Good Lord
what, is this is an anti hindu tread? cant we just stick to the topic :roll:
Printable View
Good Lord
what, is this is an anti hindu tread? cant we just stick to the topic :roll:
The title “Genocide of Hindus” in my view is quite wide and we should be able to talk about not only the numbers killed in each event if any, but also when, where, how, why and so forth. The last item : “why” is indeed very wide and that should provide us enough room to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of Hinduism and Hindus as causes in the topic “genocide”. We can also talk about the effects of these genocides on succeeding generations! “..of Hindus” , depending on the context, may also mean “by Hindus”. It can also be extended to Hindus killing themselves in addition to Hindus being killed by non-Hindus. In a proper study, you may even have to touch upon the definition of term “Hindus”, their origin and their –ism. It all depends on how a writer or speaker will treat the subject. “..of Hindus” is in the genitive case and therefore it may include “Genocide on Hindus” as well as “Genocide by Hindus”. Natural progression of the heading may go beyond the actual contemplation of the person who started the thread, the possibility of such contemplation being narrower than that of the other hubbers but such progression is not inherently wrong.
I am not suggesting any group has committed genocide on any other group now or in the past. I am just trying to say how the title of this thread can be treated by any scholar or student.
Genocide has been defined in UN Law. Killing in a war is not automatically a genocide. Can someone reproduce the UN definition so that our hubbers can use it as a guide in our discussion.
World History is full of narratives of past religious persecutions and consequent loss of lives. India had suffered more than its fair share of such violence inflicted on her from abroad, because foregin invaders harboured aspirations to convert Indians to their religion by force.
However, we cannot time-travel to the past and remedy the situation in any manner. So what good is it to discuss such past history? One thing good that can be done is to fortify India - by deleting the caste system completely from the face of India. Can this be acheived or attained? Other than for that purpose, discussion of the topic is quite unfruitful.
It has been said almost all the Muslims of South Asia are descendants of weaker elements of the population who had succumbed to forcible Islamic conversion. I do not think we should debate the question of genocide to the extent of raising hatred against other communities.
If a member of X community accuses Y community of past violence and genocide, then a member of Y community will of course answer back in some way. If the member of X community is not prepared to tolderate, all the more reason why we should not discuss such topics.
So many invasions and battles for the past 10,000 years. All claims of ethnic or blood purity can be bundled up and relegated to the corner. Delete your internal divisions and there won't be any more genocides inflicted on India from abroad.
[quote="bis_mala"][color=blue]
It has been said almost all the Muslims of South Asia are descendants of weaker elements of the population who had succumbed to forcible Islamic conversion.
[/quote="bis_mala"][color=blue]
True. 95% of the muslims in India are NOT the foreign invaders. But I do not agree with you in describing them as "converts". They were never a part of the "Hindu society" at all and it had been like that several thousand years. I would rather use the word "adoption" of Islam and not "convertion" to Islam.
If the same Islam had said a "black" cannot become a priest then it would have died long time back. It is a religion where poor and under-privileged or anyone can adopt it as their own. They can go and become "priest" very easily. In that way it is a very tolerant religion.
It is not a coincidence that the entire Africa and the under-developed countries are all Islamic. If someone tells me that they were Islamites first and that is why they are under-developed, I will laugh at their patheric ignorance.
On the other hand, tell me how a non-Hindu can convert to Hinduism. Simply they will create another caste for him marking his limits and boundaries in the society. There is no way he can convert and blend-in into the society.
The other day a ugly safron clad guy comes to me and begs me to dress-up (undress-up) like Ram and apply all that "blue die" for a small village level "Yatra" his party was organizing. Before that he had visited my house hundreds of times and asked me all sort of questions on my "origin". Just like Eelavar does in this thread. BS !
See how the Christian missionaries who come to help and embrace the SC and ST in Bihar are burnt alive. You are afraid of all other religions because they are going to somehow affect your status quo.
Actually you are not hating Islam or Christianity. You are hating the "SC and ST" people who you have hated for several thousand years. You are not able to tolerate them even if they get converted to other religions.
HINDUISM IS THE MOST INTOLERANT OF ALL RELIGIONS, pathetically, even today. Imagine how it should have been in those "glorious days".
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
Why do you say so Pizzalot? Each religion has its points of flexibility and rigidities. If you are saying that it is intolerant because of the caste system, it has been pointed out that you do not have to believe in caste to be a Hindu. It is not an "article of faith". Internal Divisions may have pre-existed "Hinduism" and been adopted by it . As t0 its alleged stance against conversions out of it, these may be the acts of misguided individuals. There is no unanimity among Hindus to take such a stance against Christian missionary. On the other hand, Hindus too do not have the open licence to convert say in Saudi Arabia or even in Britain those inhabitants there to their religion.
Hindu temples had been attacked in Malaysia too.
Can you elaborate on your assertion pl.
Pizza,
Please change your avatar...It is too much hypocrit and ironic.. :roll:
Tell me first what is human and what is animal..Quote:
Then why Ram is not shown as an animal ?
Crazy,
Pizzalot is here to prove us how some people are intolerant.
They don't respect others religion. I guess that those who did this genocide were exactly like Pizzalot..
They insult without understanding..
It is a great mistake..:roll:
bis_mala wrote
Why this genocide ?? Because some people are very intolerant..They don't respect others faith, they threat them of ignorant and idiot.. Only their religion is right and must be practized..Quote:
The title “Genocide of Hindus” in my view is quite wide and we should be able to talk about not only the numbers killed in each event if any, but also when, where, how, why and so forth. The last item : “why” is indeed very wide and that should provide us enough room to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of Hinduism and Hindus as causes in the topic “genocide”.
