Questions for Hindus

bless_sins · Dec 30, 2005

Salam (Peace),

arunma said:
Indeed you are correct. And how did Europe benefit from separating itself along artificial boundaries? They received such wonderful things as civil war, violent revolutions, Communism, and Nazism. Likewise, the separation of Pakistan from India has only given us the threat of war.

So you are saying that you oppose the existence of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece etc......
You also oppose the existence of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and think they should be united back with in the Communist Soviet Union?

Question: Why is it that Indians struggled so hard to leave British rule?
Hint: It might have something to do with the Muslims' struggle to leave what would have been Hindu rule.

arunma · Dec 30, 2005

bless_sins said:
Salam (Peace),

So you are saying that you oppose the existence of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece etc......
You also oppose the existence of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and think they should be united back with in the Communist Soviet Union?

I think the formation of all these nations was a bad idea. But most of the European nations have existed for over a thousand years, so there is little to be gained from speculating on what would have happened if Europe never divided itself according to these borders.

bless_sins said:
Question: Why is it that Indians struggled so hard to leave British rule?
Hint: It might have something to do with the Muslims' struggle to leave what would have been Hindu rule.

I don't see the connection. First of all, you are wrong to make a distinction between Indians and Muslims. The former is an ethnicity and a nationality, the latter is a religion. Indians are members of virtually every religion in existence, including both Hinduism and Islam. May I also remind you that Indian independence was not a religious affair. The British did not make a distinction between Christian, Muslim, and Hindu. They oppressed anyone who looked like an Indian.

Your reference to Hindu rule is irrelevant. Perhaps you haven't been on this forum long enough to know this, but I am a strong opponent of the Indian anti-conversion laws that were created by Hindus to oppress Christians. Hindus oppress anyone who will not add the Vedic pantheon of gods to their worship. So I am quite familiar with Hindu treatment of those who do not conform to their belief system.

The Hindu treatment of monotheists does not confer the right to insurrection upon anyone. If Muslims wish to improve their condition in India, then the correct course of action is to change Indian laws, not to secede from the rest of the nation.

indianx · Dec 30, 2005

Hindus oppress anyone who will not add the Vedic pantheon of gods to their worship. So I am quite familiar with Hindu treatment of those who do not conform to their belief system.

Of course and you say this without a sense of hypocrisy, because this is obviously diametrically opposite to the behavior of Christians and Muslims in the past. I mean, throughout history, if you look at the relationship between Christians and other religions, it has always been nothing but orgasmic love. I mean look at Europe, what a peaceful continent and admire how peacefully that Christian continent treated the non-Christian countries in the past. Look at the Middle East and equally admire their love and benevolence to people of other religions in the past and present. I'm glad that we've someone with us who can share firsthand information about those devilish Hindus, because of his familiarity with their infamous treatment. Are you, by any chance, posting from the hospital, Arun?

bless_sins · Dec 30, 2005

Salam (Peace),

arunma said:
I don't see the connection. First of all, you are wrong to make a distinction between Indians and Muslims. The former is an ethnicity and a nationality, the latter is a religion.

For Muslims, religion supersedes ethnicity and culture. Nationalism, based upon religion is actually pretty strong, as proven in the case of India/Pakistan.

arunma said:
May I also remind you that Indian independence was not a religious affair.

Right, it was an affair based upon the ethnicity and culture. Ethnicity and culture were strong enough to arouse nationalism through out India. For Muslims, religion is a pretty strong factor.

arunma said:
If Muslims wish to improve their condition in India, then the correct course of action is to change Indian laws, not to secede from the rest of the nation.

How can they, when they are outnumbered, at the very best, 2:1. Hindus would have retained a strong majoirty in the Parliament.

arunma · Dec 30, 2005

bless_sins said:
For Muslims, religion supersedes ethnicity and culture. Nationalism, based upon religion is actually pretty strong, as proven in the case of India/Pakistan.

