Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India?

Re: # 382
Cheema sahib
I was wondering as well what got laddan talking about Mirzais in a forum that addresses the persecution of Jains & Buddhists in Ancient India, which made it necessary to provide some feedback for his urge to conspire.
Did not mean to derail the intended topic discussion.
My apologies to the author and commentators.

Kaal (re #368),

Bhai … no need to protect and get defensive about “Indian thought� and “purpose�. Granted, ummah wants to trademark the term “Muslim�, but I hope you are not about to claim ownership of “Indian thought� (LOL). It would be a race to the bottom between you and the ummah.

Ahmadi view is that Islam and jihad have been abused for political gains and senseless violence. They have rebelled against regressive Islam, and for this they are being persecuted. You may call them a cult … but that also describes initial followers of each prophet. So you’ve failed to make your point …

Earlier, in #353 I reviewed the crux of your issue with Ahmadis. My apologies if I was too blunt … but you need to rethink things. Once again, no offence intended; but the part about you being annoying, minus the 4-lettered-word, stands. Cheers …

DM (#356);

No teasing taken; you are on the right track. Over time, owing to human weakness, any ideology is likely to get corrupted, with its adherents going astray.

No one knows what Ahamdis would do if/once they revive “true Islam� globally. There is a distinct possibility that over time, they too would succumb to fanaticism. So your point is not lost …

… I was only poking fun at kaal's petty mindset … as he continues to fruitlessly agonize over the past ...

[reposting; earlier post got lost, it seems …]

replying #400

muradbaig,

400 interacts is good but not great when we talk about any religion (any one of them):-) So we can add a few more.

Also, when you say hinduism is no different, you are again simply wrong:-)

It is degree that matters not just good or bad. everybody is both good and bad in some way. What matters is how good or how bad you can be or you are. Now if you simply ignore that Hniduism is nowhere as bad as Islam or Christianity than it is your problem. Though the credit goes to you for saying exactly that in your post that Islam and Christianity have done much worse things than hinduism. That is where you negated your own statement that hinduism is no different. Hinduism and Buddhism are still quite different from Islam and Christianity. The indic religions are certainly not similar to religions derived from Judaism.

Kaal (#357),

Don’t get too hung up on the punjabi issue; the next prophet of Islam may be a pathan (grin)!

And the aspect of #301 you mentioned is nothing new; you’re trying too hard to reinvent the wheel here.

Your disappointment with the ummah over centuries, culminating in an obsession with Ahmadis, is not something to be proud of. You are carrying too much baggage - just a thought.

muradbaig#399,400:

Thanks for confirming what Rushdie said.
You do not have to say that you are against Hindu religion (and it would be just fine, if you are). This article is not about hindu religion but about the people who lived in the subcontinent in the pre-islamic period. The article is saying is that they were intolerant, brutal and genocidal towards those they vanquished but it does not say that, in doing so, they were motivated by their holy book or books or because buddhists or jains said anything against the vedic gods or godesses.

Robindro Nath

A dear Indian e-friend, Dr. Kaushik Sen, sent me one of Rabindranath�s novels, Gora, which helped me, at least partially, to begin my effort to better understand the world-poet�s perspective. After reading Gora, I wrote a 3-part series "Reflections on Tagore's Gora: Layers of ignorance and voices against prejudice" in which I have highlighted how Muslim/Islamic themes have been so respectfully dealt with by Rabindranath. This respectfully approach can be better understood in the context that "Tagore was predictably hostile to communal sectarianism (such as a Hindu orthodoxy that was antagonistic to Islamic, Christian, or Sikh perspectives)." [Amartya Sen] Subsequently, I came across a powerful short story of Rabindranath, "Musalmanir Golpo", which was written by him just a few months before his death. I have attempted a crude translation of that story (see link). Now I can relate to Rabindranath not only at human and Indian level, but also as a Muslim.

As Amartya Sen noted that Rabindranath himself described of his Bengali family as the product of "a confluence of three cultures, Hindu, Mohammedan and British. Rabindranath's grandfather, Dwarkanath, was well known for his command of Arabic and Persian, and Rabindranath grew up in a family atmosphere in which a deep knowledge of Sanskrit and ancient Hindu texts was combined with an understanding of Islamic

Robindro Nath

A dear Indian e-friend, Dr. Kaushik Sen, sent me one of Rabindranath�s novels, Gora, which helped me, at least partially, to begin my effort to better understand the world-poet�s perspective. After reading Gora, I wrote a 3-part series "Reflections on Tagore's Gora: Layers of ignorance and voices against prejudice" in which I have highlighted how Muslim/Islamic themes have been so respectfully dealt with by Rabindranath. This respectfully approach can be better understood in the context that "Tagore was predictably hostile to communal sectarianism (such as a Hindu orthodoxy that was antagonistic to Islamic, Christian, or Sikh perspectives)." [Amartya Sen] Subsequently, I came across a powerful short story of Rabindranath, "Musalmanir Golpo", which was written by him just a few months before his death. I have attempted a crude translation of that story (see link). Now I can relate to Rabindranath not only at human and Indian level, but also as a Muslim.

As Amartya Sen noted that Rabindranath himself described of his Bengali family as the product of "a confluence of three cultures, Hindu, Mohammedan and British. Rabindranath's grandfather, Dwarkanath, was well known for his command of Arabic and Persian, and Rabindranath grew up in a family atmosphere in which a deep knowledge of Sanskrit and ancient Hindu texts was combined with an understanding of Islamic

.........Actually Vivekananda was never happy with the word Hindu which is the key word in VD Savarkar’s Hindutva (1923), the bible of the Sangh Parivar. In his address at Jaffna in 1897 Vivekananda said: “The word Hindu, by which it is the fashion now to style ourselves, has lost all its meaning. I, therefore, would not use the word Hindu.� (ibid, iii, 118). And Vivekananda was equally allergic to our cults growing around our mythological figures. In an interview given to the Hindu in Madras in February 1897, Vivekananda said: “The sublimity of the law propounded by the Ramayana or the Mahabharata does not depend upon the truth of any personality like Rama or Krishna, and one can even hold that such personages never lived."

And Vivekananda’s attitude to the Indian Muslims is lucidly stated in his address on the Future of India: “The Mohammedan conquest of India came as a salvation to the down-trodden, to the poor. That is why one-fifth of our people have become Mohammedans. It was not the sword that did it all. It would be the height of madness to think that it was all the work of sword and fire.� (ibid, iii, 294). It was not distortion of history. It was a humane and intelligent interpretations of what happened in our country. Vivekananda gave a lecture on Mohammed at San Francisco on 25 March 1900 in which he said: “Mohammedanism came as a message for the masses. The first message was equality.� (ibid, i 483

Vivekananda and Indian Islam
Gautam Kundu, Georgia Southern University
“Neo-Hinduism� (or the so-called “Hindu Modernism�) involves “reinterpretation�—of the tradition, of the interrelationship of the indigenous and the foreign, and of what often has been termed as the “degree of receptivity (of India) vis-a-vis the West�, etc. Swami Vivekananda (Narendranath Dutta, 1863-1902), Sri Ramakrishna’s most well-known disciple, both at home and abroad, became an influential shaper and propagandist of neo-Hinduism, an “exemplary exponent of Hindu self-representation� during the early phase of Indian nationalism. However, for all the seeming vigor and vision with which Vivekananda sought to infuse his own brand of Hindu self-assertion, he lived and practiced a problematic and ambivalent position that neo-Hinduism occupied in colonial India and the West. While he criticized the materialism and secularism of the West, Vivekananda also admired the energy and dynamism associated with the Western sense of (among other things) national identity, and, ironically, by implication, religious nationalism: Vivekananda’s belief that India’s special gift to the world was her (Hindu) spirituality.
Tapan Raychauduri has claimed that Vivekananda’s “deep regard for Islam was in a way [the] most striking expression of his faith in validity of all religions�, and that Vivekananda’s highest prayer for the “good of the Motherland was that she might manifest the twofold idea of ‘An Islamic body and a Vedantin’s heart’�. But a closer examination of Vivekananda’s writings reveal that such a “validation� of Islam and of the Muslim Indian is more apparent than real, however. His vision of a non-discriminatory future is undermined by its fatal ambivalence, and its slide into the familiar (Orientalist) binary of Indian/Hindu/Bengali “effeminacy� and the “manly/muscular virtues� of Islam (and the Muslim Other), etc. Like Tagore, but unlike Bankimchandra and Savarkar, Vivekananda is more than willing to concede that Muslims have made India their homeland through centuries, but they continue to be the Other, if not quite the “first Outsider�. Further, like Rabindranath, when Vivekananda discusses the glories of the Indian past, it is almost always the ancient Aryan past. Over nine hundred years of Islamic presence in India and its myriad contribution to the country’s “composite culture� remains unacknowledged, if not ignored. When Vivekananda does praise Islam (and Muslims), it is mostly for what he considered to be the robust vigor of its “masculinity�; the ethical and metaphysical aspects of Islam suffer a near-total erasure. Like other neo-Hindu religious cultural and religious nationalists of his time, for Vivekananda, the Muslim Indian resides “outside the fold�, as it were, of that which makes for a “true� Indian: one who possesses a life of manas, not bahubal

I KNEW BUT REMIND YOU FOR YOUR RHETORIC OF COMMUNALISM



And before Gandhi, Hindu reformer Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) said: "The Muslim conquest of India came as a salvation to the downtrodden, to the poor. That is why one-fifth of our people have become Muslims." Further, he denied that "it was all the work of sword and fire," denouncing such a violent approach to history as "the height of madness

Muslim ethos in Indian literature


Literature is often described as he conscience of a nation. It mirrors the finer sensibility of a people and denotes their intimate responses to the everyday challenges of national life. Hence the cultural ethos of a community is perhaps most faithfully represented in literature, particularly poetry.

Indian Muslims have always been such an integral part of the nation, that it will be nearly impossible to identify their distinct role without considering the whole gamut of the cultural heritage. Practically in all modern Indian languages, their role has been quite significant for one cannot discuss Bengali without Nazrul Islam, or Punjabi without Waris Shah or Kashmiri without Habba Khatoon, or Awadhi without Jaisi or Brij Bhasha without Rahiman or Tamil without Abdur Rahman or Malayalam without K T Mohammad or, for that matter Indian literature without Ghalib; the list is endless.

But let's start from the beginning. Islam came to India in the 8th century and the first Muslims who arrived were the Arabs who landed in Kerala as traders and were warmly received by the Zomorin. Undoubtedly Indo-Arab relations go much further back than the advent of Islam. But the new religion brought by Prophet Mohammad emphasized mono-theism with great vigor and, as a corollary advocated and to a great extent, practiced equality among men of different race, colour and social strata. This message of equality attracted a large number of converts and it soon spread to other parts of the land.

The second major contact developed in Sind-not as traders but as conquerors for here Mohammad Bin Qasim, an Arab lad of 14 years conquered a part of Sind in 712 AD as a reprisal to the looting of a ship of Arab pilgrims by Raja Dahir of Sind. This contact, though political had a cultural impact and it was to this that the Sindhi language and literature owe their origin. To this day, Sindhi is written in a modified Arabic script and bears a strong component of Arab and Islamic influence in the tone and tenor of its poetry.

And it was here that Abdul Latif Bhitai composed his songs of mystic devotion and human love. A new era had already began- the era of cosmopolitan mystic vision.

Undoubtedly mysticism is no monopoly of Islam but in the centuries that followed, several groups of Muslim mystics so swarmed over parts of North India that mysticism began to acquire as a Muslim face. Till today, Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti who came from Iraq in the 12th century to settle down in Ajmer as a lonely immigrant is held in high esteem both by Hindus and Muslims and the compositions of one of his disciples, Baba Farid, form part of the holy book of the Sikhs - the Guru Granth Sahib. Both of them emphasized the concept of the equality of man and sang of man's total submergence in the divine existence of God Almighty. The idea caught on and spread with speed and alacrity to practically all the dialects and languages of the land, and assumed different shapes and forms.

One of these was that of allegory and symbolism. Human existence was symbolized as a woman in love who has been unwittingly separated from her beloved and consequently sings the songs of separation form her divine love and thirsts for re-union. Hence, the poet- or human existence was portrayed as a woman in love while God was taken to be the separated husband.

This also took the form of Bara-masa, (Twelve months) in which the damsel describes the charms of every season, month by month, and implores her beloved to take pity on her and to join her in enjoying the seasonal blessings. The first available Bara-masa was written by Addiman, who is believed to be a convert to Islam named Abdur Rahman. He belonged perhaps to the area between the North West Frontier Province (NWFP)and Sind in the 12th century, according to Hazari Prasad Dwivedi and Vishwanath Tripathi, the first editor of the treatise, Sandesh Rasak and this happens to be the first literary work traceable in Awhat, the language deemed the precursor of the present Hindi and Urdu.

This marks the great beginning in practically all-modern Indian languages. The mystic era had begun. The famous Indian historian Dr. Tara Chand has traced the origin and development of the Bhakti movement in the south and its spreading in the north to the impact of Islam and Muslim poets and saints played a very significant part therein.

In Hindi, for instance even before the advent of the four recognized categories of Bhakti poetry Gyana-Kshri, Prem Margi Sufi, Ram Bhakti and Krishna Bhakti , the emergence of Amir Khusrau was noticeable . Though mainly a Persian poet, born in Patiali (Uttar Pradesh) or, according to some scholars, in Delhi Khusrau was a devout mystic and disciple of the Sufi saint Hazrat Nizamuddin Auslia of Delhi, and his bridal songs, riddles and stray couplets mark the beginning of poetry in a mixed language with an amalgam of Khari Boli grammatical syntax and a sprinkling of Turkish, Persian and Arabic words. He sings praises of his motherland and mixes with the common man of his times so as to give unhampered expression to his feelings with exuberance and spontaneity.

Later on Kabir (whom several scholars consider Muslim) and his followers wrote poetry of iconoclastic humanism and robust commonsense in the Gyana-Kshri and Nirgun Bhakti which are similar in not worshipping idols and believing in the non-material existence of God. Syed Mohammad Jaisi's Padmavat, on the other hand, was the allegorical and anecdotal exposition of man's quest for Divine Beauty, and of self-abnegation in the process, as narrated in the form of Alauddin Khiliji's abortive attempt to conquer Padmini, who burns herself to death and escapes surrender. And the followers of Jaisi's philosophy and diction were many, who adorn the ranks of Prem Margi Sufi poets, including Mulla Daud, Qutban and Manjhan.

Then came the Krishna Bhaktas and these also include a number of Muslim poets. Sri Krishna has often been symbolized as the romantic embodiment of divine existence and not only in Brij Bhasha Hindi poetry of the 16th century but also in Urdu poetry of the 20th century. Poets like Maulana Hasrat Mohani took pride in proclaiming himself a Krishna Bhakt, Hence the continuing tradition from Ras Khan (the famous Brij Bhasha poet) to Hasrat Mohani.

Of course, Riti Kal of Brij Bhasha Hindi poetry abounds in Muslim names and these includes some very distinguished poets, like Akbar's Minister Abdur Rahim Khan Khanan whose dohas are exemplary.

Another branch of the Khari Boli developed as Urdu literature, which claims Amir Khusrau as the common ancestor and extends its frontiers to Gujarat and Deccan (mainly parts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra), in the form of Gujri and Deccani. In these literary traditions, too, Indian Muslims played a significant, even predominating, role. In Gujarat, saint poets like Mahmud Daryai, Miranji, Janam and Khub Mohammad Chishti enriched the allegorical mystic tradition while in far off Deccan, first under the Bahmani Kingdom and later on under the Bijapur, Golconda and Ahmadnagar Kingdoms, a whole corpus of literary writings developed with Muslim authorship.

Even prose pieces in Deccani like sab Ras of Wajhi (of Golconda) were written and acclaimed. Wajhi's is a perfect allegory with Beauty, Reason and Heart as symbolic characters and, according to some, draws heavily from a Persian mystic's work and, according to others from Prabhad Chandra Uday, an Indian classic. Earlier, a Muslim saint-disciple of Nizamuddin Aulia of Delhi, living in Gulbarga (Karnataka) had written copiously in prose and poetry for propagating his humanistic teachings, bearing close resemblances with Hindu mystic thought.

In Bijapur and Golconda kings, saints, courtiers and itinerant scholars and poets, all made their contribution in making an indigenous language rich. These included the Muslim ruling monarch Quli Qutub Shah, the first Urdu poet with a regular collection and poets like Nizami, Nusrati, Ibn-Inishati, Ghannasi, Hashmi and a host of prose-stylists like Burhanuddin Janam, Aminuddin Aala, Miran Yakub and others. That their writings are enriched by their cultural environs is beyond doubt as they sought to achieve a blend of cosmopolitan elements with the indigenous traditions.

The development of Urdu language and literature in the north began rather late but the imprint of Indian Muslims on it is so unmistakable that it has been wrongly identified with them though a galaxy of non-Muslim Urdu writers adorn the pages of literary history.

Urdu literature in the north flourished mainly in the 18th and 19th centuries in Delhi , Uttar Pradesh and Bihar where masnavi writers like Afzal, Mir, Mir Asar and Mir Hasan continued to enrich and extend the tradition of allegorical and non-allegorical romantic poetic tales and started writing ghazals in Urdu, thus combining earthly romance with deeper metaphysical thought pattern. Of course, Muslim poets played an important part in giving shape to this new idiom, which heralded a new cultural climate - the climate of secularism, cosmopolitanism and urban sophistication.

The stalwarts included Mir Taqi Mir and Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib in Delhi whose Catholicism and free-thinking earned for them an eternal place in the hearts of millions; Agha Hasan Amanat's Inder sabha in 1846 attempted an amalgam of Hindu mythology with Awadh culture and ushered in a new era in Indian drama; Mir Anis' religious epics on the battle of Karbala gave its Arab characters local habitation and an Indian look the inimitable Nazeer Akbarabadi of Agra identified himself with the common man and wrote poems on everyday subjects like bread, water melons and the rainy season.

Urdu literature by itself stands witness to the involvement and identification of Indian Muslims with the Indian ethos. Urdu literature particularly the ghazal, gave typical expression to the agony and ecstasy of the national scene throughout the ages. Of course, non-Muslim writers participated equally in the process but any literature can be justly proud of poets like Mir, Ghalib, Iqbal and Josh Malihabadi; fiction writers and movelists like Nazeer Ahmed, Mirza Mohammad Hadi Ruswa, Abdul Haleem Sharar, Sajjad Yaldram, and in our own times, Qurratulain Hyder, Ismat Chughtai, Jilani Bano, Hayatullah Ansari and Khwaja Ahmed Abbas; prose writers like Abul Kalam Azad, Qazi Abdul Ghaffar and Rashid Ahmed Siddiqi; and dramatists like Agha Hasan Amanat, Agha Hashr, Imtiaz Ali Taj and Mohammad Mujib. The whole galaxy of progressive writers who lit the fire for the independence struggle and stormed the citadel of conservatism and obscurantism comprises of names like Faiz, Majaz, Makhdoom Mohiuddin , Parvez Shahidi, Ali Sardar Jafri, Jan Nisar Akhtar, Sahir Ludhianvi, Kaifi Azmi and Majrooh Sultuanpuri. No history of Indian literature can be complete without mentioning the literary and artistic sensibility brought about by Urdu poets and literatures. Every one of them deserves a whole chapter for his or her achievements. K.A. Abbas, for instance, left an indelible mark not only as a storywriter or a novelist but also as a distinguished filmmaker and outstanding journalists.

Iqbal by his philosophy of Self aroused the Asian nations from their long slumber and gave them the message of self-reliance and dignity. His clarion call for the emancipation of the subject nations of the Orient added a new dimension to contemporary literature. Similarly Josh Malihabadi's revolutionary poetry and Abul Kalam Azad's fiery writings made the struggle for national independence an article of faith and extended the frontiers of literary consciousness.

In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the cradles of Urdu and Hindi Khari Boli literatures the galaxy of great names in both poety and prose include Rasikh, Shad, Hasrat Mohani, Jigar, Josh and innumerable others. Yet the Indian Muslims contribution to folk literature of the area should not be overlooked. In local dialects as well as in Khari Boli folk idiom. Muslim writers and composers have made their mark in Kajri, Laoni and other popular folk forms. Recently, Azhar Husain Faruqi's Uttar Pradesh ke lok geet gives a long list of Muslim composers and these represent only a portion of such contribution.

But the contribution of Indian Muslims was by no means restricted only to Urdu literature. In Punjab literature, for instance, mystics and saints left their own indelible marks. Waris Shah and Bulhe Shah composed classics in the 18th century, which are yet to be surpassed in excellence and acceptability. Even when the subcontinent was divided into two hostile countries, India and Pakistan and the border state of Punjab, the land of five rivers, was itself partitioned, the gathering of Punjab soldiers on both sides of the frontier could be seen listening to or reciting Waris Shah's epic Heer Ranjha jointly in the dead of night.

Further North, Kashmiri literature also boasts of its Indian Muslim authors, the greatest of them being, perhaps, Habba Khatoon, a plain peasant girl wedded to a ruling monarch and sharing his destiny in glory and Suffering. Then comes Mahjur, who sang songs of liberty and social justice and enthused Kashmiris to wrest their rights with courage and determination. Of course, these two names are only representative of dozens of other such writers and poets.

Further east, the development of Bengali literature, according to some literary historians, owes much to the patronage of Muslim kings of Bengal. Since its very inception, Muslim poets and writers have been in the vanguard of Bengali literature but the stature of Qazi Nazrul Islam remains unsurpassed. His poetic talent came to a sudden flowering when lying in a trench in a 21-day ambush during the Second World War and he broke into revolutionary song. Nazrul stands next to Tagore in his appeal and artistic excellence and his poetry inspired millions of Bengali-speaking people of India and Bangladesh in their struggle for independence. In fact, Nazrul inspired poets of all the modern Indian languages and provided a model for Josh Mahilabadi in Urdu, Subhramaniam Bharati in Tamil, Vallathal in Malayalam and Dinkar in Hindi.

Bengali literature can boast of other Muslim writers and composers, among them the outstanding literary critic, Kazi Abdul Wudood, Communist writer and intellectual Muzaffar Ahmad and of course, the innumerable Muslim singers and minstrel poets who roam the countryside and compose and sing Baul poetry.

Further down, we come across Oriya in which Mughal tamasha, a distinct form of folk drama, owes its origin mainly to Muslim writers. In Tamil, Abdur Rahman is still considered a major poet. In the sister languages of Kannada and Telugu, the present writer has limited information but the first Urdu poet with a regular poetic collection, the Golconda king, Quli Qutub Shah was also credited to be a Telugu poet. In Marathi, and Gujarati too, Muslim writers made their mark while in Malayalam, the stories and novels of K T Mohammad gained distinction.

This is only a cursory outline of the Muslim contribution to the various and modern Indian languages and literatures. But merely listing names of Muslim poets and writers, does not do justice to their role nor does it evaluate the true nature, extend and depth of their impact. This impact was not restricted only to Muslim writers but percolated to all levels and all kinds of writers irrespective of their religious fidelities.

What does this impact really mean in terms of the literary structure of these languages?

Firstly, it must be appreciated that the word Muslim denotes a much wider cultural domain than Islam. Islam was a set of beliefs but Muslims of different countries, though adhering to these common beliefs, developed their own cultural identities in conjunction with their indigenous environments. Islam for instance, forbids, or at least discourages all arts, frowns on the practice of music, dance and sculpture and deprecates painting, yet in all these fields Indian Muslims, and devout Muslims at that, earned distinction. It has often been the case that the artistic talent of Muslims in the forbidden arts found expression either in permitted media (for example, the expression of painting talent in calligraphy or of sculpture in the carving of Quranic verses on the Qutub Minar) or in the innovative transfer of these talents to other media. Hence the Muslim contribution to literature and poetry should be taken in this context, which in some measure, explains the popularity enjoyed by poetry among Muslims in general so that couplets form part of ordinary everyday conversation.

The second important factor that should be noted is that this contribution was basically secular and cosmopolitan in character. Secular - because Muslim poets and men of letters could not identify themselves with Hindu religious or devotional poetry (barring instances where it had been raised to mystical or allegorical heights) and hence their writings, both in poetry and prose, opened the gates of secular and materialist subjects. What sustained this new poetic idiom was its cosmopolitanism.

To bracket this cosmopolitanism with alien influences would be erroneous. The fact remains that the Turco-Iranian cultural tradition was, in the Dark Ages, the predominant world tradition. Europe was still to emerge as the new arbiter of human destiny and Arabs were dispensing the knowledge acquired from Greek sources, through translations. The Turco-Iranian tradition had absorbed this corpus of knowledge and had become its champion in Asia and the Middle East. Hence, the adoption, or acceptance of these Turco-Iranian influences meant imbibing the impact of the then pervading world culture.

Thirdly, it should also be borne in mind that Muslim contact was not primarily through administrators or rulers but mainly through traders (who purchased handicrafts and other manufactured goods and materials from the Indian towns or trade centres and sold them in Central Asian and West Asian courts and markets), Sufi saints, scholars and mercenary soldiers. Consequently, the adoption of these influences was the acceptance of world cultural norms and values of that period. The literary exchanges between Turco-Iranian traditions and modern Indian languages were therefore a part of this transaction, which can be compared to the impact of the English language and literature on various Indian languages today.

The Indian Muslim writer's contribution to various modern Indian languages and literatures, therefore, is two-fold: first in creating a secular and cosmopolitan literary idiom, and second in forging a new syntactical conciseness and close-knit poetic and literary expression mainly brought about as part of this Turco-Iranian impact.

Though very close to Sanskrit, old Persian had taken a different syntactical line of development. To discuss in detail the nature of the syntactical influences of the Turco-Persian traditions on the modern Indian languages is beyond the scope of this essay but the use of izafat (conjunctional lower apostrophe) alone gave much greater compactness and conciseness to expression.

The same holds good in the case of symbols- and non-religious and non-mythical symbols at that. The Indian Muslim writers in many cases revolutionized the literary idiom by introducing new symbols or by communicating a different conceptual system through old and familiar images and symbols. Even Nazrul Islam, who is greatly influenced by Hindu mythological symbols, introduced several new dimensions to them and introduced a series of symbols from the Turco-Iranian tradition.

The system of symbolism was used in a peculiar way by the ghazal, a poetic genre born in Arabic as an introductory digressive part of Qasida (eulogy) poetry which came to flowering in Persia as a separate form with scattered self-contained couplets bound together by common rhyme and ending with a subjective tone and symbolic expression of its own. Even though the ghazal symbols were not altogether indigenous, its popularity in practically all the modern Indian languages is due to its compact subjectivity and generalised symbolism, which covers at once different fields of human activity. For instance, a ghazal couplet, though apparently addressed to one's beloved can thanks to the prevailing generality of ghazal symbols be recited as a political statement. Hence, the ghazal as poetic form remains popular in Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Bengali and several other languages. Not exclusively a contribution of Muslims alone, it has however a Muslim connexion.

This clearly shows that the Muslim contribution to Indian languages and literatures has been a source of strengthening its cosmopolitan links and giving it a modern, secular and worldly look. In fact, this literary contribution was a part of the composite culture, which brought the diverse religious and regional identities together and tried to develop it into a national culture. Unfortunately, the process was rudely interrupted by a long spell of British rule which erected various barriers between the various components and constituents of this composite cultural ethos and the final act of the country's partition undermined the very basis of this emerging synthesis.

In the post-Independence period, Urdu has suffered the greatest setback with total exile from most of the north Indian states and this exile covers schools, libraries, government offices and courts. Yet mushairas are held in almost every important town and attract large crowds. ghazal concerts are a craze and immediate commercial success. Of late, however, Urdu has been accorded the status of the second official language in Bihar and UP and about ten Urdu Academies and a Bureau for Promotion of Urdu have been set up in several states and at the centre.

While Muslim writers are among the prominent literary authors of various Indian languages, in many cases, a sense of alienation separates them from their fellow writers. Recurrent communal Hindu-Muslim riots breed extremists on both ends and create distrust and insecurity. Hence the psyche of the Indian Muslim writer, whether writing in Urdu or Malayalam or Marathi, experiences an ordeal different from his compatriots.

Add to this, the rise of fundamentalism, the eleven year rule of Pakistani military dictators and the reign of orthodox papacy of Imam Khomeini of Iran, which have been posing serious threats to liberalism and rationalism to Muslims everywhere in the world and we get a complete, or a near complete, picture of the context an average Indian Muslim writer finds himself in.

Yet there is a silver lining to this dismal panorama. A number of Indian Muslim writers view their own preservation as well as that of the composite culture evolved through centuries of communion as a part of the defence of democratic values in our land. This crusade cannot be waged and won in isolation but with wider, much wider, cooperation and support of the people. And it is for this that writers, and among them Muslim writers too, though it fit to break the conventional framework of communication media and reach the common man through street theatre. Habib Tanvir attempted to mobilize the actual man in the street and, without any commercialized make-up, express through him the woes and sufferings of a suffocated society. Safdar Hashmi took street theatre to the masses even more vigorously and addressed them on burning topics directly connected with their own lives. For the temerity of criticizing the Establishment he paid the price with his own life, and symbolized the participation and involvement of Indian Muslims in the struggle of making India a safer and a better place to live and in preserving the highest values of a composite culture evolved during centuries of our history.

