The 'One God' Religions of Revelation

Re: # 945

Very true. 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.

I use the word `Brahminical' and not `Hindu' because there is considerable evidence that most native sects (that were much later fused together into a generalised word Hindu) were not involved. But highly motivated Brahmins reinvented the Rajput caste with many willing rulers to do their destruction for them.

So my question remains how and why did this happen? 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 times but what triggered the change between the 7th and 12th centuries?

masanmuthu#946:

What you say really disproves what I have been saying (unless your friend is a Muslim). It means that a Mullah was able to read the Nikah of a Muslim girl with a Non-Muslim boy. If he has done that, there should soon be a fatwa against him.

Can a dalit marry Brahmin?
A brahmin boy can marry inside or outside religion wise low High
Can a brahmin woman marry lower caste Man ?


Are these hypothetical questions?. There are numerous instances of such weddings and I have a list of school friends married with all different combinations of castes and religions.

Infact recently, one of my friends married a Bangladeshi Muslim and he had three weddings, one Muslim wedding in a mosque, one Hindu wedding in a temple, and another in the town hall. :-)

Baig#941:
"I do not claim that this is an ABSOLUTE truth and invite readers to inform us all of how and when `Hinduism' changed from a gentle inclusive faith to a aggressive exclusive religion intolerant to other thought."

Hinduism has not become aggressive, so your question itself is wrong. Yes, some Hindus have become more defensive in protecting themselves against an overt and covert assault on their 'tribe'.

They changed when:
-Guru Gobind Singh raised Khalsa to protect against forcible conversions by Aurangzeb;
-Shivaji raised the slogan of Hindu Rashtra against the same emperor;
-When Raja Ram Mohan Roy tried to get rid of some regressive practices;
-Swami Dayanand introduced the concept of allowing "reversion" to Hindu religion;
and sadly, they changed again when:
-Savarkar introduced the concept of two nations;
-When Advani introduced the concept of demolishing masjids allegedly built on Hindu temples; and
-Modi introduced the concept of allowing the murder of innocent Muslims in retaliation for the burning of a train at Godhra.

corrections to #943:

I meant permitted ways to expand dar-ul-islam (not harb).
Should have said muslim acts of terrorism (not islamic)

muradbaig#939:

I had read that fatwa and this is exactly what I had said, namely that any Mullah will perform a nikah of a hindu girl with a muslim but not the other way around; indeed this is one of the four permitted ways of expanding dar-ul-harb as the children would be raised as muslims (what eklavya calls the 'penis jihad'). In the case of this fatwa, the asymmetry lies in what he did not say. He said that it was illegal to convert a girl for the purpose of marriage but did not say that it was illegal to convert a boy for the same purpose; if anyone has said that, please let us know.

I had read that statement about terrorism and had applauded a similar fatwa issued by a larger assembly in february in an article here at chowk. But once again, one has to notice the nuances of such statements; everyone is against terrorism, that is a motherhood statement and I am sure OBL will say the same; but while such statements explicitly condemn state terrorism of the kind in Iraq (and in Kashmir while outside India), they fail to explicitly mention islamic acts of terrorism, such as the attacks on 9/11 or the more recent ones in Jabalpur and Benaras. Therein lies the ambivalence.

Sir (murad baig)#941
You say:-
"In this short article I try show how a horrible fear generating intrusive jewish god was to so influence Christianity and Islam and `suggest' that this influence distorted the mostly gentle stream of native thought after the 7th century AD."

Can you analyse this statement? Was jewish God already there before Christianity and Islam came on scene or this God suddenly came to INFLUENCE already existing Christianity and Islam. The way you have constructed the sentence it gives the impression that christianity and Islam were not later entrants to middle east religions
in continuation of jewish ideas but were ORIGINAL BRAND NEW philosophies which GOT INFLUENCED BY jewish God who came on scene later.
It just reminded me of your earlier faux pas pointed out by Mr. Eklavaya about DARK AGES of Hinduism but when it comes to ISLAM, it was AFGHAN AND TURK domination.

Will you please clarify what exactly you meant in #941?

Regards

Re: # 937

Dear Eklava. You are wrong I hate the word hate and hate all religions and ideas that breed hatred.

How can I hate Hindu or Hinduism?

If I hated Hinduism would I have visited and appreciated almost all the important Hindu temples from Amarnath to Rameshwaram?