For a Christian, religion also supercedes these other divisions. But that isn't relevant. The only point I wanted to make is that Indians and Hindus are not the same thing.

bless_sins said:
Right, it was an affair based upon the ethnicity and culture. Ethnicity and culture were strong enough to arouse nationalism through out India. For Muslims, religion is a pretty strong factor.

Do you claim that Muslims are required to take land from sovereign nations in order to create Islamic theocracies?

bless_sins said:
How can they, when they are outnumbered, at the very best, 2:1. Hindus would have retained a strong majoirty in the Parliament.

The Muslim situation is much better than the case of Indian Christians. In India, our religion's adherants are outnumbered by pagans to a much greater extent, because only 2.5% of Indians practice Christianity. Apart from the discriminatory anti-conversion laws and other forms of persecution, the Christians manage to coexist with the pagan Hindus. Why can Muslims not do the same?

sefroth77 · Dec 30, 2005

bless_sins said:
AS for the caste system:
You guys have said that the caste system would be applied by choice, not by birth.
A question: who would choose who should be in a caste? Say everyone wanted to be a brahmin - who would divide people into their respective casts??

It is not easy to be a Brahmin. To be a Brahmin you should possess these qualities.

1. No meat eating,Intoxication,Sex only for giving birth, Gambling
2. Love and respect all Living beings. Sees every living being with a Equal vision
3. Humble
4. Should only eat when necessary.

Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness these are the natural qualities by which the brāhmaṇas work.(Bhagavad Gita 18.42)

If anybody possess these qualities than he should be called a Brahmin. A Brahmin is a person with High Moral attitude. If brahmin do not possess these qualities then he is NOT a Brahmin.

Not everyone can be a Brahmin, It takes a Great Soul to be one.

ANother question: today, most societies divide themselves into a clergy/politcian class, military class etc.....how is that different from the ideal Hindu system?

Its almost the same as the Hindu System, the only difference is the Hindu System has God as the central Figure while the Material system which we now see has Money as the central figure with many people striving to uplift themselves rather then offering its fruits to God. This type of system will not generate peace as there will be many people with many desires.

Could you also explain where the concept of "untouchables" cam from?

In Ancient Hindu scriptures, Only Brahmin,Ksyatrias,Vasiyas and Sudras are mentioned. Those who follow the Vedic system follow this system. Those who chose not to follow the system are known a Melachas(Christians,Muslims) or Meat eaters. Even Some section of Hindus are also known as Melachas(Meat eating for sense enjoyment)

The word Untouchables is not found in any of the Vedic text. This stupid ideolgy only arrived after 700years of Islamic rule in India. Sanatana Dharma teaches all living beings should be respected and be seen with a equal vision.

monkey88 · Dec 30, 2005

Sefroth you said, "4. Should only eat when necessary..." at least your people won't have problems with obesity like Australia and America. ^.^

sanaa · Dec 31, 2005

christians are not getting persecuted in india . i dont know why christians have this persecution complex.
per·se·cu·tion
Function: noun
: punishment or harassment usually of a severe nature on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion in one's country of origin

christmas is a national holiday in india , there are numerous churches in my city , christians can pray and assemble peacefully , they can also preach though sometimes they take foolish steps like shouting and singing loudly in a local train( personal experience) even though noone is listening. what has been opposed is mass evangelizing under the guise of charity and distribution of material benefits or spreading defamatory lies about hinduism or evangelizing on a tourist visa which is illegal . out of 29 states only 1 state has a law that u take permission from the district magistrate before you change your religion

so arunma stop crying persecution becoz its a lie

sanaa · Dec 31, 2005

the coup was not a smart move , it was a selfish greedy move by musharraf , it completely destroyed the peace process between india and pakistan

sanaa · Dec 31, 2005

kashmir is muslim dominated so we should give it to pakistan.

that is horrendous logic .

um maybe we should give away christian dominated goa to europe and buddhist dominated sikkim to tibet and communist ruled west bengal to china and tamil dominated south india to ltte .

lets face it pakistan is a failed state , it has a lot of dictatorships in its young history and cant be called a democracy by any means and yet it wants "democracy for kashmir" . oh the irony.

anyway kashmir does have a democracy . it has had good turnouts in the elections and kashmiris are free to elect whoever they want .

bless_sins · Dec 31, 2005

Salam (Peace),

arunma said:
The only point I wanted to make is that Indians and Hindus are not the same thing.

