancel this marriage he staged a drama in concert with his cousin Arjun and asked the later to stage a kidnapping of his sister. That is what Arjun did while Subudhra knowing very well what was going on. Krishna then laid blame upon savage tribals of kidnapping his sister in order to divert attention from Arjun et al. Arjun and subhudra later fell in love with each other and got married.

Now I do not see any problem with this part of Mahabharat. As the events turned out later, it proved that Kridhna`s actions were correct. But the problem arises in the way we chose to describe this story.

If I am a writer of this story I have many options in ways to describe this story. There is one way I can chose to portray lord Krishan as great statesman who very intelligently thwarted the marriage of his sister into enemy household. I can prove that he was the greatest feminist ever who stood up for the liking of his sister and did what he did for her betterment. I can even make a hero out of all three chracters if I want to.

But then there is another way to write the story as well. I can use the same facts and prove that Krishna was nothing but coniving, deceiving, (epithet) who lowered himself to the level where he would kidnap his own sister. This story becomes extremely juicy when the fact that Arjun and Subudhra were cousins, is injected into the story. As a writer it is very well in my power to use the same facts and write a pornographic story about the two as well. As a matter of fact there is no limit how far one can lower himself if one wants to.

So Mr. abcd it is very well your choice whether you want to lower your self or uplift yourself with the ``accusations``. The famous hadith says ``our intentions are the precursors of our actions``.

Zeemax

I believe that for every ``worm``, as you put it, there are at least 10 ears who want to listen to what we have to say. Our job is not to put anyone in his place, instead our mission is to convey the message and perform our duty that we are charged with. When we lower ourselves down to their level, those who originally wanted to hear what we have to say, get idea that we are no different than them. We lose our credibility. So I beg you once more to focus on winning this war that has been imposed on us, Muslims, and ignore the distractions.

I intend to win this war, and I cannot do it without your help.

#232 by bjkumar

.. what has the ISLAMIC SOCIETY been doing since the episode to ensure that such episodes will not recur?

BJ ... this question bleeds people like me. Because we are guilty of this. Yes we have done nothibg, and our rulers continue to do nothing.

The answer to that is democracy needs votes ... and the votes are with the tribals and the feudals ... so nothing.

The entire democratic system has to be dismantled and replaced with an Islamic system. Then there would be no more Mai Mukhtarans weeping for injustices.

#231 (cont`d)

In fact, the ISLAMIC SOCIETY appears quite happy to let things be the way they are.

#231 Zee

[she rose up didn`t she?]
Good point! I admire her, like most of the world.

[the Mai episode is a huge taint on the entire Islamic society.]
But the question is – what has the ISLAMIC SOCIETY been doing since the episode to ensure that such episodes will not recur?

Precious little, won`t you say?

#229 Zee

Mukhtaran Mai? She was a victim of archaic tribal/feudal traditions. But she rose up didn`t she? It was because she`s a Muslim.

You can`t say that the Islamic system is wrong because those practising it call themselves Muslims. But, indeed, the Mai episode is a huge taint on the entire Islamic society.

#229 Zee

Good idea, leave the Manto out of this one.

[Men are bound by exigencies of faith. Women aren`t.]
Then what about the Mai?

Yaar BJ .. I know you have a running argument with Manto ... and I don`t want to be a tool in your hands to use gainst Manto. He is what he is. You can deal with him.

I can only tell the truth. Now what was your question?

1)I somehow thought he had converted.

I`m deep inside the Ismaili community. They`re amongst my best friends. I almost married into a very illustrious Ismaili family whose lineage is to the Agha Khan himself. You can`t convert to Ismaili`s. Anyone who says that is a lie. You can`t convert to the faith of their Imam. It`s theirs alone.

2) Then what about his ranting of “liberal and progressive Pakistan” with liberty and justice for all – even the women of Pakistan?!

That is exactly the fifth columnist part .... of spreading disinformation. Just like tahmed32 and a few others.

The very basic, indeed the overriding tenet of Islam is ``Justice``. As for women, anyone who tells you women don`t have rights in Islam are lying. Women actually have more rights than men in Islam. They have the freedom to choose. Men don`t. Men are bound by exigencies of faith. Women aren`t.

Anyway, Zee. My advice remains the same.

Go catch some shut eye.

Then you can return tomorrow, bright and early, in full form.

And dazzle everybody!

#225 Zee

[His adulation of Jinnah is for the same reason. Jinnah was a Khoja, not really Ismiali but similar .. and he praises Jinnah for that reason alone. What he doesn`t know is that Jinnah, above all, was a Muslim!]

Then what about his ranting of “liberal and progressive Pakistan” with liberty and justice for all – even the women of Pakistan?!

I do not remember him quoting that Jinnah was, above all, a Muslim.

#224 Zee

I somehow thought he had converted. (My mistake, I suppose.)

Look .. thing with Manto is this. He comes from a qadiani family whose entire social status was built up by the british and exposed and destroyed by ZAB. These were exposed as 5th columnists and spies for the british and dealt an appropriate treatment. Now they are no more in Pakistan`s mainstream as they were in the 1950s. So Manto hit upon this idea of converting to Ismailis who are Shias ... and you can`t convert to Ismailis ... you can only be born in them. If you even marry an Ismaili girl, you`re still not one of them. And this liar says he has converted to Ismailis .... just to gain acceptability.

His adulation of Jinnah is for the same reason. Jinnah was a Khoja, not really Ismiali but similar .. and he praises Jinnah for that reason alone. What he doesn`t know is that Jinnah, above all, was a Muslim!

#223 by bjkumar

Manto is a non-Muslim ... trying to pass of as an Ismaili now ... who are Muslims.

Manto is a qadiani ....

#221

What do you mean Manto is not?! I think he would disagree with you on that issue.

contd....#221..........

In your list, one is not a Muslim and the other two are not street-fighters. Same goes for a few other so-called Islamists on this site. When it come to push and shove, who is not scared of getting banned by this chow-staff?

#219 by bjkumar

Manto is not a Muslim. HP is a politician. Naqsh is a Sufi.

That only leaves me in your list.

#219 (addendum)

Yaar, Zee. The problem, my dear, is you are too up-front with your feelings. You have been around for years, but still have not developed the fine skill of these gentlemen.

Of how to raise enough dust!

#218
Yaar, you can not SINGLE-HANDEDLY defend Islam. I mean what are the Mantos, and the HPs, and the Naqshis for?

So YOU get lost. Stay away ... If hinuds attack Islam. I shall screw hinuds to kingdom come ...

Look BJ .... you fake AH ... I know all your pretenses ... you`ve been pretending to be chow-staff ... I know exactly who you are ... just a small piece of turd ...

#215

Yaar, relax. My tummy is already full.

#213 by bjkumar

Are you threatening me?

Ok. Bj. I always had respect, and I respect this forum more than anyone else on these boards. I have principles which I do not compromise easily. Abuse and ridicule is one of them. When instigated till no end, when faced with abuse and ridicule from hinuds and co-hinuds like hamidm and tahmed who blame the victims for getting bombed; or hate mongers like the arjuns and the sidekicks; it has been a painful choice.

Now it`s chow-staff`s choice upon whom to let play in the field. Both sides or just one .....

#212 Zee

Yaar, I don’t know about stabbings, etc.

Just don’t like you BECOMING chow!

(No “k” in this one.)

#211 by bjkumar

Sure I listen to your advice BJ, but what`s this crap? You want me to leave and let these idiots insult me one after the other? Is that what you want? Do you want to stab me in the back too like chow(the missing `k` is intentional) staff did when it suspended me and handed the game to that idiot muqaddam who claimed the `daroga` was just `guiding` the medical student with a Lathi?

Is that what you want to do? Where`re you coming from BJ?

Noone can insult Islam. If Chow-Staff wants to allow insulting of Islam and Muslims, let them come out with it. I demand an answer.

Otherwise, I have an equal and unmitigated right to insult hinuds or whomever ... in equal measure if not more ...

#209, #210 Zee

Yaar, nobody listens to my advice anyway. But….

If I were you, I would get a glass of cold water and stay off this board for a while.

Go to Manto’s board or somewhere.

Chow-Staff,

These are very serious allegations on you. I demand an immediate response.

You actually don`t have to respond, but then please stop removing my posts, and confirm you will not do it.

Now chowk-staff, what do you think? Still want to change the ball or shift the goal posts?

#207``are we REALLY living our lives based on a cut-and-paste hoax inflicted upon us by a pedophile?``.

Shame .... Shame ...

Hinuduism is no more than `Alif Laila`` .... the story of Ali Baba and the forty thieves ...

#202 by HP

[The question should really be whether Hinduism can actually be classified as religion at all? ]

Most literate people know that the word ``religion`` can have many meanings. Therefore this is an eminently moronic statement.

However, Hinduism is not a ``religion`` IN THE SAME SENSE that Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. are ``religions``.

Hindus never named Hinduism ``Hinduism``. The fact that they have accepted this label indicates their mind-set - they are followers of an ancient tradition of observation and inquiry, debate and discussion - the Sanatana Dharma - The Universal Law or Reality.

Of all the people in the world, Hindus have gotten it right - cults and club membership do not matter - what anyone should be interested in are the deeper questions in life - about the Human Experience and the Universe we live in - not about whether you should be hacking off the tip of your penis. You can be an atheist or an agnostic and still be called a Hindu - it is an external label - it does not matter.

[To be a religion, it must have a single founder, a specific theological system, a system of morality, or a religious organization.]

Sez who?

[Thus the identity issue that ails very Hindu mind… ]

I think you should worry about the identity issue that SHOULD plague every Muslim mind - ``are we REALLY living our lives based on a cut-and-paste hoax inflicted upon us by a pedophile?``.

I deplore the obvious and blatant partiality of chowk-staff. This conduct reminds of umpire Hair who when the ball started swinging, stabbed Paks in the back.

Chowk-staff,

I don`t know what the hell is going on. If you removed my posts because of graphics (which were`nt that big anyway), fine I`ll resize these smaller and re-post them. But if you removed them because of attacking hinudism, well ... you forgot the content of #133 which excerpts I reproduce here in all their glory. Shame on you.

1) Is Allah male or female? Or is he neuter gender? If male, how do we know? If male, is he circumcised (or does he get a free pass)?

2) Do angels (e.g. Gibreel) have beards? Or do they shave? Are the beards white? Do angels wear clothes? If so, made of what? What about undergarmets?

Shame .......Attacking hinuds is not worse than attacking Islam by far.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The question should really be whether Hinduism can actually be classified as religion at all?

To be a religion, it must have a single founder, a specific theological system, a system of morality, or a religious organization. Hinduism has none of it.

Where as the Hinduism consists of ``thousands of different religious groups that have evolved in India since 1500 BCE.``

To start with the religion has at least three known names:

Sanatana Dharma, ``eternal religion,`` and
Vaidika Dharma, ``religion of the Vedas,`` and
Hinduism -- the most commonly used name now.

Various origins for the word ``Hinduism`` have been suggested:

It may be derived from an ancient inscription translated as: ``The country lying between the Himalayan mountain and Bindu Sarovara is known as Hindustan by combination of the first letter `hi` of `Himalaya` and the last compound letter `ndu` of the word `Bindu.``` Bindu Sarovara is called the Cape Comorian sea in modern times. It may be derived from the Persian word for Indian. It may be a Persian corruption of the word Sindhu (the river Indus) or finally, It was a name invented by the British administration in India during colonial times.

The author claims that “Raja Ram Mohan Roy, in 1826, first began the use of the word Hindu to describe a religion instead of a name for the local people. Hinduism, as a religion, was only now born.”

So, the name of the people became the name of the religion and that too as for as religions go, is a fairly recent thing.

Even if we assume that Sanatana Dharma or Vaidika Dharma are the real names of the religion, then what was this “religion” called in south India or in east India as both names clearly suggest northern roots rather than any southern roots.

That would lead us to believe what south Indians were following was never Hinduism. We also need to realize that means of communication in India were so poor that probably many people living in North Indian were not even aware of people living in South India some 2500 BCE and for all practical purposes there was no one India per se.

Even if we accept that Hindu name was given by foreign invaders in the 1100 century or by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in the 19th century, what emerges out of both propositions is that Hindu is not a religion but actually a political entity created artificially for identifying a group of people. In this regard I tend to agree with the author that “This label, that tried to unify India’s numerous local religious practices, needed a common scripture comparable to a Bible or Quran and the Bhagavat Gita was clearly the best choice.”

Now look at it from a different angle:

The primary sacred texts of Hinduism are the Vedas: the Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda. The Vedas contain hymns, incantations, and rituals from ancient India. The Rig Veda (a.k.a. Rigveda) may be the oldest of the four. Estimates of its date of composition in oral form range from 1500 BCE to 4000 BCE. The Yajur and Atharva Vedas refer to the vernal equinox having occurred in the Pleiades constellation -- an event dating from about 2500 BCE.

The date when the Vedas were placed in written form is unknown. Various dates from 600 to after 300 BCE have been suggested.

So basically there is no recorded history of what is the bases of this so called religion. There are some books that could possibly be some known story books that have now become sacred books. No wonder Hindus have difficulty figuring out what their religion is.

Lastly, is Hinduism a polytheistic religion, a monotheistic religion or a Trinitarian (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) religion or is it henotheistic?

So many contradictions lead to just one conclusion that Hinduism is no religion at all but a hotchpotch of pagan rites that have been put together in one forced entity now known as Hinduism. That makes Hinduism a political entity rather than a religious entity.

Thus the identity issue that ails very Hindu mind…

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#194 by Urstruly

[But in fact the vile acts of character assassination of others with false accusations are desperate attempts of those scared people who no more see any justification in their own belief system and are painfully aware of the falsehood of their standing. ]

Why don`t you list the accusations which are wrong?

Here`s a prediction - for all the condemnations and hot air, you won`t be able to list ANY that you can substantiate.

