How did Hindus Become Vegetarians?

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

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: # 161

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

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: # 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: # 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: # 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: # 167

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

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: # 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.

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

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?

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

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

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....