Right, and niether is Muslims and Indians the same thing. Muslims should not be forced into a confederacy they dont want to be in.

arunma said:
Do you claim that Muslims are required to take land from sovereign nations in order to create Islamic theocracies?

Foreign Muslims, No. Native Muslims, YEs. It would have been wrong for Iranians, or Afghanis to come into India and take Indian land. But Muslims living in India, is a whole different story. Muslims owned the land, and had a clear majoirty where they made Pakistan.

This is something that has happened a lot of times. Whether it be the Christians who left Indonesia (East Timor), or the break of Yugo Slavia.

arunma said:
The Muslim situation is much better than the case of Indian Christians. In India, our religion's adherants are outnumbered by pagans to a much greater extent, because only 2.5% of Indians practice Christianity. Apart from the discriminatory anti-conversion laws and other forms of persecution, the Christians manage to coexist with the pagan Hindus. Why can Muslims not do the same?

The Muslim situation is better, but still very poor. Hindus still would have had a CLEAR MAJORITY. The reason Muslim wanted to be seperate is to be sovereign. They wanted an international voice. For example: India has currently befriended Israel - something unaccepetable to it Muslim population.

bless_sins · Dec 31, 2005

To sanaa:

It's not a question of democracy, it's a question of self-determination. A ruler doesn't have to be democratic in order to be accepted by his/ her people. You have a loong history of Kings in India to look at.

Many countries, when they gained independence, came under monarchy or dictatorship. Such was the case of many countries in the Middle East. Other countries (in Eastern Europe) came under direct communist rule.

But one thing common in "independent countries" was that the desicions were made by their people, albeit monarchs. This is what drove native peoples to rebellion...not democracy, but to be ruled by their own people.

Although I prefer freedom, I'd rather be controlled by my parents than have some stranger dominate my life.

elijah115 · Dec 31, 2005

so if british muslims wanted their own country, they should take land from the uk to have sovereignty? and that would be just!! in your books

sefroth77 · Jan 1, 2006

bless_sins said:
Foreign Muslims, No. Native Muslims, YEs. It would have been wrong for Iranians, or Afghanis to come into India and take Indian land. But Muslims living in India, is a whole different story. Muslims owned the land, and had a clear majoirty where they made Pakistan.

What nonsense is this Muslims living in India AND Muslims owned the Land ???? Full of crap. The Quran has made you speak these words. For God's sake, they are Indians and not Arabs or Persians or whatever.

So this will mean that Muslims in Britian owned the Land
Muslims in Thailand owns the land, whereever theres a muslims majority they should owned it.

This is why i say Islam is a ideolgy of Hate. If this guy can say such things just imagine if the musilm population increase in Britain very soon they will wage war against the unbelievers inorder to gain independence.

PLEASE TAKE NOTE PEOPLE, MUSLIMS HAVE A AGENDA THAT AGENDA IS TO HAVE MANY BABIES INORDER TO CREATE A MUSLIM EUROPE. ISLAM IS HERE TO DOMINATE THE WORLD NOT TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH OTHER FAITHS.

ITS A WARNING.

sanaa · Jan 1, 2006

bless_sins said:
To sanaa:

It's not a question of democracy, it's a question of self-determination. A ruler doesn't have to be democratic in order to be accepted by his/ her people. You have a loong history of Kings in India to look at

Many countries, when they gained independence, came under monarchy or dictatorship. Such was the case of many countries in the Middle East. Other countries (in Eastern Europe) came under direct communist rule.

But one thing common in "independent countries" was that the desicions were made by their people, albeit monarchs. This is what drove native peoples to rebellion...not democracy, but to be ruled by their own people.

