How did Hindus Become Vegetarians?

I think, its not true that he is going to kill.
its just he is going to catch and give it to sita so that she can play with and protect deer.

Re: # 343

Iam not sure, iam just guessing that he may be going just to catch the deer.
It might be true that he was going to kill the deer.

Re: # 343

Iam not sure, iam just guessing that he may be going just to catch.
It might be true that he was going to kill the deer.

Are you sure about this below statement,

"It was while Rama went out to kill a deer that Ravan was able to abduct Sita."

Who said Rama went to kill a deer? He is just trying to catch the deer not to kill it i guess.

I came across P.T.Sreenivas Iyengar's book on 'History OF Tamils' and he too corroborates non-veg as the accepted diet of vedic Hindus (includes Brahmins and others). It seems Rhino's meat was the most desired and then came the preference for buffalo and cow. During the vedic period, he says, Hindus invoked several Gods and worshiped fire. Vedic Brahmins offered oblations to the fire and all the tedious mantras were practised during the vedic period. It was, according to P.T.S, during the agamika period Hindus adopted vegetarianism to counter Jainism's appeal, which goaded the youth to adopt a more challenging ascetic life-style. Jainam could have been the original torch-bearer of vegetarian diet. He says that it was during the agamik period where Hindus stopped doing yagams (worship by fire) and started to believe in a single God and temples. Earlier during the vedic period, people used to worship in open.

During the agamik period, God was treated like a human guest. People worshipped by offering food and human accoutrements as oblations. The offerings were eventually used by the worshippers themselves. When he says agamikas worshipped single God, curiously, he doesn't imply monotheism. Probably a single God was treated as the protaganist during the pujas. Saivam and Vaishnavam were the branches of agamika. Brahma lost his prominence during the agamika period.


P.S:- I believe Harimau should be knowing better.

zee (#338),

�… I had asked an avowed murtid how come murtids attack Muslims so much? …I suspect it is because murtids feel threatened by Islam�

It’s the same with the ummah attacking Ahmadis. Ponder over this; therein lies the answer to your query.

Re: # 338

The question is actually very easy Zeemax; maybe nobody thought it was worth answering. I’ll detail it as follows:

1 – It is completely natural to first talk about one’s understanding of the faith system one has left. One obviously has problems with that system, otherwise no reson for dissent.

2 – It is NOT EXCLUSIVE to ex-muslims; In the 20th century, with a hangover of victorian values, it took Bertrand Russell a book “why I am not a christian� to explain his reasons for leaving; several other examples too (Edwina Curry – Judaism, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, your favourite Dr Einstein! and many others – christianity/Judaism). If their was no intellectual conflict then why leave?

3 – It is only “just become possible� for people that left Islam to speak of their reasons; sometimes due to the anonymity of the world wide web, sometimes protection etc in the west.

4 – By and large today, dissent is much better tolerated in any other major faith system than Islam. Until recently, one was automatically “wajib-ul-qatl�. People leave their faiths all the time, especially in the west, they don’t face any major repercussions as a result; surely not a death sentence.

5 – Some of the main reasons for dissent are intellectual and moral (it may surprise you!). Those conditions continue to exist and make lives miserable in the part of the world one belongs; other members of family especially women, lack of intellectual freedom, lack of social justice.....reasons are innumerable.....On, naturally wants those conditions to change for their loved ones, on seeing them go through life with the same baggage, especially after one has seen the freedom it has given them to pursue life fully.

It could go on..... If you had read my first couple of interacts on this site, you wouldn’t have asked this question.

Re: # 338

"..t it is because murtids feel threatened by Islam particularly,"

Not surprising since the consequences of being a murtid is horrible ranging from limb decapitation to death by mob lynching.!!

#334 Posted by dost_mittar

akcheema#330:"I can equally crticise christianity, judaism, hinduism etc but that is not my place"

I had asked an avowed murtid how come murtids attack Muslims so much? If there wasn't a God to them, so be it. Why do they have to run around gathering material to try to prove there isn't one when Muslims don't care a damn whether murtids believe there is one or not?

As expected, I never received a reply. But I suspect it is because murtids feel threatened by Islam particularly, and not the concept of religion in general.

beej bhrata, despite my best efforts to corrupt your mind for the longest time, you don't accept the simple truth: 'ordinary' people of different religious groups are NOT the same.

You are just too impressed by the fact that everyone gets up in the morning, and takes a crap (hopefully). :)

Re: # 330

"I'd also like to say to Laddu (just like Hamidm did before); if us muslims desire for our prophet (and his camel) to be insulted, we should be the ones organising it!"

Cheema ji,

I would accept this as a politically correct statement for an insider to make. But for an outsider who bears the maximum brunt of Mohammad inspired violence I would beg to differ. Unless and kafirs and idolators start making noises and stop paying lip service to Mohammadeans and acting like dhimmis I do not see GENUINE moderate voices like your getting any importance.
Genuine moderates needs vociferous and noisy responses from kafirs and idolators if they have to succeed in obtaining a consensus on ultimately discarding the Medina verses from Quran !!

Re: # 331

Sindhu Sharma ji,

Since you are a brave person , you must attempt the sadhana I have prescribed.

May the Leader of Ganas lead the Gana to the path of peace and lightness.,.

Just remember the attitude when you do the Japa after Avahanam of Ganapati in the muladhara-

" What is outside is inside as well".

This statement is the crux of all Hindu Sadhanas!

akcheema#330:
"I can equally crticise christianity, judaism, hinduism etc but that is not my place"

...but you should (criticise other religions, too); if you do not respect your own religion, why should you be expected to respect someone else's?

As for characters on chowk, some are real (and also known p;ersonally to other chowkies) and others are phony); after you spend some time, you will undoubtedly come to know them better and form your own opinions about them. Chowk also has an option of getting in touch with individual chowkis if they want to be "your friends".

Akcheema, since you are taking input from non-believers, here is mine:

1) Islam is a religion – like many other religions of the world.

2) It has its good stuff and it has its bad stuff, too!

3) Most Muslims are ordinary folks who – like most other people of the world, are not too concerned with the detailed stuff inside (good or bad) and are in that religion because of – like followers of most other faiths – the accident of birth.

4) Unlike most contemporary religions (but like many other religions when those were relatively new), it does not tolerate dissidence well. And those who get DEEP into it – tolerate even less – unlike its ordinary folks most of who do not get deep into it. The deeper one gets – the more difficult it becomes to dig out. Those who try to bring in “flexible interpretations� are immediately shouted down and threatened (be they from inside or outside) and they shut up. (The way some individuals are denouncing the Mirzaees on this board is a current example!) Those who do not shut up get fatwas issued against them and then assaulted or killed for apostasy.

5) Those who issue such fatwas and otherwise keep control have no incentive to let go because they like the power! They instead work to further consolidate this power. There are many among the rest who are too chicken to challenge the setup and instead find it more convenient to deny the problems.

6) That sort of setup keeps the population at large back in other parts of life – education, women’s emancipation, and everything else that follows from those two – including progress in the Arts and Sciences.

Note: This is how I see it, mostly based on the (wishy-washy) Pakistanis on this website. I am not an authority on that religion and am unlikely to become one in the foreseeable future – perhaps not in (this) lifetime!

I must admit it is kind of fun to watch this HP make an ass out of himself again!

And, as the icing - he also has to say "sorry"!

A sorry ass, indeed!

#330 Posted by akcheema

A decent comeback! I am sorry I used some indecent words there. You are new and possibly couldn't get the motives behind that serial offender and the RSS member's posts.

Most of the Indians on this site are of RSS and Hindutva bend and that includes the ones who would deny even being hindu.
People like dost_mittat and anil can't hide their affiliations despite the lip service to some lofty desires.
Keep posting. You write good stuff and ask the right questions.

Re: # 324

Thanks but your contribution IS important. The reason being that it is likely to be a "common sense" and dispassionate approach that would almost be impossible to get from a "submitter", or should it be "submittee"?

The AlephNull affair is irrelevant; its a pseudonym any way. The rhetoric IS genuine though as its not the first time I have faced it; things needed to be said and so they were. The "actual personality" behind things matters less; that could be said about all of us!! How do I know you ARE (i.e., Dost_Mitter) who you say you are?!

I'd also like to say to Laddu (just like Hamidm did before); if us muslims desire for our prophet (and his camel) to be insulted, we should be the ones organising it! Like I pointed out many a times, the only reason I criticise Islam is because it is part of MY heritage. I can equally crticise christianity, judaism, hinduism etc but that is not my place.

Re: # 322

sindhu sharma ji,

Namaskar,

Yeh mullah-gardi karne wallon to aise hi patka jaata hai.

Vaise there is a very important upasana for you-

1. Take a Ganesh idol.
2. Do Praan-Pratishta in Northern/North East part of your house.
3. Start Shoodo-pachara pujan of the moorti.
4. After aavahanam when you start the Japa of Ganapati Mantra imagine that Ganapati is situated in the Mooladhara Chakra of your body.
5. Now recite the mantra with the attitude that "What is outside is also inside you" while keeping the mind fixed on the mooladhara chakra.
6. Recite 108 times the ganapati mantra with this attitude.
7. After Japa complete the Shodapochar Pujan of Ganapati.

Lord Gana-pati would indeed release the trapped energies in the muladhara and bring bliss to your mind.

Let there be peace.

Om shanti Shanti!!



Baaki aap ki marzi!!

that should be: hinduism turns fine lads into laddus.

#326 hp: hinduism turns fine lads in laddus. mullahism turns fine lads like naqsh into kaddus. :-(

#323 Posted by tahmed32

You were too hasty there! That was not Pundit Laddu Maharaj. He was actually quoting alepo's post there who copied that from Naqash!

further to #323 ok. never mind laddu. i just googled, and google took me straight to Naqshandhi's ilog on chowk. Where bro Naqshbandhi approvingly quotes this from omar khayyam.

akcheema#298:

My "take" on this issue is irrelevant since I have not "submitted". The purpose of my response was to affirm that, to the believer, islam does provide the answer to your question. In the same vein, I would say that He did send the same message over and over again, the only difference is that he did not put in place the same safeguards. Why did he not put the same safeguards earlier? well, the believer cannot of course say that He erred earlier, all he would say is, "Allah knows best".

Anyways, this is my take. But a believer would perhaps have a more satisfactory explanation.

[Re. your response to alephnull, you are new here and it will take some time to recognize the cast of characters and their styles:)]

HP: you have to admit laddu got it right this time. This arby sand has indeed blinded too many muslim brothers. :-(

Laddu child: Who is the poet?

#321 Posted by laddu

#286 Posted by akcheema

Pundit Laddu Maharaj and chacha Cheema,
Aap dunoo hazarat ko ik penchoud ulloo bana raha hai!

This AlephNull aka ahole, alepho and many other nics, is a certified member of Shiv Sena and RSS both! Yes, he is the only Hindu on this site who will be enshrined as the hindu of the hindus.

You two have been really out of your mind or taken a break from your senses to not see the word play there!

Pundit Laddu Maharaj, I had accepted Hinduism and ba’it farmayee thi aap kay haath per because I thought you were the most learned and the smartest Hindu on this site and I will directly have access to Brahmin caste and you promised me that too. But now, alas, I have to revert back to my atheism as you have clearly shown that you are perhaps as big an ulloo as alepho is, who made you look like a cho-tia so easily!

Your former follower,

Sandhi Sharma!

Cheema chacha,
Hain kawakob Kutch, nazar aatay hai Kutch!

This site is not for simple minded folks. You got to check a person’s background via his previous posts before starting your innocent responses. You looked so dumb there.

Alpo, can't let you have fun on this site. hehehehe!
Game is over!

Re: # 314

"Khaira na kar saka mujhe jalwa e danish e Farang
Surma hai meri aankh ka khaak e Madina o Najaf.

(The glare of Western sciences could not confuse my vision,
For the dust of Najaf and Medina is the collyrium of my eyes.)"

More Arabian land and Bedioun culture arse licking. Islamism is indeed Arabian Imperialism. The "dust of najaf and median" is more precious than all sciences........ that is simply hilarious!!

I absolutely support the Mirzaees' (or anybody else's) right to call themselves Muslims (or Mussalmans or Mohammedans or any other equivalent term) if they wish to.

The term "Muslim" is not copyrighted and is not anybody's baap ki bapauti!

It is kind of fun to watch this multinick creature who calls himself Salim Chauhan go through all his evolutions and finally end up - like the Jinnah - hobnobbing with the jihadis!

Shame on this creature - and shame on this pathetic website for promoting hatred!

Re: # 314

"You should be employing your energies and your formidable dialectical skills to advance the cause of Islam, not to erect roadblocks in its path. Did not our Noble Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself say that the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr?"

Phir se Khooni Dhamki deta hai?
If Mohammad said that suicide bombers are more sacred than those who insist upon the path of dialogue and reason then he indeed a criminal maniac who should be incarcerated for ever!! Nay! Banished from the face of earth for inciting and inculcating hatred and violence on earth!!

Re: # 314
"I am grieved to see that you willfully persist in the sinful folly of apostasy. You are not merely destined for jahannum yourself -- you are gravely endangering the akhirat of impressionable young Muslims through your slick anti-Islamic sophistry! You are the worst kind of murtid – the proselytizing kind!"

Abey , Ulte Sir ke Jinn!! Dhamki aur Gaali kya deta hai!! Tere jaisee bahut Gunde sahi kiye hai humne......

Re: # 314

"If you were before me I would strike off your head for blaspheming against our Beloved Nabi. Begone, infidelator"

I have my petrol cannisters and pig skin ready!!!

Re: # 314

"You are indeed the vilest of the idolatrous Hindu infidels. If you were before me I would strike off your head for blaspheming against our Beloved Nabi. Begone, infidelator"

Maulavi Alif-Null Saheb,

Aap waakai mein akal se NIL hain . Go and read Shahi Hadith if you want to know the true character of Mohammad. He raped women on the same night they were grieving for the death of their husbands and their family members. And he called those hurriedly taken 'forced-consent' under coercion of those captive women living under fear of their lives as "marriage".

It is my time to say - Tauba astaghfirullah!

Bhatti Sahib (#304),

I have seen several excerpts - from the writings of Promised Messiah and Ahmadi-leadership - which were misquoted, mistranslated, or quoted out of context by those who wanted to incite hatred against Ahmadis. But upon quoting the full paragraph, the objections fizzled out. I suspect the same here … and that’s why I asked you what I asked you.

You initially downplayed the issue, then hinted that you got this from your Ahamdi friends, and now it is becoming obvious that you got this from an anti-Ahmadi source. Nothing wrong with it … but be careful trusting a short, choppy quote that may very well be out of context.

laddu #295, #289, #287

Tauba astaghfirullah! You are indeed the vilest of the idolatrous Hindu infidels. If you were before me I would strike off your head for blaspheming against our Beloved Nabi. Begone, infidelator!

akcheema #296

I am grieved to see that you willfully persist in the sinful folly of apostasy. You are not merely destined for jahannum yourself -- you are gravely endangering the akhirat of impressionable young Muslims through your slick anti-Islamic sophistry! You are the worst kind of murtid – the proselytizing kind!

Alas, you have been misled by your exposure to Western science and by your hubristic pride in your own intellect. Know then that Western science has uncovered only an infinitesimal fraction of the truth that is known to Allah SWT, of which much more can be glimpsed by a thorough study of the Majestic Quran and through the Islamic occult sciences. You should be employing your energies and your formidable dialectical skills to advance the cause of Islam, not to erect roadblocks in its path. Did not our Noble Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself say that the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr?

Verily, there is neither guts nor glory in apostasy! Cheema sahib, it is still not too late to repent of your hubris, recant from your apostasy and revert to the Straight Path which is Islam!

In conclusion let me leave you with the immortal words of Allama Muhammad Iqbal Lahori, patron saint of Pakistan:

Khaira na kar saka mujhe jalwa e danish e Farang
Surma hai meri aankh ka khaak e Madina o Najaf.

(The glare of Western sciences could not confuse my vision,
For the dust of Najaf and Medina is the collyrium of my eyes.)

Reflect on these words and you may yet see the light of Truth.

Re: # 308

salim mian,

is that you ? ........... life is full of surprises

Urstruly (#302);

C’mon, you’re being too harsh now. The “flying prophets� issue has rattled the cage … zee is denying it … while you are pointificating time dilation and relativity theory to explain it all. And all along kaal bhai has been trying to maintain a straight face - lol …

(kaal bhai, … denial is a river in Egypt …)

+++

Salim bhai,

I don’t know about the ’71 PAF issue. Maybe it was namaz time during the dog-fight … and all the Mirzai pilots decided to face kaaba in unison; what can I say? Question now is … who was the asshole who gave azaan on the communication radio …?

Sattar Sahib,
With all due respect, sir, Muslims do not insist on being called Jews or Christians. If Ahmedis called themselves something else, I would have no problem with them, just like I do not care one way or another about Bahaais - in fact they are pretty decent people, but they are NOT Muslims nor do they claim to be.

Sattar Sahib,
Your good nature and polite behavior is certainly very different from the Mirzaees we encounter on UP. However, sir, it makes me very sad that Ahmedis insist on being called Muslims and yet usually go to extremes in their profanity and insults against the very man who blessed us with Islam. May Allah protect and exalt the name of our Holy Prophet (PBUH), the Seal of ALL Prophets. Ameen.

Re: # 306

Sir ji,

Yes we will go in circles because you choose to ignore vital facts that i presented like:

1) Mulsims consider you non muslims, while consider shias as muslims, so no analogy between both.
2) Ahmadiah founders consider non ahmadis as distinct from non ahmadias.
3) Despite the faith explanation that Islam contain significant material which is like Judo/christian traditions because the original message is the same, even if I agree to you plagiarism accusation, Muhammad (PBHU) never interfered with other religion by declaring them outside of their religion (how funny it would have been), but that is the starting point of ahmadism.

So unless you do not consider above facts with open mind, the, yes sir; we'll go in circles.....

Again as far as material is concerned, I gave you the sources already. Why you are concerned as to how I got it????

So bye, and chill out and peace.....

I used to support Mirzaees' right to call themselves Muslim because I felt that Islam is an open religion that welcomes everyone. Also, I admired their emphasis on education and community awareness.

Having observed Qutubuddin Bukbuk's behavior, I started doing some research and discovered why these heretics piss off normal everyday Muslims - including Sunnys, Shias, Smileys, and even some stray Maharishis and Jehova's Witnesses.

Why would anyone insist on being a part of a religion whose founder they disrespect? Don't tell me that Mirzaees have any respect for our Holy Prophet (PBUH). On numerous occasions I have witnessed the Bukbuk boys use very profane words for him.

Secondly, as a Paki I find it reprehensible that these munaqfiqs used their positions of power to undermine Pakistan and its security. In the '71 war, for some reason (probably nepotism) Mirzaees were in command of the PAF - and we all know its dismal performance during that debacle.

In almost every part of the world, these charlatans have allied themselves against the enemies of Islam. As if this was not bad enough, they spread their phony message of "reform" to confuse the minds of young people in areas of the world where Islam has vulnerable foundations - e.g. Bosnia, sub-Saharan Africa, US, and UK.

We need to discredit these cancerous parasites and ensure that they are never mistaken as Muslims. May God punish them for their perfidy and treason.

#303 Sattar2 {"So shias and sunnis don’t have disputes … but are killing each other anyway. And you have a problem with Ahamdis? Sahib, since you raised the issue of violence, violence is indeed relevant. And you can find nothing against Ahamdis ..."}

Sattar Sahib,
Please don't use one set of misfortunes to justify a worse case of insidious damage to Islam. People fight, people kill, and people die. But it is very rare that a certain group of people start a "movement" to sabotage the very institution that they claim to be a part of.

Bhatti Sahib,

Once again: If you are concerned with violence, you cannot ignore shia-sunni issues. Note that you raised the issue of violence … but can find nothing against Ahamdis.

This stealing business has been going on for ages. If your view is that … “it is OK for Muslims to steal/borrow/copy, since their religion is the true one�, note that Ahmadi-Muslims say the same.

You did not answer my question: Where did you get the material you posted in #230? Give no hints ... but a straight answer ...

Ahmadi-Muslims could publish the records of 1974 hearings, but it will not serve any purpose. While you are at it, ponder over what the government is hiding.

+++

Looks like we are going in circles … so I’ll end this from my side, esp. if you merely repeat the same points.

Re: # 302

Urstruly brother,

I do not have any problem with sattar saab till now. I would say that he has behaved in most gentelmanly manner during whole discussion, though he does not need any certificate from me. Same goes for my other ahmadi friends with whom I lived under the same roof and broke bread with and shared moments happiness and sorrow together. (sattar saab, here is a hint as to my access to ahmadi literature).

Re: # 303

Dear Sattar saab,

Again you came up with shia/sunni issue as an arguement, which is again wrong because you choose to ignore the simple fact that muslims do not consider ahmadias part of muslim community.

Again as far as stealing identity is concerned, you again chose to ignore that islam never at any time in history chose to appropriate christian or jewish identity for itself. Further I am not at all concerned that who copies who. You can plagiarise whatever you want fron Quran and Hadith; do it; no body is going to stop you. But do not say that you are muslim because we muslim say so and say so because you elders expressly proclaimed distinctiveness of both communities...

As far as my access to ahmadi materials is concerned, it is none of your problem, sir........... If you want to find it out that material go to ahmadiah community's elders and ask them for it. Go to rabwah or london and tread your own path.

