Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India?

"Muslims cannot be terrorists. If a person is a terrorist, he cannot be a Muslim," the Tibetan spiritual leader said.
"

Dalai lama, Gandhi et.al belong to the same category. I'd add Kaalchakra to the 'noble' list. They have one criteria for deciding who a Muslim is and claim that those who don't fit their criteria are not Muslims.

Funny thing is that all the above also claim that they are not Muslims. :-)

...and now for a khutba by dalai lama:

Dalai Lama leads prayer at Delhi's Jama Masjid

June 01, 2008 20:18 IST

Related Articles
• India's religious tolerance a role model for world: Dalai Lama

Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama [Images] on Sunday led a special prayer for world peace at the historic Jama Masjid in Delhi and said it is regrettable that Muslims are being targeted in the name of terrorism.

The Dalai Lama, who was in Delhi to participate in an international Anti-Terrorism conference, was accompanied by several foreign dignitaries and people of different faiths.

At the special prayer, the Dalai Lama said Islam has always been identified with peace and Muslims "are peace loving people."

"Muslims are one of the most peace loving people in the world," he said, adding, "It is regrettable that Muslims are targeted in the name of terrorism."

The Dalai Lama also said a person who engages in terror activities cannot be a true Muslim.

"Muslims cannot be terrorists. If a person is a terrorist, he cannot be a Muslim," the Tibetan spiritual leader said.

Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi and senior officials at the Jama Masjid were present at the prayer meet.

... a believing Muslim may fully see a non-Muslim as a Muslim too. But that is a real believer's view, fully justified, IMO. But it would make no sense to a non-believer. Prof Zee

If you replace NONMUSLIM with COMMUNISM is that a explanation of leftist bend of ALL aggrieved indian .Majority of Indian Leftist are HINDU INDIANS..something to remind anti indiam muslim justifiacation

zee, hopefully you will see why I refuse to accept anyone else on chowk 'greater' (in the framework we have discussed).

(1) You believe (some simply belong, not believe)

(2) You are confident. (some actually 'believe', but lack confidence)

(3) You are willing to go public. (very few among confident ones can go openly public with their views without descending into abusive and personally degrading language for others.)


(Thumbs up icon here)

-----------

nasah ji, lol, thanks, Sir. :)

Re: # 264

"I would also say that few Hindus here respect and admire what your family has done for India more than I do."(Eklavya)

I do too for what your family has done for India.....:)

"what we can see between Shia and Sunnis after as many centuries."

Differences shia /sinni schism true but no large scale uprooting of one over another.
Saudis ,Syrian, Iranian Egyptians ..have been so 'for ever' since its inception
and as prof zee informs all still like to be Muslim above all.shia sunn is more blame game .you did i didnt do
regards

#264 Posted by Eklavya,

... a believing Muslim may fully see a non-Muslim as a Muslim too. But that is a real believer's view, fully justified, IMO. But it would make no sense to a non-believer.

Yes it wouldn't, because they prefer an Us and Them theory. It's easier.

That's OK too as far as Muslims are concerned, but these people will lose, and a lot of blood will be spilled in the meantime.

Zee #260, on that score, and addressing your point in part only, note that dm ji made a statement that is not true - that I consider his friends to be 'non-Muslims.'

I have been arguing from rooftops exactly the opposite - something far more offensive to Hindus - that it is NOT at all in the hands of non-Muslims (Hindus), in particular, to declare good Muslims from bad Muslims, true or untrue ones. A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. The only difference is the position each occupies within the domain of Islam, and the role each plays to the best of his or her ability, talent, and opportunity (unless they formally abandon their association).

And no doubt, a believing Muslim may fully see a non-Muslim as a Muslim too. But that is a real believer's view, fully justified, IMO. But it would make no sense to a non-believer.

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

dm sahib, hope ranjit would address that. I, in any case, do not agree with his charge of hypocrisy against you or other traditional Hindus. It is just ancient worldview that has not changed.

I do think Muslims are willing and ready to take 'ownership' everywhere. The question becomes solely related to conflicts with views and interests and ownership claims of non-Muslims.

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

nasah ji

He he, Sir. I would also say that few Hindus here respect and admire what your family has done for India more than I do. My ideological commitments are so simple and straightforward that people do not believe them.

A lot of dirty work has to be done before people can live with each other in some sort of a reasonable arrangement, comfortably. Since most people are willing to climb down "into the sewer" to bring out real differences some of us have to.

