Islamic Invasions ! Hindus Persecutions !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surya

I think it's safe to assume Pizza = Anti-Hindu Fanatic! :lol2: What else could one expect from him? :huh:

Eelavar,
:clap: :D

---

If I were a anti-Hindu fanatic, I will not waste my time here. I will have rather gone to Muslim or Christian forums.

I am just a anti Hindu-Fanatic. Do you want me to say that one thousand more times ?

[quote="bis_mala"]
Law is made for human beings to comply. Laws made by humans are not applicable to Gods and Goddesses!! How can any human make laws for Gods and Goddesses?
[/quote="bis_mala"]
It is central to both Vaishnavites and Shaivites that God took their avatars in Human form only to show the way to live for the man kind.

[quote="bis_mala"]
Goddess marrying many times ...
[/quote="bis_mala"]
[quote="bis_mala"]
Only the Gods could have several wives. Not even the Goddess can marry or re-marry.
[/quote="bis_mala"]

[quote="bis_mala"]
So Hindu laws are for humans and not for celestial beings.
Ok?
[/quote="bis_mala"]
Nope. Hindu Laws or its ante-cedant Vedic Laws were applicable to Humans and were practiced devotedly. According to Manu-smirti, no case can be registered on men even if they killed his wife, animals or sudras as long as he was the owner of these beings.

[quote="bis_mala"]
YOUR BASIC FAULT: YOU THOUGHT HUMAN LAWS APPLY TO GODS AND GODDESSES WHEN THEY DO NOT EVEN APPLY TO PROPHETS WHO ARE HUMAN BEINGS!!
[/quote="bis_mala"]

I do not think it is my fault. I think it is my strength to have the ability to think that everyone be it the King, God or Shankaracharya to be subjected by the same law especially when it is said to be given by God himself. If it is wrong, I will, to my strength, however weak l might be, will attempt to bring the offender to the Law for punishment.

I will not be at fault to even expect that if God was a gentleman, he himself will surrender. Like Krishna does in Mahabharatha, for every offense (offense according to Manu-Smirti) that he commits.

In Shivitism, a poet calls Shiva a bluff even after knowing it is Shiva himself.

Now tell me if the Gods fall within the Law or not ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bis_mala

Quote:

---

Other religions have a single code of conduct for all its members. So atleast within the religion there is tolerance.

---

This, Pizzalot, does not hold water. Christianity has many denominations and each denomination has its own codes of conduct or rules for adherents. The rules for Sunni Muslims are different from those for Shia Muslims. They have separated as they could not agree on a single code for themselves. Mahayana Buddhism has rules which are different from those of Hinayana Buddism.

The intolerance to a code results in excommunication by the Pope of the offending member in the case of Catholicism who have codes different of course from those of the Pentecost Church!! (for example). The Muslims issue death warrants (fatwah) against their own members. You see, the intolerance in these religions are INSTITUTIONALISED AND RIGOROUSLY ENFORCED. There is no such promulgation or enforcement in Hinduism!! Not institutionalized in Hinduism: there may be “pressure” applied by peers and family members. No fatwahs. No excommunications, which is why other religions are free to operate in India and attract Hindus into their fold. The bill against forced conversions was by a duly constituted government in TN and not by a religious authority like the Ayatolah in Iran!! Consequently, Hindus have lost many of their members to other religions in recent times. That Anti-conversion law is now repealed.

Summarizing this point for you: There is no official, institutionalized, organized intolerance practised in Hinduism. Agree?

---

No, again. There WAS official, institutionalized, organized intolerance practiced in the Hindu society. What law do you think the Kings followed in the courts ? It was strict Manu-Smirti.

"Sati" is just ONE such example. It looked barbaric EVEN FOR THE MUSLIM INVADERS but not the in-laws of the lady burnt. Muslim invaders, who come with a culture of marrying the wives of the defeated, could never understand why the Hindus did that to their own women.

Even during Moghul/Muslim rule this was practiced which is against the Islamic Laws. Does this show the "spiritual" Hindu's self-rule ?

The system was in practice until the Christian Governor General Of India, Sir Warren Hastings banned the practice. And when he did it, he was faced with bitter opposition, to a scale you can never imagine or understand today. All by Brahmins.

Pizzalot is right, although perhaps the example of the Sati maynot quite be the best one.

However, ostracism and a sort of excommunication by the community was practiced quite often to anyone who violated or transgressed the rules.

Has anyone seen the movie Samskar by Girish Karnad? It was a representation of the true state of society till very recently, when a corpse is left untouched because the dead man had lost his caste and no one was to perform the funeral rites to the body. I think the book was written by UR Ananthamurthy and was adapted to the screen by Karnad. Powerful piece, which tells us of the foolish extremes to which "Hindus" were willing to go to excommunicate a neighbour!

Pizzalot just one question to u
what r u really trying to tell us here?

This, I think, if I may answer for Pizzalot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pizzalot

I want everyone you, me, Mala (that is what your name is bis_mala ?), Surya, Eelavar and everyone in this world to question, doubt, not-to-agree etc etc about what you hear, what you read and even what you believe in every step of life.

---

Or to put it in the immortal words of Thiruvalluvar,

Epporul yaar yaar vai kaetpinum
Apporul Meiporul kaanbadharivu

WELL if thats what he wanted us to do.............. :roll: ok!
but why did he put all those negative stuffs about Hinduism and dogmas and intolerant religion etc etc?
what was he trying to tell / teach us?
i know there is good and bad in our religion, but i wont agree what pizzalot saying...........

Well, I guess he'd be the best person to answer you crazy, but methinks he adopted that method of waking people up by a few really shocking truths.

By his own confession, he is a Hindu, and what he is opposed to is not the religion but only fanaticism.

Perhaps when he comes back again, he might be able to tell whether I am right or wrong in my evaluation of him and his methods.

But personally, I feel the sad state of our religion - any religion, for that matter - is only because of fanatics who refuse to use their brains to understand truths and instead propagate selfish beliefs without rationale.

In that sense, I find myself supporting pizzalot's views, and it has nothing to do with my liking pizzas! :)

Badri :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pizzalot

No, again. There WAS official, institutionalized, organized intolerance practiced in the Hindu society. What law do you think the Kings followed in the courts ? It was strict Manu-Smirti.

---

I didn't know that. My understanding till date was that, when the English came and saw that there was no book of rules to be followed, they started digging out for some old rule books which might be acceptable to Indian society in general. Several people were commissioned for this task and lots of books were analyzed before settling for Manu-Smriti. Please correct me if i am wrong here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pizzalot

"Sati" is just ONE such example. It looked barbaric EVEN FOR THE MUSLIM INVADERS but not the in-laws of the lady burnt. Muslim invaders, who come with a culture of marrying the wives of the defeated, could never understand why the Hindus did that to their own women.

---

Well practicing Sati may be equated to Hinduism but, the reverse is not true. To my knowledge Sati was not common in Southern India. It is a cultural thing rather than religious. There are lots of cultural aspects which get tagged as religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pizzalot

Even during Moghul/Muslim rule this was practiced which is against the Islamic Laws. Does this show the "spiritual" Hindu's self-rule ?

---

There is a fine line between rule and custom followed by society. This was custom (an evil one) not rule. Again do correct me if i am wrong. Is it coded in Manu Smirti abt Sati? I haven't read the book, just some translations mostly related to the caste system.
Its easier to change rules rather than customs. No wonder there is a lot of opposition to changes in customs, society follows.