#197 by zeemax

[Yaar typical stale faithfreedom stuff .... Do rise above cherry picking sensationalist character assassination stuff and read the whole works ! Why do you think he forgave the pagans of Quraish after walking into Mecca with 100,000 men? He could have massacred them all and enslaved their women .... But, you won`t find the answer on faithfreedom. ]

If faithfreedom says something correct (and they do, of course), then it is correct regardless of the name of their website.

Also, about cherry picking. As I have mentioned to tahmed before,

in boolean algebra,

1 AND 0 = 0.

In judging character,

abominable actions AND good actions = abominable character.

Hitler did some good things in life too. As did Charles Manson, Jack the Ripper and every horrendous criminal under the son. They are still monsters.


[Perhaps hamidm was right. Cranberry juice has more vutamis than cow-piss.]

I think you should go easy with the wit and sarcasm stuff. It doesn`t work for everybody. :)

#188 by Urstruly

Urstruly, I hear your sincere and noble advice. I fully acknowledge and respect it. Thanks my friend for always endeavouring and persisting in your firm path and never wavering.

However, I humbly submit that these people (i.e. the arjuns`, abcds`, jangs` netizens` harimaus` and the upside down nicks like nasahs`... etc) have no desire to engage in any meaningful dialogues, but all of these are rather worms whom stick their necks out of the gutters with an agenda to ridicule and to defame whenever half an opportunity arises.

So the appropriate response to them is `whack-a-mole`.

#190 by krishna_abcd

Yaar typical stale faithfreedom stuff .... Do rise above cherry picking sensationalist character assassination stuff and read the whole works ! Why do you think he forgave the pagans of Quraish after walking into Mecca with 100,000 men? He could have massacred them all and enslaved their women .... But, you won`t find the answer on faithfreedom.

Perhaps hamidm was right. Cranberry juice has more vutamis than cow-piss.

the author is obviously overlooking some most obvious prctice if hindu religion which is essentialy unchanged..the samskaras of birth, naming, the thread ceremony, marriage and death samskaras. these have been vedic and are still vedic, their is no rama, krishna in the feras in front of the fire during a wedding and thats the way its been forever. the only thing that is changed is instead of animal sacrifices, now ghee is poured in the fire.

Re: # 194

Yaar, we all know Quran is a cut`n`paste job..no need to get all pissy. It is alla matter of faith. If some injun wants to pray to an elephant is no different that someone praying to a god perpetually in menopause.

In all honesty, those people whose religion started with two colossal wars and kidnapping of a woman should be the last to point their fingers at others. But in fact the vile acts of character assassination of others with false accusations are desperate attempts of those scared people who no more see any justification in their own belief system and are painfully aware of the falsehood of their standing.


Qura`n has elaborated on this aspect of human psyche by citing the story of Jesus Christ (pbuh). Legend has it that Jesus was born to a virgin lady whose piety of character was unquestionable. Prior to the birth of Jesus a group of Jewsish elders and scholars dreamt of the birth of new prophet in Nazareth; they followed the clues and ended up meeting with virgin Mary (pbuh) who had just given birth to the prophet. The infant Jesus spoke to those scholar and affirmed to them that he was the prophet they had been waiting for so long. After that no one questioned the birth of Jesus and no one accused Mary of indiscretion until Jesus grew up and started reforming the religion of Abraham and Moses. Ironically, the very people who witnessed infant Jesus talk to them were the one who resurrected the issue of questionable birth of Jesus when they felt that their vested interests were being threatened and their own questionable practices were being exposed.

Facing upto this kind of injustice and standing ones ground is also the way of prophets. This is a test that God puts steadfast human beings through. Our Holy Prophet (pbuh) was no exception. He was also mentally tortured by his adversaries by false accusations about his wife.

Re: # 188

``Holy Prophet (pbuh) never insulted anyone, nor did he insulted or disparaged anyone`s beliefs ever in his own life and yet he won ..........``

but he did bang the maid ...............

Ref zeemax #163

[Oh .. ok .. so you don`t like the monkey/cow urine examples ... how about worshipping six-armed black she-demons with oversized genitals?]

Once you start talking about Invisible Friends in High Places, as far as I am concerned anything goes. Even jinns.

After all, if Allah cannot be depicted in images how do you know that He doesn`t have six arms?

Ref hamidm2 #162

[............ so what is the conclusion ?............ is urstruly a djinn or an angel ? ........ does cow urine have more vitamin c than cranberry juice? ............. does harimau have a tail ?]

Harimau tweaks other people`s tails real hard!

#188 by Urstruly

[Zeemax,

......Holy Prophet (pbuh) never insulted anyone, nor did he insulted or disparaged anyone`s beliefs ever in his own life and yet he won, he won big time in a way that the movement that he started goes on till this day. Don`t you think that his strength was his method?]

Yes, beta Zeemax, you should emulate his ``method``. He never insulted or disparaged anyone, but attacked his enemies from the behind when they were unaware, feeding their cattle etc., and beheaded each and every male member, and then had sex with the chief`s daughter the same night...

His strength was his method...using this method he had carved out a nice little territory in the wasteland of Saudi Arabia, as well as a harem of 12, including a 9-year-old.

Follow his method, my son. Don`t dispage others. Just murder them. And then have sex with their daughters the same night.


Cheerio.

``God in everything``.

or sometimes the Hindu philosophy of religion is summarized in the phrase ``One in all``. If we accept this philosophy to be true then god must be in my person as well. So logically, if a hindu worships an animal or an inanimate object because of this philosophy then he must have absolutely no objection worshiping me and calling me his god either.

But think about it.....

If the first reaction that came to your mind, after reading the above sentence, was that of disgust, anger, and rejection then this philosophy cannot be true. You must ask yourself this question that why what you believe is half the truth.

Look this is not a unique situation. When our Holy Prophet (pbuh) started his movement of monotheism, he also faced the people who belived in One God, but they had created idols of demi-gods also thinking that One True God cannot deliver alone. They understood the point perfectly well, that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was making but they were so much in love with their own ignorance and they had so much hold of rituals upon them that they did not want to abandon their false beliefs. Let me reapeat it again that Islam is not contradictory to the core belief of Hindusim, it is the ``extras`` with in Hindusim that are contradictory to its own core belief. Don`t you realize that these ``extras`` are nothing but excuses for your own way wardness?

Zeemax,

I would appeal to your good heart, that if your heart has a penny worth of love and respect left for Holy Prophet (pbuh), you would not make fun of other people`s belief or ideals. Don`t you realize just this little thing that all the forces that are standing shoulder to shoulder against Islam today have exact same composition as the forces that stood against the Islamic movement that Holy Prophet (pbuh) started in his time? - the way ward christians, and jews, polytheists, animists, atheists, capitalists, and every other -ism that you can think of?. But on the positive side, God has chosen us, the Mulims of this era to face this challenge again; It is a great honor despite our own way wardness. Holy Prophet (pbuh) never insulted anyone, nor did he insulted or disparaged anyone`s beliefs ever in his own life and yet he won, he won big time in a way that the movement that he started goes on till this day. Don`t you think that his strength was his method?

#179 by zeemax

[.... it`s quite stale anyway because it was not only published but the video played for months in Pak ....]

Ha ha ha.... You guys are such losers! :)

Step inside! Hello! We`ve the most amazing show
You`ll enjoy it all we know
Step inside! Step Inside!

We`ve got thrills and shocks, supersonic fighting cocks.
Leave your hammers at the box
Come Inside! Come Inside!
Roll up! Roll up! Roll up!
See the show!

#184 by kaalchakra

Glad you liked it ...

Next upon the bill in our House of Vaudeville
We`ve a stripper in a till
What a thrill! What a thrill!
And not content with that, with our hands behind our backs,
We pull Jesus from a hat,
Get into that! Get into that!
Roll up! Roll up! Roll up!
See the show!

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
We`re so glad you could attend
Come inside! Come inside!
There behind a glass is a real blade of grass
be careful as you pass.
Move along! Move along!

Come inside, the show`s about to start
guaranteed to blow your head apart
Rest assured you`ll get your money`s worth
The greatest show in Heaven, Hell or Earth.
You`ve got to see the show, it`s a dynamo.
You`ve got to see the show, it`s rock and roll ....

Zeemax Ustaad

LOL....One wishes the liberals too opened their eyes to the macabre show. May be they will recognize that lure of the virgins and love of bloodshed will always combine to produce a theatre on earth unlike any other. :)

#182 by kaalchakra

If you are `time`, you know what I mean ...

Soon the Gypsy Queen in a glaze of Vaseline
Will perform on guillotine
What a scene! What a scene!
Next upon the stand will you please extend a hand
to Alexander`s Ragtime Band
Roll up! Roll up! Roll up!
See the show!

Performing on a stool we`ve a sight to make you drool
Seven virgins and a mule
Keep it cool. Keep it cool.
We would like it to be known the exhibits that were shown
were exclusively our own,
All our own. All our own.
Come and see the show! Come and see the show! Come and see the show!
See the show!

Zeemax Ustaad

I must not have understood your post. If you could please explain it some more. :)

#180 by kaalchakra

And as always such feats are performed either to amuse and inspire, or to deceive and control...

I guess you didn`t read my referred post. Do read it again and come back. Like the `fingertips` part ...

hamidm2

Lunatic asylums could provide a fitting example for us. Irrationality and extraordinariness that make people dysfunctional for themselves and a threat to the well-being of others are diseases. Irrationality and extraordinariness that enable some people to achieve great and good things for themselves and for mankind are rare human virtues that go into making great entrepreneurs, visionaries, leaders, and achievers.

IMHO, it is a liberal error to overlook this distinction between disease and virtue, and to require that people get rid of the good with the bad.


Zeemax Ustaad

True! And as always such feats are performed either to amuse and inspire, or to deceive and control; to help people progress, enhance their choices, and live better with one another, or to push people back, limit their individual freedom, and make it hard for them to live together. Our liberal friends would rather paint everyone with the same color. Taking that easy route is a dangerous abdication of responsibility on their part.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#175 by zeemax

[LoL ... of-course because you monkey-worshippers/urine slurpers are the defeated people .... not once but throughout history ....! ]

Correction. Your ancestors were the losers and cowards. My ancestors did not lose to the barbarians or submit to their barbaric world-view. And it shows - see how we keep thrashing you guys every time? Want me to paste some photos of the invincible Paki army surrendering? :)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#146 by Salim_Chauhan

[Jinns are a ``catch-all`` to describe beings who exist beyond our own earth. If the Universe is infinite, what is the probability of finding Jinns somewhere out there? :) ]

So if Jinns are a catch-all, where do the poor angels stand?

#174 by krishna_abcd

LoL ... of-course because you monkey-worshippers/urine slurpers are the defeated people .... not once but throughout history ....!

Yes. Stay at home and keep shoving the urine down your throats .....

#157 by zeemax

[This article is about hinudism and not Islam. ]

You can`t expect Hindus to stick to the topic like you always do.


[In any event, however, beliving in djinns is better than worshipping monkeys and cow urine.]

That might have been true - except that believing in jinss AND a pedophile`s ``message`` is definitely worse.

Also, Hindus are happily worshipping monkeys and guzzling on their own urine in their own home. They are not trying to shove it down other people`s throats like you guys. So you guys are much worse.

#136 by Urstruly


[Personally, I think that either Djinns live in another dimension, a parallel universe if you will, or they very well live among us. It is quite possible that they have the ability to jump between these parallel universes and so do we but they know about their ability and we don`t. May be sometime in future we will find out that physical make up of certain human beings among us is different from the rest.]

I think this could be true. This would explain the physical make-up of the frontal and pre-frontal cortexes of many life-forms I see on Chowk.


[It is my speculation. I won`t be surprised by this. Until human beings discovered microscopes a large part of this universe did not exist for us either. ]

Yes. You would need microscopes to observe the structure of the frontal and pre-frontal cortexes of many of these jinns on Chowk.


[An angle is a third kind of intelligent life form but they do not have the free will as humans and Djinns do. Consider them as being equivalent of divine robots - they are intelligent enough to recognize the difference between right and wrong but they do not have ability to do anything against what they ar programmed to do.]

Now could these be the suicide bombers? I wonder...


[It seems from the Quranic and Hadith edicts that their physical composition also constitute of some sort of energy.]

This is very deep. Where`s masadi? Matter and energy are really the same thing, in a quantum-mechanical kind of way. So Masadi was right! Quantum-mechanical robots zooming around. Remarkable!


[As for them having wings is concerned, I am not aware of any Quranic verse or hadith which stipulates that they have wings. My assumption is that it is people`s speculation since it is told that they also have ability to jump to another dimension, the netherworld, where they reside. It is people`s speculation that they have to go/fly ``above`` towards sky to get into that netherworld; may be all they need to do is take a step to cross the barrier. ]

How about this nugget:

35:1 Praise be to Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, the Maker of the angels, messengers flying on wings, two, and three, and four. He increases in creation what He pleases. Surely Allah is Possessor of power over all things.


[Qura`n is very specific about the things in the Netherworld, i.e. Angels, Heaven, Hell etc. It stipulates that the words that Qura`n uses to describe the conditions and attributes of netherworld are only to give us a feel, in human language, to help us understand. Let me explain it by an example: think of a man who has never seen or tasted a mango ever in his life, how would you explain a mango to him. You would most certainly explore his taste of sweet food that he has consumed in his life and make the closest connection to his experiences. This would give him a `feel` of sweet mangoes. If we make this example further complex assume that you are charged with explaining how a mango taste like to an alien life form who don`t eat food to survive. So Qura`n and hadith both stipulates to human beings not to get into the speculation of the Netherworld, because it would be useless exercise and the reality of them would be revealed to us after the Day of Final Judgement.]

I can`t wait. It`s absolutely fascinating! String theorists - eat your heart out! Masadi zindabad!

``Hinduism is more a culture than a religion. To interpret it as a religion alone would be fatally flawed fundamentally``

what an original statement! -- perhaps you haven`t heard that -- ``Islam is more a culture than a religion`` -- ``Judaism is more a culture than a religion`` -- ``Christianity is more a culture than a religion`` -- Buddhism is more a culture than a religion`` -- ``Zoroastrianism is more a culture than a religion``......

do these high fluting claims by their respective adherents -- make them any better -- I don`t think so. They all have been more than one time in their recent history have been -- gutter religions -- including Hinduism.