Could I have had such a love for the philosophies of the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita?

If the word HINDU was coined by the Persians in the 6th century BC to describe all the people of the river Sindhu (The persians could not pronounce S so Sindhu became Hindu)than all the people of Pakistan and India are Hindu.

If you re read my Chowk article (7 September 06)on Hinduism you will see that the word Hindu was a shifting label over the centuries moving from tribal origins to Vedic, Puranic, Ram/ Krishna and other phases.

Till the British period the word Hindu had only meant a `native' non muslim and it was only in 1826 that Ram Mohun Roy used the word Hindu to mean a native religion when he was the first to try to unify a number of different streams of thought and custom. So strictly speaking there were no Hindus till this time.

For most of its career Hindu ideas were compassionate, gentle and inclusive (trying to absorb ideas from others). In this short article I try show how a horrible fear generating intrusive jewish god was to so influence Christianity and Islam and `suggest' that this influence distorted the mostly gentle stream of native thought after the 7th century AD.

I do not claim that this is an ABSOLUTE truth and invite readers to inform us all of how and when `Hinduism' changed from a gentle inclusive faith to a aggressive exclusive religion intolerant to other thought.

As I said befort do not try to shoot the messenger please examine the message.

Re: # 939

You will be very interested to learn that the Dar-Ul-Ulum, Deoband, the most revered centre for Islamic law in India and Pakistan, issued a fatwa last week that the conversion of a hindu girl for marriage to a muslim boy was illegal and against the Shariat. It ruled that conversions must be a matter of faith and not for coveting something (a husband).I wonder, however, how many of the many thousand mullahs in India and Pakistan will accept this fatwa.

Last month the Dar-Ul-Ulum gave an even more significant fatwa declaring that terrorism including suicide bombing was strictly against Islam that was a religion of peace.

TOLKNIN#929:

Long time. Where have you been?

I would like to give you a detailed response. First of all, if the point was relevant in the past, it is still relevant since there has been no change in Islam. Let me assure you that the issue relates to islam and not muslims; most moderate muslims try to take an easy way out by blaming everything on mullahs instead of taking the bull by its horns.

First, one cannot compare Islam with Hindu religions; Islam has a Book and a Role Model which acts as definite guideline and boundaries for individual and group behaviours, it is meaningless to compare it with a religion which cannot even be defined and which consists of ever-changing rituals and traditions. Let me give an extreme example; do you think that hindus would have been able to give up sati if it was held mandatory in a hindu equivalent of the quran? or could Nehru completely overhaul the hindu civil law in 1956 if the earlier law was based on an incontrovertible book instead of some obscure Manusmriti which most of us educated hindu chowkies had not even heard of until we were educated about the same at chowk itself?

But it is quite valid to talk about the Hindu society. It is true that the society followed rigid caste rules regarding marriage, but these rules seem to be constantly changing. To give an example from my very traditional middle class family, my parents were married not only within their caste but also within the small endogamous subset of khatris. I too got married with another khatri but not within the same subset. My nephews and nieces have married both within and outside their caste and language groups and in one case a Muslim - and all with the blessings of their parents. The priest had no problem performing the marriage ceremonies in any case, including that of the niece marrying a muslim. As against this, you will not find any Mulla who will be able to perform a nikah of a Muslim girl with a Hindu boy without his first converting to Islam. Yes, it is still rare for a dalit to marry an upper caste hindu but, when this does happen, there is no dearth of a brahmin priest who will solemnise the marriage. And as far as dalits are concerned, let me assure you that a Muslim bhangi would have at least as much difficulty if not more, as a Hindu bhangi, in marrying with an "upper caste" Muslim.

And let me emphasize that we are talking about the issue of religions themselves and not of the people. The attitude of the Hindus in this matter is no different than that of the Muslims; there was recently a well publicised case of a Hindu industrialist who had a Muslim boy murdered for marrying his daughter and one routinely reads about Hindu parents and groups lodging complaints of "kidnapping" against Muslim boys when their daughter decides to marry a Muslim.

I completely agree with you that Muslim boys in India have more important things to worry about than marrying a Hindu girl; I would go further and say that most of them marry not only a Muslim but also a Muslim of the same "caste" and in the rare case of someone marrying a Hindu gir, he does so only in the face of stiff opposition from family and friends.