I do regret non disclosure of 1974 presentations by Government of Pakistan, but most of time we have morons at our helms of affairs. But my question is that why doesn't ahmadiah community itself publishes what they submitted in that hearing. This would help in pressing GOP to come out of the closet.

Bhatti Sahib,

So shias and sunnis don’t have disputes … but are killing each other anyway. And you have a problem with Ahamdis? Sahib, since you raised the issue of violence, violence is indeed relevant. And you can find nothing against Ahamdis ...

Regarding stealing identities: Since you are concerned about who copied who, I have put the issue in proper perspective. Arguably, Islam stole most teachings from earlier religions.

You wrote: � …As far as plagiarism of their scriptures is concerned, well it is because for us source is the same hence this stunning similarity…�

And similarly, for Ahmadis, the source is the same … and hence they consider themselves Muslims. It is really very simple ...

Furthermore …

Ahamdis presented their views in the 1974 hearings. But the government refused to release the records of these hearings. I’ll let you wonder why …

I know you gave the sources of the quotes. But my question is that … where did you come across this material in the first place?

Re: # 301 Bhatti

Your arguments are irrefutable. When confronted like this Sattar usually presses F6 button on his keyborad, and that automatically generates a post on flying prophets, fire breathing donkeys, and talking wolves for him. Wait and see.

Re: # 300

Sattar Saab,

[Once you mention inter-sectarian violence, shia-sunni issue becomes relevant.]

No it does not become relevant because of fudamental difference in nature of shias vs. sunni issue and ahmadi vs. non ahmadi issue. As I said earlier, whatever claim shias might have they never have any dispute regarding the finality of prophethood, which is the starting point of ahmadiah doctrine. Ahmadis are not a sect of islam.


[Try to estimate how many shias have been killed by sunnis … an vice versa. To keep things simple, stick to Pakistan only and review only the past half-century. Now tell me how many people have Ahmadis killed.]

Again irrelevant because of what I explained above though I condemn the voilance.

[And don’t worry about this “identity theft� issue. Jews complain that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) plagiarized their scriptures and stole their prophets. Christians are unhappy since Quran stole their Son of God and declared him human. This has been going on for ages … and only now you are realizing it?]

Well you cannot tell me what to worry and what not to worry as it does not concern you, and the simple reason is that WE MUSLIMS DO NOT CONSIDER YOU AS PART OF US. Why we do not consider you part of us is the distinctness of ahmadiah comunity as proclaimed by Ahmadiah founders themselves. We don't even have to go into proving it ourselves as ahmadiah founders themselves has given the answer very early in ahmadiah community's career.

As far as Jews and christians are concerned, we have a claim that our is final form of religion, but we never at any time interfered in their religious space by claiming that jews and christians cease to be jews and christians if they do not beleive in Muhammad's (PBUH) message. As far as plagiarism of their scriptures is concerned, well it is because for us source is the same hence this stunning similarity.

As far as Jesus's status is concerned, we muslims have our own beleif regardinng him but in no case we go into their church and claim it as our own nor we name our temples as church.

As far as those quotes are concerned, if you read clearly, I have given the sources. I just translated them in english but you are free to go and find out relevant material yourselves. I am sure ahmadiah community does have a collection of all those publications........


In the end would you please explain why identity theft is a minor problem.

Further, when ahmadis were declared non muslims, they were given chance to present themselves. Why not ahmadiah community disclose all the discussions they had during these deliberations.

Bhatti Sahib (#268),

Once you mention inter-sectarian violence, shia-sunni issue becomes relevant.

Try to estimate how many shias have been killed by sunnis … an vice versa. To keep things simple, stick to Pakistan only and review only the past half-century. Now tell me how many people have Ahmadis killed.

And don’t worry about this “identity theft� issue. Jews complain that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) plagiarized their scriptures and stole their prophets. Christians are unhappy since Quran stole their Son of God and declared him human. This has been going on for ages … and only now you are realizing it?

And finally, if you did not get the quotes from a web-site, I stand corrected. So tell me … from where did you get them?

The "Super-natural" in Islam

So, Islam is all scientific and "rational"? What a BS claim. Islam is all mumbo jumbo about a "formless God" who conjures the world out of nothing.
It is a host of mumbo-jumbo about how one hen pecked husband got hallucinations in a cave and called it as extra-material, telepathic, intuitive signal from that formless god.
Islam is full of mumbo jumbo about heavens that are product of a bedoiun male fantasy of free sex and drinks for ever!!!

Can there be a more mythical and 'superstitious' than this Bedouin fantasy of a sex starved 40 year old maniac who cannot have a normal sexual relations with a dying 65 year old wife!!

So, from a non-believer's point of view, a key issue in any conversation is how far and how deeply a believer has thought about both the bases and the implications of his/her faith before stopping his/her quest for answers. And you will find dramatic, dramatic differences among people...

cheema ji, just a minor point.

You are not dealing here with "belief... without question" but "belief AFTER question(s) stop."

A faithful is encouraged to and does continually question, but then creates a PERSONAL(IZED) understanding that subsumes or transcends those questions.

So some of the faithful may choose to believe in flying billy goats quite literally, others may consider that a figurative message, while yet others may simply choose to 'ignore' that as too minor a point to worry about, and focus on major principles (which naturally will be all very different for different people).

Faith is exclusively 'intra-subjective' understanding, while humanistic doctrines all tend to aim for inter-subjective understanding.

DM # 294

Thanks. I understood fully what I wrote. I do acknowledge the distinction in so much that it exists; but based on whose claim?

One has to ask oneself this perfectly simple question; if someone comes up to me today and claims to have some message from a god based on private revelation, how does one verify that claim? Of course that verification is no longer required if one believes in it without question (Eklavya school of thought); the concept of "flying billy-goats" changes from one of sheer entertainment to that of some spiritual significance that doesn't need rational justification. Besides, my questions were exactly what you pointed out, if a message was good, why not send that same message ALL the time with the same safeguards to keep it un-corrupted?

Why don't you share your take on it?

AlephNull #287:

I didn't mean to upset your senstivities; however, I will not use kid gloves to handle religion. We have had debates about the political parties, personalities etc where people share their views about how they wish to be governed; why should I not ask tough questions about some doctrine that wants to run every aspect of our lives?

To me, all religions are equally open to critique; the reason I talk about Islam is because that is my heritage. I don't feel qualified to take the p... out of someone else's faith. And by the way, no one is "najis" in my eyes be it hindu, muslim, christian, jew or something else; they are all human beings and I resent a fellow human being described as "najis".

Re: # 294

"Any new challenges could be met through the approved process of Ijtihad, of course within the framework of the quran."

What is the "framework of Quran" you talk about?

the first principle is that you cannot question that paedophile.
the second priciple is that you cannot question his words.
the third principle is that no other person can claim his words to be correct over his ( the notion of last prophet).

that is the crux of "Frame work of Quran" - if you think you know more about it then let us know!!

akcheema#186:

I am surprised that, as an informed muslim, you do not understand the distinction between Prophet Mohammad and earlier prophets. He is the Last Prophet because Allah took upon Himself the responsibility of keeping the message uncorrupted. The quranic message will forever remain unadulterated and there would never be a need for another prophet. Any new challenges could be met through the approved process of Ijtihad, of course within the framework of the quran.

Re: # 282

Motiyaan wali sarkar,

Jis din meray andar da rajput 'pootar gaya', I may start to sort out that also.............

#264 Posted by Eklavya

For the faithful, 'flying prophets' is a minor detail. Anything is possible in God's domain ... Believers, of course, may correct me if I misunderstand.

You're right on the dot. The supernatural phenomena are all minor details which no Muslim dwells upon, and few even know of.

For instance, you will rarely hear people adulating Muhammad's splitting of the moon etc, while you see Headees' relating to worldly qualities like his perseverance or bravery or compassion all the time.

In short, it is not a debate BY FAR in Islam. Wonder why Mirzais want to make it a debate!

Re: # 290


I do not think whether Mohammad can become "Angelic" from any Vantage point?? It is only that momeens are taught NOT to question him. If momeens start questioning him, then from ANY vantage point he remains a person not worth emulating.

laddu, we just missed you on this board!

laddu, an argument can be made that God and Satan are not always 'different entities.' And your idolatrous Hinduism and Islam can certainly appear as satanic cults from each other's vantage points.

So be careful before you accuse others :)

Re: # 287

Mullad Gardi. The Gundas of blood thirsty Allah can only try to terrorize by threatening imprisonment in their imaginary Islamic torture cells.

Re: # 286
"As for the "god's message getting perverted", where was he when it was happening? Surely an omniscient god would have known exactly what was to become of his "previous" messages; why send those messages at all! "

An excellent question - I would even go on to say why the blood thirsty God would try all his perversions to test poor human beings. Why doesn't he implant his instructions of hadiths and sunnat in the brains of humans so that they act like perfect clones of Mohammad.?
Since, God was not able to do this therefore he has created an imperfect creation. If God did that on purpose then all this violence and suffering and behaeadings of my idolator fore fathers who could not be persuaded by him , despite omnipotence, shows that he is only a satanic and perverted demi-god.
Infact , Mohammad's Allah is Satan in the guise of benevolent God.

akcheema #286

{{Sometime I wonder.........................Do you guys ever think OR are you just robots conditioned by your parents/teachers/society etc............}}

Cheema sahib, I am truly distressed by your unrepentant ladiniat. Forget about Ananth07 – he is a najis Hindu idolator and cannot be expected to know better. You however have had the inestimable advantage of a Muslim upbringing. Despite this you have allowed yourself to be hoodwinked by Western science and your own arrogant confidence in the powers of the unaided human intellect.

Ab bhi vakth hai – you can still repent of your repellent apostasy and revert to the Straight Path which was revealed for all times to come in the Quran-ul-Furqan Tariq-ul-Majid! If you require advice or assistance there are many erudite alims available on Chowk itself. Revert, revert, revert – or go to hell!

Re: # 284

I have written quite a bit about this "religion of nature" concept before; nature doesn't follow religious doctrine. If it was such a "natural" thing to be muslim, people wouldn't be dissecting it out as we are.

As for the "god's message getting perverted", where was he when it was happening? Surely an omniscient god would have known exactly what was to become of his "previous" messages; why send those messages at all!

However, if we DO accept your argument for a minute, Mohammed was born about 600 years after Jesus; god saw it fit to "revise" his message because it had been perverted; its 1400+ years since Mohammed now, by the same analogy, shouldn't we have had some further "revised/updated" editions of the messages as well?! You mean Jesus went through the trouble for NOTHING! Only to be corrected later because the "original" was so quickly perverted!! Maaan!...

Sometime I wonder.........................Do you guys ever think OR are you just robots conditioned by your parents/teachers/society etc............

#284

“Islam is the Straight Path – the original and pristine religion – the Religion of Nature, in perfect accord with reason and rationality itself.�


abrahamic religions are dogmatic and are bound to their respective books, which in turn makes them “relevant� only to that particular time and region when they came in to being. Science and free flow of information can only weaken these religions.

Ananth07 #283

{{The fact is Islam is a derived object of parent judeo christain object…. With a few new properties.}}

Incorrect. Totally false and baseless. Islam is the base class, if you will.

Islam is the Straight Path – the original and pristine religion – the Religion of Nature, in perfect accord with reason and rationality itself.

Unfortunately humankind being perverse strayed from the path and fell into error. That is why Allah SWT sent prophets like Moses and Jesus to bring humans back to the original faith. Despite these many mercies mankind still went astray. Judaism and Christianity in their present or even historic forms are not progenitors of Islam – they are corruptions of the original and perfect message which is Islam.

Finally Allah SWT sent Prophet Muhammad as the Final Prophet to convey the true message in its pristine original form so that mankind might revert to the Straight Path once and for all. This is a great gift which Allah SWT has given to you, a mercy for all mankind. No further law-bearing prophets are required or expected; those who claim to be such are nothing but monsters of heretical depravity.

The fact is Islam is a derived object of parent judeo christain object…. With a few new properties.

Why cant muslims accept Ahmadi as a derived object of parent object Islam…. Ahmadi also have a few new properties….

Re: # 281

Paaji, I am only asking you to sort it all out! Don't make any exceptions though, like the Shias, Brelvis etc...... I reckon someone who believes in the intercessary powers of, say Data Ganj Bakhsh Ali Hajveri, is committing the same crime.........you are intelligent enough....

Re: # 276

Yaar cheema saab, Motiyaan waali sarkaar,

There is no doubt that there is a very significant element in Islam that is also there in Judo-christian traditions. For faithfuls it means the continuity of same faith across the times while for non beleivers it means what you want to pin point. Depends your angle of looking. But What I am saying that this similarity of Islam with Judo/christian traditions has nothing to do whatsoever with ahmadi/non ahmadi question.

Cow produces more reniewable resource (milk, dung-solid fuel, dung-fertiliser) than its meat. So, it was prudent to keep it alive than kill and eat.

Re: # 245
Certain vitamins and most of carb,fat and proteine is basically synthesized in animal/plant body as result of reaction. Tough, the primary chain starts with plant, but even aniamls produce some chemicals, which it does not consume as food. In fact, couple of amino-acids are avaialble only in meat & egg and can not be supplimented. But that, do you need all types of amino acids for survival. Most of the yoga books prescribes vegetarian food. So, I believe that vegetarian food is healthier than non-veg stuff.

Re: # 277

even a Muslim Urdu poet (I think it was Ismail Meerthi but I am happy to stand corrected) wrote a poem we read as kids:

"Rabb ka shuker adaa ker bhai;
Jis ne hamaari gaye banaai".

Re: # 275

Welcome back Laddu!

Man this cow business! A cow is a cow is a cow.....
Perhaps we can accept the concept of "an all giving cow, its nourishing milk, oxen for agriculture etc and meat(?), hide and all the rest" is an allegory(?). The ancients might have thought it was the be-all and end-all of existence.

Let's move on to something more 21st century perhaps...

Re: # 268
Bhatti sahib; O paaji, jaan deyo baadshaho; tuhanu eh chhoti jayi gal samajh naeen aa rahi!
Here is the deal; Monotheism was monopolised by the Judeo-christians in the 7th century arabia. This concept was hijacked and recycled, with additions of existing arabic customs to make it acceptable to the pagan arabs. It was a strong political ideology that united the warring tribes and made a nation out of them.
There was absolutely nothing new in Mohammed’s message; nothing that either didn’t exist in some shape or form in judeo-christian mythology, or not known via transmitted knowledge across from other trading partners of the arabic peninsula; in fact this is where Mohammed got to hear about the tales of the “biblical prophets� first, on his travels.
A few examples: Paradise with its “doodh aur shehed ki nehrain� (God’s promise to Abraham to give him and his descendents the “promised land of milk and honey�.
Dietary laws (see my previous interacts on the subject).
He did introduce a very clear picture of “heaven and hell�; one with carnal pleasures alongside the doodh and shehed!, the other with clear warnings about the forthcoming fire/punishments for sins against god; this helped consolidate the faith (iman pakka karne ke liye) so there would be no dissent. To this day, it happens to be the hardest faith system to leave or even criticise from within.
Now, the Shias, with their non-acceptance of virtuall the whole of Islamic history after Mohammed’s death, what is your take on their “Imams – Haazir or Ghaib�, their strange redeeming and intercessary powers to change the course of this world and the next; even Mohammed didn’t make such claims. I think there are far more similarities between mainstream Sunnis and, at least, the Lahori-Ahmaddiyas (who only regard Mirza a “mujaddid� – reformer rather than prophet).
Are you happy to leave the shias to “sipaah-e-sahaaba� or are you, in the fullness of time, planning to “sort them out� as well?
“Yeh muamlay hein naazuk......�

Re: # 270

Eklavya, Did you forget reciting the reverse-kalima today?

How can you fail to distinguish between Indian Cow ( female bovines), Ox, Bull, Buffalo?

There are atleast 50 types of cattle. I remember that with the advent of American Jersey Cows a lot of Hindus refused to used the Ghee made of that breed for Pujan purposes!

There is a breed of Indian Cow that is indeed sacred. But I doubt if the reference of "gau" is towards the American Jersey Cow or the Bull or the Oxen or other 49 breeds of cattle.

Regarding, vegetarianism, except for Brahmins, Kshatriyas and others are not prohibited from hunting, killing animals or eating the meat.

In the past hindu kings' darbars had excellent recipies for different types of meats. Lord Rama was a king and he followed his dharma and was not a vegetarian.

Yes, but when every person has to embrace Sanyasa (renunciate) in the last quarter of his life and he has to give up tamasika food including meat. So vegetarianism is dependent upon your stage of life as well and is mandatory for Hindus in later stages of life (Sanyaas Ashrama).

Islam has no conception of the spiritual stages (Ashrama) of a human life , because it is based upon cloning Mohammad who lived the first 42 years of life under a powerful woman and the rest 20 years of the life he lived as a murderer, rapist and bandit.

Furthermore, like many have said...if an angel can speak to a pervert in a cave and give him the word of god...what is so illogical about a guy receiving divine dictacts from gods ala mirza? Tell me why this is implausible. Wasn't god finished wth jesus' message in the abrahamic tradition before mohammeds wet dreams? Same logic applies.

Eklavya yaar, once again you fall off your own logic train. "Faithful need no explanation but faithless do"???? What kind of idiotic thinking is that. You cannot be serious here. You are smarter than this. Faithlessness is as valid as faithfulness....where did you get thos notion that they are and can be distictly vetted? There is one god and his name is allah is as valid a statement as there is a chutiya concept of god and allah is the most chutiyest of those concepts. Both statements are valid and true equally. Your logic of dismissing the latter while admitting validity of the former is asinine. No offense kaal....but I thought you were atleast psuedointellectual. Sab Theek hai ooper?

LOL, sattar bhai, zee has abandoned NOTHING, nor has any other Muslim.

As a good Hindu, you reject. I have no problem with that, but Muslims will.

And, if you are going to 'restore' Islam by turning it into Hinduism, I again would have no problem with it.

I just wish you were upfront about it, so if some Muslims advocated restrictions upon you, your protests would have credibility.

-------------------

Have to say, this Hindu/Ahmedi notion that Islam is some retarded form of Hinduism, and will one day grow up to become Hinduism-lite, all stretched and loose, is a bit strange...If that is indeed Islamic goal, I would say you are a couple of thousand years behind :)

Kaal … in addition to #269 …

I hate to break this to you yet again (lordi, lordi … have mercy on me) but even zee has abandoned you and rejected flying prophets. Read this again, you fool! May be you were too busy kissing his rear to notice what he wrote. Start with #220 and follow through …

So your main issue remains with zeemax. You are wasting your time getting sidetracked with other issues ...

+++

Re #270: If it took 1400 years to get to flying prophets, cow worship is right around the corner (grin).

And it would be a stretch to say that Islam is getting destroyed; it is merely getting stretched … like Hinduism did, long ago. No difference … same, same. But don't worry, we Ahamdi-Muslims will bring it back to its proper form. Heck, we can even sell it to our Hindu brethern ...once again (wink).

sattar boss, ALL of that is possible.

May be Hindus are right, and Muslims are wrong. May be god does indeed do the things you say he might do, and has secretaries like you and me.

I just wouldn't believe all that, and call that Islam, or tell all that stuff to Muslims, and still expect to be counted among Muslims.

What's next for Islam? Cow worship?

A good way to destroy Islam, and quite innocent too! :)

Kaal (#267),

You are getting bent out of shape over nothing …

As you criticize Ahamdis of limiting and reducing the divine, you are overlooking the possibility that perhaps god Himself told Mirza how to interpret flying prophets. Maybe god talks to each Ahamdi every day. Perhaps I am having coffee with god today, after work. Got it? Good!

You cannot rule out these possibilities UNLESS you yourself limit the role of divine and reduce Him down to your own level. And this is your dilemma …

And no one is bringing god down to earth. But are you suggesting He Himself cannot choose to come down to earth?? Unless you are His private secretary, I fail to see your point.

In essence, what you accuse Ahmadis of, you yourself commit … but only to a more extreme degree. If there is ONE thing you should learn here, this is it.

More later …

Re: # 265

Sattar Saab,

Don't mix the issue of shias and sunnis in defence of ahmadism. These two are seperate issues. Shias never came up with an imposter.

And finally, please mention the name of web site from which I have sourced my info. It would be a news for me.......


Re: # 265

Cheema saab,

Muhammad never said any where that christians or jews will cease to be christians or jews if they do not beleive in him, contrary to Mirza Sahib's claim that unless one does not beleive in him he is not muslim.

Muhammad did not encroach upon the religious space of anyone, and presented Islam to people to accept or reject it. In case of Mirza, he is preseting not any new religion but only his status as prophet, and stealing the identity of muslims if they reject him.

vengatramanan, Hindus/Indians can question everything and believe anything that does not itself remove this freedom without imposing unacceptable costs. All Hindu/Indian belief is human stuff anyway.

Even among those Hindus who have a god (or gods) most make very sure that their god never gets to have a final word, is brought down to earth to say new things and do his/her duty everytime things begin to go terribly wrong for a terribly long time. Our mirzai friends might have a resonance to that idea.

Vengat, in India, a whole range of diverse ideas combined in various ways to ultimately lead to the mighty tradition of the Buddha. Just as at a later time, many great ideas combined to make Sikhism.

Eklavya,

Amartya Sen speaks about disparate schools of thought in Hinduism. Didn't Lokayata and Carvaka schools question all of the postulates on God and the Hindu beliefs?

