Islamic Invasions ! Hindus Persecutions !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pizzalot

It was the turn of events after the world war that gave us freedom. Both extremists and moderates sensed how the world order is changing and changed their themes as oppurtunists.

---

This is very true. If Britian hadn't gone bankrupt and had the Conservative party won the elections after the war, i doubt if we would have got 'Independence' when we got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pizzalot

It is not a co-incidence that "Quit India Movement" and "INA" movements occured not before 1939.

Gandhi's earlier movements were simply protests against the Government on specific issues. He did not call for Independent rule. If he had started the Quit India movement in 1930, instead of Salt Satya Graha, there would have been no takers, my friend.

---

This explains that India hadn't had one leader in the last 500 years with a far sighted vision.
As far as the divide and rule policy goes, India was never one country before the British came and all the states came under one umbrella mainly because the British found it easy to rule one big geographical area rather than smaller states.
The divide and rule policy that British started was on Religious lines. Its really sad to see that the British have left us, but we haven't let go of their policies.

Quote:

---

Its really sad to see that the British have left us

---

I'm sorry , i cannot be agree.

Britishes did more pain than gifts. :cry:

Dsath are you british ? :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

Quote:

---

Its really sad to see that the British have left us

---

I'm sorry , i cannot be agree.

Britishes did more pain than gifts. :cry:

Dsath are you british ? :roll:

---

yes what do u excatly mean by "they have left us"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

Quote:

---

Its really sad to see that the British have left us

---

I'm sorry , i cannot be agree.

Britishes did more pain than gifts. :cry:

Dsath are you british ? :roll:

---

yes what do u excatly mean by "they have left us"?

---

Pls read the whole sentence, i am not sad that the British left us, but i am sad that the policies they formulated hadn't left us still.
For example dividing the population on religious lines, the strict dress code, worst of all their civil services system and roundabouts on roads(my pet among the lot).
Look where all the our tax money goes, to Russians, Americans and Europeans to buy rockets,tanks,fighter planes and what not. While with all that money we could have built roads,schools and fed the millions living under poverty line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsath

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

Quote:

---

Its really sad to see that the British have left us

---

I'm sorry , i cannot be agree.

Britishes did more pain than gifts. :cry:

Dsath are you british ? :roll:

---

yes what do u excatly mean by "they have left us"?

---

Pls read the whole sentence, i am not sad that the British left us, but i am sad that the policies they formulated hadn't left us still.
For example dividing the population on religious lines, the strict dress code, worst of all their civil services system and roundabouts on roads(my pet among the lot).
Look where all the our tax money goes, to Russians, Americans and Europeans to buy rockets,tanks,fighter planes and what not. While with all that money we could have built roads,schools and fed the millions living under poverty line.

---

yes we could have build a lots of things with those money, but we r also in need of those weapons and missiles! it keeps ur country together, keeps our enemies out of ur border..........ofcourse i agree that we could have put those money and taxes and some better way, but it wasnt the fault of politicans only.............people have also their contribution here!
we people have been stupid and we didnt work hard enough to build or country...........
again this can we blame with high illiteracy in our country...........but can also blame the literated people who runs to foreign country in hope of better :roll: life than rather staying here in our country and help building it up!
why r we so stupid? how long r we going to blame the politicians, how long r we going to be naive, how long r we going to sit and blame?

what do u think we could do to make ur country rich and powerful?

ok ok
i should stick to the topic!
sorry.

pizzalot, some of your views are interesting, esp your reliance on DNA as opposed to some wild theories.
Sure there are many cultural differences between different parts of India. That might explain a few things.
I have a query for you. What do you think Ashoka was before he became a Buddhist. What religion do u think he followed?
And one other thing, i find the term Rig Vedic people used often in your posts. I cannot understand what is your interpretation of Rig Vedic people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

Quote:

---

Its really sad to see that the British have left us

---

I'm sorry , i cannot be agree.

Britishes did more pain than gifts. :cry:

Dsath are you british ? :roll:

---

Different people will give different answers Eelavar. Ask a Kashmiri and he will say the British were far better. In one of your posts about Sri Lanka, you did seem to regret that the British had left leaving the Island to some fanatics. You do not need to be British to love British. Our constitution itself is based on British and so there is nothing wrong even if someone admired the British.

Why do you keep asking people if they were British, Hindu, Muslim etc ? What is your motive ? Why do you care ? I believe we should be able express our views and there is no need for anyone to express their identity. I welcome someone's ideas even if he/she were British or Americans. Who someone is should not really matter here. So come out of smaller circles first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsath

pizzalot, some of your views are interesting, esp your reliance on DNA as opposed to some wild theories.
Sure there are many cultural differences between different parts of India. That might explain a few things.
I have a query for you. What do you think Ashoka was before he became a Buddhist. What religion do u think he followed?
And one other thing, i find the term Rig Vedic people used often in your posts. I cannot understand what is your interpretation of Rig Vedic people.