____________________________________________________________________ ______

Re: # 400


Muslim Contribution to Indian Architecture



Muslims & Architecture


Indian architecture took new shape with the advent of Islamic rule in India towards the end of the 12th century AD. New elements were introduced into the Indian architecture that include: use of shapes (instead of natural forms); inscriptional art using decorative lettering or calligraphy; inlay decoration and use of coloured marble, painted plaster and brilliantly glazed tiles. In contrast to the indigenous Indian architecture which was of the trabeate order i.e. all spaces were spanned by means of horizontal beams, the Islamic architecture was arcuate i.e. an arch or dome was adopted as a method of bridging a space. The concept of arch or dome was not invented by the Muslims but was, in fact, borrowed and was further perfected by them from the architectural styles of the post-Roman period. The Muslims used the cementing agent in the form of mortar for the first time in the construction of buildings in India. They further put to use certain scientific and mechanical formulae, which were derived by experience of other civilizations, in their constructions in India. Such use of scientific principles helped not only in obtaining greater strength and stability of the construction materials but also provided greater flexibility to the architects and builders. This amalgamation of the Islamic and Indian elements led to the emergence of a new form of architectural style called the Indo-Islamic Architecture.

One fact that must be stressed here is that, the Islamic elements of architecture had already passed through different experimental phases in other countries like Egypt, Iran and Iraq before these were introduced in India. Unlike most Islamic monuments of these countries, which were largely constructed in brick, plaster and rubble, the Indo-Islamic monuments were typical mortar-masonry works formed of dressed stones. It must be emphasized that the development of the Indo-Islamic architecture was greatly facilitated by the knowledge and skill possessed by the Indian craftsmen, who had mastered the art of stonework for centuries and used their experience while constructing Islamic monuments in India.
In simple terms the Islamic architecture in India can be divided into religious and secular. Mosques and Tombs represent the religious architecture, while palaces and forts are examples of secular Islamic architecture. Forts were essentially functional, complete with a little township within and various fortifications to engage and repel the enemy.

Muslims' Contribution to the Growth of Music in India


Music continued to flourish in medieval India in spite of the acquisition of political power by the Turks, Afghans and Mughals. It was patronized and thrived at the imperial courts of Delhi and Agra and at the centers of provincial kingdoms like the Sharqui kingdom of Jaunpur, the Khilji kingdom of Malwa and the Bahmani kingdom of Bijapur and Golcunda.

In his memoirs Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, has named several leading musicians of his time including Sheikh Ghuran, Sheikh Adhan, Khawaja Abdullah Marwareed, Sheikh Nai, Sheikh Quli, Ghulam Saadi, Meer Anju and many others. It is believed that the renowned musician Baiju was among the musicians in Humayun's court.

In the reign of Akbar there were many immortal musicians like Mian Tansen, Sujan Khan, Tantarang Khan, Bilas Khan, Baaz Bahadur, and Pirzada Khurasan. During this period some well known ragas such as Darbari Kanhra, Jogia, Mian-ki-Malhar, Mian-ki-Todi, Mian-ki-Sarang were introduced by Tansen. Similarly Nayak Bakshoo, a musician of the court of Raja Mansingh of Gwalior created many ragas like Bahaduri Todi, Nayaki Kanhra, Nayaki Kalyan, etc.

The Sufis from the countries of Central Asia who started coming to India with the establishment of the Muslim rule in North India in the eleventh century made a major contribution to the growth of musical institutions in India. Music played a central role in all of their congregations. They skillfully blended the Arab and Persian styles with Hindustani music and utilized it as a medium of communication for their messages of moral and spiritual uplift for the common man.

Among a number of Sufi sects in India the contribution of two sects, the Chishtis and the Suhrawardis is most noteworthy. The contribution of Hadrat Nizamuddin's disciple Amir Khusru is only too well known. He broke away from the old traditions and introduced new forms such as Qaul, Qawwali, Qalbana, Naqsh-e-gul and Nigar. Khusru is said to have created about twelve new melodies, among which are Zilaf, Muafiq, Ghanam, Farghana, Zangula and Sarpada. In the court of Jalaluddin Khilji the ghazals of Khusru were regularly recited by the famous musicians.

Several new musical forms were developed during the medieval Muslim period. Two of the most outstanding forms are Dhrupad and Khayal, which are still dominant in today's Indian music. The beginning of Dhrupad occurred in the thirteenth century and it reached the zenith of its popularity in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Two renowned books of the era Ain-e-Akbari and Raga Darpan state that most of the musicians of that time were Muslims. Kitaab-e-Nauras written by Ibrahim Ali Shah the ruler of Bijapur also mentions the popularity of Dhrupad as far as Deccan. Today the well known Dagar family is continuing to uphold the traditions of Dhrupad.

On the other hand the genesis of Khayal can be traced to the eighth century. The old musical forms of Khayal were influenced by Qaul and Qawwali. Sultan Hussain Sharuqui, the ruler of Jaunpur took keen interest in the development and popularization of this style. In the Mughal court of Mohammad Shah Rangeela his court musicians Niamat Khan and Feroz Khan composed hundreds of Khayals with a high degree of perfection. A large number of Muslim musicians were accomplished Khayal singers in the medieval period.

Another contribution of the Muslim musicians has been the establishment of the Gharana system starting in the eighteenth century. Several such Gharanas have flourished in various parts of the country. Among some of the prominent Gharanas are those of Gwalior, Agra, Jaipur, Kirana and Delhi. The Gharanas specially emphasized disciplined singing or playing an instrument according to the traditional style established by an extraordinary musician.

Among other musical forms Tarana, Thumri and Tappa are also popular styles which developed through the synthesis of the indigenous Indian music with influences brought in by the Muslims. The origin of Tarana is associated with Amir Khusru whereas Nawab Wajid Ali Shah is credited as one of the early patrons and composers of Thumri. Tappa style of singing is believed to have been the innovation of Shori Mian of Lucknow.

During the later medieval period a large number of standard works on music, both original and translations from Sanskrit, were undertaken. The three major works belonging to this period are: Raga Darpan by Faqirullah; Tohfat-e-Hind by Mirza Khan; Naghmat-e-Asfi by Ghulam Raza.

Tracing the history of the contribution of Muslim musicians to the growth of Indian music it becomes evident that the Muslims of medieval India were what the indigenous culture had made of them in the course of five hundred years. They became Indian in thought, speech and action and religion was part of the culture, but not the whole of it. It is obvious that music has been an unmatched medium to bring Muslims and Hindus together in India through the last six hundred years, and it is impossible to separate the Muslim components from the Hindu components in Hindustani music.

____________________________________________________________________________ _

Re: # 393
Mystic...
Muslims fought British. What special about it? Muslims had fought with Indians also. After the western floodget was opened on early 11th/12th century, India had become playground for middle eastern and central asian invaders. And that resulted in infusion of mediaval,middle eastern barbarism in major part of Indian society. When British ( and other european countries)had arrived, India was no more a civilisation.


What history should we read? Created by mediaval arab/central asian looters/destroyers and ignore Vivekananda, whom large section of civilised world respect?
He had travelled large part of India and identifed the main reason for the sorry state of present India. When he travelled europe and USA, he identified what steps to be taken to get rid of this barbarism.
His follower list conatins Nocola Tesla, Rabindranath, J C Bose etc... And for the sake of mediaval, middle eastern barbarism, we, Indians have to ignore him!! What an audacity.

Regarding 1000 years of islamic existance in India- A dog is a dog, whether you keep it in your house for 1 day or 100 days. It does not change the fact. If Brits would have stayed in India for couple of more centuries, does that make them Indians.

Regarding M K Gandhi...He deserved to die like that. No Indian is proud of his killing. He was responsible for islamic carnage in Malabar coast (Moplah) and his stupidity allowed the arab slaved to go on rampage in Calcutta and most part of Bangladesh (Great Calcutta killing, Noakhali massacre etc...). You,arab salves, may be very happy with him (he has kept one side unarmed, such that barbarians can carry out whatever way they want).
What statistics, you are using to prove that moslem % of population in West Bengal is not increasing abnormally? GOI ( NSA) is already concerned about it. Naturally, with migration of bangladeshis ( non-moslem share has dropped from 25% to now 10% in present day BD), the moslems population % should have reduced. But it has increased manyfold.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040915/asp/opinion/story_3752632.asp

400 interacts is pretty good and not too many have strayed too far from the main subject.

Let me only say thay I have no anti Hindu, anti Muslim, anti any religion agenda. Im only anti the many bigoted who believe that there is no truth but their own and sustain it with myths and unhistorical fairy tales.

The followers of all religions did many good and many bad deeds and this article only tries to show that `Hindus' were not different.

I also believe that the people of ALL religions can live happily together if only the Padres, Mullahs, Pandits and other professional `keepers' of religion would stop breeding hatred for the followers of other faiths.

Re: # 396

I can show you photographs of the tomb of Mariam Uz Zamani built by Jehangir for his mother opposite Akbar's tomb at Sikandra near Agra. The plaque says that she was a Kacchawaha (Jaipur) princess called Hira Kanwar but renamed after her marriage to Akbar. There is no record of her conversion to Islam.

According to the guards Akbar had 300 wives but his principal ones were Turki Sultana,Mariam and her niece Jodha also from Amber.

an interesting ad on Chowk

http://compatibility.mary.com/questions~testing-the-god-gene~t-144.html ?gclid=CNv_38Dn25MCFQOaFQodw0uqZg

Try it out.

DM do we need Rushdie to tell us what most historians would have told us anyway.

It may take a commission to resolve differences about the undocumented/poorly documented distant past; in the meantime can we unvarnish some myths about documented past?

"It's a useful myth: Rushdie

Booker Prize-winning author Salman Rushdie believes Jodhabai, widely accepted by many to be Mughal Emperor Akbar's wife, is a myth, fuelled by the popular imagination.

Speaking at the Rubin Museum in New York on Tuesday to mark the release of his newest novel The Enchantress of Florence, Rushdie said Akbar's queen was indeed a Rajput princess called Mariam-uz-Zamani.

"You can tell from her name that she is a Muslim convert and is the mother of Jehangir. Jodha is not the mother of Jehangir. His mother is Mariam. Jahangir had a minor wife called Jodha," Rushdie said.

"The only Jodha in history is the second wife of Jehangir and not his mother. So it is just a thing that has come up, exactly because everybody believes that she exists," Rushdie said.

The celebrated novelist -- who said he had conducted extensive research before writing his new novel that is partly set in Mughal times -- told the audience that primary sources for the history of Akbar, including two works by Abul Fazal, provide long, almost day-by-day, historical accounts of the emperor.

"But in none of them Jodhabai appears. There is no mention of such a person. There are mentions of Rajput princesses from Jodhpur, but there is no Jodha. It is not anyone's nickname. It is simply one of the great myths that has grown up," he said at the event organised by the Indo American Arts Council.

But, he added, it is a happy myth. "It is a happy myth about a Muslim ruler who had a Hindu wife, who does not make her convert to Islam and joins her in her religious pursuits and you can see why -- it is a happy myth and even a useful myth," he said.

The Mumbai-born author, who shot to fame with Midnight's Children, a fabulous tale of post-Independence India, said if one were to go out on the street and ask people as to who Akbar's queen was, nine out of ten would say Jodhabai. "And yet, she did not exist. So, I thought maybe she did not exist then, but everybody thought she did and that gave me the idea (of mentioning Jodhabai) in the book," he said.

Rushdie, who read excerpts from his novel for about 20 minutes in front of a standing room only audience at the museum, had a brief question-answer exchange with former United Nations under secretary general and novelist Shashi Tharoor who praised The Enchantress of Florence, saying he was "enthralled and not enchanted."

Not to talk about the most visible supremacist shouts of "Allahu....".

How the heck does "Bilal habshi" disprove that Islam is NOT supremacist with respect to hindu idolators????

In fact, it proves the contention by demonstrating that 'Bilal Habshi' was an "inferior" SLAVE until he accepted the supremacy of the momeen moon god!!

Re: # 378
First we can NEVER see eye to eye on this issue for two reasons

1/Your knolege is too much sitting in library reading Vivekananda or Gokhle
Second
2/You think you liberated India by that incident of Shivaji & whats was his name some Muslim named warrior .
Muslim in India w went on to face British in far more numbers( sepoy mutiny of 1857 ) to die with Hindu Mangal Pandey than u Ghati could do bedsides MURDERING gandhi and feel proud of it


Mystic...


"India is never a homogenous culture (language, food habit, social customs...). That does not imply, arab slavery should be treated as part of inherent Indian culture.
Vivekananda, Rabindranath, Bankimchandra, Satyen Bose, J C Bose are definitely great person and they have revived Vanga from semi barbarism. It had glorious ancient( Tamralipta, Gaud, Karnasuvarna, Vishnupur), quite poor mediaval, and good modern period (1870-1970).."

AS part of History in Indian /HINDU ASTHAN school never heard of it ...Its your own interest and i dont have to folow your passion in this as your interst in Cricket or Bolywood May be it means life for u ..

"Regarding naxalism..., I do agree with you. It has destroyed the achievments made in last 100 years (1870-1970). But in day to day life the chaos is very less compared to old places like Hooghly, part of Burdwan etc...
Regarding agriculture, it has nothing to do with moslems.
Anybody can do this job, provided, they get good guidence from agriculture department. Ganga valley is very fertile and suitable for 2/3 crops per year without any extra investment. High population growth (mostly contributed by moslems) causing trouble for the state."

May i know what SERVICE you provide that Indian muslim is not providing or cannot provide ????

Stastitically not only there is any percentage wise diff between Hindu and Muslim population growth..and why attak muslim centric in every matter .Muslim of India are in seperable part of india whether with there own money and time use any other (u call extraterritorial ONLY incase of muslim )

PPL.like you do business with America Japan Korea or China.
The above are just as 'Non Indian' As Dubai Kwait UAe.etc . They ARE Arab where Indians(non muslims) now prefer to buy expensive realstete with Million $ worth earned in INDIA wealth to live

"Paschim Vanga is facing is high population density. GOI should have pushed moslems to BD, when bangals were migrating to India. We (Ghati in local term) have to bear the burden of both. Bangals are smart in education and cultural side (at least my experience).
Regarding image of Bengal, I will not quote Gokhale. Look for research sholars and senior professors in any all india institutes. You will find couple of Tamil and Bengali guys everywhere. Visit India's premere research institute,IISc campus"

There are pl like you everywhere who think they OWN everyone else rather than individual opinon .You have not an IOTA of more right to opinion than Any Muslim or Other Indian

Lankan wants to oust Tamil, Hindus from malasysia ,Blacks from America, Asian from Britain ...

Indian Muslims above that have history of 1000 years presence .How many times against your individual opinion India never become HINDU pakistan even after Nehru Gandhi .If it was your wish only bangalis could live in Kokata ,Pumjabi in Dehi ,Tamil in Chennai, Bihari In
Patna ..........
Jai Hind



" Look for research sholars and senior professors in any all india institutes. You will find couple of Tamil and Bengali guys everywhere. Visit India's premere research institute,IISc campus"
AND SO i dont want to be like them so sue me

#390 Posted by Eklavya,

Oh Ok. Yes I know. This entire discussion is irrelevant. But you may carry on - it would be some fun I guess :)

But this Muslims 'supremacists' notion is wrong. Remember Bilal Habshi!

But again. that's irrelevant in the context of hindus/mirzaees etc.

Re: # 390

The fact remains that these muslims claim that they understand the hindus better even than the hindus is exactly my point regarding 'supremacist' attitude.

It is actually an attitude that aims at mis-constructions of those who do not accept the supremacy of their moon god.

This supremacist attitude aims at developing caricatures ("idolators"), a negative cultural representation ("the immoral pagan") and a propagandist historiography ( e.g. the redacted texts of bhavishya purana) so that the evil actions of these momeens in the form of destruction of the hindu symbols, temples, idols and other representations can be 'justified'.

It aims at constructing a belligerent image of those who do not accept that supremacist moon god so that even the most horrible violence against the hindu idolators can then be 'justified'.( the 'cunning' hindu)

If Murad thinks that he would succeed in this negative representation in order to justify the momeen violence and bombings against hindus then I am sure he is in for a BIG surprise this time!!!

Zee, this discussion is NOT for you! :) :) :)

Somehow people like Murad (and their equivalents on the Hindu side, all those good people shall remain unnamed) make test my patience, and as you know, when that happens the quality of arguments suffers as well. :)

(This debate was all about how Muslims and Hindus view history differently. I have been screaming that this sort of hope is futile. In the broad span of historical time, to any Hindu, Muslims will naturally appeaer 'supremacists.' To any Muslim, Hindus would appear naturally irrelevant.)

Mr. Baig,

This grand discussion of religion is beyond me. But let me warn you about this Eklavya dude. He will keep on squeezing you till your "inherent prejudices" (thanks rahul capri) flow out without your noticing. Let me put forth certain examples from your post #384.

1. "...FACTS are that the Upanishads first became known after 1656 ....". This sounds like "...Columbus discovered America for humankind ...".

Think sir, the Upanishads were known by whom before 1656? Were they humans? Or were they just "some" Hindus?

2. "India had never been a Hindu country. It had been a mainly Buddhist country for a thousand years, then a mainly Muslim country for six hundred years and British for two hundred."

This of course is beyond comment .... but it is refreshing to finally see a progressive / secularist define India's polity in terms of religion. By default, are you saying that now India is a Hindu country? Note, Ekalavya will be the first to agree with you.

3. "Poor Brahmin priests plied their religious trade using a few vedic hymns but the main corpus of the huge Vedic literature and philosophy that we know today was only known to a very few."

He, he .... And how do you know that it was known to only "a very few". I mean this really takes the cake.

Sir, it is because of people like you that the fight against the likes of Murli Manohar Joshi / Ekalavya becomes very difficult.

#387 Posted by Eklavya,

Yaar what is this debate about? I'm bored anyway so maybe I can contribute.

What momeen supremacist...

No, laddu. That comes naturally to Murad, as to all Muslims. It must.

BYW, scratch a little deeper about their actual beliefs and Mirzais would be worse. But this is, understandably, not about mirzais.

"For your information the FACTS are that the Upanishads first became known after 1656 when scholars of Prince Muhammad Dara Shikoh discovered old documents from a few Brahmins and had 60 (not 119) translated into Persian. "

The FACT is that it became "known" to momeens only after Dara Shikhon got them translated into persian........it was already a part of the spiritual heritage of millions of hindus......

You mean to say the even hindus did not know their Upanishads??

What momeen supremacist claim!!!

We will take this up in hindu forums !!

#384...
Hilarius...
What about centuries of culture of Upanishads prevailed in South India? Sankara was exponent of Upanishads...
For Upanishads, there was no end and people kept on adding for long period of time...
Yes Mr. Murad Baig, the original Upanishad is Allahopanishad, what the UP brahmins written under the sword of mughals...

A K Cheema...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath

Quite a large number of such instances in India...

Re: # 321

Dear Eklavya

My opinions... or yours for that matter do not matter especially if you do not read the responses carefully. When have I said anything about Dara Shikoh and the Vedas?

For your information the FACTS are that the Upanishads first became known after 1656 when scholars of Prince Muhammad Dara Shikoh discovered old documents from a few Brahmins and had 60 (not 119) translated into Persian. Later a Frenchman Antuetil (1723-1805) brought this work to Paris along with the Zend Avesta and 180 other old manuscripts and published in in two volumes. This greatly uinfluenced Arthur Schopenhauer, Berneuf and other indologists.

Please try to remember that things were very different 300 years ago. India had never been a Hindu country. It had been a mainly Buddhist country for a thousand years, then a mainly Muslim country for six hundred years and British for two hundred.

Poor Brahmin priests plied their religious trade using a few vedic hymns but the main corpus of the huge Vedic literature and philosophy that we know today was only known to a very few.

#382
A K Cheema...
I use the term to imply local flavoured,sobered down, little more civilised version of Islam....Dog as just another animal (nothing literary and to insult).

I request you read collection of Swami Vivekananda. He had travelled extensively throughout India and how he had come to conclusion (through local customs, folk tales, literatures...). Remaining, I will provide some evidences ( like in one post from Maharana, where the Jain temples in Rajasthan, provides enough clue about islamic barbarism).

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/complete_works .htm

If you are living in USA,UK or Australia, you may find some R K Mission near by. They will provide some more information...

Islam had nothing to offer, which can make lives of Indians better. Just learn the list of accomplishments by indians pre 12th/13th century and after that. Compare the same with post 1870...
Search Boudhayana, Brahmagupta...Sushruta, Charak, Panini....

Search University of Taxila, Nalanda....

Rest is upto you to conclude....

Guys.....guys.....guys!!

Looks like my refernce to mirzaees (metaphorical and purely used as an example....as I couldn't think of another one at the time) has been expanded into a bizzarre discussion "for and against" mirzaees.

I have already made it clear before....Feroz Qutabshahi's board recently; I have no strong feelings, one way or the other, on this subject. I grew up in a Sunni household and this subject hardly ever came up; for some reason, it happens to be one that generates a lot of silly emotions in people from both sides.

Also, in my reply to #307, I just wanted to state that a decorum should be observed (at least on FP) and personal attacks should be avoided.

NKG sahib: your constant "dog analogy" to describe Muslims of one sect or another is quite tedious if not outright silly.....please find an argument more 'educated' than that to put forward your point....you might actually win a few hearts in the process.

No nation/religious sect/philosophy/country has an absolute monoploy on knowledge, technology and the advancement of science etc. The west may be lightyears ahead now, but that wasn't always the case. By you keep repeating like a parrot that the sun always shined out of India's backyard, and somehow barbaric Muslims destroyed that fairytale for you, it is not going to become the truth; in your own mind perhaps....so think again!

By the same token no single entity/sect has been responsible for bloodshed of its opponents etc.....it is a trait well represented in absolutely every human culture around....at times at personal/tribal levels...and at other times in a much wider sense.

I just thought I should make that clear for the record.

Now please carry on....I am off

"Followers of other faiths, after having unsuccessfully attempted the missionary method of attacking the Muslims, seem to have abandoned their ways and by supporting the Qadianis (Ahmadis) with their work! Why would they feel so strong about supporting these "self-professed Muslims"? Laddu being one of such"

Zuber ji,

I am hardly concerned who calls himself as a "muslim" or who gets a place in the Islamic heavens. I am only concerned about my hindu faith and the violence and belligerence that may be shown by others.
Ahmedi-Islam is one such muslim faith that has dropped the violent posture against idolators - so it is but natural that we would support them instead of the mullahs of Pakistan who hold perverse and violent Jehad as part of their faith.

Re: # 362
Laddu...
Sufi Islam is like domesticated dog.

Muradbaig...
Caste system predates buddism (whole form). Mahabharat was written around 5th century BC (late Vedic period/Vedantic period) and specifies about caste system.

Re: # 302
Mystic...
India is never a homogenous culture (language, food habit, social customs...). That does not imply, arab slavery should be treated as part of inherent Indian culture.
Vivekananda, Rabindranath, Bankimchandra, Satyen Bose, J C Bose are definitely great person and they have revived Vanga from semi barbarism. It had glorious ancient( Tamralipta, Gaud, Karnasuvarna, Vishnupur), quite poor mediaval, and good modern period (1870-1970)..

Regarding naxalism..., I do agree with you. It has destroyed the achievments made in last 100 years (1870-1970). But in day to day life the chaos is very less compared to old places like Hooghly, part of Burdwan etc...
Regarding agriculture, it has nothing to do with moslems.
Anybody can do this job, provided, they get good guidence from agriculture department. Ganga valley is very fertile and suitable for 2/3 crops per year without any extra investment. High population growth (mostly contributed by moslems) causing trouble for the state.
Paschim Vanga is facing is high population density. GOI should have pushed moslems to BD, when bangals were migrating to India. We (Ghati in local term) have to bear the burden of both. Bangals are smart in education and cultural side (at least my experience).
Regarding image of Bengal, I will not quote Gokhale. Look for research sholars and senior professors in any all india institutes. You will find couple of Tamil and Bengali guys everywhere. Visit India's premere research institute,IISc campus...

Mirza Ghulam's Tirade against Jesus Christ(pbuh)
(In light of his own Writings)

Among his other claims, Mirza Ghulam also stated to be the Promised Messiah of the revelations and superior to Jesus(pbuh), the son of Mary(RA), in every aspect. However, when he became aware of the authentic teachings (Hadith) of our beloved Prophet Muhammad(SAW) confirming the fact that Jesus(pbuh) will descend before the end of this world, he had to resort to deception and treachery to misguide and impress the uninformed.

Naturally, all learned Muslims and Christians were disgusted that a person of such a questionable character would even dare to make such an outrageous claim. They could not reconcile Mirza's many faults with the perfection of the Messiah and refused to pay any attention to his claims. But, the claim to being the Messiah was an integral part of Mirza's satanic scheme to promote himself to prophethood; hence, he insisted in propagating his lies. Outraged Christians demanded that he perform miracles as Jesus(pbuh) had done and ridiculed him when he was unable to do so.

In return, Mirza resorted to making blasphemous statements about Jesus(pbuh), one of the greatest Prophets. Since Mirza was neither willing to correct his own moral and ethical flaws nor able to perform miracles, he could not have ever hoped to raise his own status to that of Jesus(pbuh) - whom he viewed as his competitor to messiahship. Instead, Mirza resorted to making desperate and slanderous remarks in an attempt to try to lower the status of Jesus(pbuh) to his own level!

Listed are some of the better known writings of Mirza Ghulam in this regard. I apologize, in advance, for any offense you might find at these writings - and hope that Allah(SWT) will forgive for having reproduced these blasphemous statements. Please be assured that no Muslim would hold these same beliefs.

Mirza Insults the Family of Jesus(pbuh)

* "Jesus's three paternal and maternal grandmothers were fornicators and prostitutes, from whose blood Jesus came into existence."(Anjam-i-Atham, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 11, P. 291, addenda; Anjam-i-Atham, P. 9, appendix)
* "You may have tried to find a solution to my claims about the Messiah's parental and maternal grandmothers. I am tired of thinking. Up to now, no nice solution has occurred to me. What a glorious God is HE whose paternal and maternal grandmothers are of such repute?"(Nur-ul-Quran, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 9, P. 394; Nur-ul-Quran, Vol. 2, P. 45)
* "Islam, unlike Christianity, does not teach us that God was born of a woman - and was fed by sucking blood from the womb of his mother for nine months - the blood which had the qualities of prostitutes like the daughters of Saba, Tamar, and Rabah." (Anjam-e-Athum, P. 41)
* "Jesus had an inclination for prostitutes perhaps due to his ancestral relationship with them..."(Anjam-i-Atham, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 11, P. 291, addenda)

Mirza Insults Mary(RA)

* "Mary's eminence is such that she put off her marriage for a long time, but after constant pressure of the community leaders, and due to her pregnancy, she accepted to get married. However, people raise objection about how she could have been married while pregnant, that being against the teachings of the Torah. People also object to Mary breaching the oath of celibacy. People also question why Mary set the foundation of polygamy. In other words, why did Mary agree to marry Joseph the carpenter, despite his being already married."(Kasthi-i-Nuh, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 19, P. 18; Kasthi-i-Nuh, P. 26)
* "Mary's hanging out with her fiancee Joseph before wedlock is a strong testimony of an Israelite custom.... Going out with fiancees among people in some frontier tribes had exceeded the limits to such an extent that sometimes pregnancy comes before wedlock, yet it is not looked down upon."(Ayyam-ul-Sulh, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 14, P. 300)
* "... Because the Messiah, son of Mary, had worked as a carpenter with his father Joseph for twenty two years, we know that he was able to invent different sorts of machines and instruments."(Azalah-i-Auham, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 3, P. 254)
* "Jesus's three paternal and maternal grandmothers were fornicators and prostitutes, from whose blood Jesus came into existence." [See: Mirza Insults the family of Jesus(pbuh)](Anjam-i-Atham, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 11, P. 291, addenda)
* "Jesus, The Messiah, had four brothers and two sisters; all of them were his real brothers and sisters. I mean that they all were the offspring of Joseph and Mary."
(Kashti-i-Nuh, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 19, P. 18)

Hope that everyone can readily see what Mirza Ghulam is insinuating here:

* It was common among Jews to go out with their fiancee and have premarital sex;
* Mary(RA) was a Jew and used to go out with his fiancee, Joseph;
* Mary(RA) broke her oath of celibacy (had multiple children);
* Joseph was the Father of Jesus(pbuh);
* Jesus(pbuh) had Paternal grandmothers (did Jesus(pbuh) even have a father?);
* Jesus(pbuh) had brothers/sisters and all were the children of Joseph and Mary(RA).

In short, Mirza insolently suggested that Mary(RA) had engaged in premarital sex with Joseph; and Jesus(pbuh) was the result of that fornication. Each one of these claims of Mirza are unfounded and untruthful charges.

Mirza Claims himself Superior to Jesus(pbuh)

* "To this nation, God sent His promised Messiah (Mirza), who is better than the first Messiah (Jesus) in all regards. I swear by God in whose hands my soul rests that if the Messiah, son of Mary, were my contemporary, he could not have done the works that I can do. Nor would he be able to match the signs (miracles) which I am bringing."
(Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 22, P. 152; Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, P. 148)
* "To this community, God sent the promised Messiah (Mirza) who is better in all glory that the first Messiah (Jesus) and calls this new Messiah Ghulam Ahmad."
(Dafi-ul-Bala, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 18, P. 233; Dafi-ul-Bala P. 27)
* "After all, when God and His Apostle (Muhammad(SAW)) and all the Prophets have declared the supremacy of the second Messiah (Mirza) of this period due to his great achievements; then, it is a satanic act to question me 'Why do you proclaim yourself superior to the first Messiah, the son of Mary?'."(Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 22, P. 159)

* "Give up all mention of the son of Mary, because Ghulam Ahmad is superior to him."(Dafi-ul-Bala, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 18, P. 240; Dafi-ul-Bala, P. 30)

Mirza Ghulam Qadiani abused Jesus(pbuh) and, in doing so, rejected verses of Quran speaking of Jesus(pbuh) and his family. He was no more than an opportunist and a fabricator.
May God forgive me for reproducing the profanities & indignities inflicted by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed & contained in publications outlined within parentheses above.

Mannerism of Mirza Ghulam Qadiani!
(In light of his own Writings)
Mirza Ghulam Qadiani did not have any scruples at using profanities to try to ridicule, intimidate, or threaten people who did not accept his false claim to prophethood.

Here are a few examples of his writings:

"My enemies are dirty swine and their women are more wretched than bitches."(Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 14, P. 53; Najmul Huda, P. 10, 53)

"All Muslims regard my books with reverence and care and benefit from their sublime thoughts except those who are the offspring of prostitutes (bastards); God has put a seal upon their hearts and they do not accept me."
(Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 5, Page 547-548; Mirat-o-Kamalat-i-Islam, P. 547; Aeena-e-Kamalat Islam, P.547-548)

[Mirza Ghulam translated this Arabic word as "Bastard" in
(Roohany Khazaen Vol. 11, P. 282)

"The one who has no belief in our ultimate victory is fond of becoming bastard and he is bound to be product of fornication." (Roohany Kazaen, Vol. 9, P. 31; Anwar ul Islam, P. 30)

"Are they prepared to swear? No, they'll never do so because they are liars and are derooting the corpse of falsehood like dogs."(Supplement to Anjam-e-Atham, P. 25; Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 11, P. 309)

His eulogy about Maulvi Saadullah Ludhianwi was:
"I look a sinful man among debauched who is more scoundrel and an execrated being like Satan... He who is called Saadullah by the ignorant is slanderer, wicked and a falsifier... You injured me, bastard. I won't be truthful if you won't have a disgraceful death."(Haqiqat-ul Wahi, P. 14-15; Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 22, P. 734-735)

"If Abdullah Athum is saved from death (as per Mirza's prophecy) and if all the world say the Christian was correct, then the bastard will not follow the right path."
(Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 9, P. 32)

"Abdul Haq is not content with our victories. He is itching to become a bastard."(Anwar-ul-Islam, P. 30)

"There is nothing more foul than a pig in the world. But the ulema who oppose me are more foul than pigs. "(Anjam-i-Atham, P. 21)

"You have inflicted pain on me with your foulness. You are not truthful. I pray that you die in shame, you son of a harlot."(Anjam-i-Atham, P. 288)

"This bastard of a doctor does not thread the straight path."(Anwar-ul-Islam, P. 30)

He called Shaikhul Islam Saanaullah of Amristar:"O, the son of wind, o traitor..." (Ijaz-i-Ahmadi, P. 43/77)

The puzzling thing is that he himself wrote:
"I have never abused anyone."(Moahiburahman, P. 18)

"He is worst who is abusive, his heart is as filthy as Latrine."(Sar-e-Sumain, P. 74)

"Abuses and rebukes are not the acts of a believer and a believer can not be a curser."(Azalat-ul-Auham, P. 66)

Is this how a Prophet or even a rightly guided individual would speak?
in light of above quoted writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, Laddu you can look up what level he says you belong to

The Purpose of Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat)

Doctrines of Islam Feared the Most
The enemies of Allah (SWT), wishing to enslave the humanity to a relentless pursuit of the transient allures of this life, have always been very weary of two Islamic doctrines:

1. The Islamic belief in Allah(SWT)'s limitless mercy, knowledge, and power that propels every Muslim to shape his/her life for the sole purpose of achieving closeness with Allah(SWT) in the hereafter. This means that a Muslim strives to live in accordance with the instructions of Allah(SWT) and is willing to selflessly sacrifice his/her time, talent, property and very life in the cause of Islam and humanity.
2. The oneness of the Muslim Ummah, based in the common belief in Allah(SWT), Muhammad(SAW), and the Holy Quran, is reinforced through the rituals that all Muslims - regardless of national origin, socio-economic class, race, gender, and age - routinely follow.

Attacks faced by Islam and Muslims
It is natural, then, to expect the enemies of truth, brotherhood, justice, and freedom to attack these doctrines in their relentless pursuit to weaken Muslims, both individually and as a nation. These are some of their favorite methods:

* Direct Attack
o Terrorism directed toward Muslims;
o Military Intervention.
* Indirect Attack
o Ridiculing the doctrines of Islam by:
+ Attributing derogatory terminology (fundamentalist, intolerant, backward, ...) with Islam and Muslims;
+ Making fun of Muslim scholars thought speeches, poetry and movies;
+ Making fun of Islamic lifestyle;
+ Withholding science and technology from Muslim nations and blaming the society's lack of progress on Islam;
+ Supporting, through higher education (PHDs, MDs, Professors), those individuals who can be trusted either not to practice Islam or reject its doctrines as useless and outdated;
+ Glorifying successful public personalities who reject the ideals of Islam;
o Sponsoring and supporting political leaders who are willing to slowly convert the society to an unIslamic and immoral system, designed for better exploitation of individuals and resources;
o Supporting organizations and individuals who reject Islamic doctrine through false publications against the character of the Prophet(SAW), authenticity of the Holy Quran and all Hadith, and the doctrines of Islam;
o Imprisoning legitimate Muslim scholars on false charges;
o Planting pseudo-scholars who preach a very destructive and baseless version of Islam;
o Making divisive, extremist, and heretic movements and Sects within Islam;
o Planting new and alternative man-made "religions".

Throughout the history of Islam, shortsighted individuals have resorted to such tactics to control the masses and undercut their innate desire for justice, equality, and freedom. The "Indirect" method has been proven to be the least costly to them - in terms of the loss of life, overall expense, and the long-term success. By relying on this method, the exploiters hope to gain the control of the masses in a slow, calculated fashion. They, in effect, hope to brainwash the Muslims generation after generation, until most "Muslims" can not recognize truth fom falsehood and will mindlessly become slaves to every whim of the immoral and the powerful.

We pray that Allah(SWT) will bestow upon us the wisdom to see these stealth methods of attacks used by the enemies of Islam.

The Role of Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat)
The Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat) cult was created and is being promoted by the enemies of Islam, for the sole purpose of weakening and dividing the Muslim Ummah, at the time when the colonial powers were seeking to prepare the Muslim world for exploitation. Setting aside the unIslamic teachings of the Mirza Ghulam Qadiani (ie. rejecting the Finality of Prophethood, claiming to be a second Advent of Prophet Muhammad, belying the verses of the Holy Quran, abusing Jesus Christ, and striving to create extremism and hatred between Muslims and Christins), the doctrine of Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat) differ from Islam in its open pursuit of making the masses obedient and subservient to the interests of immoral, unjust, and tyrannical rulers.

The following are among such doctrines of Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat), as advocated by its founders:

* Every Qadiani (Ahmadi) must be willing to sacrifice his/her wealth and life for the Government (which at the time was the British Empire) in charge, regardless of the actions of the regime;
* No Qadiani (Ahmadi) can participate in demonstrations and Jihad against an oppressive or unjust Government;
* Qadianis (Ahmadis) are to follow every teaching of Mirza Ghulam Qadiani (their prophet), even when it is in clear contradiction to the teachings of Islam.
* Qadianis (Ahmadis) are expected to hold Qadian (India) and Rabwah (Pakistan) as their holy cities;
* Qadianis (Ahmadis) are taught to feel superior to Muslims and are expected to try to convert Muslims into Qadianism, by referring to false and baseless missionary arguments;
* Qadianis (Ahmadis) are to believe that Muslims are unbelievers;

The Qadiani leadership would like you to believe that Mirza Ghulam Qadiani was a prophet of Allah(SWT) and that his instructions, contradicting the verses of Quran, common sense, and the inspiration of every freedom and justice lover individual around the globe, were not simply an attempt to enslave a nation to the foreign powers of the era! They would like us to believe that Mirza's attempt to divide the nation and make it obedient to the oppressors, exploiters, and aggressors of the era were not the act of a self-serving individual, but those of a prophet of God!

However, historic evidence proves, without a doubt, that Mirza Ghulam Qadiani was engaged in spreading propaganda in support of the tyrannical British Empire of his time. As he confessed in his own reports to his British overlords, he appointed himself to his post of prophethood to "remove the spirit of Jihad (struggle for freedom and independence) from the mind of ignorant Muslims".

"The enemies of Islam and the modern colonialists trying to enslave the Ummah are afraid of the resurgence of Islam; they fear the unity of Muslims and their spirit of Jihad."

nonnsense, actually this caricature of Ahmedi Islam appears to be a 'conspiracy' instead!!

How do Qadiani (Ahmadi) Missionaries Operate?
The followers of Mirza Ghulam Qadiani refer to themselves as "Ahmadi Muslims" and pretend to belong to the Sunni school of thought (individuals who follow the example and teachings of Prophet Muhammad). They approach individuals, who have never heard of Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat), and, relying on their financial and political resources and baseless missionary arguments, try to convert Muslims into Qadianism.

They try to acquire new members by relying on traditional missionary techniques:

* Misrepresenting the holy Quran, hadith, Muslim scholars, and historical records;
* Attempting to discredit devoted Muslims and alienating their victims from the ummah;
* Preaching the appealing message of Islam at a ritualistic level;
* Misleading those who have not heard of Islam or Mirza Ghulam Qadiani;
* Confusing those with a very elementary knowledge of Islam;
* Building prayer halls, schools, and missionary houses to earn the trust of the needy.

They recruit new missionaries by:

* Bribing and buying the services of officials;
* Offering financial and material incentive to weak individuals;
* Funding the work and life of missionary workers in the West.

Followers of other faiths, after having unsuccessfully attempted the missionary method of attacking the Muslims, seem to have abandoned their ways and by supporting the Qadianis (Ahmadis) with their work! Why would they feel so strong about supporting these "self-professed Muslims"? Laddu being one of such

Naturally, except for the elite in the Qadiani (Ahmadiyya) Mission and those who follow the cult in way of loyalty to the way of their fathers, not too many individuals are aware of the core doctrine of Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat). For over a century now, the Qadianis (Ahmadis) have refused to make a complete translation of their books available in other languages. While they boast about having distributed their false translation of the holy Quran in dozens of languages, they have refused to translate the writings of their own founder in any other language (original writings are mostly in Urdu, Persian, and Arabic)! What are they hiding?

The enemies of Islam and the modern colonialists trying to enslave the Ummah are afraid of the resurgence of Islam; they fear the unity of Muslims and their spirit of Jihad. They know too well that a Muslims converted to Qadianism (Ahmadiyyat) is a blindly obedient person who will never move against the will of his/her masters. These unbelievers will stoop to anything to achieve their goal and certainly have no qualms about condemning many souls to hell, in the process.

Ahmadiyya Movement in, or against, Islam?
The "Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam" (called by Muslims everywhere as "Qadianism") was established, in 1889, by Mirza Ghulam Qadiani (1835 - 1908) in a small Punjabi village of India. Mirza Ghulam Qadiani’s family were in the service of the British colonial powers and, to his dying days, Mirza Ghulam openly declared his allegiance to the British imperialism. In fact, the culmination of his service to foreign power was his declaration that resistance to oppressors (Jihad) -- as ordained in the Holy Quran by God -- had become unIslamic!

Mirza Ghulam Qadiani’s life was laden with contradictory and anti-Islamic claims. In 1880, he declared himself to be only a Muslim writer; in 1885, he announced he was a revivalist (Mujaddid); in 1891, he claimed to be the Promised Mehdi and the Promised Messiah; and in 1901, he pronounced himself a prophet of God! Facing an open and strong opposition by Muslim Scholars and religious leaders for this blasphemous declaration and other teachings which belittled Jesus Christ(pbuh) and contradicted the Quranic revelations, he also announced that he was the second and improved coming of the Prophet Muhammad(SAW) with authority to reinterpret the Holy Quran at his pleasure! Not happy with mere prophethood, in 1904, he declared himself the Krishna (the Hindu Lord). Obviously, like an unethical modern-day politician, he was trying to appeal to all uneducated segments of the public in India!

Fortunately, the Almighty Allah(SWT), time and time again, exposed Mirza Ghulam Qadiani's falsehood through his own statements and so-called prophecies. Even many of his own family members were aware of his treachery and openly opposed his anti-Islamic teachings. Mirza Ghulam Qadiani finally died by intervention of the Almighty Allah and as the result of religious prayer challenges (Mubahala), in 1908.

Since the death of Mirza Ghulam Qadiani, his heirs -- the leaders of the Qadiani organization ("Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam") -- have been extremely busy trying to clean up his image. Backed by seemingly unlimited support they receive from their anti-Muslim allies, they have been promoting falsehood and deception through the media. They have even resorted to removing some of most controversial writings of Qadiani leadership -- which had become a source of embarrassment to them -- from circulation. Their partial English translation of their original text has been heavily edited to exclude all controversial and anti-Islamic sayings of their cult leaders. Obviously, they themselves realize the true nature of their "Ahmadiyya Mission".

The goal of the "Ahmadiyya Mission" is, and has always been, to confuse uninformed Muslims, divide the Ummah, prevent resistance to oppressors (Jihad), and provide an alternative to non-Muslims who find the message of Islam appealing. Quite cunningly, they do so by using Islamic terminology and teachings, and hiding the controversial writings of their founders. Today, only the most learned Muslims are able to attend one of their functions and realize that their brand of Islam is a form of Kufr (disbelief). Even when their leaders mention the Kalima (I bear witness there is only one God and Muhammad is his messenger), they are referring to their founder who proclaimed himself to be (God forbid) the second improved coming of the prophet Muhammad(SAW) and not to the true Prophet(SAW) of Allah(SWT).

Muslim brethren everywhere should not be confused by Qadiani leadership's superficial use of Islamic concepts to promote their cult. Our beloved Prophet Muhammad(SAW) and the four Khalifah also faced such false prophets. Of particular interest is the claim by an Arab, named Musailama, to prophethood, during the latter part of the life of the Prophet(SAW). Although he simply claimed co-prophethood with the Prophet Muhammad(SAW) of Arabia and did not belie any other teaching of the Holy Quran, he and all of his mislead followers were declared out of the fold of Islam, by righteous believers. Under the leadership of Hadrat Abu Bakr Siddique(RA) and with the unanimous consensus of all the companions of the Prophet Muhammad(SAW), a victorious war was waged against Musailama for using Islamic concepts and claiming prophethood. This should indeed be sufficient evidence to declare the Qadianis as non-Muslims.

In 1974, after an exhaustive examination of all the evidence presented for and against the Qadianis, the Muslim World League (Rabita Alame Islami) -- which represents all religious scholars from every Muslim country of the world -- passed an unanimous resolution declaring the Qadiani Movement and its leadership out of the fold of Islam. Indeed, "Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam" is a man-made organization with no divine authority or guidance.

Say: "O ye men! Now Truth hath reached you from your Lord! those who receive guidance, do so for the good of their own souls; those who stray, do so to their own loss: and I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs."
(The Holy Quran, Yunus, 10:108)

Re: # 370

what 'conspiracy' ??

khul ke kaho!!!

Re: # 369
Conspiracy theory proven, witness = Laddu and his innuendo

"Mirzais take that to town as to why non-Muslims should be grateful to them."

The rest of the kafir world is indeed extremely happy and 'grateful' with this gesture of peace and solidarity that Ahmedi brought to the world by abrogating the message of hate and violence that emanates from mullah Islam.

Yes, that is true. One of the changes Mirza made in Islam was to declare violent Jihad away.

Mirzais take that to town as to why non-Muslims should be grateful to them.

If that, in itself, is important enough for you, then you should definitely support Mirzaism over Islam.

(but if you get any closer, you would be very surprised, though, at the level of fanaticism that this cult promotes for its own beliefs, and against every kind of Indian thought. But let's leave it at that.)

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

Both Dr Israr Ahmed and Zakir Naik are transparent. One shouldn't need Mirzai help in order to understand them. If Mirzais opposed them then it must be for their own purposes - which is not the same as ours (even if you feel Mirzai opposition to Islam is enough.)

Anyways, I must bid you good night, Sir. :)

Re: # 365

"..oppose certain things purely on principle - I don't like deceptive things, and when I took a look at Mirzaism, I was appalled by the mess. "

There is no greater mess than that left by the Arabian Paedophile, the entire world -including the rest of the Arabian wannabee momeens- is struggling with this "mess" till date.

I am sure Ahmedi-Islam does not have any such "mess" IMPOSED on the rest of the kafir world!!

so, for an idolator like me Ahmedis are indeed BETTER "muslims" than the non-Ahmedis!!

"I would expect the ahmadi community, as a whole, to be among the most regressive, close-minded, conservative, and pretentiously religious cults ever."

I prefer to see the religion from the "fruits" of karma it bears............I am yet to see Ahmedi-Muslims shout takbir and go on violent Jehad across the border into India.

I have seen excellent critical analyses of Paki Punjabi Mullahs by the Ahmedi muslims- I must infact thank them because only after their expose of Dr. Israr Ahmed and Zakir Naik I began to take these goons seriously.

To me Ahmedi-muslims are more acceptable as "muslims" than an Arabian wannabe punju muslim from Pakistan.

shah ji, LOL. Our Laddu is going to be patented?!!! :)

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


"modern living requirements ..."

May be, they do, but laddu, simply looking at their logic, I would expect the ahmadi community, as a whole, to be among the most regressive, close-minded, conservative, and pretentiously religious cults ever.

It's whole idea would be to take people back in time, while utilizing the tools and instruments of modern living. It is real cult in the truest sense of the word.

---------

The best place to begin would really be to read up on this Mirza man. You can tell a lot about an ideology by looking at its founder.

Anyways, this is the last from on this. I oppose certain things purely on principle - I don't like deceptive things, and when I took a look at Mirzaism, I was appalled by the mess. But that could be just me. :)

Laddu is on roll



Patent push for Tirupati laddu


The Tirupati temple
Hyderabad, June 3: Globalisation has caught Lord Balaji in its sweep.

The sacred Tirupati laddu, for which tens of thousands queue and jostle every day, is set to go global as soon as it receives a patent from the Registry of Geographical Indications (GI), Chennai.

The Tirupati

Laddu is on roll



Patent push for Tirupati laddu


The Tirupati temple
Hyderabad, June 3: Globalisation has caught Lord Balaji in its sweep.

The sacred Tirupati laddu, for which tens of thousands queue and jostle every day, is set to go global as soon as it receives a patent from the Registry of Geographical Indications (GI), Chennai.

The Tirupati

Hey,

Sufism is NOt an exclusive preserve of Islam. I need not confuse sufism with Ahmedi-Islam or any other type of Islam.

From all I understand of Ahmedi-Islam it appears to be conforming to the modern living requirements of tolerance and civilized behavior towards others- unlike the Paki-Arabian Islam which is certainly the most horrible and in-tolerant of all the Islams one can come across- even the Indian deobandis want to distance themselves from the Paki Islamists.

he he, laddu bhai, perhaps we can say that that Mirza man taught an idolator's Islam!

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

But you have to decide - which of the two you like better: The Soophi Sherbat or the Mirzai Matka.

The two cannot be excessively fond of each other. :)

For an idolator like me the Mirzaee muslims are certainly the CORRECT representatives of a modern Islam!!

Re: # 354

Hey ,

This Mirza guy was certainly as far BETTER person than that padeophile, murderer , bandit and rapist from Arabian land!!!

DM ji, proselytizing is ok. But political correctness apart, this Mirza fellow was one of the most despicable creatures ever to walk the holy land of Punjab.

If that is Islam, then Islam is a disgrace to mankind.

I KNOW that is not Islam, because Mirazism removes the very foundations of Islam in favor of whatever it preaches.

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

Lord/Allah/God, forgive me for being disrespectful to a dead man, whatever kind he was. May he rest in peace wherever he is resting.

oho, you are stuck on that one theme, proving your Punjabi old man a Prophet of Islam!

Fine, although that makes no logical sense whatsoever, if Muslims would like to believe that, so be it. Non-Muslim world will lose a lot of respect for both Allah and Islam if such men become Allah's Prophets of Islam, but that is ultimatley, Muslims' call.

Bhaijan, # 301 answered a specific question - why a real believer might accept a so-called non-Muslim as a 'good Muslim.'

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

Now, if you too want to be taken as a Muslim, take that up with believers, although I doubt Islam would let you easily pose as a Muslim except in non-Muslim lands.

Hope we agree now. Best regards, and you may have the last word, because in Muslim lands, you obviously can't.

sattarbhai#353:

Can I tease you a bit? (not seriously, of course)

Your post reminded me that ahmedias are one of the most zealous proselytisers among Muslims these days. It is true that they are completely non-violent and gentle in their dawah, but I remember that The Prophet, too, was quite gentle in his Maka days when he did not have temporal power. So, maybe we should be on guard against you guys as well.:)

Kaal,

… don’t lose sleep over Punjabi prophets, otherwise next 1400 years would cause you that much more pain. Although we’ll try to be more gentle this time around … (wink)

On a serious note: #301 is based on a flawed premise … that a new Book can have only one new prophet (I wonder where you got this idea). I explained this earlier but perhaps it was not clear. For example, Moses brought Torah but following prophets warned and taught on the basis of Torah. Furthermore, prophets served to warn and to remind people as they became divided and went astray. So repeat after me: Same Book, more prophets ... same book, more prophets.

So your underlying assumption is speculative, flawed, and negated by Quran. Other than that, admittedly you have a point. Happy now?

+++

I do think you need to get over your hang-ups and your divisive, communal politics. It will only make you more miserable. Perhaps that's all you ever learnt; what can I say?

lol, sattar bhai, should you have forgotten, in your zeal to worship Punjabi 'Prophet' of 'Islam', let me refer you back to what we were discussing :)

Refer to post # 301

If references to Mirzais got you so upset, please feel free to remove them, and just focus on the argument. You asked for it.

Kaal, as you struggle with this “logic thingy�, I want to acknowledge your pain over the Mirzaee issue …

For centuries you suffered at the hands of the believers. Now that the ummah is finally going down in flames, along comes another prophet of Islam … appearing, of all the places, in your own backyard. Perhaps you are sensing that this Mirzaee issue is much larger than your tiny-whinny communal politics … so your frustration is somewhat understandable.

But don’t despair. If you can wait 1400 years, you can wait another 1400 years (wink).

On a serious note: Your issue with Ahmadis has to do with your own insecurities and divisiveness. Once you get over your hang-ups, you’ll see things are not all that bad.

So cheer up, for god’s sake - and stop being so fucking annoying ...!

replying #319,

muradbaig,
I wrote 500BC for Panini, not 5000BC, even if I had written 5000BC you should have by now understood that it should be by mistake and I am not as stupid that my knowledge of this would be 5000BC (that doesn’t mean that I am not stupid, I reserve the right to be stupid as and when needed). This gives me reason that I should first try to shoot the messenger a bit before I attempt to shoot his not so clear message. At least that will make messenger realize that people are not able to see his message and have to shoot him instead:-)

And you then went on to give your wheat and barley knwoledge of about what was known to different civilizations in 5000BC.

Secondly, you are again wrong in suggesting that Panini couldn’t have mentioned Greeks if he is supposed to be around 500BC. Don’t assume that so called established historians are so wrong in giving these dates. North western India where Panini lived, which was called Gandara in ancient times (and the script that you talked about earlier Kharosti is also known by Gandhari script and mother of Kurava’s in Mahabharta was also known by Gandhari, which was probably a title for queen of Gandhara). Since how long this part was known as Gandhara can not be determined. If you check Greek literature there are lot many references to India around or before 500BC. Knowledge of Greek by Gandhara or India was not acquired through Alexandar or travelers accompanying him. It is plain foolish to suggest so and base or contest dates based on that (if it isn’t then give your reasons, what details Panini mentions of Greek? The word Yavan and some associated sentences?). Greeks and Indians got to know each other through Persians. Hekataios and Herodotos mention name of India way back around 518BC, but more importantly Gandhara became part of Persia around 540-560 BC. Persia invaded Greece during that time and captured most of it. So Gandhara and Greece were ruled by same empire for many years that is how they first got to know each other. Alexandar came to India before he heard so much about it, it is not other way around that first he came then he got to know India and Indians got to know of him. Suggesting dates on such false assumptions is not at all sincere approach towards history. Even pythagorus is supposed to have travelled to India, it may be a myth but this myth also suggest that people of India and Greece knew each other through Persians for long time.


Also, I do not know what you said about Darasikoh and Vedas (Eklawya said something hin his post), if Eklawya let me know that then I can comment on that. Darasikho was highly impressed by Upanishads, so much so that he thought this is the original book of God that Brahmins are hiding from other peopleï?Š.

But at least this time you seem to be giving concrete dates and it makes good sense. Except that you still started with statements like "fragments of rigveda didn't start till 14th century AD".
Respected historians date Zend Avesta much-much later than RigVeda, if you know of thin evidence then do let me know and we can check how these respective historians think about that evidence.

You are plain wrong in saying that moksha or dharma were borrowed from Budhdhism. Conceptually there is hardly anything that Hinduism has borrowed from Budhdhism, It is the other way around Buddhism borrowed from Hinduism those concepts and selectively adopted them. Irrespective of what Buddhist themselves say (they will find it hard to support their ideas against their texts). Hinduism was and still a super set of thoughts or ideas with many that may seem conflicting with each other. Still you can be a dualist hindu, advatia hindu or a monkey god hindu.

Brahmanas and early Upanishads were written much earlier than Buddhist scriptures. Many Buddhist scriptures refer to them and other hindu scriptures directly and indirectly. You say so because you do not care about when Budhdhist thoughts were written or when they first show such ideas. Concept of Moksha, Dharma, "Ekam Sat" are part of RigVeda/Upanishads.

Take it like this: If there were no Hinduism Budhdha never needed to say adopt middle path, the whole middle path is with respect to what to take from Hinduism. Later Buddha's desciples, most of whom themselves were Brahmins, developed on this middle path and created a "panth" or "marg" or way that we call Buddhist religion now.

The theistic concept of concept "Religion", that definition of religions relies so heavily upon, was meaningless for Budhdha or his disciples. They wouldn't have even allowed you to call it a religion.


What is middle path?

During the time of Budhdha there were many school of thoughts/philosophy in Hinduism. All based on different concepts expressed in Upanishads. Hinduism during that period can be simplified to represent three streams of thoughts highly ascetic and intellectual ideas saying God is this whole universe, another set of thoughts saying God is separate from Universe and universe is illusion created by him and the ritualistic Hinduism.
The middle path of Buddha says things like "It is not one nor different / It is not permanent nor discontinuous". This was basically to show that do not care about hi-fi idea or ascetics of Upanishads (which is so different for common man) or theistic ritualism of Hinduism, use simple rules that give you middle path to live truthful life. Buddha tried to use only atheistic theory of Upanishads/Hinduism like concepts of Atma (removed theistic part) and re-incarnation but tried to avoid theistic part of Hinduism. This was his middle path. Actually, this was middle path of his disciples, middle path of Buddha was simpler don’t care about God, be truthful and simple.


Most religions that emanated from Hinduism gave ways or paths or panths of life, not religions. Most of them are concerned more about way of life than theistic differences. This is true for Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism but people don’t say so because they have to be politically correct and because now they are considered full fledged religions (and of course it is their right to treat themselves as full religion or adopt new ideas, but it is not their right to change history or to portray it differently). Budhdha didn't say worship one God or million, he simply didn't care about that part. He gave some principles that he cared for and all that he understood by looking at what Hinduism is and what is good or bad in it. He wasn’t giving lot many new ideas as such, as some (not all) Buddhist will pretend.

Most importantly.
Upanishads are the texts that changed course of religious thought in India, they set in motion grand athiestic/theistic thoughts and those thoughts culminated into many different philosophies or variation of that philosophy. Buddhism and Jainism are part of same stream of thoughts, Jainism is more towards Ahinsa and Buddhism is more towards integrity and simplicity. Upanishads themselves were more towards analysis and philosophy, but they always kept Vedas as supreme as the Brahmins never wanted to dilute the religion too much, their intent in designing those grand stories, legends was to keep society

Al-Baqara:2:286 God does not burden any human being with more than he is well able to bear: in his favour shall be whatever good he does, and against him whatever evil he does. O our Sustainer! Take us not to task if we forget or unwittingly do wrong! "O our Sustainer! Lay not upon us a burden such as Thou didst lay upon those who lived before us! [278] O our Sustainer! Make us not bear burdens which we have no strength to bear! "And efface Thou our sins, and grant us forgiveness, and bestow Thy mercy upon us! Thou art our Lord Supreme: succor us, then, against people who deny the truth!"

Laddu, hope you are not saying all that in anger but out of conviction, and a sense of justice, fairplay, and love.

We must act toward others as others act toward us, as honestly and fairly as possible. To act toward others as we WANT them to act toward us is totally wrong and immoral since it implies others must share our value systems, and value systems are rarely shared.

Later, laddu.

Re: # 348

Hey, i am not expecting any one to change their behaviour.

I am going to behave with them in the manner they expect by their own beliefs.

I am going to JUDGE BY THEIR STANDARDS - as you always say!!

So, Murad you try to commit blasphemy of my "beliefs" and other elements of hindu "faith " then I am going to use YOUR Standards of blasphemy to act against you!!

LOL, you already have my pity so long as you keep expecting others to change their behaviors and beliefs to suit your convenience :)

Why try for respect? But seriously, you have scared me in your imaginary world, and now you have my imginary respect.

Re: # 345

"He is carrying forward a proud tradition, centuries and centuries old.

It is totally immaterial if any (non-commie) Hindu can agree with him or not. "

His "proud" Jehadic and dawah-tradition would be treated in the manner that would befit his own momeen traditions concerning blasphemy!!

"Bhai, you canNOT request respect."

I am just going to give you the dose that you recommend!!

I am going to "demand" respect!!

And what precisely would you gain, laddu, by giving your imaginary 'kick on my arse?'

Bhai, you canNOT request respect.

Murad does not request anything. He writes. He sells his books to commies and ignorant Hindus in India.

He is carrying forward a proud tradition, centuries and centuries old.

It is totally immaterial if any (non-commie) Hindu can agree with him or not.

Murad,

I am certainly going to do a follow up of your blasphemic mis-constructions in the real world.

Re: # 342

Listen you stupid . I just apply the universal golden rule and treat you in the way you see the world with your evil mind frame!!

For some one who believes that might-is-right only needs a kick on his arse to understand it's implications.

Now, you can go and laugh at your impending fate!!

What, you would have tried to hit me, kill me? I doubt Gandhites can do that much.

For that one needs a bit of self-respect. A person who spends his life 'requesting' respect for his beliefs, can he do what you now threaten to do, my brother? :)

LOL

Kaal (#320),

All along you have insisted that logic is sacrilegious to faith; but now you are back to logic. Sorry, I didn’t mean to make a heretic out of you. You are trying too hard ... and your half-backed theories are making Urstruly look like a genius.

Moving on to #301 …

You are assuming that one book can have only one prophet. That is, Quran can have only one prophet (namely, Muhammad, pbuh), and no more. Once you question your assumption, you’ll realize you are on the wrong track. Once again, I have to be the one to educate you (lordi, lordi …)

In essence, your underlying assumption is speculative, incorrect, and negated by Quran and reason. Other than that you may have a point (grin).

Re: # 339

Yes, in this anonymous cyber world it is!!

Were we in the real world I am sure you would have got the answer!!

laddu bhai, if I may so, your 'respect' or its absence is meaningless.

Re: # 336

"momeen goons" is so distasteful. You are merely referring to brave and committed people who carried forward an ideology they fully believed in, and in their own eyes, spread Light around the globe, for the benefit of mankind."

For the members of this cult of death- their jehadis assassins are "committed" to their cult of death nevertheless that DOES NOT turn them into noble people. Ravana had a "committed" army of rakshas - yet they all were evil!!

Re: # 336

This is the most distasteful and adharmic answer that can only come from momeen goons who ONLY believe that the 'truth' of an argument derives from the strength of the sword of the person shouting on the top of his voice - "Allahu...".

I carry NO respect for some one for whom might-is-right.

He only deserves to be annihilated this instant in order to show him who is right!!

Laddu, the clear answer to all your questions is 'yes.'
---------------------------

"momeen goons" is so distasteful. You are merely refering to brave and committed people who carried forward an ideology they fully believed in, and in their own eyes, spread Light around the globe, for the benefit of mankind.

But losers may call them whatever they like.

________________

These are "genuine" dis-beliefs and misconstrual by the momeens fed on dawah and evangelist literature who only aim at disparaging other faiths so that their evil muslim supremacist propaganda can be spread."

You are simply losing it, laddu.

To any believer of Islam, Hinduism must appear as the Devil's religion and vice versa (unless we re-cast the other as a pale shadow of ourselves), but to speak of one or the other as such in some objective sense (without first agreeing on what that objective sense is) is foolish.

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

Laddu, to lose is to be wrong, and at fault.

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

Yes, DM ji, that is true. They should.

Re: # 331

"We are dealing with genuine beliefs, and that's how those should be respected."

These are "genuine" dis-beliefs and misconstrual by the momeens fed on dawah and evangelist literature who only aim at disparaging other faiths so that their evil muslim supremacist propaganda can be spread.

Tell me Murad, despite being an Indian who interacts with mushriques on a daily basis do you still believe that idolators like me "worship idols" ?? Isn't this "genuine" belief of momeens like you that we idolators "worship" idols??

GT#326:

I have only read bits of the book and reviews. I bought the book but gave it to my daughter who hasn't returned it yet. I like Jagdish Bhagwati more as an economist but Amartya is more versatile.

eklavya#324:

If there is ever such a commission, the same-same people should have they say, too.

Re: # 331
"No amount of elf-righteous anger can change the fact that it is ANY loser's fault that he or she loses."

What do mean by LOSER?

You mean a victim of homicide by evil momeen goons is a LOSER??

Are you out of your mind??

As per your logic the innocent muslims in Gujrat are LOSERS!!!

As per your logic the victims of Hitler's genocide are LOSERS?

So, Benazir Bhutto is a LOSER!! Gandhi is a LOSER!!

Evey other victim of homicide is a LOSER!!

Let the hordes come and rape your family and then you can claim them to be LOSERS!!

laddu, please calm down. Vengat is absolutely right.

No amount of elf-righteous anger can change the fact that it is ANY loser's fault that he or she loses.

The rest is all excuses.

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

And let's not be quick to ascribe Murad evil intentions. He might well be a perfectly honest and sincere person. Just as a lot of Hindus are not hypocrites for trying their hardest to be 'secular' in contexts that make secularism an unreasonable doctrine.

We are dealing with genuine beliefs, and that's how those should be respected.

Re: # 317

"It is the fault of the unconverted Hindu's ancestors for not having protected or convinced not to convert. "

you mean it is the "fault' of the vaishnava VICTIMS that they were killed and beheaded by the momeen goons in Melukote temple?
You mean it was the fault of the female members of the vaishnavas at Melukote that they were RAPED and carried off as sex slaves to momeens?
You mean it was the fault of the hindus that they do not worship the blood thirsty Allah?

You are exposing your beard beneath that shirt of yours. This blaming the victim and espousal of "uncovered meat" attitude would certainly please the mullahs!!

Lahol!!!

Re: # 325

Dont forget to chk the pic gallery for some pics of you .There are exceptions Hari

Hema malini, Tharoor ,Jaylalitha LOL

Murad,

If you mis-construct hindu philosophy and try to create your own historiographies borrowed from dawah and evangelist literatures then you are certainly in for trouble.

the fact that you are trying to get some feed back on this Paki site shows your evil intent in publishing this as a 'book' in india.

Re: # 319

"Moksha, Nirvana as well as Karma and Dharma were Buddhist and Jain traditions not found in the Rigveda. As the four vedas evolved they added Brahmanas, Ariyankas and Upanishads to each one. So Brahmin (not Hindu) texts incorporated their ideas into a new Vedic philosophy."

This is utter nonsense Murad. Do npot try to teach we hindus our own faith- stick to the hallucinations of that paedophile. On what basis can you assert this nonsense that the Upanishads are "later" additions under the influence of buddhists and Jains.
Have you gone through the commentaries of Shankara and other scholars on Upanishads??
Do not try to spread mis-information about our faith with this mis-constructions of yours and your evil momeen agenda!

Please d_m:

" Amartya Sen, who has been able to reestablish his credentials with the anti-pseudo-secularists with his "Argumentative Indian"...."

Have you read this book .... Amartya Sen is perhaps the most over-rated economist .... it has to do mostly with (i) the tribal and bombastic nature of Bengali economists; (ii) the fact that most Indians hardly read but go on reputation.

Ref Shah2 #323

[#309 Harimou

You remind me of Short Dark Stinking Fellow named Deoras.He was so disgusting even his few friends calld him "stinky"
I wonder why ?

Is it b/ c dravidians were dark short negroid like you having identity crisis when confronted with reality that you & massumathu u r nemessis are 'same rascially and Gentically .'OMG]

I am just under 6' in height.

Which would make me taller than most of the North Indians and above the median height in the US or Europe.

I look down on mentally deficient folks like you... both from a physical and a mental perspective.

dm ji

"truth and reconciliation" would be great if ALL sides could say, freely, what they truly believe, even if they are acused of being all bad things. That applies to Muslims and Indic peoples.

South Africans had it extremely easy, comparatively. The world did not consider democracy and apartheidism and violent miltancy - all equally valid ideologies to equally be 'respected.' Believers in apartheid had not only lost politically, they had also been delegitimated both nationally and internationally, and had no basis to ask for respect for apatheidism, and black violent militancy was needed no more, by its own logic.

So, the much ballyhooed game of 'truth or dare' in South Africa came AFTER nature had solved all their biggest problems, and effectively removed structural conflicts. One has to grant them that they did not INVITE trouble.

Nothing of the sort happened in India. I don't think Murad bhai can ever talk to any Indic peoples, except to commies or to deliberately ignorant ones, and of course, vice versa.

#309
Harimou
You remind me of Short Dark Stinking Fellow named Deoras.He was so disgusting even his few friends calld him "stinky"
I wonder why ?

Is it b/ c dravidians were dark short negroid like you having identity crisis when confronted with reality that you & massumathu u r nemessis are 'same rascially and Gentically .'OMG

muradbaig:

Thanks for coming here to engage with us. It is only through such amrit-manthan that the nectar of truth will result.

Unlike my good friend eklavya here, I am not that pessimistic about the impossibility of having a dialogue, though I do agree with him that Islam and Indic faiths, as belief systems, are poles apart. Actually, I do believe in some sort of historical "truth and reconciliation" commission, headed by a Marxist like Amartya Sen, who has been able to reestablish his credentials with the anti-pseudo-secularists with his "Argumentative Indian", to arrive at a historical consensus on contentious issues, or even arriving at respectful disagreements.

Murad babu

The polar opposites of Indic peoples are not the much-abused Islamic "fanatics" and believers but 'good (in Hindu eyes)' Muslims like you.

Instead of repeating, like a drunk parrot, that ALL religions are this, and ALL religions are THAT, kindly answer a few questions some Hindus have been foolishly raising. Foolishly, because Indic peoples can never converse with 'good' Muslims like you, and vice versa, never at all in important matters.

However, since the two of you ARE engaged in this foolish dialogue, instead of going after whether something is 5000 years old or five, please respond to some basic questions (to those who are interested in your answers): Why do you insist on using 7 AD (or whatever) as the starting point for Hinduism? Why do you use the word Hinduism for Indic peoples before your Muslim ancestors came from wherever you believe they came from, in the first place?

Your argumment that the knowledge of Vedas etc is owed to Dara Shikoh etc is so pathetic that one need not even address it. But unfortunately, we are stuck with you, and you want to opine about us (that is ok, we opine about you), so please explain matters as rationally as you can.

Thanks.

sattar bhai

Obviously, as a mirazi you cannot agree, but if one removed all reference to your separate religion, hope you would agree with #301. If not, please help us understand why.

Hope you, at least, agree that Islam existed before it was revealed in the final form to Prophet Muhammad. That much any Muslim kid, if he or she is half educated, should know (even if he or she is misled into mirzaism).

But, it would really help if you would let us know where the logic in # 3101 is flawed (other than, again, in dismissing the eternal and heavenly truth of mirazism, of course :)).

Thanks.

Re: # 308

Pinku yours is an interesting interact for one who is concerned about truth and evidence.

Then you should know that there is no concrete evidence about Panini could date to 5000 BC. At this time there were not even any cereals like wheat and barley in India (there was no rice in the harrappan settlements) let alone scripts and literature. Panini speaks about the Greeks that were very much later. Historians put his dates between 150 to 520 BC.

The earliest fragments of the Rigveda date to the 14th century AD but there had been many earlier written and oral accounts. Most respected historians date the Rigveda to between 1400 to 1900 BC. The internal evidence suggests that the Zend Avesta was some three hundred years older but the evidence is rather thin.

Moksha, Nirvana as well as Karma and Dharma were Buddhist and Jain traditions not found in the Rigveda. As the four vedas evolved they added Brahmanas, Ariyankas and Upanishads to each one. So Brahmin (not Hindu) texts incorporated their ideas into a new Vedic philosophy.

All religions borrowed from each other without exception.

#307 Posted by tahir,

??? Huh? All types of laws are not meant to be obeyed by Muslims. That's all I meant.

But I may have misread your post ... hmmm

Re: # 314

Laddu,

There are other distinguishing/unifying factors that more or less negate any religious misgivings. Race, Class and Caste (Many Muslims and Christians still prefer to marry within their caste) can also be considered equally unifying/distinguishing factors.

A dravidian Muslim, proly, would have prolesyted under duress or a change in conviction. It is the fault of the unconverted Hindu's ancestors for not having protected or convinced not to convert. It doesn't amount to fair retribution to kill a Muslim who is no different from the rest of the population in South India.

[Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India?]
Possibly. Did Pakistanis kill off all their minorities? Certainly.

Nkg. 252

Pl grow up and don't spout things that you do not know about. Things in the past were very different to what most people immagine today.

Till the 18th century India was a Muslim ruled country and, with the exception of a few highly respected Rajput Emirs, the word Hindu did not mean a religion but `NATIVE'. The word generally meant farmers, shopkeepers, clerks and some artisans.

These Hindus worshipped hundreds of different deities and knew very little about their great past culture. They were mostly unaware of even the Vedas that were in the secret libraries of a few Brahmin scholars. The Rigveda was only discovered in 1757 by the French Jesuit Courdeveaux. Only now did Europe discover Sanskrit and its links with Greek and Latin. The knowledge about the lofty Upanishads is chiefly owed to Aurangzeb's brother Dara Shikoh whose scholars translated 119 of them into Persian. These were later translated into French, German and English before being known to most Indians.

Things were very different in the past in every society. They ALL had many wonderful people and glorious moments and many that were terrible.

South India was looted and marauded by Mohammad Goouri and his other momeen goons.
The temple of Cheluva narayan swamy was completely damaged by these momeen goons. I went recently to that temple at Melukote and found that the idols of our gods still stand disfigured inside as well on the exterior.
It msde my blood boil and my heart bleed.
The story is that Ramanujacharya in his own personal capacity went to the momeen badshah at Delhi and salvages the Chala moorti of Rama-priya that was being kept by the daughter of the momeen badshah in her room.
Such defiling and desecration of our temples was done by many more such momeen goons in the south india.
It is pity that hindus forgive and forget so easily!!

akcheema,

Unfortunately, jihadis like Tahir can’t sustain an intelligent dialogue … and quickly become abusive. And chakar-baaz Eklavya continues to cheer them to their final suicide missions. This in itself wouldn’t be such a bad idea … but if only these missions were carried out when no one is around and at least 800 feet from where I park my car.

(Zee mian, nothing personal. It’s just that I’d hate to have to wipe blood stains from the windshield. I hope you’ll consider …)

+++

Kaal, you are working too hard here. Ummah has nowhere to go but down; all you need to do is to step out of their way. Really, it is that simple! And this devisive communal politics is not worth pursuing. It makes you look more pathetic than Urstruly … which I didn’t think was possible.

Believe me, life has a lot to offer if you only get out of this silly shell of yours …

Re: # 310

furher to that, I'd openly challenge the poster of #307 to debate an issue, any issue, without using any of the "methods" mentioned in # 310.

I can bet my bottom dollar that he can't!

Ref Golti #295

[Re: # 294

"Dalit conversion (to christianity) is very high in southern states "

Nkg, Why do you think the conversions happen?]

Cos the South has its share of idiots.... like you.

This is an encore of a previous post....it was particularly enjoyed by "Regard" and after post # 307 here, quite appropriate to repost....since majority (if not all) of the qualities/(?)arguments have been used by the poster (#307) in question.

Now if the poster of # 307 denies this 'allegation' of being devoid of any intelligence, he should present an educated counter-argument, or stop wagging his tail and shut up. I can tolerate any non-sense but my prejudices start to show when confronted with sheer stupidity, lack of intelligence and ...well... basically complete "wally-brain-ness"!

Enjoy!!


[Dear brothers and sisters in islam:

We live in kuffar country and daily we have to face the infidels who criticize islam and our prophet, and who want to debate us. In an Islamic country if some one did that all we have to do is to announce loudly what he said and the rest is taken care of by an angry mob. The critic is lynched in no time. End of the story. However here we don't have that luxury as yet. Inshallah in forseeble future after we grow by conversions of morons and criminals in prisons, legal and illegal immigration and procreation we will, inshallah, become a majority and will not have to face this problem on daily basis. However, for the time being following is an approach all muslim brothers and sisters can use when faced with such a pest. Jazakallah Khair. Inshallah the vermin will steer clear of you in future.

1. A popular question is "why islam calls for death of Islamic critics and apostates". Insist that their info is false. Quote aya "to you your religion and to me my religion".

2. To answer "Islam spread with sword", say that it is a big lie spread by the jews and hindus and that quran clearly says " there is no compulsion in religion".

3. If some one quotes violent ayas from Koran, accuse him of quoting ayas in bits and pieces and cherry picking .

4. If he then quotes full ayas and ayas before and after, than insist that the translation is wrong.

5. If he brings ten different translations than say correct meanings can be understood only by reading Quran in Arabic.

6. If he happens to be well versed in Arabic language than insist that those ayas don't mean what they appear to mean as they have allegorical meanings.

7. If he is adamant, than say you cannot understand those ayas and it's context without reading hadith and sira.

8.. If he shows up with the hadiths and siras in hand and quotes the context of the violent ayas by referring to hadiths of prophet's rapes, robberies , assassinations and genocides then insist that "all hadiths and siras are heresay and are false, and only truth is in quran.

9. If he says Quran is a man made document and wants proof of it's divinity then refer to the sciences in Quran and the book written by Dr. Bucaile confirming the sciences in our holy book. You can also quote that Mahatama Gandhi read Quran daily and also spoke highly of it.

10. If he says that Bucaile was on Saudi payroll and that nor he nor Gandhi ever changed their religions and that Bucaile was challenged and proven wrong by many experts then challenge him to ask his experts to debate islamists like Zakir Naik....or worse Mohammed Asad!

11. If the pests still hangs around then change the topic and find faults in other religions and their books.

12. If he continues on then use personal attacks and insult him by calling him a jewish a- hole , a Chinese pig or a hindu dog .

13. If that does not frustrate him, then ask him how much he is being paid by jews to throw dirt on Al Islam.

14. If he still does not stop then run for his mother and sister and use very filthy language.

15. If he is very stubborn and wants to continue, then curse him like "Burn in hell, you will repent on last day, Allah will get you in your grave" etc

16. When all of the above has failed, threaten him with bodily harm and end the debate by drum beating and announcing that you won the debate hands down because Koran is the word of allah.

17. If possible anounce about this debate in an islamist website and that you had won it handily. Such announcements do wonders for the iman of muslim website readers and for dawah operations in prisons to convince low IQ prisoners of the truth of Al Islam.]

Ref Golti #291

[Nkg,

Is it because of relatively unchallenged Hinduism in South India, we, read South Indians, are so nonchalant about other religions gobbling us?]

No.

It is because for the last 70 years your heroes Periyar, Annadorai and Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion have been saying Hinduism is bad but don't have one thing to say about Islam and Christianity. They used to take out images of Ganesh and Rama garlanded with sandals but wouldn't dare do the same with an image of Mary or Jesus.

If you are a True Follower of Dravidian Thought, you should give up Hinduism, submit yourself to a painful surgical procedure and become a Muslim.

Or, you can become a Christian and continue the habits of maintaining a separate place of worship for Dalit Christians while they are alive and a separate cemetery for them after they are dead.

By the way, have you noticed that while Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion has been steadily improving his family's bloodlines by marrying outside his Devadasi clan, not one member of his family has married a Christian or a Muslim? That ought to tell you what exactly he thinks of them, no matter what his public posturings are.

Yup, Muslims are the niggers of India. Even in the eyes of the self-styled Social Reformers.

replying to #225
muradbaig,
When you give your statements like "modern sanskrit was quite different ..", do let us know your idea of what you mean by modern and ancient sanskrit. You are more or less avoiding what I am asking. When do you think RigVeda was written? Is it in modern sanskrit or ancient sanskrit as per you. Rigveda's date is supposed to be 1500BC.

Another question whatever Grammar Panini wrote, was that for modern sanskrit or ancient sanskrit. It happend in 500BC.

Third question approcimately in which time (give me BC time), the lanaguage of Old Persian of the Zend Avesta and Sanskrit were same. And what do you know was same in them.

Aghain, I am reiterating it, it is misleading to make the sort of statements you are making about either sanskrit or hinduism. Indo Iranina language have similar ancestor long time back, may be around 3000BC, but it is misleading to suggest people that they were same. If I apply naive logic of yours then Latin, Persian, Greek, Sanskrit all were same, we just don't know when they were same (all of them are indo iranina languages and share some roots for some words). This logic can also be used to make an almost foolish statement that all languages were same when there was not known language (though who knows what that time was?).

For hinduism:
What was the fusion and of which faiths that happened in 7AD?? Budhdhims and Jainism arrived by 500BC, so was it with them or what else arrived in India in 7AD. The most profound ideas of Moksha/Nirvana (which is there only in dharmic religions) and nature as infinite God, other things said in earlier Upanishads (before 550 BC) were adiopted by Buddhism and were originally part of hinduism. Whatever else happened between budhdhism and hinduism was much earlier than 1AD. The Maurya empire which was originally a hindu empire, converted to budhdhism in times of Ashoka, much before 300 BC.

You may again be misleading people with words like "fusion of different faiths" for "revival of hinduism". Revival of hinduism in Adi Shankara's time was not fusion of faiths. He used and referred to same old Upanishads of hinduism to make people realize what hinduism is?

So hinduism as I originally said didn't start in 7 AD, it was n't fused from other faiths in 7AD either. This you can infer from very simple points that i have given in my different posts so far. Either the mantras of Brahmins, or the most profound thoughts of Upanishads, or the Sanskrit language. If that is not sufficient for you, then probably it is your choice and you can think whatever you wnat to think.

Also I am not that much interested in how history got constructed and then reconstructed, I am interested which version of history is more truthful and what are evidences.

thanks.

Re: # 292
Headlines: Zee takes on Chee!

"Being a good and law-abiding citizen may make one a boyscout but never a Muslim."

Who cried the 'adhaan' in this thing's ear at birth?

… so were are back to Mirzaees! Apparently they are giving the ummah too much grief …

And ummah's finest are at it again; arguing that everyone can be a Muslim … except an Ahmadi … who actually believes in Allah, Quran, and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Go figure!

+++

zee (#292): �Believing in SOMETHING transcending mere human capability and/or potential is a must.�

This is one convoluted statement. What are you suggesting here? An omnipotent God or flying prophets? Try to avoid making loose statements.

Re #296: And what is it that Ahamdis are denying? I hope you are not hung up on flying prophets here!

+++

Kaal (#299), your rhetoric lacks validation and your reasoning is flawed. Other than that you may have a point! (grin)

#297 Posted by akcheema,

I see you're stuck on this point. If Qadianis were to declare themselves a separate religion from Islam, I would include them in the list. However, if Jews start claiming they are the real Islam, I would exclude them.

Ok now Sir? I can't explain it better than that.

Related to similarities...

It is like, my pet dog eats biscuit, milk and sleep on sofa, so is my young son. So, my pet dog is similar to my son. Moslems in India are like domesticated dog (not fully), who partially behaves like Indians.

And you nkg are a turd

290
"Islam has brough indiscipline and north Indian society is living example of it. That killed indian civilisation. If you go to Bihar/UP and other urdooised/islamised society "
is there more worse terrorism chaos murder mayhem than bengal's Charu 'Kanu started Naxal or even camouflaged bhadro basu CPM ?
all the bands hartals and disobedience is halmark of bengal.No work just 'hujate Bengals ask any non bengali INDIANS in bengali how much they love you ...Ask Einstein here first..
If you do not know u r own national langusge HINDI (and how it is different than urdu )you are the biggest anti india.Ala up/bihar.its like saying u smel b/c u eat rotten fish

if you like South India just live there BJp is moving with you

Re: # 289
Pauper himself
"Idiot, you will breed like mosquitoes and increase population share and then ask for wealth share!!! Wealth is not created by arab land such that India needs to allocate special fund for arab slaves. Everybody needs to earn it. At least Indians are generous enough to treat arab slaves with equality."
How many wealth the bengalis or indian govt has shared with muslims ( and anglo before they were chased out i personally lost 100s of angl b/c of hindu bengali comunalism chuvanisticism..THE mention of wealth was not asking anything but comparing of 150 million started by Harmou forked tongue hindu like you .Sob since Indian MUSLIM become Arab no more than you become bangla loving ala b desh more than indian ,Ask the non bengali marwaris in kolkata spl how much indian they are made to feel Muslims in India and bengal particularly put food on your table more than YOU b/c 30%of bengals population are Krishi (farmers) who work harder than you sedentary all talk no work 'Babus' more famous for laziness. compare u r self to even bihar & U.P.

Santi neketan Viveka nnda Sangit are bourgoise practicing forked tongue basus chakravaties and kahin chaterjee kahin datta .practicing communism on the back of muslim exploted working producing not taking nothing from govt as opposed to your 100% govt sibsidised jobs.Fk you r genorisity if moslems stop work al u will have is push butons of computers.or files

And Communist court them(muslims) for that

cheema ji, I can only speak for myself, and we all have a right to ask what others actually believe, so I will try to explain.

A mirzai might be a monotheist (and if Islam is evil, as you say, then mirzaism is much worse.), but monotheism, by itself, is not enough to make one a Muslim.

Would a monotheist who declares himself or herself the Supreme God of All be a Muslim? Obviously not.

The question you have rightly focused on is how a non-Muslim who has been exposed to the Final Message as revealed to Prophet Muhammad, but does not accept it, can be a considered a Muslim.

I, as nonbeliever, do not consider such a person a Muslim, but a believer might. Let me explain.

A person should logically and morally call himself a Muslim only if he first understands the Final Message as divine Will, and then accepts it as guide to his or her own life.

Consider a Jew. He or she continues to follow an 'older message' and simply fails to the divinity and the finality of the new message, even if he or she has been exposed to it. He continues to work on the old faith.

Do you agree that, from a believer's pov, such a person would have been a Muslim had the Final Message not been revealed (to Prophet Muhammad)? May be even a good one?

The only thing you can hold against him that he has not updated himself or herself to the last and the latest. But couldn't someone who works on the 'older' version (or some weirder version, as in Hinduism) be 'better' and 'more faithful' than someone who works on the latest and the last, but fails to do a good job of it?

Re: # 299; Eklavya

my last post tonight...it is late

This is what Zee wrote:
"There are Jews/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists who are more Muslim than me or anyone else. Only Allah knows the hearts."

Second word....ARE...not were...with me so far?

If God's final message is here, all else that existed before is null and void and replaced by "the new" message...with me still?

How come a "hindu...gobbldegook in my opinion" be described (in 'faith' terms) the same as a monotheist? (let alone the final message 'believers')

So a mirzaee 'believer' (a believer nevertheless) is a monotheist...born (not through personal choice but God's will) into a mirzaee family...hence following God's will, be regarded as 'non-muslim' by that logic??

The "muslim-ness" of a jew may be acceptable BEFORE mohammed...certainly NOT AFTER the 'final message' is already here!!

btw...don't despare on my gobbledegook re: hindus; gobbledegook can be ignored as childhood stories

monotheism is pure evil!!...you are absolutely right that the two are lightyears apart and cannot co-exist

now if you are going to do a flip and standby your friend and say Islam is not evil (notice...difference btw 'muslim-ness' and 'islam'), then you should be a muslim too....and since you reject God's final message despite good enough exposure to it, YOU ARE A DENIER whether you or your mate likes it or not

remember...difference between you and your muslim compatriots (whose 'mind' you have been studying intently for years) is NOT genetic/circumstantial but purely Islam

now if you or Zee are going to reply here, please put a little more effort in; otherwise, don't insult my intelligence with these half-baked 'gobbledegooks'...

Thank You and Khuda Hafiz

Mystic bhai, nkg, what have you two gotten into? :(

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

Cheema ji, may be I can try an explanation and Zee can, as always, fill in the corrections.

According to a believer, the first Muslim was born the moment the human animal did not wish to stay a mere animal any longer, and looked up toward the sky, recongized a God, and wished to become greater than himself or herself.

Since then God sent down Prophets to lead this man/woman to realizing his or her full potential as God's agent, until He sent the full and final message to Prophet Muhammad.

Muslims existed before the Final Message was delivered. A jew would obviously not understand or accept Prophet Muhammad' final role, but that doesn't mean such a person cannot be a Muslim.

What can NOT be a Muslim is someone who actively sets himself against Islam (who zee calls a denier) as finally revealed by Prophet Muhammad, someone who works against the interests of Islam for the sake of destroying/undermining/editing/replacing the Final Message (under the mistaken belief that it can be destroyed/undermined/edited/replaced at all).

Mirzais are obviously non-Muslims by this (or any other, if one looks at them carefully) criterion.

An unbeliever might disagree with that, that is how a believer must see it.

Foul smelling Bangali bhoot better watch what you are talking check u r brain if u have any and statistical facts before barking like dog


289 Posted by nkg on June 1, 2008 10:29:06 pm
Re: # 275
Mystic...
Idiot, you will breed like mosquitoes and increase population share and then ask for wealth share!!! Wealth is not created by arab land such that India needs to allocate special fund for arab slaves. Everybody needs to earn it. At least Indians are generous enough to treat arab slaves with equalilty. The minority protection section should have been applied more on Parsis, Anglo Indians and other North Eastern tribes"

Yea Muslim are protected ....Who? chase away Anglo who were closet to muslim in India due to small size Parsis were and closest to Muslims due to most inter religous marriageJinnah Wadia Zarina to Sanjay Khan & common persian names ..

Who wants any thing from u and with per capita income of less than $ of u r petty substandard sutenence you cant afford to feed yourself who wants your genorisity feed your famiy first bhuka bangali

Re: # 296; zeemax
"but cannot be Muslims because they reject its very basis."

Not true...they believe in all the five articles of Islam but don't in the finalty of Mohammed as a prophet

you are missing the point though....if you can regard a jew (who 'denies' Mohammed the prophethood, let alone a special status amongst prophets) a 'better muslim'....YOUR WORDS NOT MINE.....then I can only think you are letting your personal feelings get in the way

clearly you have written a lot without actually answering my question. anyhow..and you are wrong about your mate too...perhaps it is the explanation you have given yourself for personal reassurance and again truth happens to be the casualty of this process

and what exactly is it that I have denied? one denies something if there is some evidence for something...may not be conclusive....otherwise, I'd say it is simply rejecting an invalid hypothesis

Khuda Hafiz

#293 Posted by akcheema,

It is one thing to be an agnostic, and another to be a denier. You Sir, are a denier, Eklavya is not. He neither accepts nor denies.

Re Mirzaees, they are deniers. I think they are basically atheists. They can be good humans, as many of them are, but cannot be Muslims because they reject its very basis. They just create a silly fiction for ulterior and deceptive purposes. If they were just a sect, as Ismailis, or Daudi Bohras, without denying the very basis, that would be different.

Re: # 294

"Dalit conversion (to christianity) is very high in southern states "

Nkg, Why do you think the conversions happen?

Re: # 291
Vengat...

Not exactly. Dalit conversion (to christianity) is very high in southern states than any other place. Moslem population is also not very less. But the overall indian culture is very much alive and strong in these states. Classical music, classical dance,social discipline,mutt based public events (adopted from buddhist culture), women are far more liberated...
Go to Bihar/UP...Major part of their language is urdoo/arabic. Entire society is in chaos, the girls and womenfolk are not different from Pakistan or any moslem country (moslems wear hazeeb and cow belt women cover head with veil. Literacy rate extreame low).No cultural side (Madhubani painting was quite famous like Tanjore painting). Mithila was famous for literary work. Now it is crowded with moslems and naxalites.
I am Bengali and very fond of R K Mission. It is totally different from any Bengali institute, specialy Govt. instutues. When I come to Bangalore, I found 100s of such institutes.
Vivekananda, like Sankara, travelled extensively throughout India. His writings are based on the observation on local cultures and customs and folk stories. Actualy, Indian history is much preserved through these local stories and cultural events.

Re: # 292; Zeemax

very confusing sir; I wasn't referring to "people like myself" anyway...so don't know where that idea came to you from

I am merely trying to clarify that, according to what YOU wrote, there are jews/christians/hindus etc who are better muslims than you!! I found that extremely misleading since 'mirzaees' are BELIEVERS....whether you agree with what they 'believe' in or not in not the issue here...as I am sure would be the case with jewish/christian/hindu beliefs and yours

Just to clarify....I WAS NOT referring to myself or people with similar 'disbeliefs' if you will; this would extend to include your friend Eklavya too since he has repeatedly stated that he is NOT A MAN OF FAITH...

However you'd define me, fanatic is not the word.....I regard my lack of belief to be a personal matter and am not looking to impose it by any means political on a fellow human being

If you do have to reply, please do so within the context....rather than trying to mislead anyone...albeit inadvertently

#284 Posted by akcheema,

... does that premise extend to those otherwise appeared to be despised ... by you....e.g., mirzaees ...some may well be very loyal citizens and indeed 'Muslims'....using the analogy above?

You missed apostates/libertarian fanatics as yourself in the above list:)

No. Being a good and law-abiding citizen may make one a boyscout but never a Muslim. Believing in SOMETHING transcending mere human capability and/or potential is a must.

Nkg,

Is it because of relatively unchallenged Hinduism in South India, we, read South Indians, are so nonchalant about other religions gobbling us?

Re: # 252
DM...
Because, these orientalists have no stake in India and are generally honest. Any civilisation grow on couple of basic social principles-integrity, honesty, hard work and discipline. Ancient India was quite disciplined. It was able to produce best of the literatures, art, mathematics, science etc. due to these qualities. Biddhism/Jainism first brough passifism (which is basically core of Christianity). Islam has brough indiscipline and north Indian society is living example of it. That killed indian civilisation. If you go to Bihar/UP and other urdooised/islamised society and South India, the stark difference will tell you why, after beeing such a good heritage and good natural resource these places ( Bihar and UP) are backward and South India is marching ahead.

Related to similarities...

It is like, my pet dog eats biscuit, milk and sleep on sofa, so is my young son. So, my pet dog is similar to my son. Moslems in India are like domesticated dog (not fully), who partially behaves like Indians.

There is a nice set of books by Vivekananda. Collect it from R K Mission. It is nice and informative.

Re: # 275
Mystic...
Idiot, you will breed like mosquitoes and increase population share and then ask for wealth share!!! Wealth is not created by arab land such that India needs to allocate special fund for arab slaves. Everybody needs to earn it. At least Indians are generous enough to treat arab slaves with equalilty. The minority protection section should have been applied more on Parsis, Anglo Indians and other North Eastern tribes...

Murad Beg...
Does is kind this fatwa matters, when the actions speaks something different?

Much more important than the Dalai Lama's endorsement was the declaration three days ago by the Darul Uloom seminary of Deoband declaring terrorism and injury to innocents as against the tenets of Islam. Yesterday this was endorsed by the Juma Masjid United Forum.

Only bigoted Muslims, Hindus, Christians and others believe that there can be no common ground. There is more common ground in religious philosophies than differences. But bigoted Mullah's condemned Dara Shikoh to death for the heresy of writing `the mingling of two oceans' a work seeking the unity between the ideas of the Quran and the Brahma Shastras.

Re: # 261

Do I have to show you my MA degree in history?

But you are right about India unvarnished that Chowk put up in 1999. It was then a partly researched set of questions about history and religion. Im very grateful to you and many others in Chowk for challenging many half formed ideas. It is now published as a book called `Reflections in a Sacred Pond'... an inquiry into India's history, mythology and religion through 80 questions. It is published by India Research Press and is now going into a third edition.

Cheema ji, there is no confrontation. It is my pleasure to understand and appreciate you in your many hues :)

Goodnight, Sir.

Re: # 268; Eklavya,

for some one so anal about 'definitions' and clarity, e.g., in defining the perfect 'muslim'....all on record here.....why is it that your posts happen to be (perceived by many)the most unclear in what they are trying to convey...

....I don't need clarifications for myself.....I can see through you very well (hence the ongoing 'confrontations').....I am referring to many others with that difficulty

Oh I forgot....is it the "depth" of your personality that shows!!!

Re: # 260; Zeemax,
"There are Jews/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists who are more Muslim than me or anyone else. Only Allah knows the hearts."

It is very evident to me from your statement quoted above that your generosity and benevolence knows no bounds.

Just for the sake of clarity in my mind, does that premise extend to those otherwise appeared to be despised (perhaps an erroneous and inadvertant impression) by you....e.g., mirzaees (purely off the top of my head); my understanding is some may well be very loyal citizens and indeed 'Muslims'....using the analogy above?

Re: # 264; Eklavya
"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."))))

...and you still manage to maintain the illusion....you!

you are one clever man KaalChakkerbaaz!!!

Need I say more to you...or anyone else for that matter

akcheema:

I have something posted for you on my bhajan thread on up.

Re: # 279; DM sahib
"Muslims did not ask for that subsidiy; your governments gave it to them to please the mullahs in the expectation that they will deliver votes to them."

that is exactly what I eman by the 'evil of multi-culturalism'!

governments, in their appeasement of wild ideas, go overboard and then the common man gets accused when he was never involved in those decisions in the first place

Re: # 258; Zeemax
"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?")))

Where does fascism come in to this discussion? and why did you have drag Ana into it?...she is one of the most pleasant characters around....why would I be 'not supporting' of her right to do what she damn well choses, religion or not?

It is none of my business...simple (as you'd say)

I didn't understand the purpose of this at all.....sorry; may be I missed something in haste

harimou#274:

Muslims did not ask for that subsidiy; your governments gave it to them to please the mullahs in the expectation that they will deliver votes to them. The same thing about the Muslim Personal Law, passed by a constituent assembly dominated by upper caste hindus.

Do you really not know what I meant by "ownership"? In brief, I meant taking pride in India and things Indian (at least those worth taking pride in), not just those associated with the period when Muslims ruled India.

Ref Mysteic #273 and #275

I am an Equal Opportunity Abuser.

I don't spare anybody because of race, religion, color or ethnic origin.

Ref Mystic #273

Recently in Chennai, a canteen for the plolicemen was formally opened by the Superintendent of Police at the Chennai Police Commissioner's office complex.

Howver, there is going to be second inauguration of the same canteen because the Deputy Inspector General wants to have the honor of opening the canteen.

The DIG's name? Masanamuthu!!!

I don't make these things up. In Tamil Nadu, I don't HAVE to!

Mystic:

harimau is the indian version of Ku Klux Klan. I'm amused by his rantings. What has that got to do with myself being an Hindu or not. I'm an agnostic.

Re: # 274
As usual bitching randi rona Hari

Not that 150 Million is begged subsidy consider that 15% of India (in terms of tarrif fee license permissions and all controlled assets of 15 % citizens ) amount to billions .
You let disabling obcurantist personal law down the throat of Muslims 'so that you can fk the dalit, burn your bride opress your women keep devdasini in sankaracharyas enclave usurp secular democracy by intimidation Hindutva ALL IN THE NAME OF BEING GAURAV HINDU

I have the same agenda AGAINST this idiotic policy of govt .which is not in interest of any muslim of india

Ref dost_mittar #259

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

Without "taking ownership" ofIndia, Indian Muslims are already exempt from civil law as it applies to citizens of India; get a subsidy for Hajj pilgrimage that is costing the government about $150 million; and are ensuring that India is the only country where they can say "talaq talaq talaq" and be divorced and free from even paying alimony after 3 months.

If, as you suggest, the Indian Muslims take "ownership" of India, I guess we will be seeing the re-introduction of jizya on non-Muslims!

PS. How much would you like to bet that the Govt of India will RAISE the Hajj subsidy this year to offset the increased cost of air tickets caused by oil hitting $130 a barrel?

PPS. Back in the 1970s, the increase in the price of oil WAS used as the justification for introducing the Hajj subsidy.

Right now, diesel is used in busus and locomotives. Any chance that tickets to Varanasi, Prayag, Hardwar and Rameswaram would be subsidised by the Government of India? Naaah, I don't think so!

Masanmathu

For all the abuses Harimou heaps on you day in day out 'for the same reason .....you Still remain hindu

"India's religious tolerance a role model for world: Dalai Lama"

Amen!

"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.

dm ji, ranjit had an post on unplugged in which he unfairly called Hindus like you hypocrites :(

I thinh, it is not hypocrisy but traditional Hindu ignorance and logical flaws within Hindu worldview that keeps Hindus on their path.

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

My views are as they are precisely because I have met with, lived with, and been friends with a LOT of Muslims, of all backgrounds. I have learnt to respect a way thinking quite different from the Hindu way of thinking.

----------

What is a cultural/political/sociological Muslim?

dm ji, of course, murad is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Unless he declares himself a sufi or an admirer of sufism, we can't even begin to doubt his integrity.

His worldview is determined at the cognitive and emotional levels itself. THAT is the reason why your or any other Hindu's trying to 'discuss' anything with him is even less useful than banging your sore head against an unfriendly wall.

To be fair, traditional Hindus are absolutely no better in appreciating why Murad MUST believe what he believes and see history as he sees it. They keep thinking Murad will 'get it' only if they explain enough.

There is a complete and mutual lack of respect. :(


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

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.

elavya#247:

"Without faith, it would be it would be irrational (and much worse) to call oneself a 'Muslim.'"

This is an untenable statement. You refuse to accept any category of cultural muslims. You have defined Muslims in a certain way and solved the inconvenient problem of dealing with the likes of hamidm, nasah, akcheema and many, many others by classifying them as non-muslims regardless of what they think of themselves.

In recent past, much of the promotion of "muslim" culture has, in fact, a contribution of poets and writers from the progressive movement who can only be described as cultural muslims. They are the ones who have made khuda hafiz, mashallah, salaam and many such terms part of the everyday vocabulary of Indians.

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.

This kind of statement would be normal from a Pakistani but seems strange from an Indian, especially one who is familiar with the Lakhavi culture.

pinku#216:

By all accounts, Mr. Baig has read and studied Indian history more than most of us here, certainly more than me. So, for all I know, he may be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

However, I find it fascinating that the anti-Indian English historians and the Orientalists,when they dug into Indian history, found generally evidence of greatness. When Marxists/Muslims (isn't interesting that Muslim intellectuals in dar-ul-harb make alliances with Marxists and in dar-ul-islam with the Maulanas, except for the brief period of Nasser-led Arab nationalism?), on the other hand, dig into the same history, they find nothing but dirt?

Coincidence?

Re: # 232
"ALL religions also carry a huge GARBAGE of social customs, myths, rituals,"

You may in your ivory tower theorise muse and pontificate but in reality the man on the street puts these GBARBAGE on your table and as majority forces you to eat it.

This forum now needs Hamidm2 to butt in to show the difference between the cultural Muslims and the uncultural Muslims to the cultural Hindus as well as to the uncultural Hindus coming from a 'Hindu country'.

"Murad exists in a Hindu country," -- what an existentialist sentence!

Eklavya -- since when India became a 'Hindu country'?

Re: # 237

Murad -- now you are talking like an ascetic Muslim -- you want to takes away whatever little fun the man-made religions have in holidays/holydays -- like Eid, Shabrat/shabebarat Ramadan/Ramzan, Christmas, Easter, Yome Kippur, Shivratri etc etc?

why do you call them 'baggage'? -- they certainly are not garbage.

Cheema bhai, there can be NO "dialogue and discussions" so long as one stays a Hindu and a Muslim - two contradictory doctrines.

One cannot talk "to" each other, but one can try to understand by 'reading' and 'listening to' what the other says (to oneself or among amongs).

-----------

Do you think there is even the foggiest chance in hell of Murad 'discussing' anything with Hindus? None.

He has said his piece. Hindus will keep screeming theirs.

It is a dialogue of the deaf - because those sides remain Muslims and Hindus.

----------

Again, it is utterly futile for Hindus to try to engage Murad in any discussions. Murad exists in a Hindu country, among Hindus. So he has to be understood by Hindus, not talked to (and vice versa for Hindus in Muslim countries).

Sorry for saying it as it is - hope you are mature enough to see none of this is said with malice - it is meant to state facts as they are. Best regards.

Re: # 245; Eklavya
"Until then, you and I are stuck with each other. Might as well try to understand a few things."

I do apologise for my short-sightedness but I am certain I did see you write something against this whole idea of "dialogue and discussions" as it were.

It can be one or the other...and not both, sadly.

Kindest regards.

Zee, I agree with sgb - that the 'only and sufficient' reason to be a Muslim is to believe that the Quran, as it exists today, if the last and final word from Allah, and one wishes to follow Allah.

Zee, hope you won't mind my saying this, but if one does not believe in the Quran, as it is, as last and the final word of Allah, and one does not wish to follow Allah, then one can be NO FRIEND of anything good by calling himself or herself a Muslim.

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

You know, I find Islam completely rational and wholely self-explanatory IF its basics are taken on faith. I would be honored to be counted a Muslim IF I had such faith.

Without faith, it would be it would be irrational (and much worse) to call oneself a 'Muslim.'

There is a reason why echodada does not like me. He knows I appreciate and admire Islam, without calling myself a Muslim, and that makes him (just like all Hindus) suspect "evil intentions" on my part.

But that is a discussion for another time and place. Here we are fascinated by the other kind of people - people who do not believe in the Quran but call themselves Muslim.

Are these just political people who wish to belong to the Islamic community without having any faith?

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

Cheema ji, believe me - as a nonbeliever - I would have no interest in Islam whatsoever if you Muslims were not living among the rest of us, and vice versa. Thank you.

Until then, you and I are stuck with each other. Might as well try to understand a few things.

Re: # 241; Eklavya,
"My views: I am not a Muslim. I don't believe in any of these things, nor in anything else "divine" - in the sense Muslims like Murad use the term."

Thanks for the clarification; if you are not a Muslim and/or were not brought up in Muslim culture etc...please stick to your own and stop speculating about other people's beliefs, practices and cultures as best you can.

If you are curious or have issues with a specific point and the author is not forthcoming with that piece of information, then perhaps he is as ignorant as the rest of us. Best to look at other sources under those circumstances and get an independent perspective.

I find your views divisive, although your intentions may not be so. 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.

Perhaps we can blame all this paranoia on the narrow-minded vision Muslims are brought up with.

Before you declare me a non-muslim again, that is your prerogative; I can't stop you from doing so. However, having been born and brought up within the Muslim culture (a characteristic alien to your good self), I'd still continue to claim greater ownership of the "Muslim-ness" and the people within its fold than others not having such advantage.

On the other hand, if you are convinced that Islam is the way, and your intrigue is purely genuine and sincere, then you should caste away all pretences and declare the "Shahada" on Zeemax's hand; none would be more pleased than I on such auspiscious occasion.

I wish you the very best in your quest for knowledge of this great faith, and the cultures inspired by it.

Regards.

Akram Cheema

akcheema Ji,

Who was the man that wrote the Qura'an? LoL ... I would like to know. Was it some poet or a scribe? Wow, that must have heve been some guy with a way with words. Is their any existing theory about that?

One common theory I know is that Muhammad made it all up and dictated it to scribes who wrote it down. But then, Muhammad was illiterate and not a poet or anything, just a humble merchant. But still, even if he did, why were any other versions destroyed by Usman which were considered to have NOT come from Muhammad word by word? Why go to the trouble?

Or maybe Usman wrote Qura'an and destroyed all previous ones ... hmmm

C'mon, give me a choice. I listed all the possible answers!

Eklavya

sgb asked you a question in #231. Can you answer her please? Sadia probably thinks you're a Muslim so it's not only Hindus you deceive (apart from me) ... you Muslim Jihadi Terrorist You !!!

Cheema ji, those burnt Qurans that existed prior to the current Quran - those compiled by equally pious and good men - had to be very different than the current Quran. So different that no compromise was possible with their errors (or the current Quran's errors, if the current one is man-made).

Not only had those earlier Quran's written by pious and good people to be destroyed, but anyone who remembered or spoke of them ever again had to be destroyed as well.

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

My views: I am not a Muslim. I don't believe in any of these things, nor in anything else "divine" - in the sense Muslims like Murad use the term.

Re: # 239; c'mmon Eklavya

I am interested in YOUR views on the subject raised by YOU; let's have it already.......so whatever happened to all those burnt alternative Qurans?

Also, what is your theory/views on the authenticity of the "current" widely accepted copy of the Holy Book?

Re: # 238; Eklavya,
"The one and clear question for us to answer is:
Could Muslims be reading a fake and man-made ***QURAN***, given that Prophet Muhammad himself did not compile one, and other, prior Qurans were burnt?")))

quite a plausible theory Eclavya....keep going, we are listening intently....

Murad bhai

Islam might have been changed, or not. We don't even know whose Islam (if anything) you are talking about, yours or Qutubuddin Aibak's.

The one and clear question for us to answer is:

Could Muslims be reading a fake and man-made ***QURAN***, given that Prophet Muhammad himself did not compile one, and other, prior Qurans were burnt? Please note that people who compiled the other, prior (and burnt) Qurans had to be have been pious and all those good things, as well.

I would be grateful if you could kindly answer that question. Many thanks in advance.

Re: # 232

Nasah. You are entitled to an opinion but not all religious baggage is garbage.

Eid and Ramzan were Arab customs long before the prophet so Islam carries forward many old customs including food restrictions that may have been relevant in its time but have no spiritual meaning today. Jesus (his name was not Christ) never said a word about Christmas or Easter that the Roman Catholics retrofitted into their evolving religion as they wanted to continue the popular pagan customs of the winter and spring fests. The myths of the birth of Jesus or his resurrection were added to make them relevant.

Similar retrofits are found in all religions.

or does this sound a little less extreme:

Private God is a solace for sorrow -- Public God is a prescription for permanent petulance.

All religions are waste of time money and intellect.

Private God is a solace for sorrow -- Public God is a prescription for murder and mayhem.

There is one 'Kalma' that spans all religions:

"There is no God but ONE made by MAN"

#233 Posted by nasah,

Interesting you include Jews in your senseless tirade below. They don't practice any rituals now do they? Even though theirs is the most ritual-laden of the Semitic religions and there are 'no' moderate or secular Jews - just Jews. Ever wondered why they don't practice their rituals?

The ones who wallow in the garbage calling it -- my garbage right or wrong -- are called good Muslims, good Hindus, good Christians, good Jews and good Buddhists -- the ones who don't are called the apostate and self-haters.

Re: # 224

'ALL religions also carry a huge baggage of social customs, myths, rituals, etc. prescribed by human priests over the ages. There are no exceptions."(Murad)

If I may modify just one word:

ALL religions also carry a huge GARBAGE of social customs, myths, rituals, etc. prescribed by human priests over the ages. There are no exceptions.

#220 Eklavya

Why are you being confused by this propaganda

ALL MUSLIMS have firm believe on it that "QURAN" can never be changed or altered.Those who are against this belief.They cant be muslims.

SO just concentrate on the article it self

& dont deviate from the topic

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

#221 Posted by muradbaig re #181

ALL the qoutes define Jihad as striving. None of them describe Jihad as a Holy War.

The term 'Holy War' for 'Jihad' is not to my knowledge an invention of the Muslims, neither have I heard any Muslim use it. This was perhaps used to describe the Crusades by historians.

In the Qura'anic context, this 'striving' is mandatory as a 'sacred duty' (Deeni Fareeza) and does not exclude war. You can then chose to call a 'sacred' or 'holy' armed struggle/striving as a 'holy war' if you like, but it certainly does not mean unprovoked war anywhere.

As you see in 49:15 quoted in #181 "... and who strive hard in God’s cause with their possessions and their lives ...", how else does one do such a striving except in war?

I think the confusion arises because 'Holy War' has been colored to mean an unprovoked war to occupy territory and forceful conversions by Muslims, which is totally untrue. All that 'Jihad' means is struggle of all sorts including armed struggle when unavoidable against injustice, occupation, and tyranny etc. In that manner, I have said before I regard the Tamil struggle as Jihad as well.

Hope this clarifies.

Murad
Are you avoiding my counter argument to your statement that Indians didn't know about Chandragupta Maurya before Princep?

This article is not intended to prove the authenticity of any faith or religion. It is intended to show that NO society was perfect and that bloody violence (often using the name of religion)was used to gain or retain political power.

I am also saying that the Brahmins (after the 7th century) tried to fuse together a huge number of indigenous faiths and forms of worship into a more unified system that was to later become Hinduism. In the process they recreated a virtually dead caste of Kshatriyas and made a loose caste system rigid and oppressive. Watch Chawk for another article on this subject.

Re: # 220

I do not at all question the deep piety of Zaid Ibn Thabit, Al Bukhari and many other thinkers and writers who compiled the Sharia but that does not change history or the fact that revisions kept appearing in Islam as in ALL religions.

Re: # 216

Modern Sanskrit was quite different from the now dead Old Sanskrit that was probably the same as the Old Persian of the Zend Avesta. Scripts, languages, ideas and traditions all changed in all societies over the years.

After Princep deciphered Ashoka's old Pali texts in 1837, the Mauryan history was reconstructed from may sources that now became comprehensible including large fragments of Megasthane's Indica and Kautalya's Arthashashtra.

Re: # 187

Man may be the creation of GOD, by whatever name he/she/it may be called by worshippers, but ALL religions are the creation of MAN. Buddha's words inspired Mahayana and Hinayana texts that were all written by men. The words of Jesus, intended only for the Jews, became Christianity preached to gentiles or non jews by Peter, Paul and other apostles. The Quran, Vedas, Avesta, Gita and other sacred texts may be inspired by GOD but were all written by human beings.

ALL religions also carry a huge baggage of social customs, myths, rituals, etc. prescribed by human priests over the ages. There are no exceptions.

Re: # 164

You will also find many Muslims vigorously condemning me for my Chawk articles on the hijacking of Islam, the vicious circle of violence and the Psychology of Revenge.

Re: # 221; muradbeg sahib,

You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone; it makes your opinion/interpretation just as valid as any other around.

Kind regards

Re: # 181

Your interact is very instructive. ALL the qoutes define Jihad as striving. None of them describe Jihad as a Holy War.

So Murad bhai, since Prophet Muhammad himself did not compile the Quran, and competing Qurans had to be/ were burned after his death, are you sure Muslims do not follow an entirely fake, man-made Quran?

Or, are you, like all other Muslims, sure that the Quran Muslims read is actually THE word of Allah, as Allah meant it to be?

----------

Please answer. I want to see the nature of your 'faith' and your reasoning. Thanks in advance.

Zeer,

Just because one believes in omnipotent birdlike deity does not turn them into "Satanic".

It is believing that it is the duty to behead and kill others because they do not believe in your deity is what is "Satanic".

Murad Baig
Another piece of information for you. Visit Thailand. It is a Buddhist country, and guess what? King's coronation is done by a Hindu chief priest. Go to Asakusa temple in Tokyo and look at two statues at gate. One of them is "white monkey" - who in fact is a Buddhist version of Hanuman.
Visit monasteries in Tibet. Tankas are full on images of Bhairav and Shiva.
What one sees depends on what one wants to see. You want to unvarnish India, so you find varnish everywhere.

Re: # 214
murad baig
Please also answer this one from friend.
He also seems to suggest that you are not sincere (or are too quick) in picking your references while making your conclusions.

quoting his whole post:

replying #171,

muradbaig,

I am not questioning the changing nature of hinduism, that is the best thing about hinduism that i know of. I am questioning your sincerity in suggesting that hinduism of present day started in 7AD. That is plain wrong.

It started latest by what westerners say it started, meaning around 1500BC. Good thing is that those western scholars neither loved hindus nor they care for anybody in their scientific pursuit (they did have some bias against hinduism, but they were still quite honest). They used all the scientific evidence required to arrive at such ancient dates, including references to historical events, cross references in literature from Greek, middle east, china or whatever and philological/linguistic evidences they good gather.
I wrote in my earlier post that even the present day pundits/brahmins still recite the same old mantras of vedas. That was to give you just one evidence of how present day hinduism is same as the original one, there are many other evidences. I gave you another one about Sanskrit and how old it is. Kharosti is just a script and not a language, so you shouldn't worry about when it was written in kharosti or not or whether it was written in kharosti or not. Rigveda was written much later than it was created and initially transferred through oral traditions. The first time it was written, the language was sanskrit, because sanskrit was already there for long long time. Sanskrit is plain and simple a hindu/vedic language, its origin was for liturgical purposes, even its refinement was for liturgical purposes (by Panini and others). Its sole custodians were those ancient Hindus.

Re: # 181;
posted by Zeemax

Good one....problem remains un-resolved though

The word Jihad itself is open to many interpretations....as we have seen many a times here and this fact happens to bear our historically too....with the ever-changing "moral Zeitgeist", it becomes more relevant by the minute in today's world.

So who do we accept as an authority for further clarification? remains unclear too.

This level of un-clarity, though I am sure doesn't exist in your mind - or your off the peg next of kin's mind (abbreviated to OTPNoK)- remains an unconfortable reality....in common with any other piece of man-written fiction.

"jitnay mooN, utni baatain"

This itself is a testament to the futility of the argument presented by you and seconded by your OTPNoK.

A God, as magnanumus as yours would not allow those "mis-interpretations" of His sacred/infallible word....it is well within His reach....isn't it?

#115 Murad Baig

"9. There are no final words in history that often produces surprises. No Indian source knew about the great Mauryan empire till James Princep got Pali scripts interpreted in 1937. Similarly there was no knowledge of the great Harappan civilization till Mortimer Wheeler announced `his’ great find in 1923."

In continuation to #211, Vishakhadatta, in 4th century AD, wrote "MudraRakshas", which is a story of Chandragupta Maurya.

I seriously think that you need to go back to school to learn your history.

Murad Baig’s post # 178 represent a reasonable and progressive approach and it appears to me that people have not bothered to read the post.

He is not saying that the Quran has changed but he is talking about the various interpretations of the Quranic Suras, or verses, over a long history of over 1400 years. These verses had to be reinterpreted in different eras. The reinterpretation is not revision or changes in the original text. It is more like various reading of the laws or the constitutions in courts by different lawyers.

When the Muslims claim that all laws are derived from the Quran, then they should also agree that there are going to be various interpretations of the document that is the source of the Law.

The fickle nature of the human almost guarantees that people though sparingly, would disagree on many religious matters. 1400 years is a long long time and it is beyond human nature to not differ on some religious edicts and reinterpret the religious principles enshrined in the Quranic Verses or Surah based on their own particular environments.

Every religion has gone through this process and Islam is no exception. Different sects and schools of thought in Islam, like in Christianity, simply represent the desire of the people of different eras to adjust the religion to their own unique environments. At the same time, there have always been some groups who attempt to block the natural progression in the religious thoughts.

There is no system in Islam or in the Quran that determines who is Muslim or who is not or any thought or any opinion is Islamic or not. Which means the religion does not stop people from disagreeing or reinterpreting the religious laws or even the Quran based on the dynamism of the time or the era they are living in. As long as groups of people who broadly agree and call their differing views Islamic and their followers Muslims, they cannot be called nonMuslims.

Historical facts are often arranged to "fit" the theory rather than the other way around. The theory has to have the ability to explain a great deal in order to be viable, but recalcitrant facts are often accommodated. The Islamic theory has to be viable. If it is not viable, it would be at loggerheads with the inflexible and stubborn groups.

“The word Jihad is rarely found in the Koran but is referred to 199 times in the Hadith. They interpreted Jihad to mean a holy war even though Jihad had actually meant a striving and Mujahiddin was no holy warrior but only one who strives.�- Murad Baig

The instances of the word Jihad in Quran( as shown by Zeemax in post #181) for a layman would appear to be more in terms of ‘Strive’ than the holy war itself. But as Baig said above, the Islamic scholars who interpreted the word Jihad sometimes interpreted it as holy war and they did that at least 199 times in Hadith alone. This fact alone shows that the religion does allow a variety of interpretations and all interpretations are with in Islam.