``To interpret (them) as a religion alone would be fatally flawed fundamentally`` -- why? -- why calling a spade a spade is flawed? -- ``religion alone`` -- uncultured OR cultured -- ``would be (is) fatally flawed fundamentally`` -- especially of the fundamentally kind....

and Hinduism is no exception......

this article is flawed -- not `fatally flawed` of course -- the oldest pagan religion that continuously has been a pagan religion for 5000 years -- is not Hinduism -- but Judaism.... he fountainhead of two more pagan religions

#168 by kaalchakra

When facts cease imagination begins.

Perhaps. But it`s all turned on its head when you touch an inverted glass with your fingertips and see it moving under its own power all around the table.

Re: # 168

kaal,

``The irrational is what turns the average and ordinary into inspired and extraordinary.`` ........... by that logic the lunatic asylums are full of geniuses !

........ sadhus and prohets - schizophrenics who sit around in caves and bunyan trees waiting for answers - could be viewed as harmless oddities and mildly amusing, if it weren`t for the fact that they want to foist their crazy ideas on other people ......... if someone wants to drink cow urine or blow himself up, fine ! ......... but let`s not demean ourselves by calling them inspired and extraordinary ........

From the writer, Murad Ali Baig:


Dear dost mitter 160

you are right to ask why I put up a note on Islam`s evolution after Hindu evolution.

You are right the main issue is the article on Hinduism and I would appreciate discussion mainly focussing on it.

I need to also add that the subjects of Vedanta, upanishads, philosophies, languages and scripts have been discussed in other questions. This is a brief summary of the main milestones.

I sent the second piece on Islam essentially to show that I was neither Hindu bashing or Muslim bashing and to underline that ALL religions have evolved with socio economic and other pressures over time.

Regards

Murad

Hamidm2 # 164

That`s probably not true. When facts cease imagination begins. So until such time as human abilities can solve all human problems and realize every human dream, the irrational and the ridiculous will exist in our midst, and may even be absolutely necessary.

The irrational is what turns the average and ordinary into inspired and extraordinary.

All distinctions must begin here. Some irrationality helps us live life as extraordinarily creative and generous human beings. Other irrationality turns us into extraordinarily blood-thirsty, robotic beasts. Again, two polar ends on the same irrationality continuum.

Liberal rejection of all human irrationality and ridiculousness is practically indistinguishable from proactive promotion and defense of irrationality that undermines and destroys human creativity and co-living at the expense of the irrationality that enhances human creativity and co-living.

#166 was meant to be directed to #152

Far be from it for me to address the great CS in a light-hearted way!

#156 Circle of Time

[Naqsh,....what do you, as a Sufi, think?]

Don`t get too chummy with wolfy baby, you are still on his menu!

folkks, there is a confusion about this article. this is not an explorative or informative articel. its a political article written with a conclusion in mind about rise of htherto nonexistant hinduism as hindutva . once viewed in this way, it is much easier to digest.

Re: # 159

Okhla,

``The medieval texts cannot continue to govern rational minds (large numbers of which exist in all societies). Hence, Any attempts to foist ``modernised versions`` of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity cannot but fail. Increasing importance of economic and cultural factors would push religion as the defining identity for an individual to the margin.``

.............. couldn`t agree with you more, but what do you do with the irrational and defective minds that dominate all societies ? ............ it seems to me that there is a fundamental flaw in how human beings are wired - by design they are superstitious and need to believe in jinns and monkeys regardless of how inane the concept might seem to the few `rational` minds .......... even educated folks, who sound half way intelligent on a good day, say the darnest things when it comes to matters of faith .......... i think it all stems from fear - fear of the the unknown and fear of death ............... if somehow we could remove this `fear` gene from our makeup we could all be free ............... the answer lies in biotechnology or evolution ...........

#161 by harimau

Oh .. ok .. so you don`t like the monkey/cow urine examples ... how about worshipping six-armed black she-demons with oversized genitals?

it is only when you take a hiatus from the chowk for few days that you realize that there is a parallel universe out there which is inhabited by intelligent life ........... too intelligent for me ! ............. i missed this discussion about djinns, angels, monkeys and cow urine ............. so what is the conclusion ?............ is urstruly a djinn or an angel ? ........ does cow urine have more vitamin c than cranberry juice? ............. does harimau have a tail ?

#157 by zeemax #157

[This article is about hinudism and not Islam.

In any event, however, beliving in djinns is better than worshipping monkeys and cow urine.]

However, for deep philosophical questions such as ``can one kill and eat the goat one had sex with``, please visit fatwa-online.com.

chowkstaff#156:

This was a strange response. If the author is concerned about the discussion straying off-topic, he should be here trying to moderate the discussion and steer it in the direction he wants. He can`t stay away from the heat of the kitchen and arrogantly complain about people not discussing the topic. It is also ironical that while he complains about the discussion moving away towards Islam, he has ignored several comments about his stance on Hinduism and chosen instead to dwell upon the history of the compilation of the Quran and Ahadith.

Hinduism is more a culture than a religion. To interpret it as a religion alone would be fatally flawed fundamentally. It does not have schools for religious scholars who then go out and practise it in temples spread across towns and cities. Nor is there any hierarchy of priests. A hindu need not worship at a given time or day (or at all).It can be called the least ``organized`` of all religions. The amount of leeway available to individuals is phenomenal.

And of course.. In 2006, the words of the Nobel laureate (Physics) Dr. Richard Feynman (in ``surely...``) would be more valid when he talks of jewish scholars :

``Here they are,slowly coming to life, only to better interpret the Talmud. Imagine ! In modern times like these, guys are studying to go into society to be a Rabbi-- and the only way they think that science might be interesting is because their ancient, provincial, medieval problems are being confounded slightly by some new phenomenon``.

These can be applied to madarsas, seminaries and other places, a certain percentgage of which turn out religious zealots & professional practitioners. Hinduism on the other hand is plagued by its own evils, some of them much much worse, almost to the point of being intolerable.

The medieval texts cannot continue to govern rational minds (large numbers of which exist in all societies). Hence, Any attempts to foist ``modernised versions`` of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity cannot but fail. Increasing importance of economic and cultural factors would push religion as the defining identity for an individual to the margin.

Various posts of Aslam and Warrier,

I understand that Aslam is trying to make a point on Indus script?

Brother Aslam, it was nearly deciphered by Iravatham Mahadevan. He wrote a book cataloguing the letters of the script (published by the Archeological Survey of India).
Mr. Mahadevan is still alive.

Indus script died with the Indus people. Contemporary Indian scripts had nothing to do with Indus script. It cant be compared with Egyptian heiroglyphics but the script somewhat similar to that (i.e. pictorial) but cunieform. Since we can makeout something from Indus script from the pictures....it is difficult to identify the sounds the letters represent.

Recently, archeologists found an ancient celt in Tamil Nadu with some script (sic) identified as Indus script by Mahadevan himself, which he read it as `Murukan` (though some other guy poohpoohed it).

The extent of the Indus civilisation is from western Balochistan (west) to Maharastra (south). Debate on the disappearance of Indus people is another subject.

#133 by krishna_abcd

This article is about hinudism and not Islam.

In any event, however, beliving in djinns is better than worshipping monkeys and cow urine.

The following response is from the writer, Murad Ali Baig:


Dear Chowk readers

I am delighted that there have been so many readers and so many responses to the extract from my forthcoming book… that incidentally is being renamed as Reflections in a Sacred Pond.

The extract is the answer to question 74 out of 80 questions. The small book is an inquiry into evolution of India’s history, mythology and religion. Other questions briefly explore the evolution of every religious stream including Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, and Christianity. All of them have evolved and changed over time.

I find that most of the many interacts have drifted away from the theme of the evolution of the word Hindu from a description of as people to a religion. I would love to hear your views on this specific subject rather than all the stuff on how Islam is better or worse.

While a few interacts challenge my assertion that the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavatgita, etc. were only discovered recently, the readers appear to have not read my text carefully. I have clearly stated that they were ALL in the secret hoards of Brahmin pundits and were not widely known to the Indian people. It is a historic fact that most of them were `discovered’ or rather rediscovered by indologists in the 18th century and only became widely known in fairly recent times.

As many of the readers are clearly interested in Islam perhaps you might like to read the brief answer to my question no 70 that shows how Islam also evolved. My 80 questions do not pretend to provide all the answers but are intended to make readers think and to encourage them to have an open mind about all religious traditions

I would be very obliged if all of you could please try to respond to the issues I have raised rather than react to other reactions.

With my best wishes

Murad


70. Were the scriptures of Islam also modified over time?

The history of the Koran, like the Bible before it, is quite well documented and gives interesting insights into the compilation of all scriptures. The Koran only began to be compiled fourteen years after the unexpected death of the prophet in 632 AD at the age of 62. There had been several earlier versions of the utterances of the prophet during the 23 years after he received the revelation from the angel Gabriel. Zaid Ibn Thabit, one of The Prophets youngest companions, was given the task of writing it by Khalif Abu Bakr (632-634AD) and it was completed about nineteen years later.

He dutifully wrote these out based his recall and on contributions made by numerous other witnesses to Mohammed`s words. These had been inscribed on bits of skin, wood, palm leaves and on the shoulder blades of sheep and camels. He compiled them more or less in the order of the largest accounts first. The Third Khalif, Othman (644-56) then ordered all the Suras, or verses, to be gathered in the definitive Madina version in 665 AD or 33 years after The Prophet’s death. Many other versions that were in circulation were then declared to be inauthentic and were gathered up and burned. Only fragments of the earliest versions in the old upright Kufic script survive. The two oldest surviving copies of the Koran in the more rounded later script are in Istanbul and in Uzbekistan and are dated to about 200 years later.

But the Suras or verses of the Koran did not answer all questions of a changing society so the Mullas sought further scriptural authorities for interpreting Islamic law. Thus, the Sharia, meaning path, relied on the Koran and the Sunna, or the teachings of the prophet as well as the Hadith that contains stories and traditions from his life that were added later.

Two hundred years after the death of The Prophet, the celebrated Al-Bukhari, a devout Muslim scholar from Bukhara, traveled the entire Muslim world to write out most of the Hadith. Not surprisingly, he was appalled by the credulity of people who tried to make miracles out of trivialities and on his own authority he rejected 99.6 % of the 600,000 pious contributions that he had received.

Sharia law, defined much later, had three levels of crime. `Had` crimes were the most serious concerning murder, apostasy, theft, adultery, etc., on which the prophet had declared the word of God and the punishments required. `Tazir` crimes had not been mentioned in the Koran like bribery, charging interest and selling defective goods for which the Quazis, or judges, imposed fines, flogging or seizure of property. `Qesas` crimes allowed a victim`s family retribution or retaliation. There was no distinction between civil and religious law so the Qazis, usually appointed by the rulers or their governors, ruled on religious as well as on all civil, personal, criminal and other matters.

In the Koran Mohammed, for example, had merely said that women (and men) should dress modestly. He never said anything about women having to wear a veil. But as the women of the prophet`s household, as in many tribal societies, covered their faces in the presence of male visitors this example was used as a model and rigorously imposed later by Islamic priests on all Muslim women. On the Indian sub-continent, and nowhere else initially, a hideous head to toe tent like black Burkha with netted eyeholes was demanded by the local Mullas. It is believed that the Burkha was originally used by highborn Hindu women in Punjab and Kashmir to keep them hidden from the sight of common people. In most feudal areas pretty girls were also at risk of being kidnapped or simply acquired by local rulers or influential people. Surprisingly, it was also regarded as a distinctive mark of status.

Re: # 22

Naqshbandi Sahib:

Hinduism does not define GOD. It allows you to question ``If God is the best imagination of Man, or the Man is the best creation of God``. Even Gita only tries to define - Truth, Soul, Evil, and Death. Indirectly it defines life. Riga Veda is a description of journeys over a period of time. I have only read Dr. S. Radhakrishnan`s commentary on Upnishads.

The bottom line is that it is impossible to institutionalize Hinduism and see it through, however impartial prism of semetic religions. If you are interested in objective assessment of Hinduism, drop the judgment that comes from absolutism of these semetic religions, including Islam.

Anil

Anil

Re: # 96

Nazar Sahib:

When even Riga Veda did not give a canonical law to define ``What is Hinduism?`` or ``Who is a Hindu?``

Do you think Supreme Court of India has the authority to define these. Interesting thing about Hindus is that they will never let anyone authority to define these terms.

Anil

Re: # 139
Aslam
Sanskrit is a language. Brahmi is a script, that was used to write among other things, Pali, Sanskrit etc. It is acknowledged to be the source of all south asian writing systems, and even some south east asian and Tibetan writings derive from this script.
The point I was trying to make is that among the South Indian languages, Malayalam is probably the most recent (Tamil is really the oldest) so it reality it`s relation to the Harappan script cannot be closer than Tamil, Telugu etc. or for that matter any Devanagri related script.

The origin of the Brahmi script is still a source of mystery. It is different from the Semitic script and even Persian scripts. All Brahmi derived languages represent a consonant and different vowels by drawing lines (matras) that are attached to the character (not physically). The Brahmi alphabet is syllabic. Each sign is either a consonant or a syllable with a consonant and the vowel `a`.

Cheers.

Naqshabandi # 100

``This is because Truth cannot be stopped with bombs and bullets or media.``

Naqsh, other explanations are feasible. For instance, one can make a compelling case that just as bad money drives good money out of market circulation, bad religion - unless so recognized and so treated by all others - will beat out, and often wipe out good religion.

Or look at it in terms of the issue we sometimes tossed around on Chowk a few months ago - all else being equal, religious systems erected around the principle of domination of the religious other will also dominate (politically and materially) religious systems built around the value of accommodation with the religious other.