---

I am sorry Dsath, if I sounded narrow minded. I did not mean any race here. I just meant "nature loving people, who are not intellectuals." In today's scenario they would be people who live in smallest villages and tribal in life-style as opposed to the "elite" people of later Vedas and Upanishads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsath

pizzalot, some of your views are interesting, esp your reliance on DNA as opposed to some wild theories.
Sure there are many cultural differences between different parts of India. That might explain a few things.
I have a query for you. What do you think Ashoka was before he became a Buddhist. What religion do u think he followed?
And one other thing, i find the term Rig Vedic people used often in your posts. I cannot understand what is your interpretation of Rig Vedic people.

---

For sure he was not a worhiper of Ram or Krishna, I can guarantee you that. Upanishads were not written, yet, and so Krishna had not yet recited the Upanishads in the Gita yet.

There was only one thing common between the Hindus of today and his people before converting into Buddhism. It was Varna system. He was born to Brahmin lady called Dharma. Other than that nothingelse.

If you say that he was a Hindu before adopting Budhism, that means you agree that "Hinduism" is nothing but "Varna" system.

Chandragupta Maurya , Grand Father of Ashoka , ended his life in self-starvation at Shravanabelagola, in present day Karnataka.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pizzalot

Chandragupta Maurya , Grand Father of Ashoka , ended his life in self-starvation at Shravanabelagola, in present day Karnataka.

---

Sorry, I meant to say Chandragupta Maurya , Grand Father of Ashoka , ended his life in self-starvation at Shravanabelagola, in present day Karnataka AS A JAIN.

Pizzalot,

I still don't know what "THE ELITES" is supposed to mean....:? Or even someone else, what does the "Elite" word supposed the represent in his post? :huh: Before we start argueing or concuring with you on your views, we need to know what it means. U keep using the term "Elite People" Who are you pointing towards?

Quote:

---

If you say that he was a Hindu before adopting Budhism, that means you agree that "Hinduism" is nothing but "Varna" system.

---

No one is proposing that here for us to agree...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dsath

Look where all the our tax money goes, to Russians, Americans and Europeans to buy rockets,tanks,fighter planes and what not. While with all that money we could have built roads,schools and fed the millions living under poverty line.

---

First lets Eliminate the Threat of Pakistan, and then we can think weakening our Military, and War Power for the sake of building roads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dsath

Look where all the our tax money goes, to Russians, Americans and Europeans to buy rockets,tanks,fighter planes and what not. While with all that money we could have built roads,schools and fed the millions living under poverty line.

---

First lets Eliminate the Threat of Pakistan, and then we can think weakening our Military, and War Power for the sake of building roads.

---

Pakistan occupied Kashmir when Kashmir was not a part of India.

China took away "our" land when we were wide "awake" in front of our own eyes. So let us attack China first. Such very thought itself scares you so much isn't it ? If you do that they will come back and this time take away Ayodhya, Mathura and Dwarka away. Sorry that is not their style. They will flatten the noses of Ram and Krishna and make it look like chinese and populate India with Chinese blood so everyone will look like them.

You just want to attack Pakistan because you know it is a very, very small country whose population is just about 15% of yours and you are very happy that you are the "big brother". You cannot win Pakistan even in cricket and so you want to eliminate them with your bull-strength. So much for your courage.

WHO ARE THE MONKEY FRIENDS OF RAM ?

This question is for all those who say Ramayana was a ture history and Ram really ruled Ayodhya. Who is Hanuman, Sugreeva and Bali ? Who are all those monkeys ? Were they really monkeys but able to stand-up and walk like Chimpancies ? They also spoke. So they could be actually humans ? So these are humans who spoke and were highly cultured, Hanuman is often described for his strength and intelligence. Who are these people who helped Ram get back Sita and win against Ravana but yet described as Monkeys with tail and hair all over the body ?

What kind of people are the Hindus (read Ram worhipers) to call the very same people who risked their lives as monkeys ?

Ram met these Monkeys while moving South of Ayodhya. My guess is it could be Maharashtra, the Kingdom of monkeys. That explains why Shiv Sena is so faithful to Ram. Is there any monkey friend in this thread to say "hello" to me ?

pizzalot,

I guess you are an anti-Hindu fanatic..

Why they describe them as Monkeys ?

Maybe because Humans are very similar to monkeys.. (Monkeys and humans have common ancestors)

What is pathetic to see is that you read it word by word..
Idiot.. You will never understand Hinduism and his use of symbolism..

Ganesh have an elephant head.. And what ?? Do you will believe it as true history ?? Hahaha, pathetic.. :lol:

Humans are not very different of animals..