Cheema Shaib (#262),

Your observation is on the mark … and highlights ummah’s double-standards.

History of Islam is replete with fatwas of kuffr and inter-sectarian violence; shias and sunnis have been killing each other as far as I can remember … and more. Bhatti Sahib remains oblivious to all this and takes issue with Ahamdi-Muslims - all on basis of quotes from an obscure website. Go figure ...

CA, the faithful need no explanation, faithless ones do.

For the faithful, 'flying prophets' is a minor detail. Anything is possible in God's domain.

For you, Mirzais, and me, that becomes a barrier impossible to cross.

Not that you (Hindus and Mirzais) would agree, but that is how it is.

Believers, of course, may correct me if I misunderstand.

yaar kaal, eik baat bataa, how come you always go back to the refrain of faith needs no explanation yet start out with explaining what faith is? On one hand you ask folks not to question zee or bhatti or urstruly's faith...(as you think it is the right one) on the other hand, you question those who are ahmedis' faith..(as you think it is the wrong one). I think you should take a break from chowk for a few weeks and clear up your logic. perhaps a visit to an ashram or some sufi shrine for meditation or something. you are more confused now than ever before.

Feel free to come back with a lot of words without actually saying much...we all expect it.

Re: # 246
"Actually ahmadism is nothing but a sect or cult based on identity theft. If you take out the name of islam out of it, the whole building of mirzaism will come down, which is kind of a funny thing. Just imagine a cult or sect having nothing new in it except introduction of a new prophet for the sake of nothing and want the name of a already existing religion appropriated to itself and the current followers ex-communicated".


Isn't Islam a similar cult build around Mohammed?

Re: #252
Arrey Bhatti sahib. Don't get too worked up about missionary tactics. If there is any misrepresentation going on it will eventually backfire. Truth will eventually prevail. There is no need for coercive methods. That will only undermine your own case.

sattar bhai, aisa nahi hai.

Believers like zee, urstruly, or even bhatti ji, fully understand that their faith NEEDS no explanation. Explanation is the extra gravy, only for those who need it. At the most, one needs to satisfy oneself. (if there is ONE message you should have gotten by now from your many interactions with tahmedji, that must be it.)

Anyways, we should leave Islam to Muslims. It is not for me or for you - people who make their 'faith' contingent upon dozens of preconditions, preconceptions, prejudices.

Chalo, some day we will discuss our own silly human religion - Hinduism. Then you can make whatever god you want, subject it to whatever conditions catch your fancy, and worship that god in whatever fashion you care. Or not worship it at all.

As our co-religionist anil ji likes to say: then your god will become your best imagination.

Until then, let Muslims in peace, please; and live in peace yourself.

I think we are probably done, but if not, please, the last word is yours. :)

Best regards, and goodnite for now.

Kaal bhai (re #180), … to wrap things up …

You started with a bang and a thunder, but did not say much worthwhile. One may be tempted to conclude you are full of it …

Perhaps you felt betrayed when zee finally turned his back on Islam (#220). Urstruly made matters worse by trying to explain flying prophets (#200); it was painful for me even. I understand you are merely trying to make the best of a hopeless situation … even as these miserable foot-soldiers continue to shoot at their own.

So it all turned out to be much ado about nothing. I hope Bhatti bhai is not holding his breath waiting for some earth-shattering analysis from you. There is none; it’s all fluff with neither meaning nor relevance.

But you’re not alone in your petty obsessions. The world is full of fools; each looking for a cause, trying to be a martyr. But it can get somewhat annoying after a while, you know :-)

Bhatti (#228),

You may claim that your Islam supports imprisoning others over religious differences … and it would be a valid answer.

And that would be a good time for you to retract support for the Golden Principle. I am sure you did not mean it when you quoted it; it was all a misunderstanding.

#229: And unless you have copyrighted “Quran�, I fail to see your point.

Urstruly (#244);

Why bother with discussion when your Islam should simply be accepted? I mean, why? … why now??

Try to sort out the meaning of “last� (refer to #195). Unless you do that, it would be futile to burden you with more stuff you are in denial of.

In the mean time, please come up with more theories about flying rocks and fire-breathing donkeys - it is all very impressive. No, seriously …

"predominantly Christian south africa, an Act of Parliament has declared them non-Muslims...."

Urstruly, non-Muslims generally don't get Islam's internal issues, so that would be hard to believe!!

But if true, that would constitute a GREAT victory for Muslims.

Re: # 254

i give you reference from a Quadini website, read all parts:

http://www.muslim.org/sa-case2/part2.htm

Re: # 253

Now thats a news for me. Can you give me some reference like some news item or law site for south african act......

Re: # 252
I don't think that we should be complaining for their efforts elsewhere. The non-Muslim world is God's open territory inviting us to take the message of Monotheism there. But in Africa the situation is not all that hopeless. There are Muslim missionaries active too who have effectively countered the Quadiani prolesytization efforst there. In this regard, Moulana Shah Ahmad Noorani Sahib and his father has an enormous role. becuase of their efforts in almost all African Muslim countries Quadianis are regarded as non-Muslims, at some places by law. In a predominantly Christian south africa, an Act of Parliament has declared them non-Muslims. May Allah bless the souls of Noorani elders who made enormous efforts to make it a reality.

Re: # 250

Yaar Khurran mian. Hold your horses. I am not judgig them. It all started when they start to judge me and my comunity. I don't have even problem with that.

My problem starts when they go to central aisa or africa and start preaching ahmadism in the garb of islam, and the person on the receiving end does not have any clue as to ahmadism's status in Islamic world. Don't you think they should be more forthcoming by telling whom they preach what they are preaching and where they stand in the eyes of other muslims.....

Isn't it below the level of integrity and fairplay......

Re: # 250

I think we should rather be making their lives comfortable and safe as a minority. They are protected people by Islamic law and by constitution (or whatever is left of it), and thus their lives have more value than Muslim subalterns.

Re; #249,
I am glad that you realize that if you were placed under similar restrictions you would consider them illegitimate and fight against them.

Don't judge your Ahmadi friends too harshly. It is easy to make brave declarations from the comfort of a majority position. Living under overwhelming domination is another matter.

Re: # 247

I am sure Urstruly has answered. But as to your question regarding my status with my current beleifs in ahmadi majority; well dear, I would have fought for my right because I beleive that I am right and would have gladly done so despite any harm that may come due to it. This is another dimension where I find my ahmadi friends lacking. They just don't stand up, and I think the reason is that there is some injuction against jihad in there system. When I pressed an ahmadi friend on this, he came up with reply, "Haan kharray ho jain aur muft main maray jain."

They just don't stand up for their beleifs............

Re: # 247
Quadianism in its essence is a unique animal. Islamic fiqah does not allow prolysetization of another religion to the Muslim population (since the punishment for apostasy is death so it is counter-intuitive). But it does allow prolysetization of christianity and judaism to the non-Muslim population of the polity. Keeping this in mind, if a restriction is not placed on a Quadiani for identifying himself as such, he can proselytize his religion to Muslim population pretending to be a Muslim and yet he won't be in violation of any law. Therefore section 295A, B, and C of Pakistan Penal code require them to identify themselves as Quadianis, and they cannot name their temples as masjid, etc.

Re: #246,
Bhatti Sahib,

I do not dispute your points #1 to #5.
However, I fail to see how that leads to the extra step infringing on religious practice. You are free to regard Ahmedis as non-muslims. The State can treat them as non-muslims for its purpose. But why prevent them from calling themselves muslims? Why place restrictions on their religious practice?
Would you accept these restrictions in an Ahmedi majority country?

Re: # 241

Khurram saab,

Keep following in mind:

1)Pakistan declares itself to be an islamic country.

2)In islamic country which says that its religion is islam, a question is bound to arise if there exists a community that modifies the long held beleif maintained by non ahmadi muslims for fourteen centuries.

3) In islam state and religion are not seperate. I am sure ahmadis also beleive that.

4) Keeping in mind 1 - 3 above in mind the state will logically try to define who is or who is not muslim.

5) Both ahmadis and muslim agree on declaring each other out of islam i.e. both claim exlusive right to muslim identity.

Now only question left is that if a community is declared as muslim and other not as a muslim then one community will have to leave its claim over muslim identity. Now the question out of it is that who is muslim. Community that called itself muslim for 14 centuries or the one which is new and also small.

As far suppressing of religious practices of ahmadis is concerned, they will logically be suppressed if they claim them to islamic. However, if they start calling themselves by any other name say "mirza parast", then no one will have any problem. I will be the first one to defend their religion on the pain of death.

Actually ahmadism is nothing but a sect or cult based on identity theft. If you take out the name of islam out of it, the whole building of mirzaism will come down, which is kind of a funny thing. Just imagine a cult or sect having nothing new in it except introduction of a new prophet for the sake of nothing and want the name of a already existing religion appropriated to itself and the current followers ex-communicated.

Well, I read somewhere here that vegetarian food is unviable. The reason was, vegetarian food does not contain Vitamin B12 and a prolonged vegetarianism would cause dementia.

Spirulina is rich in vitamin B12, but that is not my contention.
If animal meat is the only source of vitamin B12, the animals themselves being herbivores, what would be their source of vitamin B12 ? Assuming that you would have to consume appropriate supplements for the various bodily functions does not make sense. We just forget that our body is itself a chemical apparatus.

It is like, if the hen is not provided calcium supplements, it would not....;)

Guys, if you plan to become veggies, you can do without the fear becoming demented.

Sattar:

Could you please list top 10 areas or aspects in Muslim faith, at the time of Mirza Sahib, that in your or Quadiani opinion, required the intervention of a prophet to reform or revive. And please explain what measures Mirza Sahib took to implement those reforms or how he executed that revival.

Thanks.

khurram sahib,

Bhatti ji may confirm this, but he and other Muslims do not advocate massacring all mirzais.

"talks about declaring others non-muslims. Not about restricting their religious practice."

We would agree if your basic argument is: In managing their religious/political conflict with Mirzais, Muslims must not use the political means/source of power currently at their disposal (the state structure) that are currently not available to Mirzais.

yar isnt there always some stuff about taking quoran "out of context" in its suras about its advice on treating the kaffirs and sundry? is there some such shyte in ahmedi senior vichar at play? furthermore, is there history which exemplified the vichar?

Re; #240,
Bhatti sahib, 2 questions.

1. #230 talks about declaring others non-muslims. Not about restricting their religious practice.

2. how would you *like* to be treated?

Re: # 239

Khurram,

How ahmadis will treat non ahmadis? Please read interact #230 to know the vichars of their founders....

Eklavya,
According to Bhatti sahib's own explanation, it has to be LIKE not EXPECT.

If I expect to be massacred to by KKK, doesn't mean I should massacre them.

khurram ji, that is not the right way to think about the ethics of reciprocity, because you have completely changed the frames of reference of both morality and politics.

Consider the following (far fetched) example:

Should liberals/or blacks treat the KKK (precisely) the same way as they would *LIKE* to be treated in a KKK majority country?

OR

Should liberals/or blacks treat the KKK (precisely) the same way as they would *EXPECT* to be treated in a KKK majority country?

Re: krbhatti,
Bhatti Sahib, please invoke the Ethics of Reciprocity and think of how you would like to be treated if you lived in an Ahmadi majority country.

nkg#227:

I haven't read archaelogical reports and do not know what other hypotheses explain the geological formations of Ram Setu. I think that it is best for these things to remain in the domain of faith; and I am not saying that the govt. should ignore people's faith in taking any decision on deepening the channel.

Dear majumdar bhai,

In case of dubya it was assumption based on WMD that did not existed. In case of ahmadis, this is a concrete fact. please read #230 to get an idea...

Bhatti sahib,

(I am sure that if ahmadis had power they will do the same...)

That wud be like George Bush justifying the destruction of Iraq saying that if Iraq had WMDs they wud have destroyed USA.

Regards

Re: # 232

Ji mojumdar saab, its okay, because it will save many lives....

Secondly, I am sure that if ahmadis had power they will do the same...

Please read interact #230.

Regards,

Bhatti sahib,

(Its OK TO LOCK UP AHMADIS because they claim to be part of a group that does not accept them. )

???

Regards

Urstruly,

Here are my 2 penny's on taking science along with religion. In this regard I agree with Kal. Why:

Because science is all based on sense perception agrregated into plausible scientific theories. every scientific theory ows its validity to the fact that it can be tested against observational data again and again. Contrary to this beleif requires no observable data. so the domain of both are totally different. Had beleif could have been verifiable scientifically, it will automatically become part of science. So as Kal said, it is fun to toy with beleifs on scientific basis, but they are both totally diefferent....

Sattar saab,

You said that ahmadis consider non ahmadis as muslims. I don't agree with it. Follwing are some of the quotes from ahmadi elders:


Sahibzada Bashir Ahmad says while addressing to ahmadis,

"now that the issue is clear that without believing in promised masiah, there is no salvation, so why efforts are being made to prove non ahmadis as muslims." [Ref: Kalmatul Fazl reported in Review of Religions. No.3, Vol. 14, page 148]

In the same way, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib tell his jama'at,

"practice patience, and do not pray behind anyone who is outside the jama'at. [Ref: Saying of Mirza sahib reported in akhbar al hukm qadian dated 01 August, 1901]

In the same way marriage is not allowed with non Ahmadis,
and in this regard non ahmadi Muslims are given the same status as mainstream Muslims give to other people of book.

At another place Sahibzada Bashir Ahmed Sahib sums up by saying that,

"our prayers are different from non ahmadis, we are not allowed to marry our girls to them, we are forbidden to participate in the funerals of non ahmadis; so what is there that we can do together? There are only two types of relations: one religious and other worldly; religious relations govern the prayers, while worldly relations are heavily dependent on matrimony; so both of them are forbidden with non ahmadis……… now if one says why we say salam to non ahmadis, then I will say that it is proven from Ahadiths that Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H) used to return salutations of Jews. But promised masiah never said salam to bitter rivals nor saying of salam to them is allowed. So, we can see that promised masiah has made us separate from others and there is not a single relation which is specific with Muslims and then is not forbidden to us. [Ref: Kalmatul Fazl reported in Review of Religions. No.3, Vol. 14, page 169].

Re: # 225

KFC analogy which I did not come up with on UP but someone else. It goes like:

KFC established its brand and then comes a corner shop calling itself KFC and having same logo and so on. Further, it also insists that instead of chicken it will sell pork and still call it as KFC.......

Re: # 210

No dear. You got it wrong. Its okay to lock up ahmadis because they claim to be part of a group that does not accept them. Conversely ahmadis also do not accept non ahmadis muslims as muslims...

Re: # 190
You don't need to believe everything based on story. In fact, much of Ramayana is proved to be true. Same can not be told about Mahabharata. Now the interpretation of the word Vanar may be different from time to time and place to place, but the bridge was built. There is a structure available, where the literature specifies. Mind that, if Ramsetu is a natural formation, it should grow with time, and if in the present form it looks like submerged, then what would have been the status 3000 years back? How come a sage in north India (Valmiki) will predict the natural formation more than 1500 KM down south? He was adi-Kavi, thats all... Most of the Puranas are fabrication (like Quoran).

Re: # 224

By the increasing divide I meant the divide between two faiths, e.g., Islam vs Christianity or Hinduism or Ahmedis etc...

I have to work now

VRV (#218), the KFC analogy is a good one, with the following addendum:

KFC wants to shutdown the corner-shop … claiming only KFC has the right to sell chicken. Then it sends galli ka ghunda to beat up the corner-shop folks … and calls it free market competition …

kaal Sahib, I don’t think zeemax can be trusted anymore (re #213). He is exercising his own intelligence to judge what god would/should do. This is all very un-Islamic, you know. I am starting to get worried about his faith …

+++

I’ll be away for a day or so folks … may check back later ... it's been fun ...

Re: # 222

If you read my interacts collectively, you'd realise that is exactly what I proposed, time and again. Someone finds solace in the lap of a sky fairy, good luck to him/her. All I am saying is the current "debates" are, sub-consciously, increasing that divide between the two.

However, if we are just here because we like to debate for the sake of debating, and perhaps there is not much else happening in our lives, be my guest.

However, that doesn't change the fact that HE still ain't here!

Believers dont extend their love (as Muslims/Christians/Hindus call fellow Muslims/C/H as their brothers; they dont call non-Muslims/C/H as their brothers) to the ppl of other faiths.

#219 Posted by akcheema on March 4, 2008 4:18:01 pm

I worry abt ur quick burn-out. Pl dont play ALL ur cards at once.

I too am in ur league of non-believers but I always let the believers to have their beliefs.

Believers dont extend their love (as Muslims/Christians/Hindus call fellow Muslims/C/H as their brothers; they dont call a non-Muslim/C/H as his brother) to the ppl of other faiths.

God himself is a crooked fellow. He loves the ppl He loves Him. He screws the ppl who don't love Him. He promotes the ppl who faltter Him.

For me this is the most common human weakness. God is like a humanbeing. God is a ch**ya.

Re: # 219

I think I have given HIM enough time to make HIS views known; like I said, HE ain't here folks, and HE ain't there either! I know exactly where HE is, HE is in a place called NOWHERE!

I was looking around on this site and realised there are sections on cricket here too; hardly any "interaction" there. I take it most of us are still young (physically or at heart!). Why this morbid obsession with Religion and Politics?

We are one sad bunch!

zeemax mian (#213),

God can make horses fly … and he can also make prophets fly. If you don’t see the need of either, it is your problem and not god’s, according to kaal.

So stop trying to get god to pass the test of your intelligence ... and start accepting flying-whatever since Islam says so. This is what kaal is saying.

You should level with kaal and not mislead him anymore; you are the reason why he is so screwed up (or is the other way around? I am not sure …)

Re: # 218

well said; if Eklavya theory about Islam beginning with Allah is true, then what does it matter if the subsequent propagation is via Jesus, Mohammed, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani.......

I really think we should extend an invitation to the "man" of the moment himself; let's invite Allah to share his views shall we? If he hasn't spoken by the next time I get to interact here, we can assume this matter closed. Fair enough?!

Sattar,

That clarification is enuff 4 me.

++

I had a run in with Mr. Bhatti on Unplugged abt this issue (Ahmadis). I always maintain that whoever believes in al-Lah is a Muslim.

Bhatti equates Mohammedans to KFC and Ahmdis to street corner chicken shop, little realising that both serve chicken (al-Lah). The only diff is that KFC has name recognition & street corner chicken shop dont have one.

To be fair to Bhatti, he's a bit refined than other Mohammedans on Chowk.

Ironically, it is also like reading Quran, given through a human being, in order to understand atributes of Allah.


Hey, Ahmadi-Muslims are merely doing what early Muslims did 1400 years ago. So what's the issue ...??

#214 Posted by Eklavya

They begin with the human being, and construct up a God that best passes the test of their intelligence at any time.

Very well put. It's like a piece of the Rubik's cube determining what Mr. Rubik should look like.

VRV (re #211),

�How and why u equate Palestine and Kashmir?

I don’t … mainly because I don’t know enough about the issue. But ummah equates one with the other and laments loss of Muslim lives in both. And that’s the point ...

If it is ok for a Muslim to kill others over religious differences, then he should also accept having Muslims killed over religious differences. I hope Bhatti Sahib sees where his reasoning leads him. He should either change his views or accept the status quo and move on.

+++

Cheema Sahib (#212),

Kaal is alright … although at times, a little too obsessed with Ahamdis. Not that there’s anything wrong with such an obsession. Look how well it has served Urstruly … who is now pondering over time dilation, floating rocks, and flying prophets. Who knows, Urstruly may yet win the Nobel-equivalent from the Islamia Darul-Uloom of Kabul …

Urstruly, you are going way too much out of your way to take the "science types" along.

Were I a man of faith, I would tell hyper smart 'science types' to go take a very long hike.

Understanding God's work 'scientifically' can be/is fun. It may even be a human duty. But God's work can never be held hostage to human understanding now, or at any other point in time in future.

FAITH, for it to not be just superstition, MUST COME FIRST AND FOREMOST. It must be the font from which all else flows. Then, it may be (for many, must be) strengthended with thinking, understanding, analysis, and all other human endeavors.


--------------

Hindus/ Mirzais turn that upside down. No wonder they flounder faithlessly. Urstruly, you CANNOT convince Hindus/mirzais of anything, since they do not begin with God first. They begin with the human being, and construct up a God that best passes the test of their intelligence at any time.

#209 Posted by sattar2,

There's no contradiction between what Kal says and what I say. If God can make man out of a clot of blood, He can certainly make horses fly. It's just that everyone has seen the former happen but not the latter.

My assumption regarding such things as being imagery was because I don't know why flying horses would be necessary, while making man out of clots of blood is.

Re: # 209

Sattar bhai, this "symbolism vs superstition" reminds me of the following quote I read somewhere:

“The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.� - Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Eklavya has got it right; he is knowledgeable, likes to learn but does it purely to quench his thirst for knowledge; without having to carry any baggage of "belief"; an enviable position for any right-minded person I reckon.

#210 Posted by sattar2 on March 4, 2008 3:04:49 pm

Sattar,

U seem 2 be a know-all guy. How and why u equate Palestine and Kashmir?

Is that Jekyll & Hyde in Ahmadis that shows up now and then?

Bhatti Sahib,

So it is ok to lock up Ahamdis for considering themselves Muslim. What “Principle of Reciprocity� were you alluding to earlier?

