The 'One God' Religions of Revelation

tahmed,

"I think it is simply stupid to assume that a religion (any religion) forces men to do criminal acts. Rather than holding the perpetrators responsible."

What is then Jihad? Why at last Panipat Muslims went and helped the invader at the last minute? Why there is Muslim Umma? Why Darfur is not mentioned by Muslim as much they scream about Kashmir and Palestine? Violence in the name of Islam to protect it and spread is good for Muslims.

These are all interlinked!

#962 RawDust: You have a good point. But then - why apply any adjective at all to a fanatic as you do ("bhayya fanatic", "tamil fanatic")? A fanatic by definition is an irrational individual, and one who ultimately does harm to everyone (even the community he claims to represent)??

Then, there would be no such thing as "Hindu Fanatic". It
could be a marathi fanatic or a bhayya fanatic or a tamil
fanatic anything but Hindu(which references to a religion).
Is that a logical extension to this:

"no, it is not hinduism. I think it is simply stupid to assume that a religion (any religion) forces men to do criminal acts."

RawDust: Have you ever, in all these years on chowk, ever seen anything from me claiming that it is hinduism that is responsible for the acts of hindu fanatics (the way hindus and even hamidm claim is true for islam)?

So, the answer to your question is obviously - no, it is not hinduism. I think it is simply stupid to assume that a religion (any religion) forces men to do criminal acts. Rather than holding the perpetrators responsible.

this is very interesting:
from #958:
"(I put this in quotes because I refuse to consider murderers and looters (like ghazni) or murderers and kingdom seekers (like babur) and plain lunatics (like aurgangzeb) to be muslims."


So, by extending this logic, would the destroyers of
Babri Masjid be called "Hindu Fanatics"?

If the answer is yes, then does that mean that
Hinduism, in your opinion, is unlike Islam inherently
intolerant ideology that prescribes destruction of
other people's religious sites.

If the answer is no, then does it mean they are
generic fanatics and there can never be, by definition,
such a thing as "Hindu Fanatic"?

Please enlighten.

Maharana,

"I am convinced now that you wear a charade of history to cover your prejudices about Indian culture.
Adios'

I am new to Chowk and have not read all the posts. Does this site keep biographical info on its writers. It seems he is married to a Hindu lady. Some of the posts here were asking Baig Sahab about how he raised his family. Did he answered those questons some where earlier? The guy had it right, we need to know the qualification of so called experts who can lead and direct the discussion.

Anyway, this all is going to be of no consequence. Majority of the youth is participating in the growth of shinning India. They are irreligious and are not going to care about history. Muslims in India have come to realization that they have to get Hinduized to survive in this globalized world. We need to make sure that the Hindus should not get too westernized that the social fabric in India starts getting torn apart due to divorces and extreme individualism.

Maharana #955 "Apart from the evidences of temples being destroyed by islamic invaders there has not been a single case of a buddhist or jain temples being destroyed by Hindus. "

..except for BJP trying to emulate long-dead muslim invaders by destroying Babri Mosque..

but your point wrt history is correct as far as i know - visiting Lahore museum when I was in school, i was surprised to see a large proportion of them with noses missing. I was told that this was the work of ancient "muslim" invaders. (I put this in quotes because I refuse to consider murderers and looters (like ghazni) or murderers and kingdom seekers (like babur) and plain lunatics (like aurgangzeb) to be muslims.

Folks, Mr Baig's repeated assertion of the persecution of Jains and Buddhists at the hands of the Hindus/Brahmins reminds me of an earlier article on chowk by Veeresh Malik, a common friend, I believe, of Baig saheb and mine. Veeresh continued to insist that there are no pharmacists in Islamabad even after repeated denial by many Pakistanis who were quite familiar with Rawalpindi.

Eklavya,

"Muslims and non-Muslims are at different levels of consciousness, so marriages between the two must be controlled."

Might be! Proportion of Muslim girls getting higher education is slowly increasing and they are finding it little harder to find similarly educated Muslim boys in India. They are marrying Hindu boys for education and also for security from Talaq. Hindu boys find them more conservative and safe bate in general. So win-win for both. There was recently a poll taken in Bangal by a radio station, many Muslim girls called to tell that they prefer Hindu boys for many reasons. Shining India Zindabad!