Although I prefer freedom, I'd rather be controlled by my parents than have some stranger dominate my life.

i am not going to comment much on your earlier paragraph after reading the highlighted portion . i am horrified . "ruled by their own people" , not letting
" strangers" dominate . do u have any idea what your talking about . are u implying that indians are strangers to the people of kashmir and pakistanis are their own people? do you know the history of the conflict and that pakistan invaded kashmir showing zero respect to the free will of the kashmiris . the then ruler of kashmir had to beg india to come in and stop the pakistani army from advancing .
am sorry but kashmiris are india's own people . and btw kashmir is not only made up of muslims . the pakistani and other terrorists have been indulging in ethnic cleansing and driving out hindus from the area . yes am talking about the kashmiri pandits . kashmir has been their ancestral homeland and they have no desire to join pakistan .
btw india treats muslims extremely well , we have a muslim president , we have muslim movie stars that are super stars , we have had muslims as captain of the indian cricket team which is like a religion here . we have always treated muslims as our own . the backstabbers can pack their bags and move , no indian land is going to be seceded anymore .

bless_sins · Jan 1, 2006

Salam (Peace),

elijah115 said:
so if british muslims wanted their own country, they should take land from the uk to have sovereignty? and that would be just!! in your books

If Muslims made 90% + of, say Scotland, AND were the economically dominant group, yes they would have the right to rebel and seperate, just like the 13 colonies did.

CCGirl · Jan 1, 2006

bless_sins said:
Salam (Peace),

If Muslims made 90% + of, say Scotland, AND were the economically dominant group, yes they would have the right to rebel and seperate, just like the 13 colonies did.

bless_sins · Jan 1, 2006

Salam

sanaa said:
are u implying that indians are strangers to the people of kashmir and pakistanis are their own people?

Kashmiris are as Indian as Punjabis, Sindhis, Bengalis, Balochis, Pathans (ethnically related to Kashmiris). Yet each and everyone one of then wanted to be under Muslim rule, rather than what would be Hindu rule (as Hindus dominate Indian parliament).

Clearly religion was a factor playing in the partition of India.

sanaa said:
the then ruler of kashmir had to beg india to come in and stop the pakistani army from advancing .

The ruler was a Hindu monarch ruling a Muslim majoirty. One person has no right to decide the future of whole people.

sanaa said:
and btw kashmir is not only made up of muslims .

Pakistan has no interest in the regions of ladakh, or others mainly inhabited by non-Muslims.

sanaa said:
the pakistani and other terrorists have been indulging in ethnic cleansing and driving out hindus from the area . yes am talking about the kashmiri pandits .

What you are talking about allegedly started in the late 1980s, after nearly 40 years of Indian occupation.

sanaa said:
btw india treats muslims extremely well , we have a muslim president , we have muslim movie stars that are super stars ,

Please add the word "secular" before "muslims". The so-called "muslim" president has shown no interest in ever defending the rights of Muslims.
Many of these muslims drink alcohol. They are as much Muslim, as meat -eaters are brahmin.
Please don't talk about movie stars, we all know how much hate your media has for Muslims in general.

sanaa said:
we have had muslims as captain of the indian cricket team

We all know what happened to Azhar.

bless_sins · Jan 1, 2006

Sanaa, I know how much you want to argue with me, I don't think we should do it here. Either you can send me private messages, or we should open a thread on the "international politcs forum".

But perhaps you or someone could answer this question for me:

In the Hindu caste system, where do peoples of other religions fit. What if they eat meat, drink alcohol, and do other things regarded by Hindus as bad?

polygone · Jan 1, 2006

bless_sins said:
Right, and niether is Muslims and Indians the same thing. Muslims should not be forced into a confederacy they dont want to be in.

They're welcome to run off to a Muslim country or drown themselves in the Arabian Sea if they want to. Nobody's forcing them to stay. But Noooooooo, they want to stay in India, consume all the resources and then blame India for everything !

bless_sins said:
For example: India has currently befriended Israel - something unaccepetable to it Muslim population.

So that's another reasons for Muslim terrorists to attack India? Man you guys have such lame notions .

Questions for Hindus

Regular Member

Flaming Calvinist

Veteran

Regular Member

Flaming Calvinist

Well-Known Member

monkey88

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Resident Commie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency