Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 20 Sep 2014 10:40

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 321 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 15:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Posts: 2661
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.
vsudhir wrote:

Nayakuddin, good question there.
1. How do you know there're none?
2. If indeed there are none, would you accept the deal/bargain that their participation is conditional on BRF accepting dhimmi status - discussions critical of islam/islamism/jihad etc are off limits?
Just wondering is all.....


I follow three threads closely in the strats forums -

BENIS, TSP and Islamism.

I feel most of the postors sound and feel non-muslim.

I dont think we should put conditions for anybody to participate in BR.

As long as fellow members stay within the boundary and not break it.

But I am just a member. Admins/learned/senior members may agree or disagree with me. That is fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 16:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22881
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Do you believe a Muslim can participate freely on a board on which Islam is freely blamed and Muslims are accused of being anti-national?

At best any such participation would be one sided. Or else it would be flamewar.

But if you want a piskological explanation I can have a shot - but I might end up hurting feelings of forum members and causing the anger of cognitive dissonance lead to a negative mood on here. So I'll keep off that route

Things are said here that are not easily said openly anywhere else. In many ways some things that need to be said are said. much is harsh, and some is patently unfair.

Having a token Muslim participate on here would be like "brainwashing" him by dunking his head down a toilet and flushing it.

The board is obviously not closed to Muslims. But it is equally obviously not going to be an easy place for anyone to participate as "resident Muslim". The poor bugger can never ever be a normal forum member. He wil be attacked and asked for explanations anytime anyone has any doubts about Muslims or something to curse islam about. the alternative is that our forum members will all become psudosecular and cock up.

Note that this board is currently a place where anyone with standard Indian "secular" views will have his head blasted off. Our discussions follow a path in which there is little or no resistance to something I wrote in the last page. It went unnoticed and uncommented because everyone is comfortable to read such things and it surprises no one on here. Most have actually been posted on these forums for years.

Quote:
Over the years I have come across several pointers towards what people consider as Islamic extremism

a) Being Muslim
b) Wearing Burqas
c) Collecting up in groups and showing hostility to non Muslims who pass through areas with such Muslim groups.
d) Tendency towards violent group action "They will riot"
e) Tendency to threaten unspecified but uncontrollable consequences if some Muslim grievances are not addressed.
f) Being remorseless killers of animals.
g) Being supportive of Islamic causes rather than national causes
h) Opposing attempts at secular social improvement (education/vaccination) with the excuse that these things are unislamic.
i) Demanding special rights and Muslims, and opposing certain other rights as being hurtful to Islamic sentiment.
j) Seeking spread of islam at the expense of Hindus.
k) Being non vegetarian and smelling different
l) Producing limitless children
m) Providing support for Muslims who later become terrorists, and then denying that the terrorist were Muslims, or that Muslims can be terrorists at all.

That is all that I can recall in one go, but as such the list is an interesting one because Hindus will really have to consider what they feel is Islamic extremism, and whether any consensus can be reached on extremism.



Denying any one of the points on my list will lead to people falling on the denier like a ton of bricks. So no Muslim can participate unless he agrees. It is therefore a board for agreement, not debate. I do participate in a board for debate - but it is not this one. We do debate things here that we agree about. We are not free to debate what we disagree about.

Disagreement leads to flamewars which are board killers. But still some debate is possible within th ebounds of what we agree on. The real leap in debate will be when we can post a legitimate viewpoint for those who we disagree with and still not get into a fight. We are not yet there. And it is most difficult in a topic such as this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 18:07 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 15 Apr 2006 06:47
Posts: 96
Location: Banavasi
prashanth wrote:
shiv wrote:


The question is - can we analyse history honestly and be honest both about violent, disruptive Islam and the mythical weakness of Hinduism?

i am willing to accept any argument so long as it explains facts as we see them.


IMO One cannot conclude that Hinduism was a weak, non violent religion throughout the history. King Ashoka showed otherwise.
But what really happened is that India had a long period of peace before the advent of islam and indians might have adapted themselves to peaceful life. Some barbaric tribes such as the Huns were assimilated into Indian culture.