If it was ok for Muslim to kill apostates, then it is ok for others to do the same to Muslims. No? So one should simply ignore plight of Muslims in Bosnia, Palestine, Kashmir … and move on.

zeemax (#191),

If I recall correctly, you used the term �superstition� to describe the Muslim beliefs in question. But let’s call it "symbolism", if you so prefer.

While the symbolism label is cute, note that god does what he wills (check with kaal – he knows all about it). So a flying prophet may actually exist … and as a good Muslim, you should not feel awkward believing any of this, esp. now that Urstruly, Bhatti too back this up.

Read the latest gem from Urstruly (#200). Once again he has dazzled us with his brilliance. What you conveniently call symbolism … is part and parcel of Muslim faith today. You are living in denial and misleading kaal … it’s not good, you know!

+++

Kaal Sahib, forget Ahamdis … your own chief zeemax has issues with flying prophets. Sometimes he calls it superstition … and sometimes symbolism. Can you straighten him out first before worrying about me?

#207 Posted by CreateAlpha

OK, OK ... CreateAlpha zindabad!

Sh.t, I am running out of zindabads.

I beg to differ GT. I was saying that way before hamid. from what I recall he was kneeling and bobbing still while i pointed out to the paranoid schizophrenia induced by hallucinagens among prophets in the Mid east. give props where props are due..son!!!

#205 Posted by CreateAlpha,

Big deal. Our resident Nobel laureate, Hamid sahib has been saying this for ages.

what kaal wants to say is that if you are a person of faith you are an idiot. Ain't that right kaal. stop mincing words bhaijaan...say it how it is. Now read below kaal, very carefully...and tell me if you are smoking the same shit mohammed did in the cave

Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher Tue Mar 4, 7:02 AM ET



JERUSALEM (AFP) - High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

"As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.

Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.

"The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a clasic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music."

He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said.

He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible.

gtg catch u guys tomorrow... good night....

Re: # 201

Brother urstruly,

Please follow the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Even then if you want to know something, I'll try my best....

Sattar saab,

if a secular country like india can provide subsidy on hajj and vishnu yatra then why shouldn't a government of islamic country take side in the issue where muslim identity is at stake.

As far as killing of opostates (whatever the spellings) is concerned. Let me explain it how I beleive it. In my opinion every prophet came up with clear and irrefutable evidence. Those who did not converted to faith and moreover tried to oppose by teasing prophet got destroyed. This happened to noah, loot and other prophets audience nation. In case of last prophet those who accepted in his time and then reverted are given death in the same prophetic tradition. But after the time of prophet this is no more valid.

Re: # 199

I would like to be educated and corrected in this regard.

Re: # 197

Eklavya:

I think a part of blame goes to the believers as well who when argue with atheists who masquerade as "science types", have to speak a common language. For example, take the example of the 'floating stones" that Lord Ram used to build a bridge from mainland India to Sri Lanka to rescue Sita. A science guy will reject the notion of a floating stone right away. But we now know that the floating stones do exist in the world even though very rare. It is those meteors that contain high silica content. When these meteors enter Earth's atmosphere they start heat up to several hundred degrees; the silica in the stones turns into liquid glass and traps bubbles of air in them. So as they touch the earth surface they start cooling down with air still trapped in them. This trapped air provides the necessary buoyancy to keep those stones afloat. Here we solve on part of the atheist's problem whose science contention was that "stones do not float". Well they do, if you do not know about them then it does not mean that they do not exist. Now their next question would be about the logistics of carrying those stones to sea and even finding them in a large quantity etc.

A similar argument is made by Muslims who propound Einstein's theory of relativity and the concept of Time Dilation to explain to science types how it was possible for Holy Prophet (pbuh) to travel to Jerusalem, heavens, and back to Medina in a split second in one night. Isn't it interesting that as the human conscience is growing it is finding answers to mind boggling paradoxes by itself.

Re: # 188

brother urstruly,

The way you understood concept of reciprocity is totaly out of the place. You are treating this in the same way as concept of "eye for an eye" was treated by law of hamurabi. e.g. if one kills wife of other, his wife will be killed as a punishment.. needless to say this eye for an eye explanation was wiered and wrong. So is your understanding about reciprocity...

#196 Posted by Layman on March 4, 2008 9:50:39 am


I believe vegetarianism was later incorporated into Hindu life with the following logic: brahmins (teachers, priests) and vaisyas (traders) were forbidden meat since they led a sedantary (saatvik) life.


If you have a sedentry lifestyle, you should probably give up rice before anything else. it's the number one culprit in the high instances of elevated blood sugar among desis who move to the US.

dm sahib

On this monkey business, I agree entirely with urstruly.

All these challenges arise simply because you and sattar bhai lack faith. For those who possess faith, there are no logical problems.

Hindus and Sattar bhai are arguing that there are certain things God can NOT do. If you are a person of faith, then that would be a silly argument for you.

I agree with most of what Shri Murad A Baig says in this article. Hindus (including Brahmins) did eat beef and other forms of meat. In the Mahabharata, there is the story of two rakshasa brothers, Vatapi and Ilvala, who had received a boon that one of them could take the form of an animal and if killed, could then be revived through a mantra chanted by the other brother. Their favourite pastime used to be to invite brahmins to a meal of goat(which was one of the brothers). After a hearty meal, the other brother would chant the mantra and Vatapi would emerge from the poor brahmin's stomach, tearing his entrails and killing him in the process. When they tried the trick on Sage Agastya, it fails, as he had obtained the boon to digest anything.

I believe vegetarianism was later incorporated into Hindu life with the following logic: brahmins (teachers, priests) and vaisyas (traders) were forbidden meat since they led a sedantary (saatvik) life. Kshatriyas (soldiers) and shudras (labourers) were allowed meat as they led a physically vigourous (tamasik) life. The Bhakti movement, Adi Shankara etc who revived Hinduism, when it was in danger of being swamped by Buddhism and Jainism in the early part of the previous millennium must have incorporated many teachings from these two religions, including vegetarianism. Several brahmin communities (e.g., Madhwas) also have dietary restrictions on eating garlic and onions, similar to Jains.

One point that I do not fully agree with Shri Murad is when he says cow slaughter is a reality in every village. As far as I know, cow slaughter is banned in most Indian states. It is however legal in some states, such as Kerala, the North Eastern states, possibly Bengal and J&K. The reality is that cattle gets 'smuggled' to these states for slaughter. Beef however is legal in every state, as far as I know.

Urstruly,

Ironically, there was once a time when you tried to (ahem, ahem) prove and validate … the “last prophet� notion. You quoted the following hadith, which, in your view, proved the notion beyond doubt:

�I am the last prophet and this mosque of mine is the last mosque.�

I asked you to read the full hadith … and not just the first half of it … and ponder over the meaning of last. And you got stumped. Not surprisingly, now your position is that … last prophet notion should simply be accepted.

Moving on …

It is difficult to take your suggestions seriously. For one, you also suggest killing an apostate. [Now, Bhatti Sahib is distancing himself from this practice … even as he associates it with Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Subhan-Allah …]

Coming back to your point: Hey, if I lived in India, I’d certainly consider giving up beef. Happy now???

Re: # 193

Asa matter of fact Iqbal's couplet should be;

Mirzai du-ee pasand hai, Muslim la sharik".

If you scroll below, I am in fact suggesting Indian Muslims to give up on their desire to eat cows, in the spirit of being good neibhbors to Hindus. I did not argue with Hindus on their scripture, I just asked their opinion whether they consider Muard baig's refernces authentic or not. I have absolutely no problem whether a Hindu eats a cow or worship it just as I have no problem you beliving that Mirza Quadini is a prophet of God...the problem only starts when....we have been thru this raod before.

Bhatti Sahib (#161),

Valid points … and since you are looking at finer details, here’s something to consider: Actually, I am OK with being considered a non-Muslim by you. You have the right to your opinion … and I have no issue with it whatsoever.

The main point is that … government (of Pakistan, in this case) has no right to force its interpretation of Muslim, making it a crime for an Ahamdi to consider himself a Muslim. Note the distinction: You may consider me a non-Muslim … but you have no right to lock me up for considering myself a Muslim. If we can agree to this, there is little left to debate.

(As a side comment ... from what I know, non-Ahmadi-Muslims are considered Muslims by Ahamdis …)

BTW, your golden rule argument got quickly deflated … when confronted with the issue of killing apostates. Are you suggesting that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself violated this “golden rule�. Apparently, in your Islam, Muslims violated the golden rule from the very start, only to lecture others, later on, on not violating the golden rule. Takbeer …

+++

This just in: Read #188 by Urstruly … esp. the last paragraph. No arguments are needed for what he believes … but when it comes to Hindus and beef, he wants to argue on basis of Vedic scriptures. And this is the double-standard I earlier pointed out. I rest my case …

Re: # 190

It is not a matter of acceptance, It is matter of beleif. So if a hindu wishes to believe that then so be it. A belief is as strong as the will of of the believer. Those who reject the belief must present tangible proof, the burden of proof lies with the acuser; beliver has to do squat.

#187 Posted by sattar2,

(btw, your chief zee thinks such ideas constitute superstition, which have nothing to do with Islam. FYI.)

I don't know why so many people misquote me when I've never said anything vague or ambiguous.

What I had said, as I recall, was such things were deliberately induced symbolism (superstitions?) and imagery, like Greek mythology, but not without a purpose. Any way to get the idea across is fine to whatever depths one wants to wade.

Urstruly#186:

You are saying the same thing that some Hindus say about their history; should we accept that Hanuman's bandar sena built a bridge over the ocean or that he flew in an airplane (pushpak viman) to fly from Lanka to the Himalayas? (btw, bangladeshis have named their airlines (v)biman)

Bhattisaab#176:

"I'll speak just for my own self. I think rather I say I beleive that the killing of person who converted out of islam does not hold true anymore.'

As an individual you may believe anything, just as tahmed sahib believes that islam means nothing more than an individual accepting responsibility for his actions before God. But in most Islamic societies, conversion out of islam is a severe crime; indeed, last year an Afghan was facing death for the same crime and even the Nato-supported Karzai govt. was able to save him only through some manipulative tricks. Of course, a compassionate Muslim, like my friend urstruly, would perhaps argue that any Muslim who converts out of islam knowing the consequences is insane and therefore should not be held punishable for his insanity.

"As far as not allowing women to marry a non muslims is concerned, any non muslim religion can stipulate that marrying with a muslims is forbidden."

Of course, they could do that, and that would make their religion meet the test of reciprocity but not islam. Different religions seem to have different approaches: catholics are somewhat similar to Muslims, without the gender bias; Parsees do not accept any child of an interreligious marriage as Parsee; Hindus used to excommunicate anyone who married even outside their caste, let alone religion, but it is an evolving religion and they are changing in that respect also.

"As far as Muhammad (PBUH) ancestroral question is concerned, again refer to the above. What christians say is there problem. But why christians would keep track of Prophet's geneology in the first place when his ancestor is not even legitimate according to them...."

My question was larger than Prophet's ancestry; the question was whether the old testament dwells at length about what happens to ishmael after the sacrificial episode?

Re: # 161 KR Bhatti

I do not agree with your principle of reciprocity. The religious law as stipulated by Quran and Hadith have precedence over principle of reciprocity. Consider this: Today if a Mirzai says that "Ok we as Mirzais do believe that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is the true prophet of God, then by reciprocity Muslims should also consider Mirza Quadini the true prophet of God", shouldn't we then have a problem? That is because the reciprocity that they are demanding is contradictory to both Qura'n and Hadith and their take on the issue of End of Prophethood (khatam-e-nabuwat). We must accept, and we must be uncompromising on the fact that our religion (Islam) is absolutist in nature. You cannot mix cultural demands in it to make it more palatable. You cannot nitpick to choose what suits your lifestyle; you cannot turn it into a buffet to reject what does not suite our lifestyle. In the words of Prophet (pbuh) we must enter into Islam wholly and wholeheartedly ("Islam main puray dakhil ho jao). Allama Iqbal has pointed out to this Absolute nature of our religion in this beautiful couplet:

"Batil du-ee pasand hay haq la sharik hay.
shirkat miyan-e haq-o-batil na kar qubool

(Tr: The Untruth likes the duplicity and duality, the Truth is Monotheist and uncompromising
So never accept the mixing of Truth and Untruth to be valid.)


Having said that our stance on the issue of End of Prophethood must be uncompromising; it must be unaccommodating; and it must be straightforward. We need not justify. We need not put forth argument; there is no discussion no discourse on the issue. We are only allowed to put forth an argument on this issue when we need to reach out to people to introduce them to the True Message of Allah and that includes Mirzais too. It is quite possible that by Grace of Allah they might see the truth and revert back to Islam and their salvation.

Kaal,

Arguably, Islam’s internal problems … have much in common with Hinduism’s internal problems. They reflect two sides of the same coin, in my view. Both religions were revealed by the same God, through prophets, with scriptures … and over time, both have become victims of human interpolation, with fairy-tale like idea associated with each. So I am not sure if you can make a clear separation between the two.

And yes, God does whatever He wants. And He has 6 heads and 12 arms … and the universe is resting on the nose of an elephant ... and the earth is flat. Yes, all this is indeed possible … and there is nothing wrong in believing any of this …

And counter to what you suggested, arguably, present-day Islam is indeed very much human bs … (to use your terminology). And if belief in a one-eyed monster riding a fire-breathing giant is Islam, then I’d rather be a non-Muslim. And such a fairy-tale notion is yet another parallel between Hinduism and Islam in this day and age … (btw, your chief zee thinks such ideas constitute superstition, which have nothing to do with Islam. FYI.)

Islam is evolvinng ... like Hinduism did several thousand years ago. So your point remains unsubstantiated, rather negated in the context as I have explained. And this is why I fail to understand Urstruly's issue with Hinduism ...

Re: # 172 Dost

The historical evidence of Abraham is the longest preserved scriptures of Isrealites that date centuries back from the birth of Jesus (pbuh). I must inform here that the Jewish religious scripture is not only the word of God like Qura'n but it is a hodge podge of Hadiths of earlier prophets, the religious edicts of priests (aka fatwas) and religious scholars etc. The Old Testament is all that. However, Talmud, which is considered the word of God only is the oldest living text ever dating back to the time of Pharoes 5000 years ago. Why do you think that Westerners (read Christians and Jews) have dug up whole Egypt, Palestine, and North Africa in general.

Lets admit it that until very recently in human history, the only culture, discipline and etiquitte of preserving historical records existed in religious community and circles. Other records were seldom kept. Now when the leading charge of preserving historical records is now taken over by a community that is atheist in their thinking and rejects everything religious masquerading behind "science", they outrightly reject any effort of preserving historical evidence if it has religious connotation attached to it. Simply, stated it goes against their agenda. Today, if somehow, it is proven beyond the shadow of doubt that the people like Jesus, Moses,and Abraham (paece be upon all of them) did exist, then wouldn't it be the day when their religion of atheism ended? So why work towards discrediting you own religion (atheism)??

To DM, Bhatti:
History may not prove, but Abraham might have been there. Those who can cook up story about Adam-Eve, they can create Abraham also. So, the matter hangs in balance. Islam, as preached by Mo, is more of a political grouping than using spirituality of human to higher level. Like any other fraudstars, he fabricated story of something Gibril and then created a group; used that group to kill & loot and then expanded the group. He was master of inciting the animal instincts of humans and successfully spread his domain. Mind that Islam has spread after the conquer (Sword of Islam were advanced than Islam itself). Arab, Persia, North Africa and even Pakistan were first invaded. So, like any political setup, when you are increasing my number, it is OK, if you are leaving my group, you are my enemy. I have seen this kind of problem in West Bengal. When people leave CPI(M) and join Congress, some of these people gets killed by ex-party men. This possesive mentality is kind of perversion. That needs to be changed.

Re: # 182

"What christians say is there problem. But why christians would keep track of Prophet's geneology in the first place when his ancestor is not even legitimate according to them...."

Re: # 180

Kal ji,

Looking forward to your hindu-ahmadi connection whenever you have time...

Thanks for your post....

Re: # 179

Cheema saab,

seems i have missed something. can u please tell me what exactly i have missed...

sorry for that (bhulakkar panay waala icon)..

apologies, I am hurrying to go out :)

That should have been: what really stands between Mirzaism and Hinduism is the former's insistence....etc.

Cheers.

bhatti ji,

Domination and if possible destruction (of the only Islam there is) through identity theft and identity distortion - that was Mr. Mirza's and is Mirzai goal. What Muslims do with Mirzais depends upon what the followers of Islam want to do with Islam.

bhatti sahib, one major problem - and it may be only my personal challenge - is that Mirzaism is hopelessly dull and devoid of anything worthwhile. Whether one agrees with anything in them or not, but one can read up on and discuss Islam, Sufism of various varieties, or even Hinduism, and be endlessly fascinated, (even enlightened depending upon one's understanding of what enlightenment is), but Mirzaism is unremittingly boring.

It's so very much like a child (who is neither pleasant nor bright) trying to show you tricks while you would rather be watching a great movie or reading a good book or doing some useful work. Or even agreeing or disagreeing with thoughtful adults.

But still, since people at the fringes tend to be everywhere, if Sattar bhai join us in a useful discussion, I promise to make time to explore the Hindu roots of Mirzaism.

For the most part, as I mentioned to urstruly bhai, what REALLY stands between Mirzais, as with a lot of (not all) so-called sufis, is their clear political choice - their insistence that they be publicly counted among Muslims. The moment Mirzaism stops making that demand and taking that stand of teaching Muslims 'true' Islam, it becomes a (n admittedly ridiculous and logically barren) form of Hinduism.

Still, if Sattar bhai joins us, in the spirit of inquiry, we can indeed benefit from a useful discussion soon.

Re: # 176

Bhatti saab,

who said anything about the christians? I don't understand. I was only refering to the Old Testament with regards to Abraham, never mentioned any christians!

P.S.

Whatever cheema saab said is absolutely true in substance as to the inferiority complex mantality of current muslims. He is also true regarding Razi and avicenna. The Only thing different between me and cheema is that I am beleiver and cheema saab doesn't seem to be..

On milk consumption, a Chinese friend told me that Chinese do not believe that milk is a proper food for anyone except for the infants, just like other mammals.

Re: # 172

Dear DM ji,

I'll speak just for my own self. I think rather I say I beleive that the killing of person who converted out of islam does not hold true anymore. It was meant only during the period of Prophet. Why then and not now is another debate.

As far as not allowing women to marry a non muslims is concerned, any non muslim religion can stipulate that marrying with a muslims is forbidden.

As far the question of Abraham being a historical figure is concerned; well yes we do not have any other evidence except that we are told so by prophet.

As far as Muhammad (PBUH) ancestroral question is concerned, again refer to the above. What christians say is there problem. But why christians would keep track of Prophet's geneology in the first place when his ancestor is not even legitimate according to them....

Re: # 169
Coocked meat is far worse than dairy products like paneer,butter, card etc.

Re: # 171
Drinking milk is not against the law of nature. For any kid, milk is better than any other food. When people grow up, they can not digest all components of milk (it is true for all mammals). Apart from galactose, milk contains good amount of protiene, vitamin,fat. If milk is against nature, why dairy products are very propular in every corner of the world?
I have not said hunting is legal in India. If you are caught hunting you are doomed. Salman Khan got away in the case of running over footpath dwellers, but is not able to manage Black Buck ( or Chikara) case.

Re: # 172

DM ji,

The Muslim world, over the last few of centuries, has gone through many crises; the most profound has been the loss of self-respect/worth. This is often reflected in terms of a "superiority complex" for the so-called arm-chair jihadis and "moderates", and clear "delusions of grandeur" by the true muslims, i.e., fanatics!

By the same token (as the Ahmedis), the shiites (twelvers, seveners, Ismailis - I am aware I am lumping in a lot of rivals together for simplicity) have as many dissimilarities with the so-called "sunni" islam with its four main "madhahib"(jurisprudences). As a matter of fact, the fundamentals couldn't be more different between these two (sunnis vs shias) than between sunnis and ahmedis (Mirza sahib afterall only called himself a "mujaddid" - reinterpreter if you like! with the odd conversation with the almighty! Incidently, that is exactly what Mohammed said too!).

Now if you ask any muslim down the street, they would be "proud" to take credit for the "golden age" by claiming guys like Al-Razi and Bu Ali Sina (Avicenna) etc. Little do they know that Al-Razi was openly critical of Koranic text and questioned its "divine" origins, in addition to describing the "self-proclaimed prophets" as "Billy-goats!
And Avicenna was an Ismaili, born and bred, drank openly, and was a "deist" rather than a "theist" (in short, didn't believe in heaven/hell crap and value of prayer etc). He was also the brains behind the "Prime Cause" theory to explain the concept of "God", later adopted by Thomas Aquinas ("The Prime Mover").

This mentality is a hallmark of a group of individuals who are clutching at straws to regain some self-worth in today's world. It is basically what I call "pride without substance".

And it is not new; Mohammed tried exactly that to first establish his "credentials" in a parochialistic tribal society; if you came from someone important, you WERE important!

I completely agree with the un-authencity of biblical text as the source for our historical facts today; much the same as my dis-belief in the Koran being the word of God!!

I'd like to quote AbuBakr Muhammed Bin Zakaraya Al-Razi here, it goes like this:

You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Koran. You say: "Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one." Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. ... By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: "Produce something like it"?!
--AbuBakr Al-Razi

Bhatti Sahib:

"I beleive that every workable religion has one thing in common and that is the golden rule of reciprocity. Put simply it means that "you will not do anything to others what you don't want others to do to yourself."

