How did Hindus Become Vegetarians?

Nkg,

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

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

The two sentences seem to be contradictory.

Regards

Re: # 167

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

Re: # 166

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

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

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

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

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

Re: # 165

Cheema saab,

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

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

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

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

Re: # 164

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

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

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

Re: # 163

Cheema saab,

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

regards,

Khalid

Re: # 161

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

P.S.

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

So Kal ji,

I am again all ears....

Re: # 152

Sattar Saab,

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

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

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

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

regards,

Khalid Bhatti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To put it more accurately:

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