Is it not true Pizzalot ??... :roll:
Bismala , what is the Muslims Holy war ??
A war is never holy but for Muslims it is.. So how do you understand their religious war ?
Such wars are always organised against the Non-Muslims, why ?
Pizzalot,
I can understand your hate of the actual caste system.. I too hate this fake system..
But what you must know and understand it is the fact that at the start , the caste system was a wonderful socio-economic system..
But invaders and invasions corrupted it to the actual inhuman system...
It is not for that you must hate Hinduism. Its philosophy is big as an ocean.
I have remarked that your main problem is the understanding of this system.
Pizzalot finally i find you very hilarious.. You talk about Hindus intolerance but the first to be intolerant here is YOU.
You are tunneled to critize everything related to Hinduism..You even claim that Hindus are the most intolerant etc.
If they were so intolerant say me why they allowed west and east bengal creation ?....You just refuse to see the reality.
If they were so intolerant why so much religions born in India ???
Ok let admit that Buddhism came first Hinduism as claimed by you, so why the first Buddhist is Siddharta Gautama (~500 B.C) ??
So before him nobody inhabited India ?? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Pizzalot, paste and copying hateful web site will not help you to see the Light coming from Him.. :wink:
It looks like that America learned you to hate our anciants, well...
Be happy and enjoy your materialist life in your Ferrari and your Macdonald's in your hand
Thanks.. :arrow:
P.S : When i asked your origin i just wanted to know if you was an Indian or not, but sorry if it offended you.
(My origin is not Africa...)
First of all...i would like to make it clear that due to humans identifying themselves as different "species" with religion..they get the urge to wipe out one and another and establish themselves as the primary force. The more we identify ourselves as hindu muslim christian, the more we separate ourselves from the actual group known as homosapiens or humans. Why cant well see that regardless of race or religion all have two ears one nose one mouth a body and all bleed red? If we had not followed the setting of our forefathers and made our mind more broader by trying to find out ways of living harmoniously and treated everyone as our own brother and sister instead of looking at them differently we might have a solution.
First of all humans have made many mistakes like establishing religion as a stronghold amongst themselves instead of just identifying themselves as humans. If we are supposed to be identified as hindus muslims christians..how come the heart still sees another woman/man of a different religion in love instead of the own religion...why do we care and feel for a person undergoing suffering and torture despite not being of our own religion? These are questions we must ask ourselves. GOD created us this way to care for others like our own brothers and sisters and also love our lifepartner regardless of how she looks like and who she is identified from. But still we refer to religions as identification for marriages love and other mandatory needs. Ask yourselves...is the way GOD created us right or the way we are identified as right?...Surely GOD is correct and if we still insist religion is the identification...this violence will continue till GOD has to come down and unite us as humans once again..:(
Pizzalot,
Ok i did a mistake saying you to don't speak about Hinduism.
What i tried to say is that you must not insult it because you havent understood it. You can criticize it but in this case you must open a new thread, thanks.
Pizzalot and what about the other genocides ?
Europeans never killed American Indians?
Chineses never killed Tibeteans ?
Nazis never killed Jews ?
Stalin never killed his people ?
Turkishes never killed Armenians ?
SO WHY DON'T YOU ACCEPT THIS GENOCIDE ??????
DON'T NEGLECT IT !!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:
Other religions have a single code of conduct for all its members. So atleast within the religion there is tolerance. Hinduism is in-tolerant even within its members. The Dharma is very different for a man, woman, Kshatriya , Brahmin or Vyshya. There is a high-intolerance if anyone breaches this code.Quote:
Originally Posted by bis_mala
Even within caste and even within families, the tolerance is very low. Brahmins have more in-tolerance for any breach of conduct by the men and women of even their own caste. It will be the father inflicting wounds on his daughter or the Husband demanding his wife "agni pariksha or Jal Parishuth" and so on. (So unfortunate that all women do not have the power of Sita to come out of the fire-pyre alive).
Tell me what is the "article of faith" of Hindus and what is its use from a practical point of view ?
How much the eipcs, scriptures, puranas etc of Hinduism, have really helped frame the Hindu Laws in India ? The epics, gospels etc I believe have this "article of faith" central to in them. So we should be able to turn them into practical laws and expect evey Hindu to abide by it.
We know for sure we could not base our Constitution upon it. But how much the Hindu Laws itself have been derived from Hindu scriptures ? If the current Hindu Law is nothing to do with Ramayana or Mahabharatha or any Purana or "article of faith" then what use have we got reading and spending so much time on them ?
We do not want people to receive lessons and morals which will contradict the Hindu Law itself. On the other-hand is it practically possible to base the Hindu Law on this "article of faith" ? I am not saying the entire legal system should conform to the article of faith of Hinduism. I am just talking about the Sections in the Hindu Law which is meant for Hindus.
I know several places where the Gods and Gospels contradict the Hindu Law. For example, MonoGyny or "one woman to one woman marriage". Polygyny is illegal in Hindu Law. Several Gods are in violation to law even according to us, the Hindus. And so are several famous characters in the epics. It is unlawful to venerate someone who has, in his act and deed, is in violation to law.
There are so many examples I can pick-up, which makes me feel whether the Hindu Laws have anything to do with our scriptures. Others have to tell me if I am wrong.
On the contrary Qoran and Bible have been successfuly used and based word by word as Law in several countries.
The minimal requirement of any religious practice is that it should conform to the Legal Laws of its ownpeople. Otherwise we are not only wasting our time teaching and learning them, but actually inducing them to violate the law of the land.
So what use have we got of these scriptures, epics and morals if all they are doing is to prompt us to violate the law ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
:roll: really?
eelavar: :)