Are you sure that this applies to Islam? Let's see; it's alright for a non-muslim to convert to islam but if a muslim converts to another religion, he can be beheaded; or, a muslim man can marry a non-muslim woman, but a non-muslim man cannot marry a muslim woman?
How's that for starters?

"Okay. Now without going into ismail being illegitimate son or not, it can be safely assumed that arabs have ancestor in Abraham."

Is there any historical evidence of Abraham?

Also, as far as I am aware (and I am not aware a whole lot), the Judeo-Christian version does not acknowledge Mohammad to be a descendant of Ishmael. Do you know anything to the contrary?

Cheem sahib,

FYI

I am a hardcore non veggie and have never even contemplated turning veggie.

I think you misread #169. I said drinking milk was against the law of nature, not eating Meat which is perfectly compatible with nature. Incidentally many Oriental people cant digest milk and require lactase supplement, thus explains why Chinks and Japs eat very little milk products.

You are right about Vit B12.

Regards

Re: # 169

Majumdar Paaji, don't be too judgmental!

Humans need animal sources of food; e.g., the only source of vitamin B12 is animal meat/dairy. Without it, we would get dementia, spinal cord degenerationa and other neuropathies.

Vegans get this from artificial vitamin replacements; clearly that is not "natural" is it? If humans were not evolved to eat meat, how do you explain the enzymes we possess (that other great ape species don't) to digest meat in the first place.

It is a matter of choice; we musn't forget that. You can be a vegetarian in principle and by incorporating milk/dairy products etc, avoid the need for artificial replacements.

I have been a vegetarian for about a year, but that is through choice and I wouldn't force it on anyone; through force or unnecessary guilt trips.

Nkg,

In nature only small kids drink milk and that too their own Mom's. So humans (esp adults) drinking animal milk (and products) is against the laws of nature. This is also accepted by vegans. OTOH eating meat is not.

(Hunting is legal in many parts of India. If you are caught, you will be doomed. )

The two sentences seem to be contradictory.

Regards

Re: # 167

Okay. Now without going into ismail being illegitimate son or not, it can be safely assumed that arabs have ancestor in Abraham..

Re: # 166

You can replace cheema with bhatti or anything else for that matter; I define my own identity rather than being defined by my clan.

Abraham is traditionally considered the ancestor of jews; read the old testament; his son Isaac was "blessed" and given 12 sons, hence the tribes of Israel. Moses was someone who brought the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and handed down God's commandments" via his brother Aaron - the high priest. It was never called Judaism until much later in history when the Israelites formed the kingdoms of Judea and Samara.

The arabs were always considered "the impure" (read Judges and the conquest of Jericho). What Mohammed did is re-invent history and glorified the so-called "descendants of Ishmael"; He, according to the Old testament and agreed tradition of 7th century arabia, was an illegitimate (union between Abraham and Hagar - his wife Sarah's maid) son hence not worthy of similar previlages.

This is just to clarify a point; to me, its all ancient tales, reality being fogged over behind the scotch mist!

Cheemas and other jatts were nothing special, by the way; they just liked to fight - for whom? it didn't matter so much! They fought alongside every invader against their own countrymen! What losers!

Re: # 165

Cheema saab,

Every religion has in its roots the concept that it is the sole salvator of humanity; nothing wrong in it and nothing new in it.

Further, all the abrahamic religions have commonalities and the reason is that the source is one. But christans, jews and muslims never stripped others of their identity. Just imagin, if i say cheema is not cheema from now on and all bhattis are cheemas from now on.

As far as Ibrahim is concerned, jewism started from Moses and not from Abraham. He is the common ancestor of all three religions.

I am not sayong thet ahmadis should not use name of Muhammad (PBUH). He is prophet for us and is also a historical figure. But when they start calling themselves muslims then I have problem; they should realize that those whom they have ex communicated can also ex communicate them. Why then cry like whores and meesnas everywhere that ahmadis are prosecuted? Why they also do not disclose that they also consider non ahmadis muslims as non muslims?

Re: # 164

No, but he did say that his message superseded what existed before; the Koran is full of "corrections" of the supposed "fallacies" of judeo-christian beliefs; to the point of name-calling and being alluded to as "those who strayed off the straight path" etc...Also, to name one, "correction" of the christian doctrine of divinity of Jesus, the shortcomings of the Israelites...the list goes on..

How do you think the Jews and Christians would have felt about him converting pagan arabs to mono-theism?

Also, in the early days, the word Islam was never used; it was "the doctrine of Abraham - Deen-e-Ibrahimi; who was 'Haneef',". Abraham was traditionally known as the "father" of the Israelites..How do you think they would have felt when they saw their ancestory as well as teachings plagiarised and recycled for the pagan arabs?..

Re: # 163

Cheema saab,

He did not named his comunity "jews" or "christians" despite the fact that muslims beleive that god's message is same throughout. Reason is simple, because that would encroach on the religious space of jews and christians. If mirzais can have the guts to come up with their own identity then no one will have problem. But they will not do that because they are using islam's name in Africa to win new converts.

regards,

Khalid

Re: # 161

Isn't that exactly what Mohammed did to Judeo-christian traditions?!

P.S.

I would love to know what Kal thinks about ahmadism and deconstructionism of mirzaism in the context of hinduism. Indeed it would be enlightening...

So Kal ji,

I am again all ears....

Re: # 152

Sattar Saab,

You got your answer from Kal. Don't know about Urstruly's take on mirzaism or even Kal's reasons behind this but I can give you my take on the Mirzaism.

I beleive that every workable religion has one thing in common and that is the golden rule of reciprocity. Put simply it means that "you will not do anything to others what you don't want others to do to yourself."

This rule of reciprocity stands before any theological dimension is concerned. So if anyone want to remain flat earther, let him be so because in return he is not supposed to smear your set of beleif. So, when a person comes about a hundred years ago and tell that all muslims are non muslims from now on unless they beleive in him; then buddy it is his encroahment on religious space of already establsihed religious community. It does not matter that who is right or wrong in strictly theological dimensions. If Mirza saab says that all muslims who do not beleive in him are non muslims then by the rule of reciprocity muslim community also has the right to ex communicate ahmadis and call them non muslims. This is exactly what was done, and the seeds of it are sown by no one else but mirza saab himself.....

No great religion encroaches on the religious space of others, and this is what in my opinion makes ahmadism not measuring up to the standards of a workable religion. It is based on the identity theft of islam, and the funny thing is that all the hue and cry of persecution is brought into the question by ahmadis by the hand of main stream muslims, while I am sure they will do the same to mainstream muslims if they had the power to call the shots. As a matter of fact Mirza saab and his khalifas consider all those muslims who do not beleive in mirza saab as non muslims....

regards,

Khalid Bhatti

hunting? i remember my g'pa talks about going on hunting trips in areas arround Fatehpur Sikri, Agra - for black deers, deers - are there any left now? the only sport left for them at Fatehpur was hunting and volleyball back then!

(i respect people who eat veg. - i mean you gotta have control and better morals to ignore meat - bravo ; one of the perks of being is a muslim is : you have this born meat-eating disorder - i remember one of my hindu gujrati mate from birmingham made meat for me every sunday - although he never ate meat )

hunting? i remember my g'pa talks about going on hunting trips in areas arround Fatehpur Sikri, Agra - for black deers, deers - are there any left now? the only sport left for them at Fatehpur was hunting and volleyball back then!

(i respect people who eat veg. - i mean you gotta have control and better morals to ignore meat - bravo ; one of the perks of being is a muslim is : you have this born meat-eating disorder - i remember one of my hindu gujrati mate from birmingham made meat for me every sunday - although he never ate meat )

Re: # 130
What this implies? If this guy is advocating meat eating, then he should have been put deep in the jungles of Sunderbans. When tiger will crush his dull head, he will realise what life means.

Re: # 148
Hunting is legal in many parts of India. You do not even need a license (except for the gun). I know because I hunt.

Ans: If you are caught, you will be doomed. Salman Khan, with his high level of connection in Rajasthan Congress party, is not able to evade punishment from a small community like Bishnois.In our side (Sunderbans), hunting has reduced due to risk of legal hassle.

Re: # 148
Hunting is legal in many parts of India. You do not even need a license (except for the gun). I know because I hunt.

Ans: If you are caught, you will be doomed. Salman Khan, with his high level of connection in Rajasthan Congress party, is not able to evade punishment from a small community like Bishnois.In our side (Sunderbans), hunting has reduced due to risk of legal hassle.

Re: # 143
Milk products are Ok. Cow provides more than enough milk for the calf. The duration is also more. A calf starts eating grass within couple of months of birth.
Even vultures, crows can survive eating domestic animal's carcasses. I know, in my village, there was a place, where people used to keep carcass of dead animals (specially cow and goat and is called "BHAGARD". It is animal equivalent of "SAMSAN") and inform the chamar. The chamar used to take out the skin. Vultures, dogs & crows used to make feast. It has changed now. Male calf was generally reared as bullock and used to pull cart and agriculture purpose. Couple of male calves used to grow as bull (generally a gift to Lord Shiva as bull is Shiva's carrier). They used to roam around freely and used by owner of cow for breeding purpose. In rural Bengal (what I have seen upto 1970s & 80s),cow, bull, bullock were used throughout their life span. Every year, during harvesting (generally deepavali day), with laxmi, we used to perform puja (cleaning their body, smearing head with turmeric paste. Garlanding with sapla) of cow and bullock for their service to the family. So killing of cow/bull/bullock and eating meat does not arise at all.

To put it more accurately:

The reason you, sattar bhai, have even the smallest doubt about one-eyed monster riding a giant fire-breathing donkey is that you are just NOT a Muslim. God, after all, can do ANYTHING.

sattar2 sahib, what a pleasant surprise to see you here. Had imagined this debate to be closed, but allow me to make a point or two in Urstruly's 'defense,' although he obviously needs no support from me.

Look, bhai. You can't smear Islam's name with Hinduism's internal problems.

At its core, Hinduism is all human bs. When some bs stops making sense to some Hindus, they begin to question it, and move away from it, although slowly. Far too slowly, sometimes. Over longer durations, however, old human bs is replaced by new human bs. The cow bs falls in that category.

But we can't transfer that problem to Islam, nor besmirch Urstruly's or any believers' good reputation by associating him or her with me.

Islam (you must agree) is NOT human bs (please don't say that it is "God's BS" because there is no way to tell God's BS from God's Truth).

So even logically, there is NO problem at all with humans believing in/fully accepting "two-thousand year old prophet flying above clouds" and so on and so forth. God, Almighty, can do all that and much more, very easily. We have not peeped into the mind of God, nor is He your or mine servant.

So Islam is in a very different league. The reason you, sattar bhai, find one-eyed monster riding a giant fire-breathing donkey unbelievable is that you are just NOT a Muslim.

Inshallah, one day we will discuss the inner logic of mirzaism too. It will be an honor to explain to you why like a lot of mindless sufism, mirzaism is a form of Hinduism, and why Muslims' response to Mirzaism is neither unexpected nor remotely unfair.

Best regards.

Bhatti Sahib,

As I have understood, thrust of Urstruly’s argument has been that … scripture and theology are largely irrelevant when dealing with politics of an issue; defending the current mainstream Muslim ideology is paramount, regardless of what Quran says.

Such a view also reflects Kaal’s take on beef-eating and Hinduism … so what’s the issue here? Urstruly and his Islam are parallel to Kaal and his Hinduism – both simply have to be accepted.

Look, kaal has even resigned himself to being a flat-earther and just wants to be left alone. Urstruly should now remain content with killing an occasional apostate. No??

And unless you are talking about the passport, I am not sure how you define a Muslim. I used to think that kalima is enough … but apparently not! (shrugging-shoulders icon) …

Re: # 150

Dear Sattar saab,

You are right in one thing that if
[if all this makes sense to you, why take issue with Hinduism?]

Thats why using Kal's line of rhetoric we muslims consider that Ahmadi's are non muslims...... Kal will also agree with me on that....

Urstruly (#69),

Your sudden interest in academic merit is laudable … but you are out of your depth here. Since you mentioned Ahamdi-Muslims(#78), the following should make you ponder (but probably won’t) …

On the last prophet issue, at times you’ve commented that a Muslim must believe in this notion, whether it is supported by scripture or not. The issue has assumed the form of a political statement for your ullema … deeming its theological merits irrelevant. That is, politics rules … and scripture is irrelevant. And this is similar to Kaal’s view regarding Hinduism and eating beef!

So I am not sure what is your issue here ...

+++

And before you get too hung up on Hindusim (re #78), enlighten us on your Islam … about the two-thousand year old prophet flying above clouds … who will one day descend down to earth, on a particular minaret, on the wings of two angels … and will fight the one-eyed monster who will be riding a giant, fire-breathing donkey … and will take Islam to its final victory by killing 70 thousand jews and converting mankind to Islam over the blade of sword ... (takbeer!)

… then there are prophets parting the ocean, flying above clouds to meet god, splitting the moon, turning sticks into snakes, talking to animals …

… if all this makes sense to you, why take issue with Hinduism?

Kaal,

I agree about some Hindus agreeing with me just because there are Muslims around in chowk. As an aside, I have yet to meet stranger Hinoods in real life.

Regards.

#142 Posted by majumdar:

"The best meat from health POV is freshly killed and roasted wild animal (bush meat), although it is illegal in India."

Wrong on both counts:

1. Game like boar and deer, both from the health and taste POV, is best after a day or two (i.e. slight fermentation is good).

2. Hunting is legal in many parts of India. You do not even need a license (except for the gun). I know because I hunt.

D-M Sahib,

I believe that my writing confused you because I might not have put adequate thought to it. I shall try not to be lazy in future :)

i think all hindus should eat beef.A cow being a mother is all bs.We have a growing number of cattle and india is running out of space.

KaalChakra ji

Borrowing terms used by present generation and heard from teenagers in the family, I say, 'YOU ROCK.'

Regards

Food habits have nothing to do with Religion. Dietary habits depend upon Availability, Climate and Body needs of the people. Since, Europe was snow and middle east was desert, these people could not think beyond eating animals.

Indian civilisation being one of the oldest one had sufficient time to evolve. It is not dependent upon any one time fixed declared ideas of God, ideas and consequently practices keep on changing depending upon the result of those being practised at any particular time.

Over time, thinkers/sages residing this area realised the importance and utility of abundantly avaiable flora and fauna and animals around and so put restrictions around. And again over time, they have been proven right. Otherwise, world won't have been propagating Vegetarianism now. We are the most evolved because in our society new ideas were encouraged.

Mr. Muhammad always talked about Dates in diet as well as medicinal treatment because this was abundantly available in the areas known to him. Similarly, he recommended camel
urine for treatment because cow uirine was not available.

Regards all.

#78 Urstruly

Hinduism = Fuzzy Logic While Islam = Crisp Logic !

and Fuzzy Logic = supra-set of Crisp Logic !
Crisp Logic = {0,1}
Fuzzy Logic = {0,0.01,0.03, 0.41 , ........... .96, .98 ,1}

Fuzzy Logic = Multivalued Logic

Only Fuzzy Logic can cope with increasing fuzziness in 21st century !

Crisp Logic collapses (it cannot cope with the growing vagueness in everything)

Nkg,

Ideally we should all turn vegans and stop drinking milk and milk products too. Downside of course is that all the domesticated animals would have to be turned into jungles and they wud all die of starvation soon and there aint enuff vultures left to eat all the carcass.

Regards

(You have to cook all these nonveg items with large amount of spice and fat.)

OK. So you boost consumption of veg products as well.

(Have you tried to taste plain boiled chicken or mutton?)

No. Nor do I intend to. The closest of course I have come is cold meats like salamis, sausages etc.

(I have eaten deer ( you should not admit publicly) meat once.)

The best meat from health POV is freshly killed and roasted wild animal (bush meat), although it is illegal in India.

Regards

The conclusion is, Indians ( not all) turned to vegetarianism quite early and this trend should have progressed. Alas, per capita consumption of meat is increasing in recent years and PETA activists are worried about it. First we should stop pretending sacrifice to God. The animal life is as precious to that of the human being. If you want to sacrifice, sacrifice yourself, why a vegetarian animal like goat,cow etc... has to pay for your sin or lust for heaven. I have committed that sin. I know, how bad you feel.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/kawasaki/bl135.html#jat018

Re: # 139
Not at all ( though I eat non-veg)...
You have to cook all these nonveg items with large amount of spice and fat. Have you tried to taste plain boiled chicken or mutton? How bad stench it emits?
In my childhood, I have eaten deer ( you should not admit publicly) meat once. It has very less fat and smell ( that of goat) is almost not there.

(With low calory demand areas like India, we don't need non-veg food.)

But NV food is very tasty. You shud try out kebabs, biryanis sometimes.

Regards

Re: # 137
I am not aware of that. Lifespan are highest amongst Mongols. With low calory demand areas like India, we don't need non-veg food.

Nkg,

Japs are almost 100% non-veg and they have the highest lifespan.

Regards

Re: # 128
Having said that I think Hindus must also encourage Muslims to eat goats instead. As a matter of fact, a substantial subsidy on goat meat may encourage the trend for goat herding business as well. Countries like Austrailia and Newsealand do nothing but herd goats, and their GDP is 10 times that of India; so I am not kidding.


Ans: Ha Ha Ha!!!! Where is land for herding? We are not able to feed people (for high population density). Reduce population to 1/2, all problems of India will vanish.

Re: # 132
I know. But this custom is changing. Ramkrishna has stopped animal sacrifice in Dakshineswar temple. Frankly speaking, animal sacrifice is barbaric. Whoever does this. Why to kill animal, when we can easily survive without killing it. If a domesticated cat/dog can survive with rice/bread, milk, vegetables, why not we? In India, vegetarians are far less prone to heart, kidney deaseas than non-veg counterparts.

Re: # 128 urstruly
[...Who are holy Shambunath and holy nadni...]

Would you please stop it?... if you know these names, you bloody well know who they are... :)...

Re: # 127
Agreed... I am not forming universal rules regarding Saivaites or Vaisnavites. Large section of backwards castes of Saivaites and Vaisnavites follow vegetarianism. I have seen that also,

Clip from Kali Maa Mandir in Tripura
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTUDHgWjHqQ

Urstruly,

Goat meat is indeed the meat of choice for almost all Indian meat eaters- Hindu or Muslim. The best meat dishes in India are invariably mutton based. The main reason Muslims eat beef (and more often buffalo) is becuase goat meat is far more expensive, not becuase of religious sanction. If goat meat were cheaper, most Muslims would prefer mutton.

If I remember corect Deoband too recently issued an advisory advising Muslims to avoid cowslaughter as far as posible on Bakrid.

Regards

The great Urdu poet Mir Taqi Mir has written a couplet about the issue at hand. I hope people will find it enlightening. Here it goes:

Gosht khaanay ko paida kia insaan ko
Ghaas khaanay kay liyay tau kum nah theen kuch bakriaN

Beautiful clip of Nepali Dashain Tyohar and Kaal Bhairavji ka Prasad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O9pQaOaMuU

Personally I think, Indian Muslims should forego their demand for eating beef in the spirit of being good neighbors to the Hindus. That is what our Holy prophet (pbuh) has taught us. In Qura'n Allah has condemned those who do not lend things of daily use, like utensils, spices, cots, or beddings to their neighbors. According to the companions of Holy Prophet, He used to profess the rights of the neighbors to such an extent that they thought that he would declare declare it as a law to include neighbors into inheritence. Hence in the neighborly spirit, Muslims in India should not insist on cow slaughter. If you are not kind to your neighbors, you are not good Muslims; it is as simple as that.

Having said that I think Hindus must also encourage Muslims to eat goats instead. As a matter of fact, a substantial subsidy on goat meat may encourage the trend for goat herding business as well. Countries like Austrailia and Newsealand do nothing but herd goats, and their GDP is 10 times that of India; so I am not kidding.

I am writing all this in complete ignorance. I have no clue if goats are holy to hindus as well or not. Who are holy Shambunath and holy nadni; are they cows or goats? I'd like to be educated here.

Nkg,

Kashmiri Brahmins are Saivites and they are hardcore carnivores. Many Lingayats I know (Saivite backwards) eat meat.

Regards

Re: # 119
What? Allah-upanishad? Oh, that scoundrel Akbar even made the UP poets write chalisa kind of stuff depicting him as avatar of Krishna (the way they do it for Mullyaam Singh Yadav, Laloo Prasad Yadav, Sonia Gandhi etc... now during election).

ha ha, nkg, beejay is the supreme leader of all of us UP/MP/Bihar Bhaiyyas. A guy who can pull out a ramcharitmanas quote like that has to be something! :)

Goodnight, friends.

--------------

Sorry Baig bro, in case you ever happen to read any of this. You wrote a political piece and received only political responses. Nothing personal. Peace, and out.

Re: # 121
Nope only (some) Brahmins and (most) Banias.
Non-Shakta Barhmins, Banias and large section of backward castes (sivaites and vaisnvaites).

Re: # 120
I have provided the reason also. Are you from UP/Bihar/MP ( Bhaiya)? You don't know 700/800 years of moslem slavery had damaged so much to you.
I am pretty sure, R N Tagore can be trusted more than your Mughal period author...