The current group of Islamic scholars (in only one dominant sect Sunni) may decide to interpret Jihad as the holy war or claim that they are the only ones to determine what the word means but their claim has no greater legitimacy than the other groups who oppose this interpretation and call that highly politically motivated. The OBL group or some other groups in the Arab world have political motives or presumably Arab nationalist motives as they are trying to snatch the control of the natural resources such as Oil from the foreign interventionists and their lackeys in the Arab world but they have not defined their political goals clearly.

Disguising their nationalist motives in a religious mask is an effort to internationalize their national problems thus providing an opportunity to the international forces to legitimize intervention in the Arab world and other Muslim countries. This is not a movement or Jihad for legitimacy. This is treachery against the poor people in the Muslim countries!

The unconventional methods such as the use of suicide bombing are actually helping the foreign interventionists to consolidate their control of the Arab resources.

#155 Murad Ali Baig

"9. There are no final words in history that often produces surprises. No Indian source knew about the great Mauryan empire till James Princep got Pali scripts interpreted in 1937. Similarly there was no knowledge of the great Harappan civilization till Mortimer Wheeler announced `his’ great find in 1923."

You need to recheck your sources. James Princep existed as an employee of East India Company between 1832 and 1838. He worked on Brahmi script. His achievement was to establish that Sandrakottus of Greek Text and Chandragupta of Indian texts were one and same and thereby put a firm timeline for Chandragupta.

Re: # 199

Kaal:

"...I don't know what kind of peace we will see then. Or, if that is what Murad is bargaining for...."

Do you really believe that the peace comes based on the past? Permanently living or thinking in past only not only brings the fractures / wounds out but they also makes them permanent.

This is the biggest problem of thinking through the religious lens. Drop it, and you will see "today" and "tomorrow".

#205 Posted by Mystic,

You can chose whichever you want. The truth is in Qura'an. And it is not esoteric. It's right there in plain words.

However if you want to make it esoteric, that may be politically correct.

#204 Posted by nasah,

Yes, it's true.

#199 Posted by Eklavya,

Yes. 60:1 in #181 is why I do what I do.

Re: # 205; mystic

you may include Muhammed Asad's translation in your little collection too....the "ultimate decoded version"..

Zee etc.

So all we are proving by going in controversies

Koran .

its Translation Interpretations

& its variation in order of guidence


wether Imams of 7 or 12 or 'Alawis believing Ali as Allah 'druze beliving in reincarnatn ,yet ALL are muslims '

ISLAM is esoteric .NOT rigid but not without choice .One can become Shia in Iran Allavi inSyria,Druze in lebenan Ismaili in Canada bohra in Mumbai Sunni in BDEsh Aethist in India .

Regarding Code 19 some fool has started similar to devinci code of christian bible .
.........................................
Mano to devta hai nahi to patthar hai

Zeemax -- is it true:

" An Alawi prays in a manner patterned after the shahada: "I testify that there is no God but Ali."

"Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India?"

It was other way round. Mainstream India was persecuted by Buddhists as soon as some imporatnt warmongers became its followers. Buddhists were more into spreading their word rather than engage in any kind of dialogue with local people. It became religion of big people who were equivalent of today's bollywood stars. Even when wars were problem of the day they preached pacifism. More like Gandhi when violence was everywhere Gandhi was preaching non-violent methods. When Ashoka might have ordered his edicts to be made people must have talked in hushed voice: this is same man who killed many, now he is going about preaching pacifism. People must have sensed double talk-double think in their messages. Buddhism was Islam of past.

That does not mean its messages might have been completely rejected. There were Kshatriyas who protected land masses and masses and in those times of relative peace when they were successful some people might have found extra time and inclination to learn about them and convert into them. But it became one of many religious miscelleny that was floating about. Unlike Islam was not too anti-mainstream, so it survived.

But in present times there is clear message of distancing from mainstream and adopting anti-mainstream posturing. People who convert are low caste. They imagine that by just converting they can be more equal like many who convert to christianity. But without education and hard work you cannot grab the opportunities free and democratic India gives.

#196 Posted by dost_mittar

In case of druze, too, you could say that they are on the side of Israelis. But do they also believe in rebirth, as some Lebanese once told me?

Druze don't, but Yazedis in Iraq (a small branch of Druze) do. Actually they believe in all sorts of things. Actually they are Satanists, believing in some omnipotent bird which is their symbol.

Re: # 199; Eklavya
"Cheema ji, would you agree that Islam is politics for a divine purpose under a divine mandate?"

O bhai sahib, if I believed in a divine purpose & mandate(Islam or not) then I wouldn't be an atheist, would I?

enough from me on that for now

Urstruly, Re The difference between Hinduism and Buddhism-I am keeping it as simple as I can-The major doctrinal difference is in the concepts of aatman(The concept of self in Hinduism) and unAatman(The concept of non-self in Buddhism).Googling may give you further info.To truly understand the metaphysical implications of their difference, one may have to do extensive reading of both Hindu and Buddhist texts.To give you a clue of the complexity involved:unAatman or non-self is as much a negation of Aatman or self as Einsteinian\\Quantum mechanics is a negation of Newtonian\\Classical Mechanics.

Yes, zee. I read. Hope people can see why you must do what you do.

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

Cheema ji, would you agree that Islam is politics for a divine purpose under a divine mandate?

If you take out the divine purpose and the divine mandate you would be left with mere politics between Muslims and non-Muslims.

If that becomes the non-Muslim understanding of Islam, and Islam is not fundamentally changed, do you expect any peace (or compromise) between Muslims and non-Muslims, since the latter must then be allowed to have their own 'interpretation' of Islam's Muslim-non-Muslim politics based on their own reading of the Quran?

Imagine 4 billion chaltahais. I don't know what kind of peace we will see then. Or, if that is what Murad is bargaining for.

BTW, why arjun's posts are filtered?.

... and this liar says the word Jihad is rarely used in Qura'an but only in Hadees. Did you read my post which gives the Arabic content as well?


Aren't the Muslims living under not so beneficial conditions allowed to lie, (taqiyah or taqwah) or is it only for Shias??

Apparently, the author is a Muslim living in India which is not a Muslim majority / dominant country. So it is Ok for him to lie, I guess..

Thank you zee. In case of druze, too, you could say that they are on the side of Israelis. But do they also believe in rebirth, as some Lebanese once told me?

dost_mittar,

Druze, Alevis, even Yazidis, all want to be called Muslims. I wonder why?

It all has to do something with Ali. He was such a great man, that all of the above consider him to have been a Prophet in his own right. Shias/Ismailis don't, which is why they are Muslims. Questions of rightful succession aside.

The above groupings found Ali's persona in one or the other figure in quest for Ali, whom they worship.

In case of Alevis, it is exactly the same as Qadianis. Just as Qadianis wanted to integrate with Britain, Alevis of Turkey (the largest grouping - 30% of population) want to integrate with Germany. That's their sole purpose.

Re: # 193; Dost_Mittar sahib,
"Arre bhai, why do you create confusion all the time? You say things in the language of "kucchh na samjhe khuda kare koyee"))

If there is anyone here who knows exactly what he is doing/saying, it is your addressee...

...and the fools think they are clever!....what an illusion eh!....all for a "higher" purpose in a day's work

Zee:

Do you know the background to Druzes? In what respect are Druze Muslims? Is it true that they believe in some sort of rebirth? Are they in any areas besides the Levant?

eklavya:

"That argument would create a LOT of problems for Muslims and between Muslims and non-Muslims."


Arre bhai, why do you create confusion all the time? You say things in the language of "kucchh na samjhe khuda kare koyee" (except zeemax, of course). Now, if the quran was "created", why should it create a lot of Problems between Muslims and non-Muslims?

Eklavya,

Did you read #181?

Mystic bhai, 'translations' and 'interpretations' are one thing. But to argue that the real Quran is lost, and perhaps burnt by some people, and a fake and corrupted one might be in the hands of Muslims, courtesy some mere humans centuries ago, seems inexcusable.

That argument would create a LOT of problems for Muslims and between Muslims and non-Muslims.

But if that is what Murab firmly believes, he should say it, so Muslims and non-Muslims can judge him for what he represents.

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

But what can one say about a man who believes Indian Muslims actually "worship saints"? Such a man can know neither India nor Islam.

These people should stop playing the role of 'bridges' between communities, or explaining one to the other. Otherwise, nothing but disaster awaits us all.

Mystic,

And talking of Alevis, I'm going to post an iLog re them. Do read it.

#188 Posted by Mystic,

which translation

Yusaf Ali captures the essence.

Shia are Muslims. Druze, Alavis etc are like Qadianis. If you consider Qadianis Muslim, then you can consider them too.

I don't know any 'Code 19' interpreter. What is it?

Zee which translation either of Bukhari or of Yusuf Ali better captures the essence or meanings.

The fact there are so many sects wihin Muslims/islam each with its own juxtaposition of suras, ayats ,and paras not speak of literal interpretation ' translation & allegories.And Its true for all written scriptures Torah' Bible ,
Why should Koran be any different.You have a argument but so does Shia Druzes Alavis etc

What is this 'Code 19' koran interpreter .

#184 Posted by Eklavya

One is amazed that Muslims let such people get away with their destructive work.

Not for long. I think the permissive diversity is going to end soon.

IF Islam is just a man-made 'religion' then that has some real terrible implications for both Muslims and non-Muslims. I don't know why any 'Muslim' in his or her right mind would even want to go there.

Many upper middle-class born-Muslims do want to get at interpretations which suits their circumstances. There are several here. But Islam does not care about circumstances. It demands sacrifice - whatever it takes. And only the 'believers' are prepared to do that.

Quran should be just left as the word of Allah. And people may choose to follow Allah or not.

There are indeed problems in compilation i.e. it is not in chronological order, and there are areas (I know of only one) which can be said to be open to argumentation on otherwise known facts. But, the overall message is beyond any shadow of doubt.

... and this liar says the word Jihad is rarely used in Qura'an but only in Hadees. Did you read my post which gives the Arabic content as well?

#184 Posted by Eklavya,

These people prey upon the uninformed ... upon those born Muslims who are searching - in these days of conflict - to a middle way. They don't want to renounce Islam, they love it, but at the same time want to find a meaning which doesn't cost them anything.

These people prey upon those who do not instinctively WANT to believe that what all this fight is about is ACTUALLY a fight with and against Islam. They think this fight is only against Usama or Mullah Umar, and that there's no Jihad.

I think these misleaders/posers/deceivers are despicable. I don't blame the ones being deceived. They just don't want to get hurt in the process.

One is amazed that Muslims let such people get away with their destructive work.

IF Islam is just a man-made 'religion' then that has some real terrible implications for both Muslims and non-Muslims. I don't know why any 'Muslim' in his or her right mind would even want to go there.

Quran should be just left as the word of Allah. And people may choose to follow Allah or not.

"should have continued to talk about Jainism and Hinduism, of which he perhaps knows something"

sigh...zee, these people know nothing. Neither Islam nor the Indian mind.

It is a disgrace that they cause such havoc in our societies, based on nothing but hateful 'love' for their founders.

#180 Posted by Eklavya,

Read below. These are only the verses where the actual word 'Jihad' is used in Arabic. There are scores others where the word is not used but the same message.

This author, I'm disappointed, should have continued to talk about Jainism and Hinduism, of which he perhaps knows something. Re Islam and Qura'an, he is really stepping out of his field as he is totally ignorant of this subject.

#178 Posted by muradbaig,

The word Jihad is rarely found in the Koran

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please refrain:

Al-Furqan (The Criterion)

25:52 hence, do not defer to [the likes and dislikes of] those who deny the truth, but strive hard against them, by means of this [divine writ], with utmost striving.

Fala tutiAAi alkafireena wajahidhum bihi jihadan kabeeran

Ù?َلَا تÙ?Ø·Ù?عÙ? الْكَاÙ?Ù?رÙ?ينَ وَجَاهÙ?دْهÙ?Ù… بÙ?Ù‡Ù? جÙ?هَادًا كَبÙ?يرًا (25:52)

Al-'Ankabut (The Spider)

29:69 But as for those who strive hard in Our cause -We shall most certainly guide them onto paths that lead unto Us: [61] for, behold, God is indeed with the doers of good.

Waallatheena jahadoo feena lanahdiyannahum subulana wainna Allaha lamaAAa almuhsineena

وَالَّذÙ?ينَ جَاهَدÙ?وا Ù?Ù?ينَا لَنَهْدÙ?يَنَّهÙ?مْ سÙ?بÙ?لَنَا ÙˆÙŽØ¥Ù?نَّ اللَّهَ لَمَعَ الْمÙ?حْسÙ?Ù†Ù?ينَ (29:69)

Al-Hujurat (The Dwellings)

49:15 [Know that true] believers are only those who have attained to faith in God and His Apostle and have left all doubt behind, [19] and who strive hard in God’s cause with their possessions and their lives: it is they, they who are true to their word!

Innama almuminoona allatheena amanoo biAllahi warasoolihi thumma lam yartaboo wajahadoo biamwalihim waanfusihim fee sabeeli Allahi olaika humu alssadiqoona

Ø¥Ù?نَّمَا الْمÙ?ؤْمÙ?Ù†Ù?ونَ الَّذÙ?ينَ آمَنÙ?وا بÙ?اللَّهÙ? وَرَسÙ?ولÙ?Ù‡Ù? Ø«Ù?مَّ لَمْ يَرْتَابÙ?وا وَجَاهَدÙ?وا بÙ?أَمْوَالÙ?Ù‡Ù?مْ ÙˆÙŽØ£ÙŽÙ†Ù?Ù?سÙ?Ù‡Ù?مْ Ù?Ù?ÙŠ سَبÙ?يلÙ? اللَّهÙ? Ø£Ù?وْلَئÙ?ÙƒÙŽ Ù‡Ù?Ù…Ù? الصَّادÙ?Ù‚Ù?ونَ (49:15)

Al-Mumtahinah (The Examined One)

60:1 O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take My enemies - who are your enemies as well [1] - for your friends, showing them affection even though they are bent on denying whatever truth has come unto you, [and even though] they have driven the Apostle and yourselves away, [only] because you believe in God, your Sustainer! [2] If [it be true that] you have gone forth [from your homes] to strive in My cause, and out of a longing for My goodly acceptance, [do not take them for your friends,] inclining towards them in secret affection: for I am fully aware of all that you may conceal as well as of all that you do openly. And any of you who does this has already strayed from the right path. [3]

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo AAaduwwee waAAaduwwakum awliyaa tulqoona ilayhim bialmawaddati waqad kafaroo bima jaakum mina alhaqqi yukhrijoona alrrasoola waiyyakum an tuminoo biAllahi rabbikum in kuntum kharajtum jihadan fee sabeelee waibtighaa mardatee tusirroona ilayhim bialmawaddati waana aAAlamu bima akhfaytum wama aAAlantum waman yafAAalhu minkum faqad dalla sawaa alssabeeli

يَا أَيّÙ?هَا الَّذÙ?ينَ آمَنÙ?وا لَا تَتَّخÙ?Ø°Ù?وا عَدÙ?وّÙ?ÙŠ وَعَدÙ?وَّكÙ?مْ أَوْلÙ?يَاء تÙ?لْقÙ?ونَ Ø¥Ù?لَيْهÙ?Ù… بÙ?الْمَوَدَّةÙ? وَقَدْ ÙƒÙŽÙ?َرÙ?وا بÙ?مَا جَاءكÙ?Ù… مّÙ?Ù†ÙŽ الْحَقّÙ? ÙŠÙ?خْرÙ?جÙ?ونَ الرَّسÙ?ولَ ÙˆÙŽØ¥Ù?يَّاكÙ?مْ Ø£ÙŽÙ† تÙ?ؤْمÙ?Ù†Ù?وا بÙ?اللَّهÙ? رَبّÙ?ÙƒÙ?مْ Ø¥Ù?Ù† ÙƒÙ?نتÙ?مْ خَرَجْتÙ?مْ جÙ?هَادًا Ù?Ù?ÙŠ سَبÙ?يلÙ?ÙŠ وَابْتÙ?غَاء مَرْضَاتÙ?ÙŠ تÙ?سÙ?رّÙ?ونَ Ø¥Ù?لَيْهÙ?Ù… بÙ?الْمَوَدَّةÙ? وَأَنَا أَعْلَمÙ? بÙ?مَا أَخْÙ?َيْتÙ?مْ وَمَا أَعْلَنتÙ?مْ ÙˆÙŽÙ…ÙŽÙ† ÙŠÙŽÙ?ْعَلْهÙ? Ù…Ù?نكÙ?مْ Ù?َقَدْ ضَلَّ سَوَاء السَّبÙ?يلÙ? ()

As-Saff (The Row)

61:11 You are to believe in God and His Apostle, and to strive hard in God's cause with your possessions and your lives: this is for your own good - if you but knew it!

Tuminoona biAllahi warasoolihi watujahidoona fee sabeeli Allahi biamwalikum waanfusikum thalikum khayrun lakum in kuntum taAAlamoona

تÙ?ؤْمÙ?Ù†Ù?ونَ بÙ?اللَّهÙ? وَرَسÙ?ولÙ?Ù‡Ù? وَتÙ?جَاهÙ?دÙ?ونَ Ù?Ù?ÙŠ سَبÙ?يلÙ? اللَّهÙ? بÙ?أَمْوَالÙ?ÙƒÙ?مْ ÙˆÙŽØ£ÙŽÙ†Ù?Ù?سÙ?ÙƒÙ?مْ Ø°ÙŽÙ„Ù?ÙƒÙ?مْ خَيْرٌ لَّكÙ?مْ Ø¥Ù?Ù† ÙƒÙ?نتÙ?مْ تَعْلَمÙ?ونَ (61:11)

At-Tahrem (The Banning)

66:9 O PROPHET! Strive hard against the deniers of the truth and the hypocrites, and be adamant with them. [20] And [if they do not repent,] their goal shall be hell - and how vile a journey’s end!

Ya ayyuha alnnabiyyu jahidi alkuffara waalmunafiqeena waoghluth AAalayhim wamawahum jahannamu wabisa almaseeru

يَا أَيّÙ?هَا النَّبÙ?يّÙ? جَاهÙ?دÙ? الْكÙ?Ù?َّارَ وَالْمÙ?نَاÙ?Ù?Ù‚Ù?ينَ وَاغْلÙ?ظْ عَلَيْهÙ?مْ وَمَأْوَاهÙ?مْ جَهَنَّمÙ? وَبÙ?ئْسَ الْمَصÙ?يرÙ? (66:9)

Murad, you obviously can't grasp a thing about India. I now wonder what kind of a Muslim you are if you believe the current Quran to be all fiction...

murad

What happened to the original Quran? Is there a way to know whether the current 'Quran' is actually the word of Allah, or just the fictitious renderings of Abu Bakr/Zaid Ibn Thabi/et al's obviously quite fertile minds? For other originals to have to be burnt, they would have to be very different....

Murad, you are close to saying much much worse than many people with death sentences against them by believers have said.

And you should be taken as a Muslim because you 'love' Prophet Muhammad?


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

btw, if the current 'Quran' is all made up, how do you know what Jihad is, anyways? Where is the word of Allah?

Re: # 175

Tahir pl read this extract from my Chowk article of 10th October 2006 to read about how the revisionists hijacked the words of The Prophet:

Most Muslims believe that the Quran is the infallible, eternal and unchangeable words of Allah but very few know how much the teachings of The Prophet had been revised over the past fourteen centuries. The Quran only began to be compiled years after Muhammad’s death in 632 AD when Khalif Abu Bakr gave Zaid Ibn Thabit, one of The Prophet’s companions, the task of writing it. Years later the third Khalif Othman announced the definitive Madina version in 665 AD (33 years after his death) and all the other versions were then gathered up and burned.

But the Suras, or verses, of the Quran did not answer all the questions of a changing society so Muslim clerics sought further scriptural authorities for interpreting Islamic law. Two hundred years later the celebrated Al-Bukhari added examples from the life of The Prophet as the Hadith. He traveled the entire Muslim world to compile most of it. But appalled by the credulity of people, he on his own authority rejected 99.6 % of the 600,000 pious contributions offered to him.

The first schism occurred when the Shia sect split from the dominant Sunnis. Although it was originally a result of a battle for succession to the Khalifate, the Shia faith, widely adopted in Persia, allowed many Persian traditions like portraiture and glorious tombs to continue. It affirmed its faith in the Quran but developed its own Hadith. But many other sects, with their own interpretations of Islam, kept erupting. There were the Fatimids, Sufis, Kaljrijites, Ismailis, Zaidis, Nizaris, Alawis and several others. By the end of the 13th century the Sunni clerics declared that the doors to further revision were closed but many revisionists continued to appear.

Then in the 18th century Abd Al Wahhab began the Sunni Wahhabiya movement that while accepting the Quran and Hadith as fundamental texts opposed all innovations, superstitions and deviances with a very narrow interpretation of these in a puritanical and legalistic form.

Many of their beliefs however went beyond the teachings of The Prophet. The word Jihad is rarely found in the Koran but is referred to 199 times in the Hadith. They interpreted Jihad to mean a holy war even though Jihad had actually meant a striving and Mujahiddin was no holy warrior but only one who strives. There were also two Jihads and the greater Jihad meant a struggle against one’s own weakness while a lesser Jihad was to fight against injustice. Both enjoined adherents to struggle on regardless of the odds with the certain faith that Allah would come to the aid of the sincere devotee. But there were strict rules and the Jihad could not be declared by anybody but only by an authority of widely accepted repute.

Islam like ALL religions has changed from their original forms. Love the founders, study many beautiful philosophies of all faiths but do not believe blinkered Mullas, Padres or Pandits who mostly know only a little about their religions.

Re: # 175

Tahir pl read this extract from my Chowk article of 10th October 2006 to read about how the revisionists hijacked the words of The Prophet:

Most Muslims believe that the Quran is the infallible, eternal and unchangeable words of Allah but very few know how much the teachings of The Prophet had been revised over the past fourteen centuries. The Quran only began to be compiled years after Muhammad’s death in 632 AD when Khalif Abu Bakr gave Zaid Ibn Thabit, one of The Prophet’s companions, the task of writing it. Years later the third Khalif Othman announced the definitive Madina version in 665 AD (33 years after his death) and all the other versions were then gathered up and burned.

But the Suras, or verses, of the Quran did not answer all the questions of a changing society so Muslim clerics sought further scriptural authorities for interpreting Islamic law. Two hundred years later the celebrated Al-Bukhari added examples from the life of The Prophet as the Hadith. He traveled the entire Muslim world to compile most of it. But appalled by the credulity of people, he on his own authority rejected 99.6 % of the 600,000 pious contributions offered to him.

The first schism occurred when the Shia sect split from the dominant Sunnis. Although it was originally a result of a battle for succession to the Khalifate, the Shia faith, widely adopted in Persia, allowed many Persian traditions like portraiture and glorious tombs to continue. It affirmed its faith in the Quran but developed its own Hadith. But many other sects, with their own interpretations of Islam, kept erupting. There were the Fatimids, Sufis, Kaljrijites, Ismailis, Zaidis, Nizaris, Alawis and several others. By the end of the 13th century the Sunni clerics declared that the doors to further revision were closed but many revisionists continued to appear.

Then in the 18th century Abd Al Wahhab began the Sunni Wahhabiya movement that while accepting the Quran and Hadith as fundamental texts opposed all innovations, superstitions and deviances with a very narrow interpretation of these in a puritanical and legalistic form.

Many of their beliefs however went beyond the teachings of The Prophet. The word Jihad is rarely found in the Koran but is referred to 199 times in the Hadith. They interpreted Jihad to mean a holy war even though Jihad had actually meant a striving and Mujahiddin was no holy warrior but only one who strives. There were also two Jihads and the greater Jihad meant a struggle against one’s own weakness while a lesser Jihad was to fight against injustice. Both enjoined adherents to struggle on regardless of the odds with the certain faith that Allah would come to the aid of the sincere devotee. But there were strict rules and the Jihad could not be declared by anybody but only by an authority of widely accepted repute.

Islam like ALL religions has changed from their original forms. Love the founders, study many beautiful philosophies of all faiths but do not believe blinkered Mullas, Padres or Pandits who mostly know only a little about their religions.

Re: # 153 NGK
"Change your name from Urdooo/Arabic to local one ( Punjabi/Sindi/Sanskrit). That is first step to prove your loyalty towards the land..."

Are you serious? The earliest followers of Muhammad's (peace on him) message retained their names and so did many other cultures of the area where Islam (submission to the will of One God) was accepted.

Out of love for the earliest generations, many changed their names. Many Punjabi castes retain names that although sound Muslim to us, are equally Hindu.

Who is a Hindu if not a resident of the land around Indus river? What the word Muslim means, you NOW know it!

Muslims aren't supposed to lose their heads over pieces of property, a passport or a citizenship. If they do, they're not really Muslims. The real ones are loyal to God's commands and what His messengers have repeated incessantly. Everything else follows THIS!

The modern concept of nationalism is divisive for Muslims, and this is what the colonists wanted.

You can't fool me NGK.

Re: # 171 Murad Baig
When you say "Quran. Revisionists have distorted the Quran as with all scriptures." do say that these are translational errors emanating from equally error-filled minds.

Careful brother. The original Word remains unchanged!

Re: # 170 Eklavya
"You Hindus are totally wasting your time on this board. Dialog and discussion is NOT the way forward"

Ganga-jal and Aab-e-Zamzam are indeed vastly different waters! One comes from the earth, the other flows over it; the two can't ever inter-mix, although many Sufis have tried with song and dance thrown in.

Re: # 162
By the One True God, DM you've got it when you say:

"It's a question of identity; muslim indentity is stronger than other religious identities..."

Khush keeta ee, guru di sauN...

Re: # 160 Arjun

"How is it that the vast majority of muslims always accidentally sympathize with the muslim side in the conflict..."

No wonder you haven't figure out this simple thing and go about separating man's belief in one God with how he must conduct his affairs in this world.

The two are inseparable oh Arjun!

Here are important reference from the Qur'an:

49:10
All believers are but brethren....
Footnote: The plural noun ikhwah ("brethren" or "brotherhood") has here, of course, a purely ideological connotation, comprising men and women alike; the same applies to the subsequent mention of "your two brethren".

9:23
O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take your fathers and your brothers for allies if a denial of the truth is dearer to them than faith: for those of you who ally themselves with them - it is they, they who are evildoers!

58:22
Thou canst not find people who [truly) believe in God and the Last Day and [at the same time) love anyone who contends against God and His Apostle - even though they be their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or [others of] their kindred.

And as from The Bible (Like-Minded Believers, Philippians 2:1-11)

...every believer participates in the work of Spirit both through His indwelling presence and the bestowal of spiritual gifts to the body. In other words, their "common sharing in the Spirit ought to be a decisive factor in their corporate life"

Note: how the word Spirit ('Ruh' in the Qur'an) actually refers to the One God and NOT Jesus (son of God)!

Have a nice day....

Re: # 169

The precise dating of all these sources is very difficult to establish and historians have tried to piece them together on the basis of virtually circumstantial evidence like writing materials, scripts, literary references to artefacts that can be more precisely dated, etc. The original Rigveda was for example written in Kharoshti (that also evolved into Persian and Arabic scripts)and Devanagri only appeared in about the 5th century AD and became general by the 7th century. We have to accept the words of the Gita that change is the only constant in life.

Present day Hinduism is very different to its many earlier forms of worship and went through seven distinct periods of change as is detailed in my Chowk article dated 7th September 2006 that you can refer to. As it evolved it, like all forms of worship, adopted many ideas from other schools of thought. There was no evidence of any conflict between the followers of Buddha, Mahavira or the several Brahmin schools in the early periods and actually considerable interaction and debate between them. The Upanisads are very elevating and seem to reflect this process of intellectual exchange.

Arjun3 need not be so vitriolic about the very many very bad Muslims of the world. There have been many more very good ones except that their words and actions are not as dramatic as violent destruction. Please read my article on the vicious circle of violence (Chowk 22nd March 2008) and you will see that Christian Crusaders were far more fanatical than the Muslims of that period. As the previously dominant Islamic countries steadily lost ground to Europeans after the 15th century they became bitter and frustrated and a number of fanatical sub sects began to invent a kind of Jihad that is not found in the Quran. Revisionists have distorted the Quran as with all scriptures.

"I do not understand why you are suggesting to world that hinduism didn't exist till 7th century, what is your intention?"

You Hindus are totally wasting your time on this board.

Dialog and discussion is NOT the way forward.

in reply to #155

muradbaig,
I do not understand why you are suggesting to world that hinduism didn't exist till 7th century, what is your intention? Also, how can you refer to your own article or your own understanding to prove so?

What do you understand by definition of a religion and how do you define hinduism? You might have to correct your definition of both if you think hinduism started in 7th AD (very few non-muslims will be able to agree to it).

You say hinduism was vedic tribal religion till 7th century AD? Those upanishads written from 900BC to 200-300BC were all tribal laws compared to other religious texts??

It is ok if some people wish that hinduism was not started till 7AD, but such a wish simply can't change history.

Not just Vedas but most important Upanishads and many of Puranas (puran means ancient or old) were written before 1 AD, by 500AD most of mathematicians like Aryabhata, Pingla or people like Panini were writing much more than tribal laws in Sanskrit. Sanskrit itself was invented for religious purposes, it was supposed to be a divine language, and sanskrit is attested to have been there since at least 1500BC.