From Vivekananda's essay East and the West

Quote:
The Vedas were the first to find and proclaim the way to Moksha, and from that one source, the Vedas, was taken whatever any great Teacher, say, Buddha or Christ, afterwards taught. Now, they were Sannyasins, and therefore they "had no enemy and were friendly and compassionate towards all". That was well and good for them. But why this attempt to compel the whole world to follow the same path to Moksha? "Can beauty be manufactured by rubbing and scrubbing? Can anybody's love be won by threats or force?" What does Buddha or Christ prescribe for the man who neither wants Moksha nor is fit to receive it? — Nothing! Either you must have Moksha or you are doomed to destruction — these are the only two ways held forth by them, and there is no middle course. You are tied hand and foot in the matter of trying for anything other than Moksha. There is no way shown how you may enjoy the world a little for a time; not only all openings to that are hermetically sealed to you, but, in addition, there are obstructions put at every step. It is only the Vedic religion which considers ways and means and lays down rules for the fourfold attainment of man, comprising Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Buddha ruined us, and so did Christ ruin Greece and Rome! Then, in due course of time, fortunately, the Europeans became Protestants, shook off the teachings of Christ as represented by Papal authority, and heaved a sigh of relief. In India, Kumârila again brought into currency the Karma-Mârga, the way of Karma only, and Shankara and Râmânuja firmly re-established the Eternal Vedic religion, harmonising and balancing in due proportions Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Thus the nation was brought to the way of regaining its lost life; but India has three hundred million souls to wake, and hence the delay. To revive three hundred millions — can it be done in a day?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Thanks!
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 18:13 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 15 Apr 2006 06:47
Posts: 96
Location: Banavasi
Shiv,

Thanks for your enlightening posts! My salutations for persisting with this topic over 5 years and ever so slowly guiding the debate and now presenting such a clear perspective on the state of affairs. It is fantastic!

Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 19:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3417
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
shiv wrote:
Do you believe a Muslim can participate freely on a board on which Islam is freely blamed and Muslims are accused of being anti-national?
Let a muslim member come in and make their points with truth as their sole guiding point. Truth, which is verifiable and can be proven and/or widely accepted. If the Quran can be given the same reverence as your book on Pakistan - where both are critiqued on this basis of verifable truths, then a discussion is possible.

I trust the admins will do their jobs of preventing any flame wars and I also trust the large majority of forum members will participate in a constructive discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 19:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:
Do you believe a Muslim can participate freely on a board on which Islam is freely blamed and Muslims are accused of being anti-national?
Let a muslim member come in and make their points with truth as their sole guiding point. Truth, which is verifiable and can be proven and/or widely accepted. If the Quran can be given the same reverence as your book on Pakistan - where both are critiqued on this basis of verifable truths, then a discussion is possible.


I find this statement highly idealistic and impossible to attain in practical reality. The whole concept of 'verifiable truth' that can be proven and/or widely accepted make the whole discussion ideological and detached from reality in my personal viewpoint.

What you will have, in fact, will be opinions. If the any member had an opinion that differs from anyone else's, both members have to recognize it as that and respect it. This is something that will never happen in here if the opinion is poles apart from what is being said. the tendency is to take it as an insult if someone disagrees with anyone else's opinion and that starts what is called as a Flame War or whatever.

Further, coming specifically to the issue of a Muslim member's participation...heck, you can be bombarded as being an anti-national even if you are not a muslim but one who says somethings along the lines of 'Maybe they have a point...' Further instances involve the cases of a person or member who has secular ideas being referred in a derogatory manner as one of those 'bleeding heart types'. This issue is predominant on this forum as of late in most of the discussions of this nature.

At best this issue is a very sticky topic that is steered away from to avoid trouble or heartburn during discussions. I hardly think any Muslim member would last here for more than a day. His very ID name is likely to draw hordes of others towards his posts.