Re: # 80
Sati basically evolved as to protect the honor of Hindu widows from moslems. It was basically mideaval practise arrived with invastion of moslems. With moslems out of power, Sati was abolished by Ram Mohan Roy and Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, with help of William Bentinc.
Caste system was based on profession. Those professions changed, so is caste system. How you know it is evil? Are you moslem?

Nkg,

(Apart from occations, indians, by and large were mostly vegetarian and follow the tradition.)

Nope only (some) Brahmins and (most) Banias.

(Favourable climatic condition and developed agriculture is mainly responsible for this. )

That indeed may be the real reason why vegggiesm took deep roots. It was not necessary to eat meat and the weather made meat eating very tough on the stomach.

Regards

#117 nkg

Yaar, aisa kar! Write your own version of the Ramayana and publish it. I am sure this site will be very happy to put up your stuff - along with all the other stuff it puts up here! :)

Of course, Eklavya might get even more despondent.

Oh well! One can never please some people!

Mohar, as the resident rightwinger I gotta do my job. :)

-----------

Thanks, nkg. I hadn't heard that before.

Re: # 114
Look, which Ramayana is authentic, we don't know. Keeping Valmiki Ramayana as base, people have written their won Ramayana. May be Tulasidas, to please his Mughal ruler written in that way. I know, some brahmins in UP had written something like Allahopanishad!!!!!
I can remember, even R N Tagore has written in such a way that, it is more to get the animal than kill it.

Re: # 114
I seriously doubt about killing of the deer.
If Ram wanted to kill that animal, he could have got that deer killed using his bow/arrow from his cottege only. Why he needs to chase the deer deep inside the jungle and far away from his cottage. Ram had killed that animal, when he had sensed that it is not actual deer and somebody is trying to cheat him.

Re: # 112
Actually the term in Indian context is "Musalman"- people from the country of Mushal.

Re: # 109
Rural people had less access to synthetic food. So, their custom largely represents previous generations. Scientifically cow milk (in composition of fat, protein, galactose, vitamin) is closest to human milk. That is why it is popular.
Early vedic people used to sacrifice animals and eat. But with time it has changed. There are conflicting claims about the cow slaughter. I know, even some people treated "Aswamedha" as killing of horse, though it is something different ( Aswamedha was the means to expand king's territory. The royal horse will be accompanied by the king's army. Whereever the horse will go, if the horse can travel unopposed, the king will be ruler of that land. Those who oppose the movement of the horse have to fight with the army. If the opponent is able to defeat army and kill the horse, it will be end of that Ashwamedha).

#105 nkg

Theek hai, you admit you are no scholar of the Ramayana. But do not make up stories of your own, either!

Sita did NOT want that deer alive - I am sorry if that messes up whatever you read in the "Bengali version", (I can almost imagine some gentle Bengali dada going through the Ramayan and "sanitizing" it to make it more palatable to those delicate Bengali sensibilities - before publication! :))

Here is an excerpt the Tulsi Ramayan version which leaves little doubt about whether Sita wanted that deer alive or dead! I am not going to bother to translate it because it is fairly easy to understand.

...Seeta param ruchir mrig dekha
Ang, ang sumanohar besha
Sunahu deb Raghubir kripala
Ehi mrig kar ati sundar chhala
Satyasandh prabhu badhi kari ehi
Aanahu charam - kahat baidehi…

Re: # 111
[...I don't think, anybody wants India to be a Hindu country..]

Except for Kaal... :)

nkg, why do you use 'Moslems' instead of 'Muslims'? Is that a payback for 'Hindoos'?

Re: # 98
Moslems and Indians were never socially coherent groups. The basic reason is mostly cultural. The country is getting richer day by day and more and more people are joining the (so called) mainstream. You will find more people from non-brahmin,baniya,kshatriya thronging to pilgrimage/temple than their upper caste breathren. The regional festivals ( like Durga Puja,Ganapati Festival, Ratha Yatra) are more popular now than even before.
I don't think, anybody wants India to be a Hindu country (even RSS people). But the way Indian constitution see the secularism (recent budget has set aside 1000crores for wel beings of moslems), it is mostly to appease largely moslem vote bank. It might be valid at the time of partition, but there is no point keeping this majority/minority stuff as every Indian is minority, in that trespect ( Tamil, Bengali, Bihari, Kannadiga, Punjabi...). Everybody is part of cultural/linguistic group, which is less than 10% of the total populatuion.
In modern day life, Islam, by its quality, can not create a positive passion (no positive contribution, that sets islam as role model).The UMMAH passion is mostly related to Arab Oil money. 1000s of crores are pumped into 3rd world countries like Afghanisthan,Pakistan, Bangladesh and India to whip up the passion. Madrassh/Mosques are the instruments for this. The same phenomenon is now observed in Europe (Italy, France, UK based mosques receives huge amount of donations from Middle East). The similar resentlent you may find in europe also.

LOL @ 109

I'd better change that to: important to SOME Hindus :)

#106 Posted by nkg on March 2, 2008 6:37:17 pm


If you are from rural background


So..presumably..if you're not a rural background and can get your milk from price club at a considerable discount, it should be ok to eat beef...since you've now admitted there is no religious sanction against it..

nkg, we can come up with all kinds of arguments, but ultimately it is just an emotional issue.

And that is why it is important both to Hindus and to Mr. Baig.

------------

dm #102,

That, sadly, is the reality. And, I think, specific people are irrelevant to this phenomenon, except the ones responsible for imagining and constructing it - Gandhi and Nehru.
-----------

It's a horrible thing to say (sorry, beej, please don't read further! :)) but Indian Hindus got some (lucky?!) breathing space and may be a few more years of break because our friends in Pakistan were not, yet, able to create as successful an experiment as they could have. If economic conditions reverse tomorrow, stresses and strains in Indian society will multiply.

#97 Posted by mohar11 on March 2, 2008 4:37:55 pm

urstruly is the one who told us it's ok for mo to get it on with a 9 year old child because it's been scientifically proven that older men are attracted to younger girls(ain't islamic science dandy)...wonder if it's ok for every 50+ year old men in detriot to get it on with his wife/daughter.

Re: # 104
I have told, cow's milk is best suppliment of breast milk. If breast milk is not available, then a child can survive on cow's milk. If you are from rural background, you will know this (until 20/30 years ago, when packaged baby food was not so popular), it was followed. That is the reason, cow is treted as mother.

Re: # 28
Bongdongs:

The deer was Sage Mareech in disguise of a golden deer. It looked so attractive, that Sita wanted that alive. I am not scholar of Ramayana. But these are the events, I can recollect from the Bengali varsion of it.
Bengali and Assemese people are shakti worshippers and generally sacrifice goat.

#101 Posted by nkg on March 2, 2008 6:15:02 pm


The basic reason for cow worshipping (treating cow as mother) is cow milk is best substitute for mother's milk


doctors don't let you give newborns cow's milk before they're at least a year old..and how do you explain kids who are allergic to cow's milk? never heard of any kid being allergic to mother's milk...

I personally do not buy the “ummah� theory. The more we study the ongoing affairs of “Muslim� countries – the more mythical the concept of the ummah appears. In fact, the citizens of “Muslim� countries appear to be as much at war with themselves (usually propelled by a small section of the population and imposed on the vast (peaceful) majority) as with anybody else.

In any case, whether that argument (that large body of Indian Muslim sections would identify with the worldwide “ummah� more than with the country which gave them birth and sustenance) to me appears very dubious. It is also way off-topic for the current piece which makes an attempt to trace the origins of the “vegetarian� dietary habits of Hindus. Even those who consider that (other) topic legitimate should perhaps find some other forum (or UP) to discuss it, it makes no sense on this board.

Eklavya#99:

I think that Modi will meet his well-deserved karmon-ka-fal sooner or later; but the phenomenon he represents is not going to go away.

Vengat.../Muzumdar
Ans: Indians (you call it Hindus) do not eat beaf apart from few abberations. This is my observation and experience. Please tell me a area where beaf eating is not considered a taboo and prohibited. The basic reason for cow worshipping (treating cow as mother) is cow milk is best substitute for mother's milk and widely used as baby food for 1000s of years. Initial eras of Vadas, people used to eat everything. During the period of Krishna, cow meat eating was prohibited. With Jainism/Budhdhism, meat eating stopped amongst upper caste people. Those who perform shakti puja (goddess Kali,Durga, Chandika), they eat meat. But vaishnavites and shivaites upper castes do not eat meat. The consumption of animal/bird meat increased in recent years.
I am not denying, early years of Vedas, even the rishis used to sacrifice animal and eat that.
Apart from occations, indians, by and large were mostly vegetarian and follow the tradition. Favourable climatic condition and developed agriculture is mainly responsible for this.

Eklavya, GT:

Arre bhai, why do you people talk in riddles (surely, a hindu trait!)? Do you believe that, to impress, one has to first confuse and confound the innnocent? I like Urstruly, there is never any problem in understanding what he says.

mohar, could be, but urstruly also genuinely likes to know things; he might not agree with us, but he will give us a fair hearing, methinks at least :)

---------

dm Sir, EVERYONE loses when people are thrown impossible and vicious challenges, particularly based on utter ignorance.

Modi is just an illegitimate child of Gandhi-Nehru who themselves failed. Of course, we should oppose him in whatever way possible.

The Hindu Angst:

I think that the point eklavya makes about 1947 is an important one and is behind the growing popularity of Modi. A growing number of hindus is starting to think that they were cheated in 1947; they thought that they had gotten a country of their own just as Muslims had gotten theirs. They expected any Muslims who remained in India to behave something like dhimmis in a Muslim country. But a small hindu elite cheated them and declared India to be a secular country which was no more of Hindus than it was of Muslims.

For a while, remaining Muslims who bore the blame for dividing the country, did act like 'dhimmis' and did not raise their voices. However, the new generation of Muslims does not carry any such guilt and is not afraid to show its allegiance to the ummah. This is creating anger among the hindus, especially the educated hindus, which really came into open after the Shah Bano case. Hindu nationalism has become a potent factor since then, and not only in the BJP. If Modi or someone else succeeds in making Ummah the issue in an election in the garb of terrorism/national security etc. the chances of his/her winning the election cannot be ruled out.

Re: # 91 kaal

I don't think Urstruly really has any difficulty in understanding hinduism - he is just being obnoxious and condensceding... this dude claims to be a "surya-vanshi" rajput - "suryvanshi" does not come from any bedouin text, does it?

Hey Chalta, long time!

Madhuri dixit's writhing fat torso has greater value inhering within it than does any religion.

What were these kaal-lites thinking?!! LOL

Again, welcome back.

------------


DrSahib, agreed, Sir!

To that perfectly described temporal view, we can add the cross-sectional detail: lots of quite different things (but not every imaginable thing) can be 'Hinduism' simultaneously. And just as some aspects last longer than others, at any given time, some elements are more widespread than others. Nothing lasts forever to eternity and nothing is ever totally universal to the last soul, all being man-made.

It's actually very simple if you accept it as a valid way of thinking. It's either the acceptance or not that separates one from the other.

Yaar Eki, hinjews have the uncanny ability to dilute godly perfection to its most humanly derivations. Sort of back to basics. I remember a few kaal-lites back in 1996, five years after the reforms, who were insisting on the corruption that western thought, economics and society was beginning to have in India. They blamed madhuri dixit's writhing fat torso on a maruti-suzuki as some corruption of hindu purity and how different the hinjews are from the west...parampara, sanskaar and all that shyte (Much like the garbage I hear about islam being corrupted)

Moral of the story is that in a world where information, capital and people can move at unprecedented speeds. Nothing will remain pure (which itself is a stupid concept).

In a few centuries we will all look like derek jeter and laugh at jesus ganesh allah ji for keeping us in the dark and separate from each other.

My understanding of 'hinduism' is very simplistic and helps me to understand the changing practices over time. This is a 'religion'if people must label it so; which has evolved over time and has been enriched by experiences, observations and wisdoms of earthly people and its very being and the code of practice has not been prescribed or dictated by God. Hence, being meat/beef eaters at some time and then becoming veetarians is perfectly understandable.

LOL, GT! I believe most Hindus are idiots like us.

It's just that we have thrown them a huge curve ball by NOT rethinking Hinduism after the appearance of semitic religions. Most Hindus get confused and don't know what to think when confronted with the semitic mindset.

Take that challenge off the table, and most Hindus will have no trouble at all. Leave those on the table, as our leaders chose to do in 1947, and all kinds of relationships become problematic, as Urstruly has quite accurately observed.

(I know, you don't agree with all of that, but IMO, most chowkie Hindus will have few objections to your definition, IF they were not looking at semitic religions.)

#91 Posted by Eklavya:

"But GT, that is not YOUR Hinduism, it has to be the Hinduism of all thinking people who KNOW that Hinduism is NOT some god's gift to mankind."

OK it includes you, me and a couple of more idiots and that is it. The political aspect of the divide and the political aspirations of those who fall exactly on the divide is, perhaps, a subject too broad to be discussed here. However, I believe that on that issue you and I will agree more than we will disagree.

"the ability to give a damn about the relative "authenticity" of "beliefs" but not disrespecting others' beliefs or identities "

wow, GT, no way could I have put this so succinctly yet accurately!

But GT, that is not YOUR Hinduism, it has to be the Hinduism of all thinking people who KNOW that Hinduism is NOT some god's gift to mankind.

Now, I do run that approach down as 'traditional Hinduism' and point to political/logical problems that that approach runs into, but am glad to know that we are rooted at the same place.

-----------------

Urstruly, the point you raise IS an interesting and important one. TS has raised it before. And even chaltahai once hinted that I should accept mirzais as 'Hindus.'

Basically, Hindus would have no problem accepting anyone who calls himself a Hindu (sometimes even if they don't call themselves Hindus, as in the case of sufis). It's only a POLTICAL person like me who keeps crying (in wilderness) that sufis (and others) cannot be Hindus so long as they politically identify themselves (that is, prefer to formally count themselves) as non-Hindus.

It will require a VERY SMALL shift in the position of many 'Muslims' to turn them into good Hindus, not only politically but also intellectually. You may ask why even that tiny shift may be needed, why a Muslim be a Hindu and still believe in the basics of Islam (Allah is the only god, and Muhammad is this only god's prophet, and this only god called allah sent his last message to mankind through Muhammad in the form of Quran).

This is where, I believe, traditional Hinduism has some logical gaps, which need to be filled.

I suspect if you had difficulty 'understanding' Hinduism, that could be because of those logical gaps within Hinduism as Hindus have understood their religion for the last thousand years (since the arrival of Islam on India's borders).

#78 Posted by Urstruly,

Urstruly,

Quadianis can call themselves Hindus if they so wish. You too can, no problem. Do you remember FV? She did not believe in God, but enjoyed and respected festivals and traditions associated with Islam. And identified herself with Islam. She would give a damn as to whether you considered her a Muslim or not. I (and perhaps kaal) would call her a Hindu. She perhaps would not like it. And I would apologise. In other words, the ability to give a damn about the relative "authenticity" of "beliefs" but not disrespecting others' beliefs or identities is what defines a Hindu FOR ME.

As for your not understanding double-speak, you may want to start by trying to understand yourself.

Re: # 86 kaal

good point...

Thanks, bhatti ji! That is precisely the point. There is NOTHING logical in any of this. It is a purely a religio-political fight.

When people try to 'rationalize' one side or the other's viewpoint, they are just being hyper smart. And somehow, I don't like such smart people. They just come across as dishonest warriors who don't have the moral courage to dress up as warriors, leaving that dirty job to neanderthals like us who are accused of all manner of unnecessary evil. :)

Thanks Eklavya ji,

I think I got the point. What I grasped is that:

It is bloody stupid of any nation to eat cow not because they want to eat it but because to wear it as a differentiating badge from someone else.

Equally stupid is the reciprocal act of counter party to consider it as an insult.......

I agree 100% with you if you mean what I stated above...

bhowmick ji, this discussion has moved far beyond the academicity of this article. Had Mr. Murad A Baig not turned now acknowledged historical facts into political hatchet job, nobody would have objected.

Please understand. The 'regard' many backward and regressive Hindus have for the cow is not based on the fact that the cow was never eaten in India (unless you can tell us otherwise).

On the other hand, if you, like Mr. Murad A Baig, have no respect for people who have silly dietary restrictions based on make-belief logic, be my guest.

I looked with curiosity at this article and the interacts that followed. Great going. The article is well-researched, I must say. No issues with that. Dont mix up academically researched articles with petty politics. Politicians cling to every issue and try to tweak them to suit their purposes. So, forget BJP and their friends: they were not present in the Vedic days. They should know the things only from the available texts, as we all do.

ok, this can be made even easier. Let's forget cow/pig/dog/man.

Can we think of ANY conditions under which the mere ACTS of eating and charity (say, giving food away to the poor) can be exclusively POLITICAL ACTS?

bhatti ji, no problem at all. This is a problem entirely manufactued by Hindu leaders in 1947, so it has to be hard for any outsider - not just those with an abrahamic state of mind - to grasp.

First, can we think of ANY condition(s) under which killing and eating a cow or a pig or a dog or any other animal may be an out and out POLITICAL act?

----------

GT, ustruly bhai, ...will be back in a little while. As usual, you guys make discussions worth the trouble, and obviously instructive. Thanks.

Eklavya ji,

I am not competent enough to judge the merits of this article or its authenticity, but some comments seem to praise the article. Similarly, some also disputed the conclusions. But all this apart, your assertion that this article has some political angle to it is beyond me. This is what urstruly is also referring to. The explanation you came up with; well frankly, they also just shot above my head. Definately, the reason could be nothing else but my position as an outsider.

So, can you please try again, keeping in mind our abrahamic state of mind looking for things in black and white.

BTW I know for sure that in rural Pakistan Punjab, cow dung is used as a fuel, and even as a mixture with mud to coat the mud floors and mud walls. I have seen it personally done.

regards,

khalid

Re: # 56

Dear Raam, stop pretending to be Allah. Don't abuse.

May God excuse you too Mr. Slyder.

Baig Sahib:

Thanks for a well-researched article. I think that there is now a general acceptance of the hypothesis that the aryans were beef eaters at one time.

I don't know why some Hindus are sensitive on this issue. The Hindu society has never been static and has changed under external influence. In recent times, sati was banned under western influence and now they have realised the evil of caste-based oppression. I think that they should also learn the art of self-preservation from others and introduce the concept of apostacy and punishment to thwart the onslaught of proselytising faiths.

urstruly,

In fact BJP wants to call all muslims as ahmadi hindus and christians as christi hindus.

That should solve your confusion. Budhism did not spread in india because shnakarachary in first centuary AD made budha an avatar, a god in the hindu pantheon. Give us some time, slowly and steadily muslims will vanish into hinduism.

I know of many muslims who typically exclaim " ayyo rama", calling a hindu god which is typical in south india.

90 percent of the people who visit velankanni church in tamil nadu, good for the health of children, are hindus. I used to visit a muslim saints tomb in my young days, said to be good for education, and I am thankful, teh saint did deliver on my grades all through my school days.

In fact recently my mother visited valankanny church to pray for her grand children. Hindus like god who can deliver goods in this world. We do not much care for houris and the like after death, and that is why hindus do not much care for that saudi chappie.

Re: # 76 GT & Eklavya

I have never understood this double-speak. On one hand you people on almost every borad on Hinduism, say that it is impossible to define a hindu because a hindu could be one that belives in nothing or the one who belives in everything; it could be one who believes in One God, or it could be one who belives in millions of gods. So by your definition a Muslim must be a Hindu also. I know you people consider hindustan as the center of universe but what about quadianism; it emerged in the land f hinduism; why can't quadianis be regarded as yet anothet 'goath', another 'panth', and what not. On one hand you guys so vehmently claim the so called "homogeniety" yet exclusiveness of hinduism and on the other hand you whine about the Hindu identity. So which one is it. What the hell is wrong with you people??

It took me hardly a week to understand Einstiens bothe General and Special theory or relitivity and I have been taking interest in hinduism for the past 8 years and heck I am absolutely clueless what hinduism is. I have asked the same questions from some live hindus too and I find their shifting eyes quite uncomfortable.

Re: # 70 hamidm,

Muslims can live peacefully under heavy repression, by a king..saudi, by a military man..mushy, simple repression...turkey.

Freedom well you have problems...london bombings, indian plane hijackings etc etc.

End to terror central..iraquise pakistan/

Kaal,
It is nice to see you interact with passion after quite some time. You make an intelligent point -
1. Hindu identity (not Hindus per se) rejects beef. The identity may or may not be based on myths. The myths themselves are of no consequence (at least in this context) but the identity is.
2. Muslims, in India, reinforce the separation of their identity by eating beef.
3. The politics of identity is driven to quite an extent through the fight on the issue of beef.
4. The author is making light of this important issue of identity politics in his article. Hence he is acting like Edward Said's outsider all with "rational analysis of history" and other bells and whistles.

Well, you have a point. However, your attempt to homogenize the Hindu identity by defining the "outsider" (Murad in this case) scares the hell out of the Hindu in me. It seems to be very close to "you are either with us or against us". The Hindu that I identify myself with has fought this homogenizing effort for quite some time now. It took the form of Jaichand who opposed Prithiviraj and the form of Shivaji who opposed Aurangzeb. Long time back even Vishnu had to take the form of Narasingha to get outside the paradigm of homogenized identity. Neither Sankaracharya nor VHP can define me the Hindu. Nor can anyone else, by telling me who is not "like me".