So in a situation of competition between two broad kinds of religious systems - some based on religious accommodation, others on religious domination, would you pick domination as a `better` virtue than accommodation?

FYI, I as an unabashed non Sufi, think that domination may well be a better and truer -hence clearly more Godly - value, but what do you, as a Sufi, think?

#144 by Salim_Chauhan

[Krishna,
No wonder well-informed Muslims are not taking you seriously. Like most aboriginal people, your religious vision is limited by your physical handicaps. :)

Beards, penises, clothing, gender, and other anatomical and material items are for mortals to ponder over. Pagan people were compelled to represent God in terms of their own limited perception of existence. Thus, a god had to be male and a goddess to be female. They had sexual relations and created off-spring - beards (Zeus, Neptune, and Brahma) were for some while others were clean-shaven (Krishna, Ram, Mercury, Apollo). As far as I know most goddesses were clean-shaven (Hera, Aphrodite, Athena, Durga), but I am not too sure about Kaali Maa. One even had blood dripping from her orifice. :)

As women and men evolved intellectually, they abandoned the comfortable perception of worshipping tangible forces such as sun, moon, earth, wind, fire, lingam, and lightning...]


I am glad that finally an intellectual and a devout Muslim (no! it is NOT a contradiction, dammit!) has finally chosen to enlighten my ``aboriginal`` mind.

I would like to take this opportunity to get you to do something that no other Muslim has done for me so far - could you KINDLY cut-and-paste just a few of these revolutionary suras from the Quran that has influenced you and other Muslims so much. And point out why they are so impressive?

I am kind of curious, because most everything I found in there was either excessively trite or downright foolish and often downright unconscionable.

I`m listening.

Thanks :)

Re: # 126

HP , you remain a typical pissu on the mullah`s beard who cannot discuss like a gentleman anything that is uncomfortable for his bigotted mind and when unable to respond intelligently starts the ad hominem below the belt arguments on how the very views are invalid because the upholder of those views is not muslim ``enough``...............and remember I am not in your pure land where you can lynch me for reading Dr. Radhakrishnan or not signing that stupid declaration on the passport.........

Re: # 142

There is difference of opinion about this amongst Muslims although the MAJORITY view is that the blessed parents of the Messenger were believers in the oneness of Allah, i.e. on the religion of Abraham, before the Prophet proclaimed Islam, and hence what are called `haneef` and thus were always monotheists and are therefore Muslims and saved and the people of Jannah. This is strongly supported by the proof texts of islam. Another view is that the Prophet revived his parents from the dead and they read the kalimah and believed in him and are thus Muslims too. Either way they are saved. A tiny minority, (the wahabis) hold them to be unbelievers (God forbid!) This topic has been extensively written on by the ulama of islam.

e.g. On the parents of the Prophet being saved
al-Suyuti`s fatwas in Majmu` Tis` Rasa`il and al-Hawi li al-Fatawa; Kabbani, Encyclopedia (2:143-159); and al-Barzanji, Sadad al-Din wa Sidad al-Dayn fi Najat al-Abawayn al-Sharifayn.

Re#146 : lol. so jinns are autobots to allahmian`s optimus prime. i.g.e.t.i.t.

HP, ballu is a musician, and most serious indian musicians do learn something about hinduism since indian music is by practice a form of (hindu if you will) worship. so no need to malign him, or his grandmother, he is not a kaffir-macaca.

Raw #145,

Jinns are a ``catch-all`` to describe beings who exist beyond our own earth. If the Universe is infinite, what is the probability of finding Jinns somewhere out there? :)

Now for the serious answer:

Jinns are actually Klingons - psst don`t tell Maulana Urstruly or I will get another fat fatwa on my ass. :)

salim: you forgot to elaborate on the intellectually challenged concept of jinnaats as evidenced in the last verse of the last chapter of the last of the holy book given to the last of the prophets.

Krishna_acbd #133 {``I don`t understand why well-informed Muslims are not taking my questions seriously. Also, some more questions:

1) Is Allah male or female? Or is he neuter gender? If male, how do we know? If male, is he circumcised (or does he get a free pass)?

2) Do angels (e.g. Gibreel) have beards? Or do they shave? Are the beards white? Do angels wear clothes? If so, made of what? What about undergarments? ``}


Krishna,
No wonder well-informed Muslims are not taking you seriously. Like most aboriginal people, your religious vision is limited by your physical handicaps. :)

Beards, penises, clothing, gender, and other anatomical and material items are for mortals to ponder over. Pagan people were compelled to represent God in terms of their own limited perception of existence. Thus, a god had to be male and a goddess to be female. They had sexual relations and created off-spring - beards (Zeus, Neptune, and Brahma) were for some while others were clean-shaven (Krishna, Ram, Mercury, Apollo). As far as I know most goddesses were clean-shaven (Hera, Aphrodite, Athena, Durga), but I am not too sure about Kaali Maa. One even had blood dripping from her orifice. :)

As women and men evolved intellectually, they abandoned the comfortable perception of worshipping tangible forces such as sun, moon, earth, wind, fire, lingam, and lightning. Even the association of family relationships among the deities ceased - although no one informed the Greek and Roman-inspired newborn Christians. They had to have Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - along with statues of Jesus, Mary, and David (the one with the minute tally whacker). Instead of defining God in terms of our own mortal and limited existence, people with advanced brains and intellect arrived at the worship of the One God without equals, without shapes or forms, without relatives, and without the need to procreate through strenuous copulation.

If all this is going way over your head, please repeat the following:

``Ram Ram sat he, yehi hamari gat he.`` :) Peace, brother.

Re: # 141 naq
[....i do enjoy reading the poems of Mirabai--bhajans ...]

Well - looks like you still have grandpa gopinath`s blood alive in you... :)

re#141:
a near-fatal question would be about the heavenly status of mohammad`s parents whether they are being given hellfire in their graves or grapes from heaven since they never knew islam or monotheism.

btw i do enjoy reading the poems of Mirabai--bhajans I believe they are. They are very
beautiful and spiritual. She said:

Aao re sakhiyo mil chausar khailein apne piya kay sang
Jeet gayo tau piya hamara, haarii tau piya kay sang!

And the Gita Govinda is also very beautiful as poetry...

Ref krishna_abcd #133

[2) Do angels (e.g. Gibreel) have beards? Or do they shave?]

The REAL question is: do angels shave their armpits?

If you remember, a lecturer in anatomy was sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan for saying that Prophet Mohammad`s tribe, and hence he, did not shave their armpits.

An immensely serious question on personal grooming that has momentous impact on one`s life.

Re: # 137
prof:he is an archeologist. by brahmi, i presume you mean sanskrit.


``Evidence uncovered to date delineates a peaceful, artistic, disciplined and materially successful civilization that arose in the fertile Indus River floodplain of present-contemporary with the Mesopotamian civilizations of the Tigris and Euphrates River extensively. The Harappan culture dominated the subcontinent for almost a thousand years before it mysteriously disappeared, leaving behind few direct traces of what happened, or where its large population went.
At its height, the Indus civilization included more than a thousand villages, towns and cities scattered throughout 725,000 square kilometers (280,000 sq mi) of territory—an area larger than Texas and smaller than Turkey—that stretched from what is now northern Afghanistan south to Gujarat in India and as far west as the headwaters of the Ganges River. The Harappan domain was twice the size of the Egyptian or Mesopotamian territory of the time, yet the Harappans appear to have had neither conquering emperors nor standing armies to enlarge or defend their homeland. As far as archeological evidence shows, they enjoyed excellent health and freedom from both violence and extremes of wealth or poverty. They developed one of the earliest written languages and built some of the world`s first planned cities, complete with individual household water supplies and sophisticated public drainage systems. And, as highly skilled craftspeople and enterprising merchants, they were one of the first major mercantile civilizations to trade far beyond the borders of their own territories.``

A professor of archeology at the University of Wisconsin, Kenoyer is field director of the Harappa Archeological Research Project. author book Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization ( Oxford, uni press)

On Angels in Islam

Re:#123
Zeemax , I have to pull a few legs on a Friday.

#134
Don`t know much about this professor but the Malayalam script which descended from ``vattezhuthu`` is descended from the Brahmi script which may or may not have come from the Harappan script. It could as well be modeled on Aramaic or Phoenician alphabets.
But most Indian scripts are also descended from Brahmi as are Tibetan etc. The current Malayalam script is modern. Is he an expert on scripts that he can claim this?

Re: # 133 Mr. abcd

Perhaps Muslims understand the intention behind your questions, which is so obvious from your tone. But I think your questions have to be addressed.

In Islamic belief system, we are told that more than one intelligent life form exists in our universe. One of these life forms is humans and others is Djinns. Very little is known about Djinns. But we know from Qura`n and Hadith that the only two intelligent life forms that have been given Free Will are humans and Djinns. Djinns seem to have an individual and social structure like us with moral values which are identical to us. One elemental difference that separates humans and Djinns is that while human beings are physically an organic life form, and our bodies constitute of all the elements and compounds found in Earth, the Djinns on the other hand are inorganic life form i.e. they are some form of energy. The word used in ahadith to describe their composition is ``fire``. Probably, that similie refers to a form of visible energy or radiation like fire. But this is just speculation. Both Ahadith and Qura`n are silent on any more details; regarding where they live? what is their interaction with humans and what we are required to do; this despite the fact that one chapter in Qura`n is titled ``Djinns``. Anything more than that is pure specualtion or figment of imagination of the people.

Personally, I think that either Djinns live in another dimension, a parallel universe if you will, or they very well live among us. It is quite possible that they have the ability to jump between these parallel universes and so do we but they know about their ability and we don`t. May be sometime in future we will find out that physical make up of certain human beings among us is different from the rest. It is my speculation. I won`t be surprised by this. Until human beings discovered microscopes a large part of this universe did not exist for us either.

An angle is a third kind of intelligent life form but they do not have the free will as humans and Djinns do. Consider them as being equivalent of divine robots - they are intelligent enough to recognize the difference between right and wrong but they do not have ability to do anything against what they ar programmed to do. It seems from the Quranic and Hadith edicts that their physical composition also constitute of some sort of energy. As for them having wings is concerned, I am not aware of any Quranic verse or hadith which stipulates that they have wings. My assumption is that it is people`s speculation since it is told that they also have ability to jump to another dimension, the netherworld, where they reside. It is people`s speculation that they have to go/fly ``above`` towards sky to get into that netherworld; may be all they need to do is take a step to cross the barrier.

Qura`n is very specific about the things in the Netherworld, i.e. Angels, Heaven, Hell etc. It stipulates that the words that Qura`n uses to describe the conditions and attributes of netherworld are only to give us a feel, in human language, to help us understand. Let me explain it by an example: think of a man who has never seen or tasted a mango ever in his life, how would you explain a mango to him. You would most certainly explore his taste of sweet food that he has consumed in his life and make the closest connection to his experiences. This would give him a `feel` of sweet mangoes. If we make this example further complex assume that you are charged with explaining how a mango taste like to an alien life form who don`t eat food to survive. So Qura`n and hadith both stipulates to human beings not to get into the speculation of the Netherworld, because it would be useless exercise and the reality of them would be revealed to us after the Day of Final Judgement.

hello..........

where is the author of this article???

the following article is from prof kenoyer of wisconsin uni US, he has spent 20+ years reseaching the harrapean civilisation he wrote a book about it it`s a fasinating read.

``The Indus Enigma


It`s the greatest single mystery of the Indus Valley civilization,`` says Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, field director of the Harappa Archeological Research Project. He`s talking about the Harappans` still-undeciphered script, an example of which may be what`s inscribed on two pottery shards found at Kenoyer`s dig, at a level that dates to 3200 BC. The three groups of symbols on the shards look like matchsticks and tiny forks attached at the handles.
The marks may simply have indicated ownership, and perhaps had no meaning in themselves, but they bear a close resemblance to, and may be precursors of, elements of the writing system that came into regular use in the Indus Valley around 2700 BC, and disappeared completely, along with the rest of Harappan civilization, between 1900 and 1700 BC.
Depending on whether one interprets similar-looking signs as variants or separate symbols, the Indus Valley script apparently consisted of about 400 characters that depict human and animal figures, and additional geometric shapes and symbols. By analyzing overlapping strokes and observing crowding toward the left ends of lines, archeologists have gathered that the symbols were almost always written from right to left.
More than 4200 objects bearing the script have been found, including seals, bangles, pottery, tools, utensils and small tablets of copper, steatite or clay—but these are only objects that have survived the millennia: The Harappans may have written prolifically on less durable materials like papyrus or cloth that are unlikely to be excavated. About 80 percent of the inscriptions are on seals or seal impressions, suggesting that the symbols may have been used primarily for commercial purposes, such as stamping bales of goods with an identifying mark.
Despite nearly 50 independent attempts to decipher the Harappan script in the past 80 years, including some recent ones using computers, it remains stubbornly enigmatic. It is distinctively different from the scripts of Mesopotamia or Egypt, and it bears no resemblance to writing systems, such as those used in Sanskrit or other Indo-Aryan languages, that later appeared in the region. Some scholars believe that the script`s closest link is with writing of the Dravidian languages of southern India, such as Tamil and Malayalam, but there are no traces of other aspects of the Indus Valley civilization in that part of the subcontinent, and it seems unlikely that, if the Harappan script migrated there, no other aspect of the culture should have accompanied it.
Part of the decoding problem is that no bi- or multilingual inscription, like the famous Rosetta Stone, has ever been found. And the Harappan texts are short: None is longer than 26 signs, and the average length is only five, which does not give much opportunity for the development of recurring patterns of signs that might be discerned. Furthermore, the script may have served to express more than one language, as Roman, Arabic and many other forms of writing still do.
The undecoded script continues to lock up most of the secrets of the Indus civilization and of the Harappans` social and religious lives—the second great mystery, says Kenoyer. If the inscriptions could be read, scholars surmise, we`d be much closer to knowing how and what the Harappans worshiped, who their leaders were, what role religion played in their lives, and what the source was of their far-reaching organization and cultural uniformity.``

I don`t understand why well-informed Muslims are not taking my questions seriously. My reading of the Quran tells me that the angels Gibreel and Michael are very important figures in Islam. And it also mentions that angels have 2, 3 or 4 wings each. That being the case, why can`t anyone tell me about what kind of feathers are on the wings? Or are there no feathers at all (like pterodactyls)?