#936 TOLKININ

[Ajeya your bet is wrong .i just returned back co incidently .]

Let's see if you survive to complete the debate.

[There is religion wise reatriction Can a dalit marry Brahmin?]

You are trying to miss the point. A dalit not being able to marry a brahmin has NOTHING to do with preventing people from leaving a religion. So it is not a relevant comparison. However, if you are a Dalistan.org fanatic, then all roads lead to this argument.

Also, this custom is the same for men AND women. For Muslims it is not. BECAUSE Islam is trying to PREVENT conversion to another religion.

In Hinduism the motivation is something like social injustice WITHIN the religion. In Islam, it is trying to GROW the religion, and PREVENT anyone from leaving the religion.

There lies the difference.

But of course, you'll never get this. Muslims have been brainwashed from birth.

[Can a brahmin woman marry lower caste Man ?]

It is interesting - that as a lower caste man you posed this question instead of "Can a Brahmin man marry a lower-caste woman?". Shows your true Dalistan.org colours.

[If a Hindu male wants to marry Muslim Girl he can in multi cultural country like in India.]

He can, but he will live in constant threat to his life. Because of this ever-present threat from the adherents of the "religion of peace", the Hindu man almost always converts to Islam, in India.

Murad bhai # 935

I don't know what PM thinks of that answer but that must be the silliest response to his specific question one can come up with.


This is where matters rest.

You are NOT a Buddhist. You worship your cosmic force.

You hatred of Hindus and Hinduism is blind and total. I am surpised to find you are actually married to a Hindu woman. Hope it is not a personal remark but it is odd to see so much hatred of Hindus and Hinduism combined with being married to a Hindu woman.

----------

Murad bhai, Hindus reading your works are likely to abuse (justly), but they are likely to abuse all Muslims (wrongly) even though you claim not be a Muslim.

Why do you insist on giving Muslims a bad name?? Do you really think your efforts have no consequences for Muslims?

Re: # 932
Ajeya your bet is wrong .i just returned back co incidently .

There is religion wise reatriction Can a dalit marry Brahmin?

A brahmin boy can marry inside or outside religion wise low High

Can a brahmin woman marry lower caste Man ?

If a Hindu male wants to marry Muslim Girl he can in multi cultural country like in India.Why it is so important to know if it is possible Afghanistan or not b/c it is just theoretical discussion no hindu to seek muslim women as in most Muslim majority countries.

In countries like Usa Britain U.K.they can be registerd to be married when gay lebanese can ?

Brahmin canmary Low or High .Whatdalit is to do Ristricted to Dalit .Is that not impossible situation b/c religously Brahmin girl is not to be married to Dalit .

Re: # 916

No I curse no one.

There have to be bad times along with good times for which one should mainly blame oneself or one's own inability the influence those around us. I believe that the myth about the power of curses is just as stupid as the myth about the power of miracles that are products of the idea of an `intrusive' god as in many minds.

I basically believe in the four Buddhist virtues of:
1. Friendliness to all.
2. Joy. to try to find and give as much joy as is possible.
3. Compassion to try to conquer the anger and fear of others.
4. Equinamity.

The four Buddhist vices are equally relevant:
1. Non injury to life and to not hurt others even with hurtful words.
2. No false speech. Not even half truths and white lies.
3. To not take what is not give. More than theft even forcably taking what is ones `legal' or `social' right causes injury.
4. Physical or mental torture.

I believe in the Buddhist idea of Karma where we all unconsciously know our good and bad deeds and it is this joy or guilt that affects our souls in its passage through lifetimes.

#931 by Eklavya

And further, the reason I feel optimistic is because of the internet. The nemesis of any kind of totalitarian thought is open discussion and dissent. Totalitarian thought requires "submission" - complete and total obedience. With dissent punished by measures that we have seen for 1400 years. The internet allows for a platform where people can dissect the various evils of Islam without the adherents of this peaceful religion trying to hack them to pieces (the other 80% of the adherents of this peaceful religion usually cheer from the sidelines).

#931 by Eklavya

Completely agree. Except that I think (or rather hope) that humanity, or the non-Islamic interpretation of it, will prevail in the end. Maybe I am being irrationally sentimental. It is true that listening to Indians, Americans, Europeans etc. around me, I see little hope of that. But then hope springs eternal in the "human" breast.