Murad,
# 948.

You conveniently labeled my post 'interesting' for all the details I have provided that show that your assertion of 'one God' concept in Hinduism enters only after 7th century AD as false. Your comments about Hinduism destroying and persecuting the Buddhists and Jains in India are not new. I have heard it from other Indian muslims as mere gossip to cover their own ancsetors misdeeds. Perhaps these muslims like you feel that by claiming that hindus commited the same 'sins' we all become 'is hamam main hum sub nangey hain'.
Apart from the gossip of some muslims there is no historian who has uncovered any evidence anywhere that has even remotely suggested any form of persecution of these groups of people. When you continuously peddle a baseless hypothesis as fact it merely unveils your own prejudices and motives.
I have been to most of the famous historical places in India. Apart from the evidences of temples being destroyed by islamic invaders there has not been a single case of a buddhist or jain temples being destroyed by Hindus. I am convinced now that you wear a charade of history to cover your prejudices about Indian culture.
Adios

"Mughals had Janana which included wives, slaves, keeps etc of in hundreds."

Because of this women became a property, at best piece of art. Chodhavi Ka Chand in face! Face and physical beauty only mattered. Her mind and her other skills did not matter. Wonder if the cruelty and warfare among Mughal siblings is because of this crying undeveloped womb.

"marriage should happen among the two beings of same level of consciousness"

I am done with this 'discussion' but must point out that a Muslim can say exactly the same thing with regard to Islamic mandates: Muslims and non-Muslims are at different levels of consciousness, so marriages between the two must be controlled.

"Can a dalit marry Brahmin?"

Can a dog marry a bat? Marriage should happen among the two beings of same level of consciousness so that they both progess spiritually which includes materially. Nature takes care of this by making those people fall in love. With advent of Muslims the definition of love changed. It became more of lust because of physical attributes. In Mughals had Janana which included wives, slaves, keeps etc of in hundreds.

How is that Christianity and Judaism also having the same substrate of doctarines as Islam forbids lustful behaviour where as Islam seems to promote or at least looks other way? Is it because those religions have different role models to follow and are not merely book religions?

Baig,

"They were all important milestones but the violent destruction of the Buddhists and severe persecution of the Jains took place much earlier on a wave of Brahminical revivalism."

Is there a temple built on top of Dhamma Sthal or Jain temple? Is there any evidence of Hindu king attacking a Jain or Buddhist kingdom just becaue it is ruled or populated by people of other faith?

No one in his right mind can believe in what you are saying.

Important question to ask is why these lies are being spread? Is it to equate Hindus or native religions to the religions forced on Indians? What will it achieve? Will it make native non-book-people not react to the act of violence in the form of terrorism and appeasement by the political parties to the people of book in the form of subsidies and reservations? In fact by spreading such lies you are doing disservice. Hindus will have one more stick, i.e. book-people historians are publishing and teaching false history.

Giving other cheak is much more violent act than resisting the attacker. Flexed muscle is real non-violence!

Baig#948:

". They were all important milestones but the violent destruction of the Buddhists and severe persecution of the Jains took place much earlier on a wave of Brahminical revivalism."

That's merely an assertion and will remain an assertion until documentary evidence is produced to show that
(a) such persecution took place
(b) Brahmins incited this persecution quoting their scriptures.

"Much can be blamed on `Muslim' (I prefer Arab, Afghan, Turk, Persian or Mongol) invaders after the 12th cntury and reactions to their undoubted violence at different...."

Why not Muslim? Isn't their evidence that they used the Quran and the precedents set by their Prophet to justify their acts, just as contemporary jihadis are doing? The only difference now is that Muslims living as minorities now try to create a distance between their acts and their religion.

# 948

Arabs had captured and destroyed temple in Moolasthan (Multan) in early 8th century . That might have triggered the chnage in hinduism to defend itself.

Answer is in your question . Evolutionary religions need to change to take on new adversaries. I guess hindus have the basic right