In effect, any discussion of the sort that you propose will have to be done in a highly sanitized environment with everybody watching their langugae and the Admins keeping a continious and close eye on matters. Hardly a scenario for an open and free discussion, I would think...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 19:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22881
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:
Do you believe a Muslim can participate freely on a board on which Islam is freely blamed and Muslims are accused of being anti-national?
Let a muslim member come in and make their points with truth as their sole guiding point. Truth, which is verifiable and can be proven and/or widely accepted. If the Quran can be given the same reverence as your book on Pakistan - where both are critiqued on this basis of verifable truths, then a discussion is possible.

I trust the admins will do their jobs of preventing any flame wars and I also trust the large majority of forum members will participate in a constructive discussion.


Let me criticize you ShauryaT.

You set very high standards for people. Both in terms of understanding and in terms of what is required from forum members and admins.

Your standards may be met - but only over time, with a gradual period of evolution. Nothing will happen soon.

For the admin viewpoint there are simple rules that are crystal clear to me at the end of 10 years or so as admin.

Friendly AND intelligent AND informative debate cannot be forced by admin action. It can be fostered over time, but not forced.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 19:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3417
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
shiv wrote:
Friendly AND intelligent AND informative debate cannot be forced by admin action. It can be fostered over time, but not forced.
Critique accepted. Maybe, I am not being patient. But, it will be nice to get to the above. Is there another board, where such is possible?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 19:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27
Posts: 1419
ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:
Do you believe a Muslim can participate freely on a board on which Islam is freely blamed and Muslims are accused of being anti-national?
Let a muslim member come in and make their points with truth as their sole guiding point. Truth, which is verifiable and can be proven and/or widely accepted. If the Quran can be given the same reverence as your book on Pakistan - where both are critiqued on this basis of verifable truths, then a discussion is possible.

I trust the admins will do their jobs of preventing any flame wars and I also trust the large majority of forum members will participate in a constructive discussion.

Sir interesting and important that you mention that. One should only examine the 'Calcutta Quran petition' and judgment on it. The ramifications of that were Courts folded up by stating it is beyond the purview of it to pass judgments. In effect, 'hate speech' and 'incitement to kill non-believers' are out of bound topics for the esteemed 'courts', because it is in kitabh. Courts which routinely, ban books such as Lajja, or Satanic Verses, because they could provoke violence and hurtful for people, have no power even to decide whether to request expunge of harmful portions of the text, let alone taking the extreme step. Basically courts message is: guys please duke it outside the court. The legislature selectively allows topics to be openly criticized, inspite of secularness. So, muslims raise the bogey of 'Islam Katrey mey hain'. To which others think and respond "Islam Katrey mey hain' kyon ki 'woh Katrnaag hain'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 20:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22881
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
ShauryaT wrote:
Critique accepted. Maybe, I am not being patient. But, it will be nice to get to the above. Is there another board, where such is possible?


No. Not to my knowledge - not even the private board I alluded to in an earlier post.

YOU must help foster it here. It will take time. And patience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2008 23:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Posts: 856
Location: Badami
ShauryaT wrote:
Is India a land of Hindus (the religion)? or is India a land of multiple religions with a common culture? or is India a land of a synthesis of cultures and religions? Or is India a land with a wounded civilization of multiple nations assembled as a state through forces of history? or is India a Hindu (the culture) land?


First, very good post – I welcome this debate.

Let me suggest what I want India to be: A Democratic Republic – a nation-state that evolves for its citizens a Dharmic cultural path that sustains maximum benefits possible for even the most minimized in the society.

Also, we want to clear up some confusion. I choose to use Dharma (not Hindu – which is an alien word to our civilization) as the embodiment of what you suggest is “Hindu cultureâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 03:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31
Posts: 966
guys so on NDTV there a show hosted by Vikram:

Radical Islam & Hindutva: Can the two be equated ?

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/vi ... x?id=22128

Its under the NDTV special sections on their video zone webpage.