Pizzalot, can i ask you what is your origin ?

pizzalot,

This thread is not destined to talk about Hinduism, but about the Genocide of Hindus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

pizzalot,
I guess you are an anti-Hindu fanatic..

---

Yes, I am a anti-(Hindu-Fanatic). Did it take you so long to know that ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

Why they describe them as Monkeys ?

Maybe because Humans are very similar to monkeys.. (Monkeys and humans have common ancestors)

What is pathetic to see is that you read it word by word..
Idiot.. You will never understand Hinduism and his use of symbolism..

---

So teach me how to "selectively" read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

Ganesh have an elephant head.. And what ?? Do you will believe it as true history ?? Hahaha, pathetic.. :lol:

---

Thanks for jumping to my side and acknowledging that they are not true stories. It better be that way. Can you tell the same to the people who are listening to the Hindu-hardliners telling them that it is all true and not a story ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

Humans are not very different of animals..

---

Then why Ram is not shown as an animal ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

Pizzalot, can i ask you what is your origin ?

---

Africa.

Do you want my caste, family and gothra too ?

Introduce yourself first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

pizzalot,
This thread is not destined to talk about Hinduism, but about the Genocide of Hindus.

---

Did you say that Eelavar ? Oh yes !!! You are consistent with the other fanatics having "selective" memories. There is a million line post from you on Hinduism from you but here you are saying we are not to discuss about Hinduism and only "Genocide of Hindus" !You should have told us that ONLY YOU can talk about Hinduism but not others. See a short abstract from your earlier post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

forgetting that Hinduism was not only a wonderful system of thought... unique spirituality....of the lasting principles of Hinduism.
.....Everything is valuable for jiva and there is nothing that it neglects, as each experience enriches the soul: sufferings ....This concept of reincarnation, ...Karma is another very important tenet of Hinduism ....

---

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

[

HINDUISM IS THE MOST INTOLERANT OF ALL RELIGIONS, pathetically, even today. Imagine how it should have been in those "glorious days".

---

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:

Quote:

---

Then why Ram is not shown as an animal ?

---

Tell me first what is human and what is 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

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”.

---

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..
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: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bis_mala

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pizzalot

[

HINDUISM IS THE MOST INTOLERANT OF ALL RELIGIONS, pathetically, even today. Imagine how it should have been in those "glorious days".

---

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 stamce againstt 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.

---

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.

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

HINDUISM IS THE MOST INTOLERANT OF ALL RELIGIONS, pathetically, even today. Imagine how it should have been in those "glorious days".

---

:roll: really?
eelavar: :)

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?

Will continue….

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 RIGOURSLY 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?

Will continue….

---

well said :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

On the contrary Qoran and Bible have been successfuly used and based word by word as Law in several countries.

---

I CANNOT AGREE THIS RUBBISH.

It seems you don't know who are Talibans..
They don't respect women.
They can have how many women they want..

In Bible it is written to don't steal, how many Christians stolen and converted America ,India, Africa and Asia ??....

In Bible it is written to don't kill, who are the crusaders ??

In Quoran it is said that killing is not good, but why Muslims do a holy war ?? Is it not hypocritical ??

Pizzalot i can say and AFFIRM you that percentage of Hindus couple who divorce is SO MUCH LESSER than Christians and Muslims.

Why ??
Is it not good or do you think it is bad ??

You are AN IGNORANT.

Eat your pizza in front of your television !!

Bismala, well said mate :wink:

THERE IS NO DOGMA IN HINDUISM !!!!!

Don't you know that Pizza ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pizzalot

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.

---

THANK YOU FRIENDS.

Mr Pizzalot,

I have not taken Hindu Law but there is subject in legal studies by that name. It is one of the 52 – 60 law subjects you can study for your BL or LLB. Are you referring to this subject? (Optional Subject)
I do not know how much of puranas, scriptures etc., went into this “Hindu Law”. I do not think India has a Hindu Legal Code (specially enacted) , for I have not come across any in my U law library in Malaysia. Neither in the Inns of Court library in England. I do not know whether you are from the legal background but collection of relevant judicial precedents and writings of eminent Hindu jurists can be sources of Hindu Law and these can be used in dispute-settlement by the courts of law.
I suggest you visit your nearest library or law bookshops for the materials you are seeking. But I know that some “rules” from the scriptures have been applied to cases before them by the Indian courts. Once applied in that manner, the judgements
will be made available in the AIR or BLR or other series. I cannot set out to do a research in this area. But why do you say that every Hindu must abide by these “laws” ? Why do you think that these laws are not being applied now by the Courts in India where they are applicable? Please let us know your interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pizzalot

HINDUISM IS THE MOST INTOLERANT OF ALL RELIGIONS, pathetically, even today. Imagine how it should have been in those "glorious days".