I do try to not make things up by myself, but sometimes that may happen. And in that, I would genuinely appreciate any guidance. My only request is that I (or people like me doing the dirty work) not be expected to believe anything a Muslim would not believe. Best regards, Sir.

#259 Posted by dost_mittar
"It is time that Muslims in India took "ownership" of India and not leave it to the hindutva brigade."

Wow! What a great advice for a 'politically empowered' community. I wonder why they did not think of it?

Re: # 253

"Take my friend, nasah, here (I hope you wont mind my using as an example, bhaijaan!). He loves a bhajan by Pt. Bheemsen Joshi as much as I love a naat by Saabri Brothers. I don't think that he offers namaaz any more than I do pooja every morning. Both of us love ghazals and Urdu poetry.

Both of us wouldn't mind some mitthayee on diwali or some sawaaiyaan at eid."(DM)

it couldn't have been said any better -- dostmitter ji -- ah those good old days of school and college functions and parties -- celeberatin Eid Diwali and Holi -- in that beloved 'Hindu country' -- by now -- "hooway jatay haiN ub dhundhlay nishaN say/kay iss mehfil meiN hum ayay kahaN say"...

here is my take on losing those good old days:

Dair ko Hindu ki masjid ko musslmaN ki talash
kho gai iss khoj meiN insaaN ko insaaN ki talash

dost_mittar #252
I respectfully disagree that Murad has studied any history. He has read 'books' that too selectively. He is never able to quote specific references, and when shown specific references, opts to shy away.

Multiple holes were pointed out in his earlier "India unvarnished series" and all he responded with was - "It is there in 50 books in my library".

As you pointed out, there is absolutely no reference to Buddhist or Jain persecution in collective memory or literature. Buddhism has survived for more than 2000 years in Tibet. Tales of persecuted Buddhists would have definitely made it to Tibetan literature, and there is none.

... and no ...

... you should caste away all pretenses and declare the "Shahada" on Zeemax's hand; none would be more pleased than I on such auspiscious occasion.

If Eklavya was ever to even think about doing that, he would lose my respect. You would find that very difficult to understand (and perhaps Eklavya too).

Adopting an Islamic label means nothing. There are Jews/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists who are more Muslim than me or anyone else. Only Allah knows the hearts.

eklavya@254:

My concern is with the present. Marxist/Muslim historians are going against the interests of a secular India. They are consolidating the reactionary vote bank of anti-muslim parties, especially among educated hindus and inreasing hindu-nationalims even in the Congress and other non-left secular parties.

It is time that Muslims in India took "ownership" of India and not leave it to the hindutva brigade.

#255:
I wrote a thread to ranjit on up.

#244 Posted by akcheema Re: # 241; Eklavya,

I know Zeemax is far too broad-minded to have seen that in what you represent; the rest of us humble mortals are not so clever and accommodative, unfortunately.

Cheema Ji, but I'm a Muslim Terrorist. Remember? I even support suicide bombings. It's all on record here. Now how can I be broad-minded enough to know what an 'infidel' like Eklavya is saying? You should know better what he's saying because you're a broadminded atheistic liberal who hold people above all other.

How come you don't? How is it it that I, an avowed terrorist, am willing to accomodate and learn views, while you don't?

Am I a fascist, as I am accused of being so by even Pakistani Christians like ana whom I support, and you are not?

Who is a fascist? Me, or you? Or ana?

Re: # 254

"nasah ji, it has always been. On the other hand one must appreciate that Muslims believe not only Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Persia to be their lands, but everywhere they can own a house to become 'their' land."

Eklavya ji -- you take breathtaking jumps between the profound and the profane. You are an ideological mystery wrapped in a linguistic enigma -- aren't you....:)

Historical facts as they are presented by Murad Baig can be seen in a different light. Why Brahminism took hold in india just when Christianity, Judaism had just finsihed battling it out and Islam invented a new aggressive role in M. East? Why Advaita ( No two) and Vendata replaced Buddhism just when Islam was sending out expeditions to India?

Combined with simple fact that there is no trace of any historical or psychological animosity between Buddhism and 'Hinduism', should'nt we be concluding that Hinduism was a similar attempt by Indians, ( much like Sikhism later & with the same objectif)- stop marauders and looters of islam who had no respect for the pacified society in india.

With all respect to Murad Baig's knowledge, he has tried not to see the absence of any cultural animosity between 'Hinduism' and Buddhism, even a fraction of what we can see between Shia and Sunnis after as many centuries.