And about the jinn. This is an important concept in the Quran that idiot non-believers don`t understand. But I`m trying to understand it. There are umpteen suras in the Quran that talk about the jinn. So could some pious and knowledgeable Muslim enlighten me?

Also, some more questions:

1) Is Allah male or female? Or is he neuter gender? If male, how do we know? If male, is he circumcised (or does he get a free pass)?

2) Do angels (e.g. Gibreel) have beards? Or do they shave? Are the beards white? Do angels wear clothes? If so, made of what? What about undergarmets?

The Quran is like a sea of knowledge. There is so much to learn! Why, only the other day I was reading the chapter called ``The Cow`` and I was overwhelmed by the amount of information that has come to us straight from God. No wonder the good people (Muslims) read the Quran all the time.

Unlike the idiot non-believer Hindus on this forum, I am trying here to educate myself. I would appreciate any help from pious and knowledgeable Muslims.

Thanks

I still think Mr. Murad Ali Baig should continue writing on junk cars than Hinduism, Islam or anything else. He will be good at it.
Kamath

34000 is apparantly a healthy figure for statistics and may gladden a few hearts, but it is only.001%of the American population. It would be interesting to know the break-up of this figure community/race wise.
It is understood that post 9/11,the number of converts to Islam from among the Hispanics in US shot up dramatically, maybe the gullible were taken in by the audacity of those suicide bombers.
So, if one takes the overall picture, it is still the poor and underprivileged strata of the American population like the blacks and Hispanics that are converting, seeking a better life in a new faith . The rich white American convert might be a very rare thing.
It might also be interesting to find out if there is a drop in conversion rate from among the blacks since the WTC bombing, which is quite plausible, since being a black Muslim in America is no more as macho as it was during the Cassius Clay days or the Farrah Khan movement. Remember the solidarity between the blacks and whites post 9/11.

Neti,
``she was a smiley..... ``

She was perhaps an Ismaili:) You will find many Ismaili khoja and people from Gujrat with names that are religion neutral. In Sindh, there are many names that are common between Hindus and Muslims. But never Balwant. I don’t know the reason for it. Maybe Balwant has some strong relation with some Hindu myth or story.

Only a Balwant would know better… Calling Ballu!

hp:

sometimes names could be misleading.

one of my colleagues name was indumati kapadia. and guess what she was a smiley.....

balwant could be one of them.....

Neti,

Let me reconsider...There are Christian Balwants too...But No muslim Balwants...

HP:

there are sikh balwants too...........

i think he is a sikh! (scratching my head icon)

#122

People become suspicious when they get in to the unknown. The unknown comes from the lack of knowledge. It also leads to fear. People that are either less knowledgeable; or are less comfortable about their knowledge jump in to conclusions without following the background of either a conversation or an issue or an event.

They tend to issue blanket statements and when confronted, are always unable to logically prove the conclusions they jumped at. After being cornered, they often claim harassment and abuse and run away from a discussion.

Is there anyone here who can deny that “Ballu” is a short name for Balwant and Balwants are commonly called “Ballus” in UP. So when I call someone with his long name why that should be interpreted as an attack on faith? It is also a known fact that Balwant is not a Muslim name. Otoh, the last name “khan” is certainly not an entirely Muslim name. People of other faith can have this last name too.

When I appreciate someone on their knowledge of their own faith and religion, it should be taken as what it is instead of making up stories and unsubstantiated claims abt liberals and fundamentalist. That is pure dishonestly.

re#124
so those high-school pranks are the proof that `Jinnaat` exist. lol.

#121 by VRV

I dont like to despise ur beliefs, but do u think that moving of glass has god`s hand?
Oops, religious beliefs dont stand rationality, I agree.

But it MOVES .... Rationality etc not withstanding ...

#120 by swarrier

That judgement is a bit hasty ... swarrier ... reconsider .. :-)

mohar11#113
It just goes to show there is no difference between a self-professed `liberal`-type Pakistani who arrogates to himself the right to apostasize a fellow Muslim and a self-professed `religious`-type Pakistani who arrogates to himself the right to apostasize a fellow Muslim.

This is a craven cowardly way to handle a ) anyone dissenting from the entrenched establishment view or b ) a property tussle or c ) a marital dispute, d) anything else like a chowk discussion which is passed off as piety.

Re: # 117

Zee, I dont like to despise ur beliefs, but do u think that moving of glass has god`s hand?

Why dont u be rational?

Oops, religious beliefs dont stand rationality, I agree.

(We use to fool some guys with this Ouija Board experiments in my teens, telling that Mata is listening and all the stuff....quite funny to fool our fellas then).

Re: # 114
I don`t think HP carries any bigoted Islam around in his mind. He just doesn`t like us Indians very much. And he`s honest about it. -))

For the first time, I praised Balwant Khan on his knowledge of Hinduism and he is certainly not comfortable with my appreciation. I can understand that as we are mostly at loggerheads on different issues.

However, being a fair person that I am, I always praise and appreciate people’s knowledge on different issues. That is how I learn about things.
I think he shows a great depth in his knowledge of Hinduism contrary to his knowledge of Islam and that is a fact.

The reason perhaps being that despite being a person of no religious faith I still was born in to a Muslim family and learnt a whole lot abt Islam during my growing up years. This obviously is not the case for Balwant Khan thus his poor knowledge of Islam compared to his knowledge of Hinduism, which I certainly appreciate.

i live in the conversion capital of UK, i personally can`t understand why, hundreds of young white and afro-carribean have converted, they all seem to be anti-american may be that explains it,not sure.

VRV,

It`s similar. In this one you read a few Quranic verses ... and the glass moves ...

U mean Ouija board?

#106 by krishna_abcd

And this jinn - is that the same type as the famous jinn in the bottle? ... But the jinn - does he simply float around? Kind of like a wisp of smoke, only it`s not smoke - it`s jinn?.

If you ever experience a seance, the kind where they lay alphabets and numbers on a polished surface and an inverted glass tumbler with you touching it with just your fingertips, and it moves by itself answering your questions forming complete sentences, you`ll know the answer.

It happens, but is discouraged by scholars of Islam.

Re: # 112

I also happen to have a far better knowledge about my own faith which is certainly not the bigotted version of Islam that you have learnt in your pureland. You have to live in multicultural environs and live with your co-religionists than create purelands of intellectual solitude before you can become a part of this real world..

Calling someone a ``hinud`` used to be the greatest insult that you can throw at somebody... is that still the case?.... the way Hate Pot has come out guns blazing - it seems so... :)

#99

It is refreshing to read Balwant khan’s posts on Hinduism. He certainly shows a lot of knowledge abt Hinduism and I hope he continues to enlightening us with some knowledgeable posts abt his religion. Knowledge of your own religion whether you practice it or not, is a good thing and that helps people understand other religions better. In Balwant’s case, his knowledge of Hinduism certainly is a whole lot better than his knowledge of Islam, which is not surprising considering his Hindu faith which is quite evident on this thread.

Balwant please continue to enlighten us.

Thanks.

Re: # 108 Naqshbandi

The correct number is 34,000 and not 4,000

``CAIR chairman Nihad Awad told the Saudi paper `Ukaz that ``34,000 Americans have converted to Islam following the events of September 11, and this is the highest rate reached in the U.S. since Islam arrived there.``(2) ``

Frankly, I would have never believed this number to be true unless I had seen with my own eyes. I see every week people coming to our mosque and reverting back to Islam. This mosque is situated in a white dominated mixed neighborhood but 95% of the revertions that I have witnessed are those of white Americans, which contrdicts the popular myth that only jailed black men revert to Islam. In the past three years another phenomenon that does not cease to amaze me is the number of single white females reverting to Islam. I find it absolutely mind boggling that despite the fact that media here spare no effort to insult our women, the choice of their attires, and despite general hostility towards Islam and Muslims, white females are showing even more inetrtest in Islam. Allah does work in mysterious ways.

Re: # 107

You have certainly not abused anyone here........you are a gentleman.........but there are many here who prefer to conduct dawah by sword and threats..............

Re: # 104

Remember, even a person like you who despite his claim to the sufi tariqah and does not carry the pebbles is already half out of the fold........ somebody in the Christian West is infact the last person to be called a true follower of the Sunnah!!!
Those attending the schools with modern education are not even a hunderedth of a muslim compared to what their uneducated fore fathers were................so muslim nations giving modern education to the youths are infact causing a substantial decrease in the followers of the faith.......so this number of explicit converts is more of a publicity for the mullahs.....

And in the USA since 9/11:

4,000 Americans have converted to Islam following the events of September 11, and this is the highest rate reached in the U.S. since Islam arrived there.

...

I haven`t abused anyone on here ballukhan.

***

Why British Muslim are turning to Islam

An excerpt:

-THE SPREAD OF A WORLD CREED

The Times - Tuesday, 9th November 1993 - Home-news Page
Lucy Berrington finds the Muslim Faith is winning Western admirers despite hostile media coverage

Unprecedented numbers of British people, nearly all of them women, are converting to Islam at a time of deep divisions within the Anglican and Catholic churches.

The rate of conversions has prompted predictions that Islam will rapidly become an important religious force in this country. ``Within the next 20 years the number of British converts will equal or overtake the immigrant Muslim community that brought the faith here``, says Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher at a Hull comprehensive and the author of a textbook guide to the Koran. She says: ``Islam is as much a world faith as is Roman Catholicism. No one nationality claims it as its own``. Islam is also spreading fast on the continent and in America. ..

#103 by Naqshbandi

[Shaykh Nuh Keller, a convert and now a great scholar and spiritual guide (sufi shaykh) himself, has written about this in much better words than I ever could:


1. The Universality of Religions and Finality of Islam. Allah sent mankind and jinn His prophetic messengers ]


Could some knowledgeable Muslim clear this up for me - what kind/color feathers does Gibreel have? And this jinn - is that the same type as the famous jinn in the bottle? Meaning - can he stream out of a narrow-necked bottle at will? Or is this jinn different? Meaning it can even go through the walls of the bottle? Or is there no bottle involved?

Now the Gibreel guy I can understand - he flaps his wings and moves around. That`s easy to understand. But the jinn - does he simply float around? Kind of like a wisp of smoke, only it`s not smoke - it`s jinn? It`s very confusing.

I would appreciate a response.

Thank you.

That`s the point we made about the Jain theory of relative/alternate realities. Somebody may shout about the ``superiority`` of the Naqshabandi Tariqah ............. but that does not give him the right to abuse others or blow them up...........

Re: # 102

Rubbish. The statistics and facts simply don`t back your ideas up.
Face it, more people are converting to Islam than ever before. The net number of
people entering Islam is much greater than the few who apostate from it. Historically too,
which religions have been more successful at proselytising than Islam and Christianity?

Shaykh Nuh Keller, a convert and now a great scholar and spiritual guide (sufi shaykh) himself, has written about this in much better words than I ever could:


1. The Universality of Religions and Finality of Islam. Allah sent mankind and jinn His prophetic messengers (upon whom be peace), who were trustworthy, intelligent, truthful, and fully conveyed their messages. He protected them from sin, and from every physical trait unbecoming to them, though as human beings, they ate, drank, slept, and married. They were the best of all created beings; and the highest of them was him whom Allah chose to be the final seal of prophethood, our prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace).

Though the Sacred Law of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) superseded all previously valid religious laws, it was identical with them in beliefs, such as tawhid or ``oneness of God``, and so on, a fact that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) emphasized by saying, ``Let none of you say I am superior to [the prophet] Jonah,`` (Bukhari, 4.193: 3412), for the illumination of Jonah’s tawhid (upon him be peace)--under the darkness of the storm, the darkness of the sea, and the darkness of the belly of the fish--was not less than the illumination of the Prophet’s tawhid at the zenith of his success as the spiritual leader of all Arabia (Allah bless him and give him peace). The light of their message was one, in which sense the Koran says, ``We do not differentiate between any of His messengers`` (Koran 2:285), showing that previous religions were the same in beliefs, and though differing in provisions of works, and now abrogated by the final religion, were valid in their own times.

As for today, only Islam is valid or acceptable now that Allah has sent it to all men, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has said,

``By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell`` (al-Baghawi: Sharh al-sunna 1.104).

This hadith was also reported by Muslim in his Sahih by `Abd al-Razzaq in his Musannaf, and others. It is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) evidence that clarifies the word of Allah in surat Al ‘Imran

``Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted from him, and shall be of those who have truly failed in the next life`` (Koran 3:85)

and many other verses and hadiths. That Islam is the only remaining valid or acceptable religion is necessarily known as part of our religion, and to believe anything other than this is unbelief (kufr) that places a person outside of Islam, as Imam Nawawi notes...:

He then later on in the same article writes:


(1) There are some peoples who have not been reached by the message of the Prophet of Islam (Allah bless him and give him peace) that we must worship the One God alone, associating nothing else with Him. Such people are innocent, and will not be punished no matter what they do. Allah says in surat al-Isra’,

``We do not punish until We send a Messenger`` (Koran 17:15).

These include, for example, Christians and others who lived in the period after the spread of the myth of Jesus godhood, until the time of the prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), who renewed the call to pure monotheism.

The great Muslim scholar, Imam Ghazali, includes in this category those who have only been reached with a distorted picture of the Messenger of Islam (Allah bless him and give him peace), presumably including many people in the West today who know nothing about Allah’s religion but newspaper stories about Ayatollahs and mad Muslim bombers. Is it within such people’s capacity to believe? In Ghazali’s view, such people are excused until after they have had an opportunity to learn the undistorted truth about Islam (Ghazali: ``Faysal al-tafriqa,`` Majmu’a rasa’il al-Imam al-Ghazali, 3.96). This of course does not alter our own obligation as Muslims to reach them with the da’wa.