Core of hinduism always was and still is Vedas, Brahmins still recite the same many-thousand-year old mantras in all their rituals (what you are calling tribal). But hindu religion itself continuously evolved all the time, there was never a time when hindus didn't consider vedas to be of prime importantce. So much so that even the Upanishads that were much better than vedas in terms of philosophy/ideas were supposed to be further interpretation of vedas themselves and were later called Vedanta. The difficult to understand philosophy of Upanishads were later followed by simple stories or legends based on them, which were called Puranas. Vedas, Upanishads, Purans and later Itihasas (Ramayana/Mahabharat) all more or less use the same thread but keep on evolving/adding stories moral values/rituals for the masses.

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

kamath:

Thank nkg for that description, not me.:)

"Karma and Dharma borrowed from Buddhism and Jainism."

If I remember my vedanta right both these have been there in some pre-buddhist/jainist upanishads.
Its careless statements like this and the general tone of the piece that makes your intentions suspect. I dont doubt that there was some persecution of buddhists but ultimately brahmanism beacame dominant through intellectual means. I say brahmanism because hinduism as we know now is a later construct.
It is amusing to see how some people find hinduism so incomprehensible. Is it paganism? polytheism? monotheism? monism? agnostism? atheism? :)

Re: # 161 Hello Dost Dost Mittar

I was looking for a long time a word to describe Bollywood dances- swinging hips, jabbing the thin air, moon walking like .. I am glad you used the word "Monkey Dance". It is the right word. Thanks
kamath

"After the 7th century there was a huge `Hindu’ revival spearheaded by radical Brahmins who hardened the very loose caste system and reinvented the nearly dead caste of Kshatriyas to persecute all who opposed them. "

Listen Murad, you are following the Dawah brigade of Doctor Band Master Zakir Naik- which starts with the distortion of history and retrofitting the facts that serve their aim of disparaging Indian traditions.

You may help muslims to solidify their supremacist Islamist thinking and that is the biggest dis-service you do - you help them remain ignorant and let their hearts be sealed by their satanic beliefs.

All hindus recognize your spin - it would be most unfortunate if gullible muslims consider your fantasies as reinforcing the supremacist claims of their mullah Islam!!

muradbaig:

Many of us have not read Rajatrangini or other sanskrit documents, so the issue of the credibility of the messenger becomes important; if the same article had been written by someone like our own nasah, one would have a different response. However, when one has consistently shown one's bias and prejudices in previous articles, it is hard not to rule out the possibility of twisting and spinning the evidence to suit one's objective.

arjun#160:

It's a question of identity; muslim indentity is stronger than other religious identities. However, on this site, at least, many of us hindus display an equally strong political, though not religious, identity.

nkg#152:

"Mumbai movie and related culture is like watching monkey dance and enjoy the fun of it.
You need to know the classical Indian art and its quality..."

I did not praise Mumbai films as works of art but they do represent popular culture and one of the few global successes India can boast of. And classical art, too, has been influenced by Indian Muslim culture - Khyal in classical music; innovations in kathak, etc. (even though islam frowns upon music and dance) are some of the examples; btw, all musicians with the prefix Ustaad are muslims.

#158 Posted by dost_mittar on May 30, 2008 6:18:09 am


Islam, especially political islam,is an ideology like capitalism, communism or fascism and can be praised or criticised; muslims, on the other hand,are people most of whom got their religion by accident of birth.



oh really? take any conflict between muslims and non-muslims...israel, kashmir, thailand, iraq, afghanistan, phillipines...how is it that the vast majority of muslims always accidentally sympathize with the muslim side in the conflict..

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

pinku#146:

"I have possibly used muslims in place of Islam somewhere in my sentence in my earlier post, that is my mistake."

I am glad that you have realised this mistake which many of us, including sometimes me, make. Islam, especially political islam,is an ideology like capitalism, communism or fascism and can be praised or criticised; muslims, on the other hand,are people most of whom got their religion by accident of birth.

"But can you tell me what Islam gave to those hard working muslims or to india? Do you want to suggest that those people would have contributed less if they were not muslims, say they were athiests."

One of the most significant contribution of Indian Muslims is the architecture and this architecture is pure islamic or a fusion of islamic and indic architecture. Another great contribution is the urdu language whose beauty is because it is infused with vocabulary of foreign words brought to India by Muslims from those countries. Ghazal in poetry and qawaali in music would also not be possible without the infusion of "foreign" influence.

#156 Posted by dost_mittar on May 30, 2008 5:44:59 am

all mythologies have bad guys, a magical being who created everything and at least one flood myth...

arjun#142:

Even fairytales represent societal values. Rakshas are embedded in the hindu mythological literature. Frankly, I am not sure if they were a race, merely hypothesising here.

Response to 154 interacts regarding my article on persecution of Buddhists and Jains.

I am happy at the quick response and that most of the interacts have been positive and have stayed with theme and not drifted into many trivial pursuits of individual agenda’s. But a few comments:

1. Many interactors do not seem to have read the article properly. The article clearly says that gaining and retaining power was a brutal business among ALL people and at every period with the possible exception of Buddhists. Indian’s, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc., were not innocent of the blood of their political rivals. Popular myths should be taken with caution. Regarding violence read my article on Chowk dated March 22, 2008.

2. Please do not try to shoot the messenger. Stick to the message. It makes no difference if the author is a descendant of The Prophet, Timur Lang, Jesus or married or related to anyone. Personal allegations make no difference to the message and only show the pettiness of the interactor.

3. My sources have been clearly stated and neither Romila Thapar nor JNU academics are involved. They too have their opinions that should be heard as well. The main source is from Kalhan, a Shaivite Brahmin, whose Rajatarangini is one of the few Sanskrit sources on India’s early history despite its Kavya lyrical form and many obvious inaccuracies. Please remember that only Brahmins were allowed to write in ancient India and they wrote copiously about their philosophies, patrons and literature but very little about historic events. So it was not surprising that Chinese, Arab and other foreign writers were more historically useful.

4. I am not anti Hindu, anti Muslim or anti any faith as is clear from many past articles on Chowk. My basic message is that ALL faiths were hijacked and corrupted by professional priests to serve their political patrons and became religions full of myths and superstitions. Read my Chowk article on the hijacking of Islam 10th October 2006. I love the founders and prophets of ALL faiths who love all people and hate ALL `religions’ where professional priests often foster hatred towards those of other faiths.

5. Hinduism, as a religion, did not exist in ancient times. (read my Chowk article of 7 September 2007). As the philosophies and rituals evolved from it’s tribal and Vedic roots it changed hugely over the centuries. The wonderful Bhagavat Geeta also seems to have been retrofitted into the evolving Mahabharata story. Please remember that all the old birch bark and palm leaf documents were perishable and had to be rewritten every few centuries.

6. Early `Hindu’s’ were not vegetarian anywhere in India as is clear from my Chowk article on meat of 29 Feb 2008.

7. Till the 7th century AD there was considerable interaction between Buddhists and those subscribing to several faiths that were administered by Brahmins. The simplicity of early Buddhism became corrupted by many Brahmin practices and Brahmins even presided over Buddhist birth, marriage and death ceremonies.

8. After the 7th century there was a huge `Hindu’ revival spearheaded by radical Brahmins who hardened the very loose caste system and reinvented the nearly dead caste of Kshatriyas to persecute all who opposed them. My next article for Chowk will be on the evolution of India’s Caste System followed by one on the `One God’s’ of revelation and how the Jewish Jehovah infected Christianity and Islam and even affected the evolving `Hindu’ faith.

9. There are no final words in history that often produces surprises. No Indian source knew about the great Mauryan empire till James Princep got Pali scripts interpreted in 1937. Similarly there was no knowledge of the great Harappan civilization till Mortimer Wheeler announced `his’ great find in 1923.

10. Keep an open mind and enjoy the wonderful contributions of many different faiths.

Warm wishes

Murad Ali Baig

Re: # 151
Sikhs are best community in India, who live with spirit (not strictly alcohol/Patiala peg) is. No sacrifice, puja etc... some simple gurubani and then drink and dance...And specialy Santa-Banta jokes.

Re: # 149
Tahir...
Change your name from Urdooo/Arabic to local one ( Punjabi/Sindi/Sanskrit). That is first step to prove yopur loyalty towards the land...

Re: # 151
Go to Dakshineswar, Kolkata. Every year during Kali Puja, Amrik Sing Arora ( pure sikh with beard, turban...) sings Kali bhajan in the temple premises...

Re: # 84

Also go to any Jain Dharamshala it is very clearly written yeh Hindu Dharamsthal hai yahan par kewal Hindu Dharam ke logon ka rehna mana hai (Hindu, Sikh, Jain aur Bodh).

All our temples in the south forbid entry to Non Hindus but allow Sikhs, Jains and Budhists in.

In fact temples in Orissa which do not allow even white Hindu coverts inside when one Panda demanded after Mrs Gandhi's vadh that Sikhs not be allowed to enter temples was declared out of caste and only when he apologised to Orissa's Sikh community and they agreed to pardon him was he taken back.

Sanatani

Re: # 136
"Even silently repeating the 1000 names of Allah in the mind while thinking about how to kill an idolator like me or blowing bombs in kafir world makes it even worse."

Who is after you, tell me little Laddu. I will talk reason with him/her/it. :)

Look at Prophet Ibrahim's sensitive thinking-man's nature! And he never went to a cave but rather pondered over what his folks worshipped: the heavenly bodies.

"Muslims would NEVER attain their jannah with all that hatred, lust and avengeful attitude towards others that certainly is an impediment in the attainment of formless deity."

I never said (the Qur'an says the same on this issue) they will!

I can see that you still haven't gone through the Book! Your anger has reduced to below toxic-level; it will go away soon if you try.

Now let me find the Geeta in my bookshelf...

Re: # 127
"Those who don't love their motherland is rascal."

NGK, now whose 'mata ji' gave you the idea that I hate my people or this lovely land?

Only the local inhabitants reserve the right to criticise or satirise any or all aspects of our being (for the sake of self-improvement, of course).

Mind your Gujjars now, we're quite busy at the Camp Office.

Re: # 125
What Chief Ironside?

"that was a quote from a very well known desi, not my kind of ameerikan. from your side of the world I beleive:

You quoted an astrologer, aparently Muslim by name? (see http://www.uni-giessen.de/~gk1415/astrology.htm).

Any Muslim ought to know that the Qur'an is anti-astrology but pro-astronomy.

Your serve....

Re: # 124
"He who does not allow his miracles to be investigated is a crook, he who does not have the courage to investigate a miracle is gullible, and he who is prepared to believe without verification is a fool."

No..no..no..! This is the One and Only God's religion, not David Copperfield or Houdini!

In an age when magic (illusion, really!) ruled supreme, how else would people believe unless they saw something Divine and real?

Don't you have ANY miracle in your life Chief Ironside?

Since you don't have the courage to question the miracle of your birth, how about working towards understanding the miracle of death?

Re: # 141
dost_mittar ji,
In totality those sweeping statements are quite valid. Ramayana showed that Ravana was very intelligent, very powerful but was using his powers for his greed. It is equally sweeping statement to say that such complex and quite balanced stories like Mahabharta and Ramayana are preaching hatred towards anything. But I am not saying that such a sweeping statement will be totally invalid.

Muslims or Hindus are eventually human beings and there is no way that each individual in such large groups will behave exactly the same way. Who says there are no good human beings in muslims? There are millions of them. Why won't they contruibute anything good to humanity? I don't think bollywood is anything good or bad, but think of Azim Premji, Abul Kalam, think of many honest common hard working muslims, they conrtibute to whatever they can and such people are contributing for so long.

But can you tell me what Islam gave to those hard working muslims or to india? Do you want to suggest that those people would have contributed less if they were not muslims, say they were athiests. I have possibly used muslims in place of Islam somewhere in my sentence in my earlier post, that is my mistake. But idea of give and take was more related to Islam than muslims.


In totality, despite those balis, satis and whatever else hinduism is much more careless and Islam is much more careful and tightfisted in what it can let go. And that is what creates a difference between the two totalities.

Re: # 129
DM...
Pinku is definitely giving nice replies...
I will add something little more...
The historical baggage of hostility generally carries for long time. The universality of dislike against moslems in europe and india says the fact. This phenomenon started with advent of Islam in these areas. On the contrary, the Buddhist countries and society do not have any hostility with Indians. That says it all.
The basic problem of these muslims are quite simple. Somehow they have to defend their barbarism by stating that others were similar barbarians too. And what about current developments accross the world? "It is political and have no relation with Islam"
Ask them, why the Christians in Korea and China have no problem but muslims face this "political problem" in Thailand and China?

Just read the report of the latest survey from Gallup. Pakistan is one of the most disliked nation in couple of regions. A place, which has given the world language theory
(is no less than the invention of fire and wheel), is now carrying the baggage of mediaval middle east barbarism such that, instead of being the most respected country, it is regarded as most hated nation...
R K Misssion is involved in research of Indian history for long time. Please read their account. They don't carry any political baggage and thus refrain from cheating.

Re: # 141
DM...

Where you have found human sacrifice? I have not seen that anywhere. The tantriks used to do that. But that is 0.001 percent of population.
Regarding untouchability, I have already told the reasons in couple of other posts. When you go to kitchen, you are untouchable for God's work. When you are returning from crematorium, you are untouchable. The custom was based on activity. Due to logistic problem, the section of people, those who used to do scavenging work, were kept out of generic civil areas. In current context, it is irrelevant, but not when it was originated.
Sati, as a custom, originated from Jauhar in Rajasthan. Study the origin of Jauhar, you will know the reason. Why Sati was never practised in Kamrup(Assam), part of Orissa, Konkan and South India?
Bollywood is qualitatively the worst cultural centre of India. Tamil, Malayalam, Bengali cinema was far better in quality than Mumbai Urdoo movies. The Mumbai movie industry was setup by new calcutta theaters, Bimal Roy etc. and used Bengali novels as base for making movies.
If you are from cow belt, then you are not able to access the rich cultural heritage of your place. Neither you are aware of the excellence of regional cultures. The Sanskrit drama is qualitatively equal/better than Greek and english one.
Have you seen any Mumbai movie earning any award in Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, Cannes film festival?
Mumbai movie and related culture is like watching monkey dance and enjoy the fun of it.
You need to know the classical Indian art and its quality...
I request you to read the Bengal Renaissance and source of it...
Ramayana and Mahbharata are epics, which may not be 100% based on events. The flying rath (Pushpak) was definitely imagination of Valmiki than real one...
Regarding Rakshashas, they are villanous characters ( destroying ashramas...) and in any book, they end up getting killed...

Ref vengatramanan #26

[Ore donga bapana]

You are the "donga", pretending to be a Tamilian while you are actually a golti, and claiming to be oppressed by brahmins while your forefathers occupied Tamil lands and drove away the Pallans and Paraiyans who were tilling it and enslaved them as labourers.

[Neegu thelusa]

That should be "neeku thelusa". Just as your name should be Venkataramanan. The confusion between 'g' and 'k' is unique to Tamilians as also between 't' and 'd' and 'p' and 'b'. And don't get me started on the fact the only persons who can say "Tamil" correctly are brahmins.

Try the followiong exercise to improve your pronunciation of Tamil: "Vyazhak kizhamai ezhaik kizhavan vazhaip pazham thindran". What, your tongue got all twisted up and you can't get it back into shape?

[but for the Golti Nayak kings your varnsramadharma would not have survived. In a way the Nayak kings upheld your stupid ideas and patronized you]

For very good reason. The Dewan of Thirumalai Nayak, king of Madurai, was Neelakanta Deekshithar. When the sculptor who was carving a statue of the king and his queen repeatedly but quite unintentionally managed to nick the queen's statue in the thigh (he would start with a new stone for the carving once again), the king asked his Minister what would cause this mishap. Neelakanta Deekshithar replied that the queen had a mole on her thigh and the sculpture was true to this anatomical feature. The king went back to the palace and checked out his queen and sure enough, she had a mole on her thigh. The king stewed over the fact his Minister knew this rather intimate detail and decided that something must have been going on behind his back. The next morning, he sent his minions to the Minister's house with instructions to gouge out his eyes. Neelakanta Deekshithar was doing his daily puja when he was informed that the king's soldiers were waiting for him. He realized the king's intentions, took out a couple of cinders from the sacrificial fire and applied them to his eyes, blinded himself and then told the soldiers to inform the king that his orders had been carried out. The king then realized that Neelakanta Deekshithar had mystical powers and that was why he was able to tell the king that his queen had a mole on her thigh.

Neelakanta Deekshithar and his followers left Madurai, ignoring the pleas of the distraught Thirumalai Nayak to stay on. To expiate for his sin, the king asked Neelakanta Deekshithar how he could compensate him. Deekshithar told him that he and his follower merely wanted space where they could follow the study of Vedas without the interruptions of the outside world. The king granted Deekshithar and his group the village of Palamadai on the banks of the Tamravarni river and all adjoining lands for their use and made sure that the agricultural laborers lived sufficiently far from the brahmin settlement that even the a rooster's call could not be heard where the brahmins lived.

Neelakanta Deekshithar's statue can be seen in the village temple. The village produced several brilliant IAS officers proving that Deekshithar's administrative abilities indeed ran to his descendants. I have cousins from this village who are of Bharadwaja gotra and follow the Same Veda... the same as Neelakanta Deekshithar.

[which is what makes me feel very bad about my ancestors.]

Provided you can actually tell us who your ancestors are. Folks like Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion don't even know who their dad is, let alone ancient ancestors. That is the difference between us brahmins and you low-caste mufukkas.

[Periyar belongs to the same Nayaka lineage and to some extent he compensated his ancestors' injustice.]

He filled your head with nonsense. If brahmins who constitute 3% of Tamil Nadu population were advanced in education compared to the rest of the population, that is because they spent their time in the study of shastras unlike you guys who were chasing goats in preference to village belles.

#141 Posted by dost_mittar on May 29, 2008 7:56:03 pm


Even our Ramayana and Mahabharta establish a class of people we are taught to hate - the Rakshasas. Who were they?


I'm not sure how to break this to you but that was all a fairy tale...you see shit about people flying through the air and doing magical stuff and the only question you have is who the rakshashas were?

pinku#137:

You made some sweeping statements in that post.

When it comes to tolerance of Hindus, you should first look at their tolerance within the society; here they fail miserably. We had barbaric and cruel practices, such as human sacrifices (bali), widow burning (sati) and inhuman suppression of fellow humans (untouchability), and we do not need to go to undocumented history to see these. Even our Ramayana and Mahabharta establish a class of people we are taught to hate - the Rakshasas. Who were they? Could one not say that these were the people that the dominant class did not like and could not one say that Ramayana itself could be a story of people of aryan race fighting against the Rakshas, with the help of some tribal race, called 'vannars'?

Yes, the hindus never showed any agression against outsiders, i.e., those who lived on the other side of the hindu-kush mountains. Now, this may be because of a lack of aggression, ambition or a simple lack of ability - one does not know. But recent events do not show us to be very tolerant towards others. Bhagalpur in Bihar, Delhi in 1984, Bombay in 1992 or Gujarat in 2002 show that we do not need to learn any lessons from anyone in cruely and barbarity towards non-hindus - and that too of a cowardly variety.

And Muslim contribution to India is not all negative. We are a richer and more beautiful place today because of the Muslim influence. I wrote an article on the Muslim contribution to India at chowk, which you can read at http://chowk.com/articles/6366. One of India's most successful businesses today is Bollywood, which represents at the mass level the synergy produced by the Muslim and Indian cultures. And do not forget, we owe the very hindu identity to the muslims: Without Muslims, there would be no hindus - it is as simple as that.

We should celebrate each others' contributions instead of demonising each other. When hindus demonise muslims, they inrease their alienation and push them into the arms of a mythical ummah. When Muslims try to demonise Hindus, they consolidate hindu nationalism. The author of this article should note that his article has only succeeded in baiting hindus and not leading to any introspection, which was presumably his intent.

replying #138

Mystic,

I am not sure what you are saying? Can you please let me know if you are objecting to something that I said. I also do not understand what you are suggesting by giving some paragraphs related to "paper". I can only add that written history is not related to invention of paper at all, all kind of leaves, wood and metal have been used to collect written documents.

"#135 Posted by Kamath on May 29, 2008 8:54:22 am
Murad Baig spews lots of BS about Hinduism, Buddhism or anything else connected with Indian History. I have said over and over again that he as a former used car dealer would be better off writing USED Automobiles than any thing else.

Kamath"

Can you back up your opinion by your univesally accreditted and credintialled spokesprson to assert tht way or its your habit that kicks in dealing with minority intimitable

Pinku since you have reg just on 28th for tis insuniation...

i agree there is lack of documentation of everybodies past .You think the truth lies in oral tradions b/c papr is ofonly recent perfection .Absece of anything in paranoia does it imply its delibrate destructionIts a very harge not to be made flippently



The Spread of Papermaking in Europe
From Samarkand, papermaking spread to Baghdad in the 8th century AD and into Damascus, Egypt, and Morocco by the 10th century. Many Chinese materials were not available to Middle Eastern papermakers, who instead used flax and other substitute fibers, as well as a human-powered triphammer to prepare the pulp.

'It took nearly 500 years for papermaking to reach Europe from Samarkand. Although the export of paper from the Middle East to Byzantium and other parts of Europe began in the 10th and 11th centuries, the craft was apparently not established in Spain and Italy until the 12th century. Early paper was at first disfavored by the Christian world as a manifestation of Moslem culture, and a 1221 decree from Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II declared all official documents written on paper to be invalid. (The interests of wealthy European landowners in sheep and cattle for parchment and vellum may also have exerted some influence.) The rise of the printing press in the mid 1400's, however, soon changed European attitudes toward paper..."

replying #129

dost_mittar,
People like Murad A Baig can try to invent history to suit their ideas, but history of india is fairly documented and open as well (unlike history of muslim nations that hardly exists prior to islam). History of India is mostly written by invading people. It will have more bias against hinduism or native culture than in its favour. From the very ancient times, say chinese/greek travellers, time of alexandar to middle ages when Arabs/turks invaded India or to later era of colonial rule from 1500 to 1900, in no time their historians were able to write much against hinduism/indians. Not because they didn't want to, but because they couldn't find much to write against. From 500BC to 600AD, lot many things were written by scientists, philosophers of hinduism, buddhism, jainism. Panini, buddhist writers, Jain writers and indian mathematicians all belonged to this era. Can you imagine such a huge literature written in all over India when people were victimizing each other. History is not known by books which have history in their title, it is known by totality of different accounts of that era. Even today you can write a book in which you can say that India is butchering whole world and indians are cannibals, but that won't be taken as history because most of the things written today will show otherwise. After 600 AD, you see Islamic invasion of India, but how do they portray india or hinduism in their history? What did Al Beiruni say about India or hinduism (and he doesn't love any one of them)? From 600 AD to 1000AD Islamic world learned a lot from India, in mathematics, in arts in almost everything, including the spread and developmnet of sufi variety of their religion. What did India gain? Killings and conversions of their own people to Islam?

Why even now people are not that much against India or Hinduism? Over 2 billion christians and 1 billion muslims neither love India nor Hinduism, but what is the worst thing they can say about any one of the two?
If you honestly say worst things possible against hinduism, christianity and Islam, you will get to know the difference between them and that will ultimately be captured by history no matter how hard you try to avoid it.

Re: # 119

Tahir ji,

The point is that even if a Sunnat following muslim follows the entire script to the hilt - including bending 5 times automatically and saying praises to the Allah like a record player he gets nowhere near his heavens.

Even silently repeating the 1000 names of Allah in the mind while thinking about how to kill an idolator like me or blowing bombs in kafir world makes it even worse.

So, I am just repeating what every prophet said that outward imitation of any prophet in the name of sunnat does not turn the person into a person on the path of the prophet.

Then, whether living in cages is important of not is some thing that an intelligent person like you should NOT disparage considering the fact the even Mohammad could achieve the state where the revelations occured ONLY because he started meditating in the Hira Caves.

Remember, for a hindu that Sanyas is the last stage of life where the fourth and last part of Vedas or Upanishads (Vedanta) , in which the formless Brahman Jnana is described should be practiced.

The formless Brahman CANNOT be experienced so easily in the this samsara while lusting for slave women and the loots of the kafir world.

The formless Brahman CAN ONLY be realized in the solitude of a cave , devoid of kama, krodha , lobha and moha and hinduism (including Buddhism and Jainism) emphasises these aspects of sanyaas repeatedly.

That is why I assert that muslims would NEVER attain their jannah with all that hatred, lust and avengeful attitude towards others that certainly is an impediment in the attainment of formless deity.

Murad Baig spews lots of BS about Hinduism, Buddhism or anything else connected with Indian History. I have said over and over again that he as a former used car dealer would be better off writing USED Automobiles than any thing else.

Kamath

Re: # 133

It will prove to be too difficult for Muslims to remain Muslims of today for a long time. It is going to be exhausting and impossible.

Eklavya,

Do you fear, Hindus not knowing their own History, would allow others to manipulate and ultimately make Hindus self-haters?

Pinku....
Actualy, Budhdhist and Jain philosophy was supposed to happen in Indian context. Specifically in context of Upanishads/Vedanta etc...
Unfortunately it is branded as religion like Islam or Christianity. Most of the early disciples of Buddha was brahmins and they have provided intellectual strength to Buddha (Aswaghosa...).
Last couple of centuries, the social changes made the dalits dirt poor and some section of society very rich. Furthermore, peoples socio-economic status now solely depends upon the formal education, specially unversity certificate. It has created huge discontent amongst dalits. Those who convert to christianity, they get decent education, as Indian society does not take care of them adequetly. That fuels further vilification of brahmins.

DM ji

Early in my childhood I noticed and realized how Hindus did not care for 'history.' Time was taken as an endless continuum, everything was seen as ephemeral, ego was decried, and the focus was always on the future and on the timeless.

Obviously, Baigs of the world have had a complete ball playing with that mindset. And now, 'Hindutva vadis' too can fall in the same error.

So the rest of us have to begin paying serious attention, and take the matter in our own hands, since history - like religion - is too powerful to go away if it is simply ignored.

How we can do that I have no idea (or even the capability to make a difference).

Re: # 115
Pinku...
Well said.
Anyhow, most of the educated people do not bother about these arab slaves...
Couple of poor priestly Brahmins were little more greedy and cheated people. It is very small abberation,compared to their excellent achievement in almost all fields of life (fine art, performing art, literature,science, mathematics...)
It is amazing how these Brahmins have kept their intellectual superiority for such a long period....

pinku#115:

"The problem with the account given by Murad A Baig is still that in such a long history, hindus still didn't show a fraction of viloence that Christianity or Islam has shown in a relatively small time"

...But this is true only of documented history. Undocumented history is a free territory for the likes of Murad Baigs to build history to suit their needs. To be fair, the same can be said of the hindutva-brand historians as well.

nkg, interesting that you say this (#127) can you expand on this

Re: # 122
Tahir...
Same stupid thing you repeat again and again. Centuries of
slavery can not be removed within couple of years. You need conductive environment for such staff.

The last 3 lines of #124 is quite good...
I will add another line...

Those who don't love their motherland is rascal.
"Janani janmabhumischa swargadwapi gariasi"...

Tahir! Sie müssen Baby kühlen. Erhalten Sie sich ein gutes Stück des Arschlochs - es muss viel der homosexuellen Kerle in Deutschland geben. Essen Sie etwas Schinken. Haben Sie ein Schinken sandwish wie Ihr Bruder Jinnah das Bündel, das verwendet wird, um zu haben, und trinken Sie ein litle, während Sie gebummelt erhalten

Re: # 124 Tahir Mian that was a quote from a very well known desi, not my kind of ameerikan. from your side of the world I beleive

Re: # 122 Tahir the man sayeth "a few prophets were able to show the signs (miracles) that unbeleivers always wished to see, the rest forwarded these requests (of 'proof') to God who punished such people for their blindness and disobedience."


Tahir, here is something for you to mull over. think about it carefully before you shoot yourself in your.....proverbials


He who does not allow his miracles to be investigated is a crook,
he who does not have the courage to investigate a miracle is gullible,
and he who is prepared to believe without verification is a fool.

Any writer who keeps mum and does not reply is NOT a writer.

Stand up and be counted Mr.Baig....(yeh meri dili muraad hay)

Re: # 121
"I will never rely on your "FAITH". Before making a statement, be prepared with evidence. That is the way civilsed world works."

Mr. NGK,
I know how angry you are at Islam but what evidence do you have that your mata ji loves you or that you're a product of the union of your parents?

You believe because THEY tell you so. With God's permission, a few prophets were able to show the signs (miracles) that unbeleivers always wished to see, the rest forwarded these requests (of 'proof') to God who punished such people for their blindness and disobedience.

You need to read the entire Book before making uneducated guesses.

How the 'civilised' work of international finance and globalisers works, we all know well. How the spiritual one works, THIS ought to be your focus.

Bye-bye for now.

Re: # 80
Urs...
"However, I have no doubt in my mind that none other but Satan has created these two diversions – Hinduism & Buddhism - to keep humanity from knowing their One Creator."
Ans: Prove your this creator theory.
If that mediaval arab cheat says so, that does not make it fact. We don't carry the baggage of generations arab slavery, like you guys. So, I will never rely on your "FAITH". Before making a statement, be prepared with evidence. That is the way civilsed world works.

Re: # 116
Mr. Muhammad Asadi,

I can now see that the good vibrations of your first name are beginning to change you, which is great.

Do refrain from using foul language from now on. Besides the ghosts that you think deserve to be kicked will never understand fine language, leave alone swearwords!

Regards.

Re: # 113
Laddu ji,

How are you? What state have YOU achieved: paranoia? If you've achieved Nirvana, do pass on the secret to the 'momineen' you repeatedly ridicule.

"Is there a way a Sunnat following momeen can make contact with the divine without banging his head five times a day?"

Where have you seen Muslims 'banging' heads? The contact occurs ritually five times a day, and then silent 'dhikr' is left to one's own inclination. In short, one must be mindful of God ALL the time. There is no need In Islam to rub mud on one's body, paint it, put on saffron clothes, or go about naked shying from worldy responsibilties sitting atop a mountain or hidden in a cave. The real test is in this bazaar!