---

I think that statement cannot be accepted at face value. I think tolerance is something based on the geographical area or more specifically culture rather than religion.
For example the Islam practiced by the Egyptians is very different to that practiced by Iranians. Its a result of basic cultural differences. The same is true of Hinduism as well. There are differences in the way it is practiced in different parts of India. So blaming one religion, any religion is unfair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bis_mala

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

Will continue….

---

Yes mala, do agree with this. But don't know how long this statement will remain true, as anyone can see efforts are on to make this statement false by a section in India.

Pls continue, your words are as clear as ever. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pizzalot

]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 ?

---

Well, how would you frame a Hindu legal provision or a Christian legal provision or an Islamic legal provision? You can write into the constitution a provision like this:
1. No Speaker of the Parliament shall commence any parliamentary proceeding without first having conducted a full puuja presided over by a brahmaNa priest in accordance with the Hindu scriptures at least one hour before any such proceeding is scheduled to commence.
In another section of the constitution, you can include a declaratory provision that the Hindu religion shall be the state religion for the Republic of India including the state of Kashmir!!
After writing all such provisions, you still have to define the rights, duties, responsibilities, functions, etc of the various organs of the state and its officers, whether elected or otherwise. Many provisions must necessarily be secular and no religious content can be logically induced into them. It is the success or failure of the secular provisions that will determine the well-being and survival of the state!! Religious provisions will just “decorate” the constitution if anything. Pujaaris can be happy with them, that is all. The same goes for any other religion.
How and to what extent can a constitution be “religionised”? You have to tell us pizzalot!!
Have you read the Pakistani constitution?
Suggest to them to rename the “President” as “Chief Caliph”!
The constitution can then become “more Islamized”.

Reading Ramayana and Puranas: You and I cannot dictate to others what they should do. If you do not want to read it, well and good. If someone else wants to read them, so be it!! What is wrong is reading Ramayana? Ramayana deifies Rama the king as an incarnation just like the Quaran exalted Muhamad as a prophet. Ultimately, it is what you believe. We cannot dictate to people what to believe. When you are unable to tell X what he should believe, why should you tell Y what Y should believe? Or what to read?


Since you will agree God is almighty, there is nothing he cannot do, why can’t he come down as Rama? Is God limited or restricted in some way?

In summary, I would say: they have their freedom in which you and I cannot interfere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

If they were so intolerant say me why they allowed west and east bengal creation ?....You just refuse to see the reality.

---

Politics is often confused with religion. In my opinion, politics should stay clear of religion and vice versa. If not then, one will end up in a mess what India-Pakistan-Bangladesh is now.
Partition was a result of pure politics played by the 'leaders' of those times. A very simplified version would be - Jinnah wanted what was considered a huge share of power. The Congress failed to accommodate him,so he played the religious card and the whole of Congress fell for that. And no one has risen from that still now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eelavar

If they were so intolerant why so much religions born in India ???

---

The names of what we understand as 'Religion' was generally given by non-Indian natives. I think it is generally accepted that the Persians (if i am not right, then some other non-Indian) gave the name Hinduism and the same is the case with Buddhism. The name was given by outsiders. So India is a birth place of many movements which later evolved into religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pizzalot

I know several places where the Gods and Gospels contradict the Hindu Law.

---

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? As I have already told you in an earlier post, the sources of Hindu Law are : judicial pronouncements in past court cases as well as writings of eminent Hindu jurists. They get their materials from the Hindu books such as Vedas. Puranas etc., etc., The rules extracted from them are for human compliance. You know well that you cannot indict a God or Goddess.

Just like God or Allah causes or permits earthquakes and tsunamis. If human beings caused them, you can indict them in court for genocide. You cannot touch God or Allah!! – even though causing a tsunami is a great offence and a crime against humanity!! Goddess marrying many times is a much lesser crime (if you want to call it that ) than causing a tsunami. Reason: if Goddess married many times, no human dies in consequence as in earthquake or tsunami. I know of a god-man who married 9 life partners so why not a Goddess?

Now you can also look at it in another way. Goddess marrying many times causes no misery or financial problems. But humans marry many times will increase the woes of the world. So Hindu laws are for humans and not for celestial beings.
Ok?

YOUR BASIC FAULT: YOU THOUGHT HUMAN LAWS APPLY TO GODS AND GODDESSES WHEN THEY DO NOT EVEN APPLY TO PROPHETS WHO ARE HUMAN BEINGS!!
Now pizzalot, I do not know what is your religious persuasion. Do not tell me. But you can judge the issue according to your own persuasion. In case you did not believe in any god or goddess, then better still. Since gods and goddesses do not exist for you, there is automatically no conflict or contradiction whatsoever. How can anything contradict with something non-existent.

So, no case at all however you look at it!!