(2) A second group of people consists of those who turn away from God’s divine message of Islam, rejecting the command to make their worship God’s alone; whether because of blindly imitating the religion of their ancestors, or for some other reason. These are people to whom God has sent a prophetic messenger and reached with His message, and to whom He has given hearing and an intellect with which to grasp it but after all this, persist in associating others with Allah, either by actually worshipping another, or by rejecting the laws brought by His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), which associates their own customs with His prerogative to be worshipped as He directs. Such people have violated God’s rights, and have accepted to go to hell, which is precisely what His messengers have warned them of, so they have no excuse:

``Truly, Allah does not forgive that any be associated with Him; but He forgives what is less than that to whomever He wills`` (Koran 4:48).

In either case, Allah’s mercy exists, though for non-Muslims unreached by the message, it is a question of divine amnesty for their ignorance, not a confirmation of their religions validity. It is worth knowing the difference between these two things, for one’s eternal fate depends on it.

This is the orthodox Sunni opinion (which incorporates the sufi orders within its fold).

Re: # 100

``Islam and Christianity are supremely successful proselytizing religions too.``

That is nonsense........then why are mullahs cursing the western civilization day in and day out..why are christian churches worried about attendence??
The fact is that more people have been turned away by modernity from the prescribed practices and rituals of these religions than before...............and given a chance many of them with scientific educations would adopt atheism if it were not for the fear of mullahs and their mobs.......

Re: # 96

of Course Murad Ali is hardly NHK in scholarship!!!

I would say, and it is Muslim doctrine, that Islam is the primordial religion of Mankind. By this is meant that all Prophets from Adam alayhisalam to Prophet Muhammad (sal allahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sahbihi wa sallam) taught the same message of the oneness of God and belief in His Prophets and an Afterlife and Judgement. That is why we believe in all of the previous Prophets who came before Islam and are mentioned in the Old and New Testament (and all those who are not also). That is why we say Adam was a Muslim, Abraham was a Muslim, Noah was a Muslim, Moses was a Muslim, Jesus was a Muslim, John the Baptist was a Muslim and so on. Because they all believed in La ilaha il Allah : no god but Allah. There were slight differences in the laws which they gave to their respective peoples to whom they were sent but that is all. The aqidah was all the same. Hence Islam is the only religion which makes it an article of faith for its followers to believe in the Messengers of other previous religions esp. Judaism and Christianity.

**
Islam and Christianity are supremely successful proselytizing religions too. The same cannot be said for Hinduism. how many people convert to Hinduism a year? Yet Islam, despite the bad press it gets due to ignorance and geopolitical factors, is still remarkably successful at getting followers from other religions or no religion to convert to it.

This is because Truth cannot be stopped with bombs and bullets or media. It touches peoples` hearts. It is like scent, which cannot be trapped but spreads everywhere and draws people to it. India was a country of hundreds of millions and yet it was the great Muslim saints like Khawja Muinuddin Chishti Gharib Nawaz, Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhsh Ali Hijwiri and countless others who conquered peoples` hearts (military rulers like Babar and Ghauri conquered lands!). Islam spread in India due to these Muslim saints aka as Sufis.

Indeed, Islam is remarkable for the continuing vibrancy of its spiritual tradition even in this day and age. From Morocco to Malaysia you see traditional Islam with the awliya in its heart. This spirituality is still strong. Sadly, the rise of a hetederox militant form in the past century and a half is taking many people away from the orthodox Sunni Sufi tradition. Take the Punjab for example, how did its millions become Muslims? Or Indonesia and Malaysia--no armies went there, rather it was saints from Yemen who conquered the hearts of people and brought them to the belief in Allah and Rasulallah!

**

It is in the spiritual realm that we can see some similarities between Islam and some aspects of Hinduism. The Hindu science of jog (yogis) and tassawuf have some similarities in practise but not in doctrine. The same can be seen in the writings of the christian mystics too such as St. Teresa of Avila. Though we do not deny that non Muslims can have experience of the Divine in this world, it is not enough for their salvation in the next since that is based on saying La ilaha il Allah Muhammadur Rasul Allah except for those who have not heard the message or heard it in a distorted form.

So, if you read Imam Ghazali`s autobiography where he talks of his spiritual states and compare it to something by St. Teresa of Avila in her own autobiography some of their experiences are remarkably similar. This is because Allah/the Divine One is One.

93 -UBA

in my view that was a very apt comment.
Jainism has this concept of SyadVada - and AnekantaVada or the notion that ``reality`` is relative to the point of view of the observer. That, in my view, is a very `modern` view which tolerates multiple discourses as equally valid and do not consider a discourse (like an Islamist always tries to does) as ``superior``.

This notion of fuzzy logic and relativism is certainly a redeeming feature of hinduism and prevents it from monolithic thinking...

#93 by dost-mittar

My understanding of this concept is slightly different. It is not ``Everything is God`` but that there is ``God in everything``.

The 99 names of Islam`s Allah includes Az-Zaahir i.e. The Manifest. Certainly that is what you mean by ``God in everything``. Islam agrees with that concept but transcends above worshipping God`s manifestations to worshipping the source of that menifestation. That is why it rejects idolatry.

``zahid sharab peeney dey masjid mein baith kar;
Ya woh jaga bata dey jahan par Khuda nahiN!``

The definition of God as contained in the Quranic Verse naqshbandi reproduced in his #13 is right on the dot.

Re: # 93

``Tujh mein Ram, mujh mein Ram
Sab mein Ram samaaya
Sab se kar le pyaar jagat mein
Koyee naheen hai paraaya. ``

Here is a more erudite one:

kabiira is saNsaar meN
sab se milo dhyaae
na jaane kis roop meN
aa jaaeN raghu rae!

Roughly, ``O Kabir, accord everyone in this world due thoughtfulness (respect)
As who knows in what form God may decide to manifest!

Taking out the agnostic, the mankind seems to have thrown up two ideologies in an effort to search for the meaning of life and the unknown:

One came out of the Vedic thought of re-incarnation (samsara) which believed in perpetual cycles of life, death and re-birth. It believed that soul (atma) finally got liberated (moksha) based on man’s good deeds (Karma). Originally from Santana Dharma, the philosophy was followed by Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism with some internal differences.

The other ancient philosophy emanated from Zoroastrianism which explained that a man’s life is a struggle between the good and the evil. Its monotheistic concept included a satan, a messiah, death, resurrection, day of judgment, heaven and hell. Originally from Zoroastrianism, this philosophy was followed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam with their own other internal differences.

---

Core philosophy of Hinduism (Correct if I am wrong)

The Vedas provided a philosophy called Sanatana Dharma or just Dharma - the Eternal Way or Perennial Philosophy. Dharma is the process for aligning one’s body, mind and soul with the nature in search of the Ultimate Truth or Reality to find salvation in life.

The Sanatana Dharma also emphasized that there were many ways of reaching the ultimate truth or the reality in these words of Rig Veda:

Sanskrit: Ekam Sat Vipraaha Bahudaa Vadanti
English: ``Truth is One, though the Sages know it as Many.``
— The Rig Veda (Book I, Hymn CLXIV, Verse 46)

---

Indian Supreme Court ruling:

In 1966, Supreme Court of India defined Hindu faith as follows:

(a) Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy.

(b) Spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent`s point of view based on the realization that truth is many-sided.

(c) Acceptance of great world rhythm — vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession — by all six systems of Hindu philosophy.

(d) Acceptance by all systems of Hindu philosophy of the belief in rebirth and pre-existence.

(e) Recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are many.

(f) Realization of the truth that numbers of Gods to be worshiped may be large, yet there are Hindus who do not believe in the worshiping of idols.

(g) Unlike other religions, or religious creeds, Hindu religion`s not being tied down to any definite set of philosophic concepts, as such.


nhk

# 88 burpinder
u wrote

``I remember...one of the favourite questions at corporate interviews as being ``How comfortable are you with ambiguity?`` I suspect a lot of Hindus are, very, while those with a linear view of belief, as you seem to be, would not be, at all. :) ``

---

In Mathematics , new concept of fuzzy logic evolved some 40 yrs back. It may help explain your point

Muslims,Christians,Jews etc traditionally have a boolean worldview( Bi(two) valent logic
They see-view the rest of the world as
BLACK

---

WHITE
O(zero)

---

1(one)
TRUE-FALSE

THIS WORLDVIEW = CRISP !

---

The Eastern religions like Hinduism-Buddhism-jainism have evolved a Multi-valued logic
They see-view the world as a
CONTINUUM OF GREY , ranging from the BLACK

---

to the

---

WHITE
REALITY = GREY
It is possible for a statement to be MOSTLY TRUE, LIKELY TRUE, LESS TRUE , etc
It can take a value between the two extremes

This WORLDVIEW = Fuzzy !

The Hindu Concept of God is as Follows

God & God`s Creation(this whole world) are NOT SEPARATE
Both are ONE & THE SAME
God = One = a UNITY = 1 !
God is a ever changing - ever evolving system !
Everything is a part & parcel of God !
We are a PART of GOD !
We are INCOMPLETE without GOD , GOD is INCOMPLETE without us !

God is one , but his forms-manifestations are infinite !
God is present in each one of us , God is present in each one of the others,other lifeforms as well ! including animals, birds, mountains, seas, sun,moon,planets, trees etc

The WORLDVIEW of HINDUS is much more advanced than those presented by other religious philosophies.

Why God created Man ?
Man = the most evolved life form on earth !
man = created to accelerate the process of EVOLUTION of GOD-NATURE !
Man = tool in the hands of GOD to evolve himself , more rapaidly !

A hindu Mystic , Shri Aurobindo has talked about the evolution-emergence of SUPRA-MAN !
Supra man # man with lot of wealth or concentrated political power !
Supra man = man with evolved consciousness !
It is the DESTINY of MAN TO evolve from mere
consciousness

---

> superconsciousness

---

> self awareness !

In Hindu Philosophy , self awareness is the HIGHEST mental state !

---

Zeemax:

My understanding of this concept is slightly different. It is not ``Everything is God`` but that there is ``God in everything``. It is expressed in various bhajans and film songs, such as:

Tujh mein Ram, mujh mein Ram
Sab mein Ram samaaya
Sab se kar le pyaar jagat mein
Koyee naheen hai paraaya.

antihypochrist:

``All these arguments about monotheism being superior over polytheism withstanding, can someone explain me why monotheism and that too the islamic kind is legitimate and polytheism not?``

Good question! I think that due to centuries of rules by non-hindus, they have accepted the concept that monotheism is superior to polytheism. To some of us, the idea of one God is no less hypothetical than the idea of several gods and godesses.

Re: # 69
Urstruly
When I used ``I`` , I wasn`t referring to my beliefs, I just used the pronoun for an example. For all practical purposes, to any believer I (in this case really me) am irreligious.

I believe all religion is man-made, sometimes or perhaps always, exclusively for the purpose of survival.

I do not follow any tradition and never will.

It is sometimes unfortunate that we try and paint other`s history from our bigoted eyes than try to understand these cultures..........the Christian West is now trying to do the same to the Islamic world with their caricature of a muslim as an uncouth Jehadi ........like the mullahs have been doing it for centuries about Jews and Christians................need we pitch in more with these caricatures and write ``history`` of entire civilizations??

``Both Buddhists and Jains believed in peace, harmony and the sanctity of all forms of life. Their beliefs of reincarnation, Karma, Dharma and Ahimsa later became an intrinsic part of Hindu belief. ``

`` There was no philosophy except for great sacrifices in exchange for boons. ``

``In the late Mughal period, the almost forgotten legendary heroes, Ram and Krishna were elevated to Man gods and became objects of deep personal devotion in the style of the adoration of Jesus. ``

``The Upanishads were first discovered and translated into Persian by Dara Shikoh around 1650 from where it was translated into French and English before becoming more widely known in India. ``


Murad Bhai your caricatures on ``hinduism`` are perhaps as dangerous as the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) . Unless you are a historian doing a scholarly work citing acceptable evidences or archeological work, please avoid such controversies.

I would suggest that you must include Visista Advaita on how the hinduistic philosophies attempt to reconcile monism with theism. And more emphasis should be on history of Jainism which is infact is an atheistic ``religion`` without an Abhrahmic God!! The Jains have a almost materialistic view of liberation and use atomism to explain how the souls get burdened by the karmic atoms and how their purificatory rites are supposed to purify them. I would say that you need show a scholarly presence and must refer to another grand summary on the so called ``religion`` of hinduism by Dr. RadhaKrishnan before you make an attempt at a caricature.......

However, to try and make any religion ``explainable`` is an attempt at the futile because religon in essense postulates entities like ``GOD`` , ``Heavens`` , ``Hells`` and ``Spirits`` and things like ``Divine Providence`` which NO religion can ``explain`` to the modern mind. So, I still do not understand to whom you are trying to address this book- the Pakistanis??

In attempting at such a sweeping picture you can at the best describe what religious practices were in vogue at various periods and using politically obnoxious terms like ``baseless religiosity `` without defining what standards of appreciation and approbation are being followed may result in unnecessary controversies.

Hi Murad Ali Baig,

Good that you have actually tried to look at history and culture of your neighbor (and cousins!). Of course, people will have some issue or the other with what you included or left out, but thats OK. For example, I would say that by not focussing on Ramakrishna and many of the neo-hindu reform movements (especially from south, west and east india) you have missed an important part of the hindu future.

If people would actually study realities on the ground, history of different traditions in a concrete way, things would definitely improve. We tend not to do that (as south asians), instead we believe all kinds of nonsensical things (Urstruly`s amusing but deranged outputs are a good example) based on personal anecdote or historical stereotype (cunning hindu, violent muslim etc.).

So best wishes for your efforts...

Urstruly: ``Hence, hinduism is a hodge podge of self-contrdiction. Self contrdiction can only survive if it is butteressed by mindless rituals. No wonder no Hindu can explain his religion - the phrase ``...but you wouldn`t understand`` is the common denominator of all Hindu religious philosophy.``

I remember...one of the favourite questions at corporate interviews as being ``How comfortable are you with ambiguity?`` I suspect a lot of Hindus are, very, while those with a linear view of belief, as you seem to be, would not be, at all. :)

Re: # 63

It`s actually 330 million (33 `koti`, which means crores). We are ten times better than you think we are :)

#79 by zeemax

Hinduism is ``Everything is God.``

Islam is ``Everything is God`S``.

Yaar Zee, good post! If we look at it closely, there are more similarities between all religions than differences, but somehow, we only choose to focus on the differences and that is why all the strife.

Let`s share this:

Christian God: Sonofabitch. Sorry, he`s born outside marriage

Muslim God: Nobody knows how he/she looks like (we keep guessing. Sorry, Islam doesn`t permit guessing game!). Mohammed is a peadophile, we all know.

Hindu Gods: All gods had two wives. Krishna is too greedy. He`d 16,000 girls! Ram had one wife but he`s a doubting husband - the quality in man hated by all women.

(Balaji, the incarnation of Vishnu even married a Muslim woman as his second wife).

Who`s perfect. All gods are human or human-like.

They are all man-made.

I don`t know about Christainity but in Islam and Hindu religion, people`d love to go to heaven because they get free sex (men only, no record of women benifits). Hell is hell for all.

Muslims 72 get virgins but Hindus get the overused women in limited number (>1)!

Why fight for these man-made fantasies of religion and God?

Re: # 73
just fantastic. Superb reasons to get oneself converted to hinuism

All these arguments about monotheism being superior over polytheism withstanding, can someone explain me why monotheism and that too the islamic kind is legitimate and polytheism not?

The author or most of the commentetors do not even know the ABC of hinduism. Many of the commentetors seem to believe that it is only Islam which is a monotheistic religion.But this is not a fact.In fact Islam has only improvised the version of ``Yehova`` and has created a Rub and improvising over the idea of judaism about the chosen people and the chosen land , Islam has created Rub-ul- alemeen. Meaning the god of the universe. The whole idea has started from the idea of the god of Moses. Hinduism is quiet different from all this nor it invites anybody or allow to take responsibility by anybody regarding welfare of another fellow human being who is not following ``the correct path of the religion``

Re: # 37

Mian maulana Urstruly,

This is how the constitutuion of India describes a Hindu ``One who is not Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Zoroastrian`` is a Hindu.

Regards
Sanatani

Re: # 2
My dear friend dont boost. Hindus practise one god worship even before you or your religion might have even thought about the idea The author has studied the religion in a most superficial manner. Has he by any chance heard about ``shruti`` ot ``smriti`` of the vedas do you ever know the vedic text has been passed through generations together through memorising the exact text? the author has evaluated the hindu religion as he can percieve it in his own contaxt of Islam the whole idea of sematic religions like Islam ,christianity and judaism is about a book a prophet and about god and the satan opposing the so called gods deeds. however hinduism is quiet different from the above idea and any onelooking it from the angle mentioned above is bound to get a very distorted view of the religion

Hinduism is ``Everything is God.``

Islam is ``Everything is God`S``.

If you apply Occam`s Razor to the former, you arrive at the latter ...

But what`s an apostrophe `S` between friends anyway ...

muqaddam,

Persians, because of their long history and independent culture, possess a civilizational orientation that is unique in all of the Middle East. (Unfortunately, that also implies that except in limited areas Iran is unlikely to be an effective role model for many other countries or peoples.)

When studying Persian from an Iranian teacher, in the text book we came across a reference to Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam ( It has also been said thus: Sallallaahu Alayhi Wallay Wasallam ) and the talk turned to the Paighambar. The teacher asked how many Paighambars are there in Hinduism. The question was unexpected and of course the answer was ``none``. She was not satisfied, she said , there is Ram, Krishna and several others , they are all paighambars, arent they? One had not looked at it this way, but coming from a foreigner it did make sense, and one thought she put it beautifully.

Urstruly in # 69 makes a most potent argument. There inheres immense power in the bewitching idea, tantalizing possibility, and the emotional intoxication of getting on to some one Straight Path to One True and Eternal God.

Hindus rarely tap into that transformative power. Just one among a slew of differences.

---

bj, thanks, my friend. :).

Re: # 69 by urstruly,

Urstruly:

At least keep your head high and do not get into the level as the writer. Mr. Beg, and what can I say, is writing a book and TRYING to say what you do not give a damn about. Yet, following echoboom, did you have to get nicey-nice? Alas, now it takes a young upstart who does not know whether he is a Hindu or a Muslim (yes that creep Salim Chauhan), to clearly state what the writer is trying to convey:

``I was particularly intrigued to learn that Hinduism, as a set of beliefs and an organized religion, only started in the 19th century. Suffice it to say that I was extremely relieved to learn that my great, great, great, ... great grandpa, Agniraj Chauhan, was not a turncoat and a convert, that he did not abandon his Hindu faith to turn Muslim. How can one convert from a faith that didn`t exist for another century and a half? Thanks - I feel a hell (or heaven) of a lot better now.``

Tell you what, I hate the fact that these young creeps like Chauhan are much more perceptive and un-restpectful than I or you were at their age.

#15, #61 Kaal

Welcome back, O circle of Time!

It is about time!

#2 UrsTruly

[invite all Hindus to become the worshipers of One True God]

In the interest of an “open mind”, all my Pakistani brothers and sisters of Muslim faith should consider the alternative act also!

Advantages of converting from a Muslim to a Hindu

(1) Freedom from a rigid theocratic, autocratic, nabob-like mentality.

(2) Freedom from having to pray five times a day and from being forced to go listen to the Mullah every Friday.

(3) Freedom from being kicked around and from being suspected of being a terrorist everywhere in the world.

(4) Freedom from feeling the compulsion to become defensive and to defend the indefensible act of Muslim terrorists all over the world.

(5) Freedom from the Mullah’s ranting and ravings.

(6) Freedom from female genital mutilation.

(7) Freedom from having to marry your father-in-law because he raped you.

(8) Freedom from being accused of being “less than pure” for expressing unmitigated love for your land of birth.

(9) Freedom from the constant need to identify a “non-Islamic” sect to persecute.

(10) Freedom from feeling a compulsion to set up pockets of “Dar ul Islam” in every country that is kind enough to give you shelter!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 69 by urstruly:

Sir,

You are simply confused. I believe in one god and that is a rock by the side of my key-board. But you would not accept me as a Muslim, would you? You want me to follow a tradition. Simple as that. Be your old self and get back to ``Oye, Hinduo.....``, don`t get stupid in your old age.

Regards.

Alberuni and the Gita
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/al-biruni-and-bhagavad-gita.html
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/al-biruni-and-bhagavad-gita.html

#42 Swarrior

Please read your own post again. If what you are telling is truth then don`t you see that what I am offering you as a belief in One True God, is not contrdictory to your own belief system. The contradiction however, is in your own religion. If you belive in One True God then you cannot believe in any other. These two notions are mutiually exclusive. They nullify each other; they cancel each other. Which means only one belief can be true - i.e. there is One God and no one else beside him or there are many gods which essentially means there is no god. Hence, hinduism is a hodge podge of self-contrdiction. Self contrdiction can only survive if it is butteressed by mindless rituals. No wonder no Hindu can explain his religion - the phrase ``...but you wouldn`t understand`` is the common denominator of all Hindu religious philosophy.

So I am offering you a chance to discover the Straight Path (siraat-e-Mustaqeem). There is no chance of going astray once you start treading this path, since it goes through the path that you claim you already know - the path that leads to One True God. Life is short. The path to the Truth should be short and straight as well.

Murad,

I am sure that your book involved more research and work than this extract?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Thank you, Baig Saheb, for submitting this article. Such articles, even if they lack depth as claimed by some interactors, result in interesting information through the discussion that ensues.


``The earliest was the tribal tradition of worshipping the spirits or ‘jivas’ believed to inhabit every mountain, river, tree, rock and other object.``

You might call it a part of the continuing Hindu tradition. Many Hindus still worship such inanimate objects.

``During the 1000-year period of Buddhist supremacy, came another form of Hinduism that was a religion of the Puranas. It introduced a huge multitude of new deities with vastly elaborated beliefs and customs. Shiv and Vishnu only now emerged as great gods with new companions like Ganesh, Lakshmi, Parvati, Saraswati, Devi, Kali, etc. The elaboration of great myths like the Ramayana and Mahabharata were accorded near religious importance and were raised to become the sacred tenets of religion.``

Do you know of any sources that support this statement. I am not sure about others but Kali does find mention in the Buddhist literature and I have just returned from a visit to Ladakh where I visited a Buddhist temple devoted to Kali. On the other hand, I tend to agree with you re. Ramayana and Mahabharata; I am not aware of any mention of Ram or Krishna in the Buddhist Jataka tales, which mention many other Hindu gods and godesses.

Naqshbandi#64:

``We believe Allah sent Messengers to all nations with the same monotheistic message.``

I know that the quran does not mention any Indian messenger by name but can you think of any messenger sent to India whose message was similar to that of the quran. [On an interesting note, the RSS chief Sudharshan has suggested that Indian Muslims should regard Ram and Krishana as prophets in the quranic sense].

In my opinion, there is such vast difference between the Indic/Asian and Abrahmic traditions that it would be best not to look for commonalties in their respective philosophies. The key to Abrahamic philosophies, in my opinion, is monotheis and prophets. The key to Indic philosophies seems to be a belief in the transmigration of soul and the philosophy of karma, which seem to be common to Brahmanism, Buddhism (Agnostic), Jainism (Atheistic) and Sikhism (monotheist) to which there is no parallel in Abrahmic relgions. Another distinction is that while Indic relgions talk of avatars, Abrahmic religions talk of prophets.

In classical anthropology, Darwinism and evolution, of which I know a little, religion evolved as an emotional crutch, once the needs for hunger and safety were satisfied.
It is established that ``religion was a method in which mankind sought to meet the areas of their needs which could not be satisfied; is religion the ultimate result of metaphysical contemplations? A human invention trying to explain away the unknown? or is it a genuine doctrine, monitored by silent God (s)? `` quote unquote.

From this perspective, the whole Muslim Hindu debate appears completely different.

We believe Allah sent Messengers to all nations with the same monotheistic message. But people did not believe or, killed the messengers, or their original teachings were corrupted over time.

Thus, if their still exist nuggets of monotheism in Hindu books it is not surprising...

Re: # 46 salim

Kaali maa = Vishnu = Shiva = Durga = Brahma = 33 million other gods/godesses... Each one of them is a different manifestation of the same One True God... But it`s a ``complex`` concept for Urstruly Mian to understand - so I had to dumb it down...:)...

A few generation of running after the bedouin man(PUBH), our brother urstruly has already lost his capacity to grasp complex issues... centuries of painstaking evolution that grandpa gopinath passed to urstruly - all down the drain... sigh...

Raw_Dust#56 swarrier #55
hmm. I guess then that latitude in interpretations was allowed only based on a prior acceptance of the basic concept of God as you describe it and allied precepts. Perhaps the fundamental definition of ``religion`` in Islam and perhaps Christianity implies such an acceptance, no? Then comparing these with Hindu philosophies or belief systems may not be meaningful.

Hinduism and Islam are two completely contradictory religions - two opposite ends in the development of religious thought. Hence, Hinduism - in its universal spirit - seems absurd to a committed Muslim. By the same token, after all politically correct nods have been made, a Hindu finds it difficult to it believe that any fair-minded and logical person could follow Islam.

That doesn`t mean that Hindus and Muslims can`t get along. They most certainly can, and do. It simply means that between Hinduism and Islam, any success of one necessarily means the failure of the other.

Baig Sahib,
Please accompany your article with a graphic depicting a timeline showing each event, its date, and how it impacted the evolution of Hinduism as a religion. I find it incredulous that as a faith, Hinduism is as fresh and young as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, otherwise known as Mormons or the Church of Big Love. :)

Echoboom #57 {``You are better than any islamic scholar here. The way you answer to these seekers of higher learning simply to get more & more into misery is the correct way. ``}

Echo Bhai Sahib,
I believe in Tableegh as the proper approach for common understanding. :) While not a scholar, I have the gift from almighty Allah to confuse myself and everyone else, no matter how simple the subject, to the point of unrestrained laughter. Therefore, armed with logic, truth, and the Muslim way I will preach to the unfaithful, the adulterous, the idolatrous, the sinful, and those prone to orgies and then compile a llist of the truly evil females for posterity. :) Thank you for your kind words, my brother. :)

Mr. Murad Ali Baig,
After offering my opinions on this topic, I finally decided to read your article out of a guilty conscience. I appreciate the time and effort that you have expended in educating us tunnel-visioned Muslims about our neighbors` beliefs. I enjoyed the broad deductions and wide panoramic vistas painted by your theories. I was particularly intrigued to learn that Hinduism, as a set of beliefs and an organized religion, only started in the 19th century. Suffice it to say that I was extremely relieved to learn that my great, great, great, ... great grandpa, Agniraj Chauhan, was not a turncoat and a convert, that he did not abandon his Hindu faith to turn Muslim. How can one convert from a faith that didn`t exist for another century and a half? Thanks - I feel a hell (or heaven) of a lot better now.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

sadna:
you know better. I dont know much about xtianity. My point was about the fundamental concept of Allah. In essence, it is what it is: a medieval male tyrant. You cant fight it, you cant morph it, you can only submit to it or else. Ask echoboom, he takes this stuff seriously. :-)

Re: # 50

Sadna, that`s true. I spent some time discussing this with Franciscan and Jesuit priests. The face of the proselytizer is different from the philospher. Especially today. Though you do find occasional reversions to a more simplisitic era.

Harimau #52

Harry,
Quick let me answer you correctly, before Maulana Sahib shows up. :)

``Do you guys have the same freedom or do you have to behave in addition to worshipping Allah? ``
We have to worship AND behave - it`s kinda like theory and lab - you have to pass both to get certified.