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

A good read.

Which is why pakis are so afraid of hinuds... they know that hinuds will teach them lessons given half a chance, just like what happened in 1971...

Re: # 71
[...ehen the majority is as clueless and suicidal as Indian Hindus...]

Actually, hindus are not really that "clueless", as you say...

Hindus have always known exactly what they are dealing with... and have takens steps to reduce the problem in various ways... partition was first such step... as YLH would tell you, it was congress which caused partition to happen... of course, then they tried to "balance" the things by "pandering" to the decimated remaining muslims, that was a mistake...

which is why BJP and their fellow-travellers have become a force in politics, pandering was going a little too far...

So don't worry about hinuds... they are neither clueless, nor suicidal, in fact - they have gone a step beyond what was required... hard-handed treatment given out in gujrat and kashmir being examples...

Re: # 70 hamid

don't worry about it - the "pandering" is almost a thing of past, except for commie infested areas... why do you think Modi is considered a big shot "leader" these days?... According some people - he is supposed to be the Prime Minister in waiting...

Even though that would be a gross violation justice, but looks like it will take a person like Modi to set things back where it should have been in the first place...

urstruly, since old texts/history etc don't matter to us much in shaping current and future life, not many of us specialize in studying them. But there is no basis at all to doubt Mr. Baig's integrity in quoting or highlighting whatever he thought was relevant. Also, remember, this cow issue itself is not such a big deal. There have been Indian/Hindu scholars who have arrived at similar conclusions before - that eating meat was common in India, and beef was eaten as well.

Mr. Baig's contribution here was putting that already existing research in Hindu/Muslim political conflictual terms.

---------------------

hamidm2, Muslims have no reason to not live as mostly peaceful majority. They may (and invariably will) fight among themselves, but for the most part, they should be peaceful toward minorities.

Again, I have more confidence in Islam than you do. I actually quite admire Islam's clear approach to religious minorities.

The issue, hamdim2, is always what to do with Islamic minorities, particularly when the majority is as clueless and suicidal as Indian Hindus.

Don't you sometimes read posts by Indian Hindus and go: "What are these guys thinking?"?

There are some deep logical gaps in traditional Hinduism. Those gaps keep even the smartest Hindus from understanding Islam as it is. Consequently, they either hate it (thinking of it as worse than it is even from their pov) or talk foolishly about this large group of Muslims being different from that large group.


Anyways, we got sidetracked. :)

Re: # 68

eklavya,

... i hate to say this, but you guys are making a big mistake by pandering to the indian muslims ..... remember, muslims have never been able to live as a peaceful majority - it is only a matter of time before the green flag is once again flying from the ramparts of the delhi fort ........ good luck

Re: # 68

Thank you. Now I understand your POV better. But politics aside, do you see an academic merit to his historical and religious refernces? Personally, I have no clue about their authenticity, so I want to hear from a horses mouth.

urstruly, this is a exclusively Indian problem. Pakistan was very lucky to solve this problem, and doesn't confront it anymore. Hopefully, it can be explained in simple terms. Only, it will require a bit of thinking from the 'Hindu" point of view. So I request your patience, and if I don't make any sense at all, do accept my apologies in advance.

---------------

Urstruly, in 1947, Hindu leaders - Gandhi and Nehru - chose to shut their eyes, and continue Hindu-Muslim strife and politicking. The issue of Muslim identity that logically should have been put to rest in India was revived, supported, and continues to be with us. It is is getting stronger, as anyone who knows anything about Islam would expect.

Consider what has happened to Taslima Nasreen. To be fair, she cannot be acceptable to any believing Muslim.

A key element, urstruly, of Indian Muslim identity has been killing cows and eating beef. Many Hindus too do the same and don't care two hoots about really about the cow; but for Indian Muslims, the approach to cow has been anything but lackadaisical: aggressive slaughtering of cows and eating of beef has almost a 'local' religious condition.

True, there may even be some vegetarian Indian Muslims, but in general, the willingess to eat beef has been an identity marker for Muslims, in general.

It is an in-your-face statement, of clearly rejecting the Hindu identity, and creating and strengthing a non-Hindu, Islamic Indian political identity.

Quite like, although the scales and universalities of opinions are different, tearing and stomping over a copy of the Quran would be for some Hindus in Pakistan, were they similarly inclined, and had similarly clear/passionate beliefs. Indian Muslims have proudly considered doing something equivalent, in the eyes of SOME Hindus, almost their right and their obligation.

Now, a FEW Hindus have, as Mr Baig mentioned, begun to pay attention in political terms. This has not yet gone to the extent of Hindus tearing up and stomping over copies of the Quran (and I hope it doesn't have to), but has begun to show up in SOME Hindus beginning to emphasize their determination to 'protect' the cow. Mr. Baig clearly disapproves of this trend, as we would expect him to.

So, now, you may get a feel of the political game that Mr Murad started, and we played briefly.
-----------------------------

Obviously, this is an absurd and tragic situation in that Indians/Hindus - no matter what their religious beliefs - should not have to confront, just as Pakistani Muslims don't face it at least in their own country.

--------------
Please, this is a Hindu flat earthers view! It does not reflect the opinions of most other good Hindus for whom political identity is a complete non-issue. What's more, there are also many Hindus who are extremely afraid that we Hindu flat earthers are going to force them and their children to become equally backward flat earthers too!! Such Hindus would even support Mr. Baig. :)

Re: # 64
a straight answer would have been nice

seriously...what's up with hindoos..you should try beef..just don't start with the mcdonalds/bk crap...start off with the small burger places..


That's right. I'd suggest any good American restaurant, (not a chain) that serves steak tips and rice, medium well.

and muslims...pork is actually very delicious...and it's white meat too...


Bacon strips along with omelette / toast for weekend brunches is a good start.

you're invited..my pet pig mohammad is part of the main course...

:-)

For some reason I just assumed that Harimau would be a vegetarian too. But it may be, I am the only one living in dark ages! :) :)

arjun, it will take time for beef to become just another meat for many Hindus. The change will occur mostly over generations. But believe me, at least in the US, every year it is becoming harder to find another totally vegetarian Hindu, and the number of Hindus who actually like beef is increasing every day. As expected, the trend is most noticeable among younger folks. People like Harimau and me are stuck in a time warp, and some of us know that. :)

---------------------

Urstruly, a fair question.

Mr. Murad started a little political game and we played briefly. The cows was not the issue for Mr. Murad or for us.

Some Hindus seemed genuinely taken aback that Mr. Murad would hold views that they would expect only an outsider to hold.
---------------

vengat #62, that's so cool.

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

slyder

Verse 100: To utter harsh words when sweet ones would serve Is like eating unripe fruit when ripe ones are at hand.

Thirukkural

Baig saab doesn't claim that a majority of hingboos are veggies, rather he questions why some hingboos consider vegetarianism as part of their religion. You understand the distinction, but being shameless penchod hingboos, you take this opportunity to bash a minority member.


slyder:

I don't normally respond to insulting comments, but since this is a weekend and I have some spare time i'll indulge in disabusing you.

Don't you think Baig saab should then have used a different title?. It is like writing "How did Muslims become terrorists" and then claiming in a comment that "Muslims" in the title actually refer to some Muslims who consider terrorism as a part of their religion. :-)

Re: # 58 Eklavya

You seem like a reasonable person to have a discourse with. Could you please help me understand why Hindus almost universally found this writing by Murad so offensive. What does it mean when you say that Murad is ""wrong and misguided"

Re: # 53

Let me try to make you understand. Vegetarianism is indeed practiced at differing degrees within various Hindu communities. We abstain on selected days of a week. We don't have non-veg on Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. We don't eat on the Hindu holy days. We don't eat on the day of visiting temple or pilgrimage. We don't eat in the month of ' Purattasi - Tamil month '. Women of the family almost remain veggies . You will have to forego non-veg diet, for 40+ days, to enter Ayappa's temple. Though 100% Hindus are not
veggies, vegetarianism is practiced at differing intensities. It ranges from complete abstinence to partial. My paternal uncle is a pure veggie.

Its for you to infer now.

ali_1 bhai, all that is true, but Murad A Baig is still both wrong and misguided.

----------

#56, why lift a hand when the flick of a finger would get rid of a trouble?

-----------

Anyways, we can leave ali_1 bhai and Murad Sahib alone to arrive at whatever consensus they want according to their common needs.

Later, my friends.

Re: # 55

Do you spend the fee on wot to build toilets?

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

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

vengie, masanamuthu undestands these things better than most of us. He has a deep, instinctive feel.

There are two Hinduisms. The Hinduisms of us who live the life. And the 'Hinduism' of aliens looking at us and wondering what must wrong with us. Since mostly it is the outsiders who are the masters of defining business, only their view forms common perceptions. :)

----------

ali_1, only complete fools believe in proportionate response. I never asked Mr. Baig to initiate the attack. :)

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

Re: # 51

Eklavya and Masanamuthu,

Eureka! It dint register till Masanamuthu opened the bag.

Fyi, I prefer being a veggie. I have been violating at times.

Way to go Murad Bhai. Is his 'treatise' on Hindus' eating habits aimed, at his brethren across the border, to
clarify that we are not aliens?

Eklavya:

The difference is that you and I look at India and Indian life as insiders, as people who live and breathe that life (even if some of us may be physically not present there) while Murad A Baig and others like him look at India and Indian life as aliens and as people living and breathing an alien life (even if they some of them may physically live there).


That's right. I never realised that the author resides in India. :-). How does he not know the basic fact that a majority of Hindus are non-vegetarians?.

I can agree that the English man or the "orientalist" historian would not have figured that out, not knowing the local language and talking in English to the "brown sahibs" who are probably from the "upper vegetarian castes".

Apologies if that sounds convoluted. I will come back and explain that point of view. Meanwhile think of this. Are Muslims terrorists? Again, depends on whether you live Islamic life as an insider or look at it from the outside.


No it is not convoluted. I can understand the difference between an insider and outsider's view.

no problem, vrv bhai.

We need rationalists like you to be our leaders, if you would just leave a tiny little space for us neanderthals too. :)

masanamuthu and vengie bros

While you are/may be totally right about most Hindus being non-vegetarians, Murad A. Baig is 'right' too about Hindus being vegetarians.

The difference is that you and I look at India and Indian life as insiders, as people who live and breathe that life (even if some of us may be physically not present there) while Murad A Baig and others like him look at India and Indian life as aliens and as people living and breathing an alien life (even if they some of them may physically live there).

Apologies if that sounds convoluted. I will come back and explain that point of view. Meanwhile think of this. Are Muslims terrorists? Again, depends on whether you live Islamic life as an insider or look at it from the outside.

non-veg consumption is *invariably proportional to the position in the caste pyramid;

non-veg consumption is *inversely proportional to the position in the caste pyramid;

Agree... pakis, for some reason, continue have these patently false notions about hinuds : 1. Hinuds are vegetarians 2. Hinuds are gentle and non-violent....

Nothing can be further than truth....


Right, I think it is part of the "1 beef eating Momin = 10 vegetarian Kafirs" mythology.

To the proponents of non-veg consumption is invariably proportional to the position in the caste pyramid; Nattukottai Chettiyars, at the top of the pyramid, have developed fine non-veg cuisines. Though the credit should go to the Ramnad Thevar cooks, somehow the chettinad dishes have come to be identified with the Chettiyars. Some of the famous Nattukottai Chettiyars are:

P.Chidambaram, Murugappa Chettiyar (EID Group), SPIC Muthiah, M A M Ramaswamy...

Ironically, Nattukottai Chettiyars belong to the business class.

kc,

Sorry if I tried to divert the topic. I dont mean to but I heard all my life that vegetarianism is good and & it makes ppl saatvikam. I made that ref in that context.

Though I am an omnivore, I want to be a veggie in future. :)

Re to 24:

Thanks Maharana! At last found the jewel in the heap of garbage.

Non-violence means not violating Natural Law which keeps every thing in balance. This balance sustains the life in the nature. Otherwise life and death is the same thing as many Yogis say.

Purpose of any writing/expression/communication is for organizing and cleaning ones thoughts. For this to happen one needs to be open for growing one's mind or altering one's thoughts. I have found lot of researchers/PhDs do not have this willingness. They are asking others to change their mind but are not willing to change their own. I have found this happens more if one has grown in dictatorial, feudal or exploitive environment. it's hard to have communication with them because they violate this first law of communication. Violence breeds from there on.

Violent people are violent because what thoughts they entertain not because of what they eat. Probably how much they eat matters more because they have lost the balance. If they violate their own organs such as stomach, intestine and heart, then why wouldn't they violate others?

GT,

(Majumdar babu may correct me if he so wishes, but Bengali Brahmins are non-vegetarian. They eat goat and fish ... but not chicken! )

Bong Brahmins are non-veg. They indeed had taboos in the very distant past about chicken but that was becuase chicken was supposed to be Muslim food. These days they eat everything apart from beef. In Bongs only widows and Vaishnavis are traditionally veggie, everyone else NV. Incidentally in the whole of East- that is Bihar, Orissa, Bengal and Assam, Brahmins (the veggie caste normally) eat meat and fish. In Bihar only Baniyas are traditionally veg.

Regards

Re: # 41

Agree... pakis, for some reason, continue have these patently false notions about hinuds : 1. Hinuds are vegetarians 2. Hinuds are gentle and non-violent....

Nothing can be further than truth.... Most hindus are non-vegetarian, including upper castes in many places... Most hindus have nothing to do with principle of non-violence, gandhi's preachings notwithstanding... All gods and godesses in hindu pantehon are warrior figures and carry weapons as part of their get-up... including nerd Gods like Ganesh :)...

Violence and war has always been celebrated in hindu mythology... Geeta is nothing but pep talk on violence... So is Ramayan, Mahabharat... Durga Puja and Dushera is all about killing the "monster"... violence and vegetarianism do not go together... so pakis, please, get some knowledge...

Masanamuthu is right. We are speaking here of just a taboo that will/may go away.

Eklavya,

don't know what part of my statement that you claim is right. The whole premise of this article is wrong. i.e. "Hindus being vegetarians". It is part of the "urban legend" or "orientalist writings of history".

The statement that "Hindus are vegetarians" is true ONLY when you restrict Hindus to be just the sum of few "vegetarian" castes (almost all upper castes).

The available stats say almost 70-80% (or even more) of Hindus are non-vegetarians. Most of them don't eat beef/pork and are satisified with chicken/mutton/fish etc.. But even that trend is changing. Myself and quite a few of my friends have no qualms in eating beef / pork. Infact, I have taken a liking to the crispy bacon found in the US. :-)

Thanks, drlokraj ji.

Hindu-Sikh Society of Flat Earthers will be proud to count you among its revered honorary members. :):)

vrv, why shouldn't vegetarians be allowed to rape and kill, in gujrat and elsewhere, just like everyone else?

See, this is exactly the kind of bigotry that drips from every word of this article.

(Masanamuthu is right. We are speaking here of just a taboo that will/may go away. But what is the big deal is the silly and unreasonable implication that a great religion shouldn't have any dietary restrictions. For the life of me, I can't figure out why Mr. Baig can't allow us Hindus to be flat earthers.)

Murad,

Well reserached and well written.

Bondongs is right abt the Dr. Jha's book.

The obsession with cow and cow urine is nothing but obsession. The Himachal pradesh govt (BJP) even went a mile furhter and started buying cow urine in gallons (for the purpose of research and what not of Sangh thingy).

Cow and Gau are the same. 'Ka' in Cow and 'Ga' in Gau are cognates (Ka-Ga). What the Europeans call cow is gau for the Aryan Indians.

It's Gandhi's obsession (Gujju obsession) with gau raksha (cow protection) that they even incorporated it in the Art 44 (?) of the Directive Pricniples of the Indian Constitution.

Yes, cow is a good economic unit and Hindu Indians worship anything on earth. Cow gives us the basic necessities of diet i.e milk, yoghurt, butter & dung (dung cakes are good as firewood).

As for Krishna being linked to cow worship. I dont know how this came into being but Krishna as a yadava king would have eaten meat (if not beef). It's very funny that krishna devotees, esp the white ISKCON guys insist on vegetarianism. Vegetarianism promotes saatvika behavior is a big BS. Those who know of Gujarat riots would not dare say this. Most of the killers, rapists in Gujarat are staunch vegetarians.

There's a ritual called somayaaji, where the Brahmin who becomes somayaaji must eat meat in the ritual.

It's also true that Muslims in Bengal and Punjab forced this ritual of beef eating on Hindus in 1947 as part of their forced conversions.

Finally it's the poor cow that became pawn in the politics of the Indian subcontinent.

#11 Posted by Kamath on February 29, 2008 5:07:16 am

There's a variety of ritual called 'naramedham', means sacrifice of a person.

Eklavya,

I have not read (or do not remember) other pieces from Mr. Baig. Besides, each piece - like each person in the world - needs to be judged on its own merit and not on the basis of its siblings (other pieces) or parent (the writer).

I like this piece because the author has made a decent attempt to establish his thesis and seems to have made considerable effort to back it up. He certainly seems to have taken the trouble to dig up the Rigveda - something I have never done (or am likely to).

Articles like this would have been considered (in the past) rather pointless but are no more to be considered so because of the currently ongoing effort by certain segments and political groups to rewrite and revise Indian history to elevate the status of the cow to more than just an animal and to create an "idyllic" account of the past.

I fully support my friend kaalchakra here.What he described in #33, brought back many memories from my childhood too. May be slightly differently, but cow was always revered even in sikhism till the khalistanis came on the scene. We were taught that one of the five 'K's, the kirpaan (sword) was for the protection of cow and the poor (gaoo-ghareeb. Kooka movement started with closing down slaughter houses in Amritsar and Maler Kotla and as a result nearly 80 kooka sikhs were blown away with canon at Maler Kotla.

#3, #28

The way I understand it, Sita liked the dazzling skin color of the deer and wanted that skin (probably to use as a blanket or something). Rama went to hunt it down - he went with a bow and arrows to shoot it, to bring its skin back for Sita. Had it been a real deer (instead of that Mareech guy looking like one), it is anybody's guess what would have been done with its flesh.

Most Hindus are not - and have never been - vegetarians.

#30 Posted by bongdongs:

Bongy,

I have seen a buffalo being slaughtered with something more than a khukri, actually I remember the head-less body remain standing (actually stretched by the legs) for a few seconds before tumbling over.

Readers, who have seen the film Reshma aur Shera might remember Sunil Dutt (where he is some Rajput shyte) slaughter a buffalo (????) at the beginning of the film. Am I right here?

ali_1, let me give you even more material.

I spent my childhood in a mud house whose walls, and the floor specifically, were covered in cowshit most of the time. We ate food cooked on fire made by burning dried cowshit. Our family kept ourselves warm in winters on the same fire. And we used cowshit for all sorts of religious ceremonies.

I distinctly remember collecting cowshit many a time for sundry purposes, and helping mother carry it in buckets.

And although I did not see anyone eat or drink any of that stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if some people tried, and became its advocates for various reasons.

Now, you would obviously say that cowshit is what that life was, and cowshit is all I got out of it. And you may well be right. But the world needs to make a place for us freaks too. I, for one, don't get this obsession with everyone wanting to be wise, smart, and utterly rational.

Next topic for Murad A Baig Saab

How did Hingboos become urine drinkers

LOL, GT, I am sure Mr Baig is an informed person, and has done his research. Besides, he seems well intentioned and sincere. It's just that who knows, the earth might indeed be flat, and at least some people must have the right to fully believe so. :)

Anyways, personally, I fully expect that our ancestors ate the cow and the cow-ling (whatever that means), and then, somewhere along the way, for some reasons, beliefs changed, and some people stopped eating the cow. All of Hinduism is basically like that. Nothing divine or fixed about it, except for those who hold specific beliefs for a certain amount of time. Nowadays I am told that no one can be a Hindu without eating a couple of cows and bulls, which is perfectly fine. :)

If we ignore some of Mr. Baig's comments or insinuations, I owe him an apology for being dismissive.

#12 GT,

Traditionally a buffalo was slaughtered in many communities on the last day of Durga Puja (Dassera). Visit any Gorkha regiment on dassera day to watch the buffalo being despatched in one stroke of the khukri.

Among bengali's it has been replaced by a goat or more commonly today substituted by a pumpkin.

kaal,

he,he.... is all that I can say. By the way Murad may not know where you are comming from :)

#3, nkg

"Ram had tried to trap the deer to gift to Sita"

I'lll try to find the reference if you insist, but seems like Sita's favourite food was venison cooked with rice and vegetables :-)

We all come from a hunter-gatherer past. The "Dandakaranya" was a huge forest. It stands to reason that people would partake in the wealth of such a forest, including its animals.

I dont see what is so controversial in this article. The most famous book on this topic is "The Myth of the Holy Cow. by D. N. Jha. a histroy prof at U of Delhi.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20021101fabook10064/d-n-jha/the-myth-of- the-holy-cow.html

Nirad Chowdhuri has also written very well on the topic in his book "continent of circe"

Excellent, and mostly factually correct article.

Infact once my Grandfather, a conservative Brahmin, once quoted a famous passage ( I beleive from Rigveda), where Rishi Agastya offered to Indra, a leg of Indra. My Grandmother left the room in disgust......

Usually it is the case that we try to put our beleifs, our prejudices, and taboos in the mouths of our ancestors, beloved ones, prophets and holy books. Revisionism is usually the way of life.