The Qur'an does NOT (not even the Sunnah does, unless it is some Sufi mumbo jumbo!) speak about 'becoming one with God' or 'seeing HIM face to face'. When one can't even see His creation directly (e.g. the sun), how can one see the Creator?

If you have achieved inner peace, keep it please instead of losing it repeatedly.

Your loving non-mullah friend,

Tahir (from the green side)

urstruly saheb, if you add following to what was told to you in #105 by mohar, you will go in infinite loop.

indic/hindu system gives you shortest path to God, by making you part of God (what else can be smaller?). It doesn't separate cretor and creation by zillion miles as in so called monotheism, which seems shortest to you:-)

#116 by masadi

Minus the insults, a great post Masadi sahib!

Urstruly writes "Even a five year old can understand this logic"

That is where your logical understanding has remained, at the level of a five year old. You have no idea where different paths may lead, only a dogmatic mind with the logic of a five year old has figured it all out and sits comfortably on his throne passing judgment on the rest of mankind. You are the one who has been duped by Shaitan to abandon logic and truth for narrow formulas. Uncovering truth is a life-long work in progress, and discerning minds that have God's gift of the criterion can build on what little truth they have in their many systems they are brought up into (Muslims included). Arrogance of labeling what others might hold dear as "the work of Satan" while not making any effort to see things from their point of view has nothing to do with Islam, it has to do with your immature self righteous BS that describes the mindset of a five year old. Further, the way that you are trying to present your "truth" wont lead anyone to it, it will just drive them away, hense using your logic, you are the work of Shaitan to drive people away from the one true God...

The problem with the account given by Murad A Baig is still that in such a long history, hindus still didn't show a fraction of viloence that Christianity or Islam has shown in a relatively small time. Budhdha himself was a hindu and much of what is ascribed to him was written by his Brahmin scholars/desciples much after his death. All Brahmins can not simply be good, social problems can exist in any large group or even a small family, but what matters is the overall makeup or culture. It is quite common among muslims and even christians to portray Brahmins as evils, but overall Brahmins always set great examples in their times and were more disciplined class then most other social groups in any religion or culture. Hinduism did evolve to whatever philosophical depth it has today mostly because those Brahmins had much better understanding of reality then priestly classes of other religions. Budhdha was also a byproduct of this Hindu philosophy that started with the start of Upanishadic thoughts around 900BC. There was no place for Budhdha or Mahavir in any other religion or culture other than Hinduism.

Re: # 113

"The fact remains that a sunnat following momeen would NEVER reach even a caricature of the heavens because they do not have the capability to turn inward."

But Luddu sahib -- I have heard that only the "choorails" have the capability to turn (their feet) inward -- nobody else.

The fact remains that a sunnat following momeen would NEVER reach even a caricature of the heavens because they do not have the capability to turn inward.

Ask a momeen - what happens to their soul when they SLEEP?

IS there another state of mind apart from Jagrat, Swapna and Sushupta? .

Is there a way a Sunnat following momeen can make contact with the divine without banging his head five times a day?

They have no answer- because the sunnat following momeens CAN NEVER achieve the state that Budhha and other Hindu Siddhas achieved.

This is because maulanas of Islam who are the worst scum bags on the earth can never achieve even an iota of enlightment that Buddhas, Tirthankars , Siddhas and other Sanyasis achieved in the holy land of Hind!!!

The purpose of Life...according to a Hindu/Buddhist Swami...

Reprinted here


The naked-swami seemingly asleep in lotus-position atop the Nanga-parbat.and suddenly disturbed by the ghoulish nightmare about central-heating.

by ECHOBOOM
............................................................
Posted: Jul 25, 2007 Wed 04:01 pm Views: 1893

===========================================================
My favorite Uncle who was quite fair-skinned to begin with , and looked an angraiz when the angraiz strutted about in a sea of black and blackened faces in the then quite civilized Madras & Bombay.He would have been much better off staying over there and cash on his great Gregory Peck double-image, or maybe he was really even better looking than Greg..because I had not seen Greg. off-screen.

Anyway this Uncle who was not only my favorite Uncle but I was his most favorite nephew as well.

But My Uncle was destined to prove that a man cannot live by good-looks alone..He must also be where his good-looks would mean something to the world and when he becomes a Vilayat-palat, the locals blackened, browned, and well-done in the sun would prostrate themselves..for to his way of thinking merely the natives running helterskelter to make room for him when he showed up simply wasn't enough. He wanted to be treated like the local Asstt. Commissioner...a godhead!

To come to the point of this run-away story, he became one the the hippies in U.S..not the genuine Mia Farrow or Beatle type or Wood-Stock type but the kind who loves his management job with all the perks but is mad at the world because he is not getting a raise or is being by-passed to favor the one with the blond hair & blue eyes. My Uncle was feeling increasingly Desi those days and like Salman Rushdie a sudden pang of homelessness he felt for a country he had despised so much that when he had boarded the HMS Batori in 1953 he had spat a thick glob blob of phlegm onto the dockyard, as the boat started inching westward.

Well I should mention that he had married a gori in those lazy hazy crazy days of the 60's and was a week-end living-room hippie.

(just like our Faiz-sahib was a commie when he was unemployed..and Faiz was unemployed because he was thought to be a commie, but Faiz had become a commie in the first place because he was denied a job because his father had died ,not just penniless but had saddled Faiz with a huge debt..so the girl abandoned Faiz & Faiz had no choice but to pick up the hammer & scythe and level the playing field single handedly ....sorry for this aside)

Same with my favorite Uncle..his eyes welled up with the emotion which had never peered through his eyes nose and throat after expectorating that healthy glob blob of spit-phlegm onto the the dockyard. Now he knew that minus the blond hair & blue eyes he was a Desi, in fact a Kalloo in goraa-land. Nostalgia was setting in, relatives now from afar, as when viewed from the wrong end of a telescope, looked beautiful kind and caring & it was then that he started appreciating the achaar & mangoes which an occasional drop-in would deliver to him, sent by his Desi friends & relatives.

The pangs increased and amidst such nostalgic convulsions he announced that he wants to go to India..part of it was the Mia Farrow Nepal factor, part was because the goaree was head over heels in love with India (She knew nothing or didn't give much thought about India ,Pakistan or Muslims) . She was suddenly fascinated & was deep in love with India because an Indian had proposed to her. That was reason enough to love everything Indian...strange & weird indeed are the reasons of women. All of a sudden Rajaah Swamis Snakes Magicians etc etc were important words in her vocabulary and a defining part of her life. She attended Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Seminars and wanted to go to India to meet a real Swami....
__________________________________

My Uncle tells me that they visited the usual circuit of Jaisalmir & Jaipur, the arm-chair hippie route in action, and finally they managed to locate an abandoned & crumbling Mandir. They were told about this place because the goree was very adamant to go & visit a genuine swami. What they did not know was, that she having inquired so much in the city about such kind of Swami that someone had decided to act out the role. They paid big bucks to see a real Indian Swami.

only the goree did not know of the "arrangement".

He sat there in his magnificent lotus-position..and goree & uncle were instructed with all the rituals. Like the character in th Razor's Edge, the goaree when she saw that the Swami has half-opened his eyes & instructed her to remove all her bangles & cash & throw them away, that web-of-matter..the maya-jaal, towards the desert sand which the little urchins, crow like, were waiting to pick up and seemingly running away...

and then the Swami burped..I mean a real real burp..goree auntee almost fell off the craggy cliff..shaken,regained her posture and in a trembling whining voice asked if she could ask THE question....

The Swami asked her to repeat this question 3 times & each time he burped & burped & burped...and waved & wafted his breath towards my Uncle & Aunt..& my goree aunt was impressed..here was the real spicy onion garlic swami..not that sanitized version in US.

The question she had asked the Maharaaj was the perennial unanswered one "Swami jee! what is the meaning of life?"

The Swami gazed at her in astonishment..as if telling her "such a simple question" & "what a stupid woman"..but then he let his facial muscles relax..looked to his right as if about to reveal a secret...peered to his left as if suspicious of something..then bade goree auntie to approach his lordship...She promptly
did.

Then he intently looked at her, from his lotus position he raised one of his thighs at a right angle and tilited as if about to fall on side; goree thought he must be readying to levitate fly in the air.....

But the the Swami let out such a loud & stinking fart that the goree auntee were wonder struck & almost hypnotized..never mind that her nasal passages were now full of genuine garam masaalaa.

The crows quiet on the nearby tree startled & Cawing hysterically flew away to a far off tree.

Re: # 109

Nasah sahib:

"...Our significance is only in our mind..."

Very well said, Nasah sahib.

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

Urs sahib

What you are asking is:

Maqsad-e kurb-e zindagi keya hai
maaniye saiy-e aadmi keya hai

the answer is

lakhoN sadiyoN ki umre alam maiN
aik lumhay kee aagahee keya hai


that is -- the answer to the question -- what is the meaning of human life -- who I am -- why I am here - is utterly nothing -- zero -- zilch – there is nothing special about the human life -- except that we are the abnormal mutant CANCER of the otherwise -- very normal stable animal living kingdom living in harmony with the nature.

There is as much special reason for our existence -- as it is for the malaria mosquitos -- there is no useful purpose of our existence as far earth or the unoverse is concerned -- as it is for the meaning of life for cockroaches -- we are totally insignificant.

Our significance is only in our mind.

A genetic accident brought us here -- and a geneic accident will wipe us out -- we are born of CHANCE -- and we will DIE by the CHANCE.

we came from the same place all the dogs, cats, elephants, chimps, flies, cockroaches, ants, birds, reptiles, fishes, corals and yeast cells came -- and we are going to the same place where all the cats, dogs, chimps, flies, insects and yeast fungus will go -- yes - from “dust to dust�.

there is no hell for the insects in their 'afterlife' and there is no heaven for THE humankind in its 'afterlife' – it is all Maya. MAYA Maya AND Maya -- delusion and hallucination -- IT IS ALL IN OUR WEIRD screwed up head.

What is real is the following:

did you know that we carry 11 thousand exactly the same genes of the yeast cells (fungus that gives us 'Khameer' in our self-aggrandized cells -- (may be that's why sometimes we sound so pompous and so puffed up about our inflated self-importance) –

did you know that the difference between us humans and the chimps is only of 0.5% -- humans carry 99.5% exactly the same genes as the chimps -- yet what a difference 0.5% has made in the chimps and in us -- one is part of the normal animal kingdom -- the other is a murderous voracious creatively destructive mutant – not content with mere blissful normal living like the dogs and the cats – it must ‘create’ from a tweedldee a tweedledum – and a tweedldee -- a tweedldee – and thinks it is so ashraful makhlooqaat.

The fact is that for any animal there are TWO points between the birth and the death -- that are FIXED. The line between the two fixed point can be shortest as the straight line or the greatest as the bell-shaped curve yet all the gymnastics the humankind do to avoid the straight line is meaningless -- there is no escape from the last and the final outpost for the insect or for the immortality-seeking humankind -- in his so-called after-life.

This delusion comes 'naturally' to the mutant because the mutant has created a whole new mutant reality through the use of one of the weirdest communication system called -- the language -- that no other animal has any time or the use for – only to create such stupid worthless fun destroying concepts as -- Hell and Heaven -- Sin and Sawab -- that no normal animal will even spit on it -- only the crazy humans will kill and die for a spoken and written something that looks more like a chicken scratch.

In short -- sir we are going exactly the same places where all the 'khatmals' and all the 'muchchurs' are going – God is the creation of an abnormal deluded mutant brain -- that has jumped beyond the normal vowels of the normal primal screams of the normal primate world – causing all the hell to break loose between Maulana Einstein’s atom bomb and Maulana Murdoodi suicide bomb.

Re: # 104

Urstruly sahib:

“... who eveloved from a meteor that was created from Big Bang end of story - and that religion is Monotheism ...�

There are at least two huge leaps of faith in your above statement. One is from meteor to Big Bang, and the other from Big Bang to Monotheism. Understanding of Big Bang theory points to a Singularity – a mathematical singularity. Even Stephen Hawkins refused to accept this Singularity (which you probably are implying to be motheistic). He came up with a “virtual dimension� of time to avoid this Singularity. Others are now trying to come up with String Theory.

Dost sahib has quoted Dalai Lama on “shunyata� that to me is the closest concept of this indeterminate state called Singularity, where everything mergers. Eastern philosophies talk a lot about it.

You say that all religions attempt to answer:

“1. Who am I?
2. Who created me?
3. What is the purpose of my existence.�

I would disagree with you. Western thoughts (I include Islamic thoughts as well) turned into theology and away from answering above questions. Although Mevlana Rumi did attempt on the above, but then you will find as if his expressions are almost out of Gita. Western thoughts (including Islamic) emphasis has been more finding answers in materialistic world for the materialistic world. Hence these appeal to many, who readily accept and convert or revert whatever you prefer. The concept of Satan in such thought very easily visualizes as just opposite of God. Buddhism more specifically, and Jainism most non-violently reject Satan. There is a story how “Angulimaal� – a monster who kill and wear a maala made from the fingers of his victims was accepted by none other than Gautam Buddh himself.

I am not implying by any means that answers provided by either Western or Eastern thoughts are superior or inferior. They are different, just as different strokes for different folks. Acceptance of this last sentence is basis of non-violence.

'#104 Posted by Urstruly on May 28, 2008 1:50:37 pm

There is only one religion in this world that saves human beings from any infinte loops,'

The keyword here is 'SAVE'. Urstruly and the rest of the believers are really afraid of understanding and exploring and being confounded. They just want their women, control over cattle, oil and resources. They want to control trade routes and the Suez canal. The best model to presuade everyone else of the status quo is a singularity, the Prime Mover. It is highly utilitarian and ultimately a fabrication.

Re: # 103 dm

Nasah simply does not get it, yet another problem attributed to his muslimicity... hanoods have always accepted their dark past and present - caste, sati you name it... people in all ages have sought correct the wrongs - starting as far back as Buddha himself... even though certain problems like castes kept on going despite that, like some tenacious weed...

So if indeed there was oppression of buddhists, hanood will accept it - but there is no point inventing such things which probably didn't exist...

Regardless - hanoods atleast accept recent issues... muslims do not even accept their recent dark past, forget the ancient ones... they actually glorify it, even though it was pepetrated on their own ancestors, literally their own flesh and blood... they imagine a mythical bedouin ancestry where none exists...

Re: # 104

good post.

Think of it this way - at one point of time, we knew there is only one fundamental particle - called an atom, from which comes the word atomic - indivisible... Then we came to know that it's not really so - atom is made up of electrons, protons, neutrons - those are the fundamental particles... And now - we know, even that's not true...

That my friend is the gist of indic system, "polytheism" as you call it... what you think as One is not really so... it's made up of further minute-ness, further subtleties, further differences, further diversity... multiplicity - that's what is this universe is all about... indic system seeks to go deeper and deeper, peeling the layers of knowledge, expanding our understanding - as far as human mind can take us...

This One Creator you talk about is not really One - He/She is made up of further fundamental elements, probably upto 300 million elements - sun, moon, water, fire, earth... you name it...

it's NOT an infinite loop. If you want to understand this in terms of computer program - well, think of it as a recursive function... it takes you deeper and deeper... each layer you dive in expands your understanding...

But if you want to stay at the surface and connect to your "One" Creator - that's fine too... Indic system has that - it's called The Ishwar... One entity which contains all 300 million of them...

That's the famous depiction from the Mahabharat - where child Lord Krishna shows his real form to his mom. He shows the entire universe, all the gods depicted on his one body...

I hope this makes sense...

Re: # 98

Anyone who has ever worked with computers, knows very well what an infinite loop is. An infinite loop happens when a program keeps executing itself endlessly unless intervened from outside. Sometimes, you have to shut the computer down to get out of that infinite loop.

Having said that, all religions (including atheism) in this world are an attempt to answer three questions that are codified in human genome - no matter what color, geography or social group one belongs to. These three queztions are:

1. Who am I?
2. Who created me?
3. What is the purpose of my existence.

Every child ask this question to his parents - and thus initiates the process of his induction into one of the belief systems. - religion or atheism.

The philosophical dictat of Occom's Razor suggests that the simplest answer is always the correct answer. According to our genetic code we are programmed to know by default the answer to Q#2. That's why every child phrases it that way "who created me?" instead of asking "how many gods did it take to create me?". Even the staunchest polytheist never phrases this question this way, because even in a polytheists' diction phrassing the question that way would be illogical. So the Truth was always with us since our birth. We, our parents, and our teachers made a conscious effort to avert us from this Truth.

The single most common question that turn us around from this straight path is the question "Why would a benevolent God, let my child die, or my herd perish or my crops to fail". That is where Satan gets a free hand and leads the person to the idea of "another god", the "vengeful, the scornful; god". Human beings are predisposed to give in to the fear rather than the bliss despite realizing that an ordinary human being lives most part of his life without pain, suffering, and tragedy, but when anyone of these strike him he only thinks that life is nothing but, pain, misery, and tragedy.

But the idea of a second god defies the genetic code; and here once again Satan intervenes and tell him that thinking on these lines is in fact great philosophy; and he is evolving causing him the vanity of being the intelligent one. That is when that human starts creating gods for himself - the god of pain, the god of war, the god of wealth, and sons of gods, and daughters of gods, the holy trinity, the holy spirits and this loop never ends. Human beings keep beguiling themselves into beliveing that they are "evolving". Here, at this stage, one must ask the question what does it mean by "evolution in Hinduism" - they started out from One God and now they have 300 million; where is this infinite loop going to end?

There is only one religion in this world that saves human beings from any infinte loops, or trappings of "evolving", or getting frustrated and reject everything saying that nothing makes sense - my dad was a monkey who evolved from a salamander, who eveloved from a meteor that was created from Big Bang end of story - and that religion is Monotheism. The Monotheism is the shortest distance between two points - you and your Creator. The One, the Absolute One - who was begotten by none and who begets no one. All happiness and greif is from him because he tests us with both. The purpose of my life is to pass this test with flying colors. The reason I am here is to acknowledge my Creator and be kind to his Creation. This is the STRAIGHT PATH. It is self-evident truth. It is the genetically codified TRUTH.

nasah:

"what I see here on this board is that the Hindus are ready to accept their recent dark past against the Muslims -- but are reluctant to accept their ancient dark past against the Buddhists......:)"

Hindus have real dark past to be ashamed of - like sati and untouchability - and the more recent shameful past - like Gujarat, Ayodhya and Delhi 84, and even the present female infanticide. There is no need to look for imaginary genocidal past.

Urstruly#92:

This is going to be somewhat long post, with copy and paste, so please bear with me.

Dalai Lama follows the Mahayana form of Buddhism, which is different from the original Hinayana (they are meat eaters, btw). Dalai Lama is not an avtar of god but of another Lama; indeed there are more than one Lamas - Pancham Lama sbeing other famous Lamas. Here is Dalai Lama himself on this subject:

"Who is the real you?
I see myself as a monk first, then as a practitioner of the Nalanda (the world reknown Buddhist education center of India, established around 200 B.C.) tradition of wisdom. Masters of Nalanda such as Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Aryasangha, Dharmakeerti, Chandrakeerti and Shantideva have written the scriptures that we, as Tibetan Buddhists, study and practice. They are all my gurus. I feel that I might have interacted with them in previous lifetimes. When I read their books and meditate upon their names, I feel a connection. At this point, I don't say that I belong to the Hinayana or the Mahayana traditions, but to the lineage of Nalanda.

You are called the 'living Buddha'...?
The term 'living Buddha' is a translation of the Chinese word 'ho fu'. In Tibetan, the operative word is 'lama' which means 'guru'. A guru is someone who is not necessarily a Buddha but is heavy with knowledge. I believe that previous Dalai Lamas were manifestations of Avalokiteshwara (the Buddha of compassion) and the fifth Dalai Lama is believed to be an incarnation of Manjushree. I am fortunate to be the reincarnation of all these great lamas! (laughs)

Can anyone become a Buddha?
Oh yes! All sentient beings have the seed of the Buddha within them.

-----

The Buddha was silent on the question of God. What about you?
Why did the Buddha not say anything about God? Because he talked about the law of causality. Once you accept the law of cause and effect, the implication is that there is no 'creator'. If the Buddha accepted the concept of a creator, he would not have been silent; everything would have been God!

Who caused the law of causality?
About that, the Buddha would say 'the mind', never God or dharmakaya or even the Buddha himself.

How did the mind come about?
The source of mind is nature. The word that been used for existence is 'interdependent arising'. Talking of God, who created God? There is no point arguing. Dharmakeerti and Shantideva debate the existence of God and reach the conclusion that if we believe in a benevolent creator, how do we explain suffering? I remember a funny incident. In Tibetan drama, criticism is allowed and even the Buddha is not spared. There was this man acting on-stage and he was saying that he did not believe in God. If God made us, he said, instead of putting both the eyes in the front, one should be at the back! We would have been more efficient that way. Jokes apart, the idea is not to disrespect any religion but to analyze the nature of reality.

Do you see any common ground between Buddhism and Hinduism?
Historically, Buddha Sakyamuni was a Hindu. So I would like to call Hinduism and Buddhism twin brothers. Then there are common practices like samadhi and vipassana. The demarcation comes in the concept of shunyata. Whereas Hindus believe in atma, Buddhists believe in anatma. In practicing ahimsa, Jains are more thorough than either Buddhists or Hindus. "

The complete interview is here:http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/world-religions/buddhism/dalai-interview .asp

Urstruly#83:

"I ofetn think that the earliest Muslim missionaries took the wrong appraoch. They should have approached the lowest denominator of the sciety first"

Wrong again!
You can't kill a body without killing its head. The problem is this hindu "head" is difficult to cut. Buddha had many giant contemporaries, including Mahavir Jain. He won by debating with other heads and winning those debates; the practice was that if you defeated the guru, he and his disciples became your disciples; you may recall that the arya samajis tried to do the same with maulanas in Punjab. This is also how Shankracharya won back the buddhists. Both Buddha and Shankracharya travelled far and wide to take their message.

The problem is that this hindu head is difficult to crack by absolutist faiths. Here is an example of the problem faced by one jesuit who tried to do that in south India. He tried entering into debates with brahmins; to do that he had to look like them, so he changed into their clothes, had matted hair, a tilak, learnt vedas and started debating with them the merit of Christian trinity. He actually won a few Brahmin converts and went back to his bishop and bragged about it. The Bishop was not impressed. He said, "You fool, you have not converted them, they have converted you!".

Aurangzeb had the right idea. He gave Kashmiri Brahmins a clear choice - convert or else. The Brahmins converted en mass, so now you see that only a minority of Kashmiris are hindus.

Re: # 99 nasah

Profound... :)

what I see here on this board is that the Hindus are ready to accept their recent dark past against the Muslims -- but are reluctant to accept their ancient dark past against the Buddhists......:)

Re: # 80 urstruly
[...I have no doubt in my mind that none other but Satan has created these two diversions – Hinduism & Buddhism - to keep humanity from knowing their One Creator. ...]

May be... But then how do you know Creator is one?...

See - Hinduism and Buddhism go much beyond such simple concepts put forth in abrahmic faiths. Xinity, Islam are faiths that are end in themselves, they do not upgrade, evolve or even extend beyond the primitive parameters that was set by simple folks living in an arid desert long time ago...

So if Satan indeed created indic faiths [actually he couldn't have, by the time Satan arrived in sand dunes of arabia, hinduism was already created and thriving for thousand years or so], then he un-intentionally has done mankind a favor ... he gave us all a way to see beyond the tightly regulated structures of abrahmic faiths...

while such a tight structure does have its benefits for most people, its very nature restricts human mind, it restricts imagination and natural progression... But hinduism and buddhism with their unregulated system set human mind free to extend the horizon... even though their very nature of lack of regulation does sometime bring in mis-direction...

The difference, as you can see, is something like living in dictatorship or living in democracy... democracy sets you free - it's chaotic but self-correcting, that's indic faiths... dictatorship keeps discipline - keeps people in a tight leash and in the process kills the human spirit, that's abrahmic faiths...

I know, you people are not very receptive to critical evaluations of your faith and taht directly derives from the tight regulated nature I was talking about... But I Hope you take this message in right spirit... atleast for the purpose of adding your understanding of what indic systems are all about... which you yourself were part of, may be a couple of generations ago... and still are, in one form or the other...

Re: # 73

"I have "never seen" muslims own-up their dark sides past and present, be objective and ever learn from history..."

well, in other words -- "never seeing is never believing......for a never-seeing unbeliever.....:)

Re: # 88

Hamidm sahib:

"I have no doubt in my mind that none other but Satan has created these two diversions – Hinduism & Buddhism - to keep humanity from knowing their One Creator"

There is no need for any spirited defense. Hinduism and Buddhism do not rule out Satanic (of Abrahmic religions) path. After all they had to consider people who would not like to beg door to door to eat.

These two philosophies have relativism at their core, so everything is relative. Hence you cannot precisely define an absolute binary of God or Satan, as these will require a yardstick. You are indeed blessed and given in the form of Mohammad and the book.

These guys are not give, in fact told to find a teacher of their choice and learn if they want to. Nothing stopped them to chose a sex guru - Rajneesh, just as nothing stopped people choosing Buddha. BTW, Rajneesh was not Hindu, but a Jain.

My advise is to enjoy life doing the best that one can, and enjoy merlot or whatever, life is too short. At least Buddha was honest, when his disiciples asked him not to die, he is said to have opened in body and showed this is what is being left behind. Neither anyone took him on their wings, nor he ressurrected. He was equally comfortable in his death also.

Urstruly sahib:
It is very difficult for a believer in monotheist absolute relgion to comprehend these indic philosophies. You can attack idols etc., but these philosphies are opposite of monetheist absolutes. You cannot comprehend to attack them.

Life and death cycle, and Nirvana from this cycle are closest to coming anything that is absolute in these philosophies.

There is really no God / Allah in this picture who reincarnates.

Trinities, creator, preserver and destroyer (of form and substance of matter) are symbolized by male; while energies (wealth, knowledge and power to destroy) are symbolized by females. Since they are symbolic they can manifest themselves (avatar / incarnation ), that is about all.

When you compare or say, these are avatars of unitary God / Allah, you probably are degrading your absolutes to the levels of constructs of Einsteinian relativity in indic philosophy.

Why would you like to do that? You are better off arguing with Hamidm who wants to take your unitary God/Allah to modern times, and supporting Massaddi Mian who wants to take all of you back to 7th century and Mills par course.

If you must study these indic philosophies, then you would have to drop your rose colored glasses of a unitary absolute God/Allah. It is not worth it, be happy with what you have.

Before you get too much excited I would like to make it clear that when you visit ANY religious temple you are robbed of spirit and money. However, if you visit eastern temples such as gurdwara, mosque, mander etc. you are also likely to be robbed of shoes. Further, nowadays most mullahs in mosques spy for FBI/CIA/ISI too. How the history will judge them 2000 years from now? Make any wild guess. So Nanga’s advice is to stay home watch nature, or do gardening. If some maggot is severely biting you go to some casino and play bingo.

Re: # 91
I think you are just too angry to be logical. The logic is simple: If a path does not lead to One God, then the only way it will lead you to is away from One God. Look at Buddhism, it has led people to two gods – Buddha and Dalai Lama and god knows how many in between. In Islam this straight path is called Sirat-el-Mustaqeem. All the deviant paths that lead astray from God are thus paved by Satan himself. Even a five year old can understand this logic.

For hamidm, atheism is also a path paved by Satan himself – he paved it with the asphalt of arrogance, stubbornness, and vanity. Just look into yourself and ask this question: Am I arrogant, stubborn and vane?

Re: # 79 Posted by NangaPir on May 28, 2008 9:20:43 am

nangapir,

{{Only affluent will join them.}}

some modern day coptic christians agree with your argument regarding arab muslim invasion of egypt.

Re: # 86 DM

Are you saying that you know Buddhism more than Dalai Lama himself? Both Budh and Dalai lama are considered avatar, or incarnation of god. If this is not the original teaching of buddhism than there remains no doubt that buddhism has been corrupted. Isn't it ironic that followers of buddhism are taught to resist all temptation, wishes, and even normal human needs but they could not resist the call of their inherent nature codified into their genes - that their IS A GOD. It is just a tragedy that they chose as their creator people like budha and dalai lama.

Hamid asks urstruly "..... where do you come off making a stupid statment like that ? ..... "

He got it in a dream where the Holy Jerry Falwell visited him to proclaim these "truths" so as to convince him completely, together with the reasons on why God almighty allowed 9/11 to occur: in order to punish America for its gays and lesbians and feminists. Like I said these mullahs and their "islam" are the handiwork of Satan so that he might challenge the authority of the Quran through alternative routes, a new prophet or (the crusaders caricature of Islam brought to life and legitimized via) the hadith. His kind are a disgrace to Islam and everything it stands for. Any fool can claim his way to be the best and the others to be the creation of "satan", and then offer how "convinced" he is as "proof" just like the evangelists offer the Muslim "proof" that he is convinced that he will go to heaven because "Jesus died for him", while the Muslim in his religion can go either way....these mullahs are the frankenstein of the crusaders creation, little wonder that in their perverted logic they think like them.....that said, hamid you're a damn fool too...

Hamid mian,

where did the laughing budha come from? are you able to shed some light on it?

hamidm2 # 80

Not at all, hamidm ji.

Hinduism/Buddhism are such radical opposites of Islam that if one follows one of those two, then the other logically must be a satanic religion.

No big deal. We shouldn't be afraid of following satanic religions or of people who actually follow Satanic cults.

The problem is - how to live with them? How to communicate with the Baigs of the world?