``Can one stop praying 5 times a day, fasting during Ramadhan, going to Hajj, etc.? ``
Yes, only for sex - and during Haj, only quickies are allowed.

``Does one still have to kill the Kaffirs to get those 72 houris and 24 ghilmans? ``
Yes, but only the most evil ones who ask too many stupid questions. :)

``And, the question nobody wants to answer: what is one supposed to do with the ghilmans?``
Can`t tell you - you will need to get suntanned first. :)

``Or its corollary: is anal sex that good?``
Totally unrelated to the previous question and therefore not a corollary. However you will have a coronary once Mullah Afghani tells you how great it is. :)

Ref chaltahai #33

[Re: # 30: Excuuzzze me..what level of hell are you talking about. Cuz allah says ``wait till you get to level 4``. It is all a big video game for allah mian.]

It is NOT a video game UNLESS the Koran says somewhere ``All your souls are belong to us``.

Ref Urstruly #24

[I did not mean to hurt anyone`s feelings nor it is my intention to put down the beleifs of any other people. As a Muslim the only duty I am charged with is to show you the Right Way. The choice however, is entirely yours. There is no philosophy related to Islam except one that Naqshbandi has posted below in #18. That is all there is to our religion. Submit yourself to One Lord and no one else. This is the simplest and hence truest belief of all.]

You know, the Southern Baptists are like that. As you come of age (not physically but mentally, meaning when you turn 18) you have to accept Christ as your Saviour and undergo baptism. After this, you are home free. There is no need to turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or any of that bullsh!t Christ was talking about. You are free to pillage, rape, kill, etc. Your belief in Christ is all that is needed to whisk you straight into Heaven.

Do you guys have the same freedom or do you have to behave in addition to worshipping Allah? Can one stop praying 5 times a day, fasting during Ramadhan, going to Hajj, etc.? Does one still have to kill the Kaffirs to get those 72 houris and 24 ghilmans? And, the question nobody wants to answer: what is one supposed to do with the ghilmans? Or its corollary: is anal sex that good?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Raw_Dust#44

I think Islamic and Christian theology both have a lot more diversity and complexity than that - that their public proselytizing face is one thing(which you describe) and the actual accumulation of theological thought or interpretations over centuries is another matter.

Naqshbandi #22
Thank you for listing all those references from Hindu scriptures (Veda, Upanishads, Gita) that reinforce the Oneness, Unity, and lack of parentage/offspring of The One True God. You must acknowledge that Hinduism is much much closer to Islam, at least from the written word, as a monotheistic set of beliefs than Christianity. :) No Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for the horrible Hindoos. :)

Now, you tell me after great great great ... grandpa Agniraj Chauhan learned how to pray in Arabic. :( You mean we were already on the right path? :)

Ref Urstruly #2

[I would take this opportunity to invite all Hindus to become the worshipers of One True God who has created this universe; and who is known to everyone despite having different names. Reject all false dieties, man-gods, god-mans and anyone or anything that is currently being associated to that One God.]

Thanks.

I hope you don`t mind if we decline the invitation.

We do have other occupations and preoccupations at this moment. We don`t want to spoil it all by getting a one-way ride to Gitmo.

Again, thanks.

``Mazhabi behs meiN neiN kee hee NaheeN
Faltoo Aql mujhh meiN thhee hee naheeN``

Interested people who are , a priori, believers can discuss religion. An atheist, by definition, says there is NOTHING. So there is NOTHING to discuss. Like those who think Science is Bunk, should never hang around scientists. Similarly scientists who believe that Jinns, Jannat, and Jibreel are bunkum should be politely , but firmly, kicked out of such discussion group.

It could be a very good exchange of opinion between BELIEVERS. One cannot flatten the earth for those who deny the earth is round...& vice-versa. Let the Roundabouts & Flatterers go their own way of belief/disbelief.

Such is the order of the day, today the 7th september 2006, 10.50 GMT.

Mohar11 #8 {``So you too are creation of the Mr Vishnu, the One True God... ``}

Mohar Bhayya,
Aur apni Kaali Mai kya huwat he, chopped liver? :(

#2 Urstruly {``...I would take this opportunity to invite all Hindus to become the worshipers of One True God ... Reject all false dieties, man-gods, god-mans and anyone or anything that is currently being associated to that One God. ``}

Urstruly Sahib,
Koi hamla shamla plan kareyo si? Yeh UBL varga warning sharning kyoN dusseyo si?

sadna:
Nice post. Reminded me of Terence Malick`s films: Thin Red Line and The New World. Though, they might seem very `pop` for a person with depth in hindu philosophy.

Islamic concept of God is that of a medieval MALE tyrant which demands absolute submission from his subjects, it promises eternal and temporal rewards for the followers and Hell for infidels.

Hinduism`s concept of divinity for what you are saying is fundamentally different from this.


re#34
I disagree. The proposition of an Allah like god is not the only way to a meaningful life.

And by the way, that `simple` explanation has to be considered explanation in the first place. I thought that explanation supposed to be a belief? If it is an explanation then it ceases to be a belief. Right now Islam just is an opinion standing in direct opposition to mountains of empirical evidence. Not to mention the source of that `opinion` is not consistent on its own.

Re: # 42

True... The simplest explanation used to be sun moves around the earth, or the earth is flat... but as we knew later, that was not true...

Life is inherently complex... simplest explanation doesn`t always explain a lot of stuff...

Re: # 37
Urstruly you are not far wrong. Any monotheistic believer can also be a Hindu. It`s only a question of assimilating a belief within Hinduism. But if people wish to be different then they can say they do not believe in that assimilation.
Suppose I told you , I believe in an Absolute but not in Al-lah what would say. It all depends on what you wish to believe.

`` Usually, the simplest explanation is the best explanation of a phenomenon.``
This I do not agree with.

Rather I would say that the simplest explanation that correctly explains a phenomenon in it`s entirety is the best explanation.

St.Exupery said `` Perfection is achieved, not when there is anything to add, but when there is nothing to take away.`` That is slightly different from the simplest explanation.

Re: # 37 urstruly
[..Hindusim believes in everything and nothing...]

yes... it sounds complex, but it`s not... think about it...

To give you a parallel - the entire universe was created from nothing, from a singularity... and finally the universe will stop expanding will collapse into the same singularity...

Makes sense?...

Re: # 19 naq
[....Historically, the monotheistic religions have been totally dominant. And still are...]

not really... greeks were dominant at their times... hinuds were dominant too, their ``influence`` was spread across south and south-east asia...

Today and in future - the dominant group are the none-theists - people who are secular, people who believe in human values rather than some verses from some old books...

Which is why muslims are so miserable today and will remain so in future... mono-theism is dead... welcome to the future, the world of none-theism, secularism... and stop speaking mumbo-jumbo in tongues...

Re: # 37

But if ``a fiercely monotheistic Muslim`` says I am Hindu, Hindus are not going to
have problem with that, they will say OK and go on with their life, unlike declaring
him a Non-Hindu trying to pretend to be Hindu.

Naqshbandi #various
I dislike getting into the subject of comparative religion but Zakir Naik is unfortunately going to be disappointed in seeking commonalities without really understanding what lies behind those verses. The Hindu and Muslim theological concepts of formless God are not exactly the same. The subject is very vast but taking even a casual look at the basic concepts- depending on the particular school of thought( all interpreting the same scriptures), the `Hindu` formless God is often said to be manifest in creation itself and hence manifest in heavenly bodies, in nature, in living things, even in inanimate objects. This could be considered blasphemy as far as the mainstream Muslim concepts of formless God go, where the formless God stands entirely separate from his creation, if I am not mistaken.

A Hindu may say either that the formless God is manifest in every living thing or say that nothing in creation is real except the formless God. He may say the formless God stands separate from his creation(as most Muslims do). He could also go to the other extreme and say the very opposite that nothing is real except the perceived material reality. In saying all this he would still be within ambit of ancient Hindu development about the formless God and hence could not be labelled as ``corrupting`` the original concept of formless God or committing blasphemy even if the Muslim religious establishment said so.

I doubt the Muslim religious establishment can really accept the entire sweep of Hindu interpretations about a formless God. Given that these interpretations are of scriptures which date back to Vedic times and cannot be called `corruptions`, their exhortations that Hindus should save themselves from eternal damnation by strictly limiting themselves to those which conform to the Muslim interpretations of the formless God, will not hold much water. I doubt there is any hard and fast `Hindu` injunction that says that anyone will go to eternal damnation for not accepting any of the Hindu interpretations of the formless God, it is more commonly said that the more ignorant someone is the longer or more births they could take to finally merge with the formless God.

(It would also be difficult to regiment someone who goes the Buddhist way and says it is irrelevant whether a formless God underlies creation or the Jain way which says there is no formless God period(if I am not mistaken)).

Re: # 32 swarrior

So by your logic, that Hindusim believes in everything and nothing, a fiercely monotheistic Muslim can be a Hindu as well. But we know that no Hindu in his right mind would call a Muslim a Hindu or vice versa.

See, this is absurd. Any idea that takes us away from One God is a false idea - logically and empirically. Life is too short for being way ward. Usually, the simplest explanation is the best explanation of a phenomenon.

Re: # 34

urstruly:

even if there is one god......

how come you are sure its mo`s allah?

Re: # 30

raw bhai:

``I mean, in Hell infidels would be given taste of death over and over till eternity and right after we die, our bodies are supposed to be gnawed at by snakes, scorpions and what have you: hell-fire etc. ``

i do understand why i will be in hell, but why are these poor creatures: snakes and scorpions there!!!

did they also take a panga will allah?

Re: # 30

See, this predicament of ours is all the more reason to be humble to the Absolute. In Qura`n, Allah has stipulated in no uncertain terms that having a belief in Him is not a guarantee for our slavation. Even if we have spent all our lives with virtue and in humility, it would not guarantee our salvation. But in this humility and worthlessness there is a purpose and a direction. And Allah is just. On the Day of Judgement His justice will be evident to all. He will do justice not only by the standards of our world to the extent that if a stronger goat has hurt a weaker goat by hitting the later with its horn, the weaker goat will be given justice. In addition He has promised Divine Justice as well, which is beyond our comprehension. So there is hope is this humility and worthlessness as well.

If you do not belive in Him there is merely a feeling of worthlessness and no point in existence.

Re: # 30: Excuuzzze me..what level of hell are you talking about. Cuz allah says ``wait till you get to level 4``. It is all a big video game for allah mian.

Re: # 24
Urstruly
What I am trying to say is that Hinduism does not necessarily believe in the presence or absence of a God. It talks about an absolute but not in the sense of a creator or a destroyer. An atheist can be a Hindu.

Naqshbandi
You may consider polytheistic peoples contribution negligible, but the entire Western world believes that their philosophy etc, emanated from the Greeks who were polytheistic, their civilisation continued by the Romans who were so too. The Japanese who are animistic worshippers, the Chinese who have various gods have also contributed to civilisations as the Indic ones. Perhaps you have a different view of history.

Re: # 29

jai kali calcuttay-wali
tera vaar jaye na khali.........................

No you got it wrong. I am not talking about the nature of propositions. I am wondering about the nature of the kind of God Itself - who would come up with something like that.

I mean, in Hell infidels would be given taste of death over and over till eternity and right after we die, our bodies are supposed to be gnawed at by snakes, scorpions and what have you: hell-fire etc.

So, i was just wondering how big a sicko an entity has to be to come up with something as ludicrous like this and actually sell it to others with a straight face. Even Hitler couldnot bring more than one death to his victims.

Urstruly if you mean hindus to worship Allah..they already do. Allah is called Kali. You know the diety that is always pissed off.

Re: # 26

Throughout our life we experience small bouts of damnation and snippets of bliss. The proof of eternal damnation or eternal bliss lies in this very fact. One who can give us pain or blessing for short time can also extend this time to eternity. So where there is a promise of eternal damnation there is also a promise of eternal bliss. We can lead a righteous life by having this belief.

And the there is second option - do not belive in anything. In this case life is absolutely pointless. There is absolutely no reason to be righteous except in case of self preservation. There is no need to be moral except when you are on the receiving end. That reduces you to nothing but a blob of chemicals. No direction, no purpose, no meaning.

Dear Beg Saab,
I remember reading your columns about automobiles as a teenager in India I am pleasantly surprised to see u writing in Chowk. However your article about Hinduism lack depth nd precision. Hinduism is probably too vast and too developed nd too multifaceted to be subjected for such a simple analysis. Unlike Semitic faiths, Hinduism has flexibility and an ability to adapt and change and its dynamism is misunderstood as lack of continuity. A closer reading of Hinduism would reveal that its progress and evolution is not necessarily on the same chronology as the author has suggested, such diverse practices like animism always thrived along with highly sophisticated Vedic practices. History proves that Hinduism is never a threat to India’s pluralistic heritage. Infact it is the very tolerant nature of Hinduism that has helped it to survive and thrive even under intense hostility of Muslim rulers and assault of Christian missionaries.

``This is salvation that ``

Urstruly:
Why is this God so insecure to threat people with eternal damnation? you have any ideas?

Re: # 2

urstruly:

``I would take this opportunity to invite all Hindus to become the worshipers of One True God who has created this universe; and who is known to everyone despite having different names. ``

and who is that?

I did not mean to hurt anyone`s feelings nor it is my intention to put down the beleifs of any other people. As a Muslim the only duty I am charged with is to show you the Right Way. The choice however, is entirely yours. There is no philosophy related to Islam except one that Naqshbandi has posted below in #18. That is all there is to our religion. Submit yourself to One Lord and no one else. This is the simplest and hence truest belief of all. A man living in an era 1 million years ago could understand it and a man living in an era 1million years from now will understand it. This is a wager no one loses. This is salvation that is available to all; and all one has to to is to submit himself to One Absolute.

Why must there be only one god? why can`t be there more than one?
Nobody has seen that one god and nobody has seen many gods.
So how does it matter?