It is well known in Turkey that Muslim hunters eat Wild Boar, just that they are not classified as pigs. Bosnians Muslims toast to Whisky since it is not classified as Wines. In fact the Alcohol in India came with the Muslim invasion, the older forms of Indian wines were long dead.

Let us try to treat history as it is. It is never going to diminish our Hinduism, or identity as Indians. If we start to lie, we will never identify the real cornerstones of our identity.

Eklavya,

You need not feel bad about Murad Bhai's expose. Afterall our Pakistani brothers' presumption that we are beatable because of our subsistent diet will no more carry weight ;-).

On a serious note, its not only the Brahmins who are staunch veggies, there are other castes at all levels of the caste pyramid.
In Tamilnadu, most of the Mudhaliars, Pillais,Vysyaas, Badugas (a hill tribe) and a few more castes are veggies.

Somebody on the board had said that not consuming meat means you move higher on the caste hierarchy. This is not correct.

Murad,

You chose an excellent topic to write on. I think India suffers greatly from lack of research in many areas of history. History has become just whatever the white man deems fit to focus on. No attempt has been made to research the genesis of all the languages, variations in cultures, cuisines , music, sciences and arts in India by the Indians at a big scale.
Coming to the topic, first some inaccurate statements by you need to be corrected. Shiva is not a pre-vedic deity. He is also called Rudra eloquently mentioned in the Vedas in many verses riding on the bull etc. Second, Krishna movement is not a cult. If it were, then you may have to start calling Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed as cult leaders too.
Your premise that vegetarianism started in Hinduism due to the influence of Buddhists and Jains is based on Ambedkar's views. They are quite far from the facts.
It is here that the contribution of Krishna as the world's first environmentalist needs to be mentioned. Since you have researched many scriptures, you may want to focus on Srimad Bhagvatam to know what I'm writing below.
Prior to Krishna, the hindus worshipped Indra as the supreme deity as mentioned in the Rigveda. Animal sacrifice as you mentioned was rampant. The sacrifice was done to appease the unseen power in the skies (God). These were also the times that the concept of judgement at the end of one's life was an accepted belief. Hence the need to appease the judge to get in heaven. Krishna changed it by challenging the view that sacrifices need to be made to propitiate the unseen power high above us all. He instead argued that before caring for this unseen power, the immediate surroundings need to be cared for. Thus the importance of cows and other animals for milk and other things should be considered as a higher priority than this unseen and unknown power. Thus he came to be called Go-Vardhan (protector of cows). A respect for these animals then helps the society also get rid of useless rituals without calling the veneration of Indra as a false God and going to war against his worshippers. A needles ritual is replaced by inner reform silently and inclusively.
His sculptures of lifting the mountain to challenege the might of Indra (and hence called Giridharan) and that of Go-vardhana are there even in Mahabalipuram (6th-7th century AD).
The concept of animal sacrifice was replaced in Gita by sacrificing (AAhuti) one's desires and fruits of Karma in the sacrificial fire (Yagna). This way, Krishna freed the Hindus from rituals afflicting mindless violence in the name of God. The only other way of reform would have been to attack the Indra worshippers as wrong and exclude them from the fold of Hinduism or perhaps wage a war.
Is it any wonder then that Gandhi took Gita for inspiration and concluded that the method is equally important than the end. He perhaps understood the supreme rationality of Krishna's actions and message.
The last para was an unnecessary digression.
Adios

Re: # 3
"This guy is pure liar (like Muhammed).

Argue without derogatory remarks against a Prophet. Is this how you live where you live? I think Raam would disapprove of your behaviour.

Shanti

GT, here is my read.

Mr. Murad A Baig is either just ignorant or a bigot peddaling an alien, anti-Indian agenda. I think, both.

This article of his is not any different from all his other articles. :)

--------------------------------

Sahranpuri, please stop that. Now you are just spamming.

A PRINCESS BRIDE

The great-great-granddaughter of the legendary "Lion of the Punjab" returns to her home in Pakistan after an overlong absence

BY SUKETU MEHTA/LAHORE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

One day in august 1947, Nony Singh overheard her father talking about shooting her. She was around ten then, a Sikh girl growing up in a big house in Lahore, just before partition. She was walking along a passageway when she overheard a conversation out on the veranda: her grandfather, her father and her uncles were planning how they would defend themselves against Muslim mobs that were returning with increasing frequency to the house. The men--most of whom were army or police officers--had stockpiled a huge cache of arms in the house. The teenage girls in the family--her oldest sister and her three aunts--had already been sent to safety across the border to Simla, a hill resort that would eventually fall to India; only Nony and her two younger sisters were left in Lahore. She heard her father tell the others that, if Muslims broke into the house, he would fight to the end. But before the end came, he said, "I will take the three girls into a room and line them up and shoot them."
We were standing on this same veranda now, my friend Nony Singh and I, 50 years later. It was the first time she had returned to Lahore since 1947. She was making a unique crossing, not merely from the country in which she lives to the one left behind, not just from her present home to an earlier one, but from approaching old age back to the territory of childhood, a realm preserved only in dreams and old photographs.

What made her return unusual was that she is the great-great-granddaughter of Maharajah Ranjit Singh, the "Lion of the Punjab," the Sikh king who at the beginning of the 19th century ruled over all of Punjab from Lahore. So when she came back, it was with a special sense of belonging, above and beyond that of the many other partition refugees visiting ancestral homes. Signing the Pakistani visa forms in Delhi, she had remarked: "I felt I own the place. How dare they ask for a visa?"

Nony had left Lahore on a sour note: a fight with her best friend Fauziya, who lived next door. Nony had made a doll, with a long plait, the face painted with watercolors, and a wardrobe fashioned of brightly colored scraps from her aunts' old clothes. Fauziya wanted Nony to marry her attractive doll to Fauziya's male doll. At first Nony agreed, but then Fauziya told her that since her doll was female, it would have to come with a dowry--all the doll-clothes and doll-bedding that Nony had hand-stitched. Also, Fauziya insisted, after the wedding the female doll would have to stay in the male doll's house--as was the custom among humans. Nony turned down the match, and Fauziya stopped speaking to her. A few days later, Nony and her family left Pakistan forever, taking the doll with her. She has always regretted, she told me, that she left Pakistan on a fight over the distribution of property.

What she wanted to do now was to go back to the two houses in which she had grown up: her maternal grandmother's amid the winding lanes of Anarkali Bazaar, and her paternal grandfather's in Model Town. Her grandmother had died soon after crossing the border, Nony said: "We were thrown out. We felt very hurt. My grandmother died of sorrow."

The Anarkali Bazaar house is now a printing shop. Sometime after partition it was taken over by the former tenants, and stacks of old books crowd the rooms where her grandmother once conducted business from behind a latticed screen with the accountants, making sure that rent-collection from her numerous shops in the bazaar was in order. Though he was quite ill, the old man who now owns the house invited Nony for dinner because, he said, he had something to explain. He was ashamed. At partition, he said, Nony's grandmother had given his father the key to the house for safekeeping. The father had kept all her grandmother's possessions locked in the upper rooms of the house, allowing no one to enter them. Then, he said, after a family dispute his cousins had broken into the rooms and stolen everything. He said he had lived with the guilt for 50 years. Now at last he could explain and apologize. Nony said later, "I was embarrassed also, and I was hurt. This was my house, and some other people took it over. But I admired him for telling me. His family was so affectionate. The human feeling was what mattered."

When she left the man's house, she was given bangles and an embroidered veil--the traditional gifts a daughter of the house is given when she returns to her in-laws. The symbolism was clear: this was Nony's true home, here in Lahore. Delhi and India were merely in-laws, the family into which she had found herself married.

Nony was overwhelmed at the reception she received, not just from the people who lived in her family's houses, but from taxi-drivers, bellboys, merchants in the bazaars. Her coming from India was good for substantial discounts in the ancient shops of Anarkali Bazaar. As a daughter of the neighborhood, she was able to buy a 750-rupee suit for 600 rupees. The elderly proprietor of a photo shop, upon learning Nony was from India, said he was, too, and asked her to have lunch or dinner with his family.

One evening we went to the Pak Tea House, a writers' cafe that Pakistan's greatest poet, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, used to frequent. A group of poets and writers clustered around us. Surprisingly, this was the place in Pakistan where Nony found the closest thing resembling hostility toward her as an Indian. A professor of Urdu literature declared that the enmity between India and Pakistan would be solved if India "liberated" Kashmir, Punjab and Assam. "I was scared of their fanaticism," Nony said. "They were so vehement. These are the people that create the frenzy. If they were my age, they would never have talked that way." After one in the group maligned Maulana Azad, a prominent Muslim in the freedom struggle who chose to stay in India and is therefore reviled in Pakistani history texts, Nony added: "He was talking like a fanatic about Pakistan. I wish he had seen that united India [before partition]. We sacrificed together, we shed our blood together to win freedom. Then what happened?" For all her warm feelings toward ordinary Pakistanis, Nony remained clear about the political gulf between the two countries: "The difference between India and Pakistan is army rule. Their youngsters hate India. Army rule has dinned it into their heads to make war. Our democracy, whatever it is, has worked."

Not always. Like most Hindu and Sikh refugees who fled to India, Nony's family did well in their new homeland. She married a fellow refugee, a farmer who in 1965 set a record for wheat production. Then in 1984 India's Sikhs suffered through what for many of them was a second partition: the pogroms against Nony's community that followed Indira Gandhi's assassination by her Sikh bodyguards. Nony and her three daughters were saved by a Hindu neighbor across the street, who hid them from the fury of the mobs for 11 days.

Once the riots were over and she could return to her house, Nony worried about what she should put on the name plate outside her gate. After all, she had just witnessed the evil attention a Sikh name could attract. In the end, she used only the number 15, the address of the house. She still regrets not being able to display a name. "I felt one day people will be reduced just to numbers," she says. "We are not proud of being anything--Sikh, Hindu, Muslim."

Her grandfather's home in Model Town was a household of women before partition. Nony's father was frequently away on army duty, and her grandfather usually closeted himself with his second wife on the ground floor. As teenage girls are wont to do, Nony's aunts and her sisters liked to play the radio full blast, mostly film music--Saigal, Kanan Bala, Nurjehan. Her aunts often stole away to the movies, a forbidden activity. Once they took the family tonga, or horse-cart, and caromed down the road until they lost control of the horse, crashed, and fell off laughing--shocking all the neighbors. Before partition the family was united, rich and happy.

When she traveled to Lahore, she was looking for something that would be defined for her by Badar, the man who now lives in her grandfather's house. At the end of the lavish dinner his family had laid out for Nony and me, Badar became thoughtful. Like his wife, he said, he was the child of partition refugees who had made the crossing the other way, from Delhi and Bhopal to Pakistan. "It is a miracle you're here," he said, turning to Nony. "It's like a movie, a dream. After 50 years, coming back to this house." Then he reflected: "Man is always in search of old things. We go to ruins, to museums. You have come to look for old things. Something is lost. That is common to all men." A little later, he asked, "What is lost?" and then answered his own question. "I think it is love."

Now, age 61 and living in Delhi, Nony is not at peace. After her husband died in 1982, she became ensnared in property disputes--the curse of the descendants of India's princely class. Her days are taken up dealing with her six lawyers and her multiple ongoing law suits, many of which she has inherited from her ancestors like a useless watch. All this has made her a bit lonely in her adopted city. Says she: "Delhi to me seems faceless."

I returned to Delhi ahead of Nony. She wrote me from Lahore: "Here I am in conversation with my grandparents, my mother, my father, my aunts, my sisters, my little brother. For the first time I am not grieving for my grandmother having gone, for my Daddy having gone... For the first time I feel that part of my grieving shall go--as if I have called them all back to meet me at a place where they gave me birth, as if I have had a long conversation with them and clarified all my doubts, of not having done my best for them, for not having given them enough love... Here, meeting them after their deaths was easier because we all belonged together, we belonged to each other, we belonged to this soil, this town. On the other side of the border we had all separated, our personalities scattered. Here we are all one, we are together in grief and in happiness... Here--in Pakistan--an enemy of my country India!"

#19 miaN Urstruly

Very original.

Now, what's your take on some people not eating pigs?!

I think it all happened 10 million years ago, when a huge meteor struck earth and wiped off dinosaurs and other life form from the planet. The only survivors of that apocalyptic event were two species - cows and some humans. Cows survived because it is the most resilient creature on this planet. Every year hundereds of millions of cows get eaten up, not to mention a substantial number falls victim to Coccidiosis, Anaplasmosis,Blackleg,Brucellosis, ringworm,
mad cow disease and hoof and mouth disese and what not, and yet not only they survive but thrive as well.

The humans who survived decided not to eat cows for a while because they needed milk for their babies. But some of the humans were greedy; they would miss the roast angus beef. They stole some cows and ate them. The elders among the survivors when realized that the number of their toes all put together now did not match with the legs of the all the cows put together, they quickly figured out that some cows were missing. Did I mention that they were all good mathematicians? Anyhoo, they put their head together and decided to declare cow as the sacred animal and also declared taht if anyone tried to eat a cow again, god will again strike them with the ball of fire that had already wiped off most of the life form from the planet. That was the birth of a new religion which we now know as hinduism. That was also the birth of vegeterianism; for hundereds of years people had to suck green slime and algae from rocks to survive after the big fireball struck - and the word vegeterianism was coined to dignify the practice.

An interesting read!

GT

absolutely, bengali brahmins eat fish, kashmiri brahmins eat goat and so on. So there is no such thing as monolithic food rules for "hindus" - it has always been a mixture of jati rules with some premium on giving up "tamasik" meat. Again, things are never straightforward in hinduism - bengali gaudiya vaishnavas are pure vegetarian somewhat irrespective of jati origin, probably because they are a reform group anxious to prove their purity. This is why the beef prohibition feels out of place...

jang

It is generally thought that the business classes were early supporters of buddhism and jainism. If you think about it, these more reflective traditions are in some ways very supportive of business, much more so that ancient hinduism with its kings and sacrifices and so on.

But your point is also a very good one - in a hot climate eating bits of meat is going to be risky. In fact, that is the story of Buddhas death - that he eat a tainted meal of pork and died as a result.

Akbar, Shivaji, Ranjit Singh all prohibited cow slaughter. But I think this is a response to something that already existed at before that time - not something they invented.

mishraji

i have a theory on banias not eating meat...you see, banias were often on the move for trading and over time must have figured out that in hot climate like india, meat at serais can be bad. the french coutiers log in mughal courts clearly indicates that buying kidd in dilli and agra markets was a very risky bussiness where the vendor sould show you fresh cut of kidd and then will pack a rancid piece of mutton. so just like the europeans realized that drinking beer makes you not get sick (water used to be contminated with shyte) smart banias prolly figured out that grain is a way to go for living well in a tropical climate.

protecting the cow and the brahmin has always had a political signinficance..akbar prohibited cow-slaughter and sivaji decalred himself "go-brahman pratipalak" (protector of the holy cow and brahman) .. both symbolic acts of laying down the "dharma" (order).

i found out one of the largest mutton-prcessors and exporter out of india "al-kabeer" is a jain..and one of the largest poultry operation is venkateshwar hatcheries...so go figure.

Dear pmishra2,

Majumdar babu may correct me if he so wishes, but Bengali Brahmins are non-vegetarian. They eat goat and fish ... but not chicken! Tibetan Buddhists, on the other hand, eat almost everything. There was a Tibetan refugee camp near Delhi University where one could down gallons of "chang" (rice beer - illegal of course) and chew on dried beef (sour and hot).

interesting article, unfortunately things like diet etc. have now taken on the image of religous identity, so people unnecessarily get upset when discussing it..

valmiki ramayan is quite old, written down maybe 200AD or so but probably reflecting memorized tales from early BC timeframe. So it gives an older picture of "hindu" traditions. Looking at Tulsidas or Kamban ramayana would give an alternative more medieval view of hindu traditions.

Buddhism has never emphasized pure vegetarianism, as you should know buddha was against showy and strict rituals. The buddha himself ate meat and so do most current buddhist leaders (e.g., dalai lama). A buddhist monk is required to accept any food offered, provided it isnt poisonous/spoiled etc. But there is a general preference for reducing violence and violence against animals is definitely part of it...

There is no question that "hindu" traditions manifest non-violence from an early stage. It seems that in response to the deep ethical teachings of jains, buddhists and other groups, brahmins became vegetarian and vegetarianism became an ideal. You will notice also that even today the north indian business-classes and many gujaratis are vegetarian. Its likely that many of these peoples ancestors followed jain traditions in early times. The time-line is a bit hazy, but it seems to that vegetarianizing by the medieval period.

Hindu food rules are, of course, jati and region based. Kshatriyas have always been permitted meat and working people allowed to eat their traditional foods. But to rise up in the hindu hieracrchy of jatis you must give up meat etc.

The hard prohibition on beef-eating does seem to be somewhat recent, its possible that it has something to do with turkic invasions of the 9-11th centuries. Its a little strange in that it is one aspect of modern hinduism that is more like a formal prohibition - very few aspects of hinduism have that character.

So it could have been formulated in response to another tradition that has a lot of sharp rules and dogmas. Many islamic accounts refer to making sure that hindu converts have "truly" converted by having them eat beef or other food prohibited to them. So some clues may lie there...

great article.

you had me at beef..

i even have a friend whose family, in her village, sacrifices a boar during religious festivals and then serves the cooked meat..

Dear Murad,

This was a very interesting read. I was always puzzled by the phenomenon you tackle. It would be nice to know what pundit Ekalavya thinks about it.

In Assam there is a temple called Kamakhya (jang, I believe knows a lot about it). Goats and pigeons are regularly slaughtered there. On a particular day of some pooja (I believe Durga puja) buffaloes are slaughtered. The locals say that humans were also sacrificed there till the Brits. stopped the practice. There is also a rumour, that since then, on some particular day, a man made of atta (dough) is "sacrificed" (so Haideri may very well be right). I was surprised to know that the temple is very popular amongst the people of Nepal!

Anyway, I shall be reading the interacts with interest!

And last but bot the least....

Hamid Mian Zindabad (he has reasons to be proud of Gopinath).

Haideri: Dear boy, did you say, ""..Human sacrifice was also part of Ancient Vedic tradition...".

Anything is possible! But how about quoting the sources if yu please?
kamath

Murad, one should also consider the climate of India. It is one thing to eat a lot of beef in cold Afghanistan, but it is a different matter in the extreme heat and dust of India. Eating non-veg, especially beef will severely impact health and well-being. In such a climate, dal, dahi, veggie type foods are more practical. So I think the aryans started out as meat eaters and probably gave up on it based on the climate.

Personally I am a meat eater and eat beef as well, but I can understand why someone living in the Indian heartland would want to avoid it.

Human sacrifice was also part of Ancient Vedic tradition.

haideri

First of all, the question itself is plain wrong.

"How did Hindus Become Vegetarians?"

It has been a wrong perception in the minds of many people that Hindus are vegetarians.

Around 70-80% of Hindus are non-vegetarians. Beef/Pork are taboo for many, but that has been changing too.

Nkg,

Have you heard of the story where the demon Vatapi's brother killed him and fed him as goat meat to the rishi Agastya. Incidentally this story has been quoted by C. Rajagopalachari, Indian freedom fighter, scholar and a Brahmin (not a lying Moslem!!!) in his version of Ramayana.

Regards

Murad,

Do you mean to say that the Krishna movement is solely responsible for converting Hindus to vegetarianism? I thought you haven't given the answer.

Re: # 3

Nkg,

What makes you think Hindus don't eat beef?

Nkg,

Kindly read the Vedas.

Regards

Beef eating is prohibited for long time. Does that implies, it has to be mentioned in all the texts. This guy is pure liar (like Muhammed.). Ram had tried to trap the deer to gift to Sita. Ramayana mentions clearly that the wild animals and birds were very fond of sita and they used to roam around freely without any fear. Sita used to feed animals and birds. In most of the texts fruits, vegetables are mentioned as food for rishis and kings. Meat used to be consumed by lower caste people. How this stupid has concluded that, India had not good agriculture at the time of Vedas/Ramayana? Ramayana mentions quite a couple of cities and administrative regions (Like Sita was from Mithila). Agriculture only empower people to settle and create civilisation. As per beef consumption, it is mostly in Kerala and in other states by moslems/barbarians.
In eastern india mostly moslems eat beaf and cow smuggling is major issue in border districts of West Bengal.

Murad,

I think you are wrong about the southie Brahmins, they are (most of them) staunch veggies. Though you have surmised on cattle slaughter based on the male population, this does not truly reflect the real situation. I think cattle slaughter is happening but not as much you have pictured and also the Hindu consumption could not be much because the present Hindu population has been fed with aversion towards beef eating at a very early age.

You have missed the point that we have a huge Muslim population, which does not have anything against eating beef. I admit that Hindus too eat beef, but they are a miniscule percentage. A large percentage of Hindus, including North Indian Brahmins, consume meat of goat/sheep and chicken. Most of the barren cattle, especially in South India, are smuggled into Kerala, which has a large Muslim and Christian population.

Yes, vegetarianism could be the result of Buddhists and Jains, but the current form of Hinduism, I believe, too accepts the merits in it.

Murad bhai, you are completely confused, eating beef is very different from being vegetarian or not. In most of south india, cows are not slaughtered, but bulls are. It has more to do with haumane considerations, an animal that provided so much of milk and sustainance should not be killed in its old age. The same is true for animals used for ox carts and used for ploughing.