Salman Khurshid either is totally ignorant or is an expert at Taqqiya. He says radical Islam is not an Indian problem, its a problem outside India. Blissfully unaware of history of islamic onslaught in India by the invaders which is continued by some Indian Muslims who happen to be across our borders.

And I will be very surprised if Khursheed honestly believes that all these terrorist attacks against India has no support from the locals. That these outside terrorist come on tourist visa, bomb and then go away.

The most stupid point from him is Radical Islam's targets are muslims themselves and other become target only if they try to interfere. While hindutva's targets are non hindus and not hindus. On contrary according to hindutvadis, Hindutva stands for well being of indic religion of hinduism, buddhism, sikhism, jainism.

Perhaps by non hindus he meant muslims specifically. But then he should read what Al biruni wrote almost 1000 years ago. That its due to barbaric actions of invading muslim army that hindus hate us and are opposed to whatever is ours.

Goes to this extent that he says that Hinduism is not a revealed religion. He seems to think, a religion is revealed only if one person gets it.

Arun Shourie raised some good points as expected.

Overall the mistake all these panelist make, is that they want to see radical islam in light of events of modern times totally forgetting Islam's history/tendency since its inception.

Radical Islam can be summed up by one sentence from Sayad Qutub,

Quote:
Fiqh al-Da’wah by Sayyid Qutb, 217-222.

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (12/14):

Islam spread by means of proof and evidence to those who listened to the message and responded to it, and it spread by means of force and the sword to those who were stubborn and arrogant, until they were overwhelmed and became no longer stubborn, and submitted to that reality.


Picked up from: http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=43087 ... by%20sword


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 12:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Posts: 856
Location: Badami
Sumeet wrote:
guys so on NDTV there a show hosted by Vikram:


Good link Sumeet! I think Arun Shourie made good points, but he missed an opportunity to explain the difference in my opinion:

Islamist are searching for internal purity to regain orthodoxy and power in the political realm. This is a global phenomenon with spillover into India.
Argument: If we gain purity then we will be powerful – this rational belief which has an irrational outcome.
The outcome has been disastrous as seen in states such as Pakistan.

The end state for any system that is trying to reduce itself to a pure form is reduction itself.

Hindutva is trying to regain lost ground in the social/religious sphere by gaining political power. This is a India specific phenomenon.
Argument: If we gain political power then we will be able to mould society in our image – this is a very rational belief with a very rational outcome.
While based on perceived losses historically, the outcome will be social/religious change expedited at the speed and shape dictated by Hindutva

The end state here is Hindutva gains ground if the pseudo-secular system artificially tries to suppress the benign desire for fairness by the Dharmics. Expect more wins for leaders such as Modi, et. al. if the status quo is unchallenged.

Most revolutions happen not when things are terribly bad, but when they are about to get a bit better but is taking too long to get there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 13:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Posts: 856
Location: Badami
shiv wrote:
Once you freeze the definition of Indian Muslims as a fixed and predictable constant "K" we are still stuck with the problem of Hindu variability regarding exactly what constitutes "Islamic extremism"


Hindu variability on Islamic Extremism exists because many of the Hindus have been lead to believe that their belief is a non-religion.
A free “way of lifeâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 13:20 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 04 Jan 2003 12:31
Posts: 25
Quote:
Radical Islam & Hindutva: Can the two be equated ?


That such discussion took place is unbelievable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 15:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Posts: 308
Location: Bharatvarsha
vaman wrote:
Quote:
The advent of europeans changed the order. The british dismantled the islamic empire with the help of the Hindus, the native Indians .Hinduism, though subjucated by islamic rulers, survived under the protection of british, and its own


BS..
The islamic empire was all but dismantled by the Marathas and the Sikhs, there were some exceptions but to claim that the Britsh rid India of Islamic rule is entirely in-accurate.


Vaman:Point taken. The Marathas and Sikhs formed their kingdoms after defeating the Mughals. But their kingdoms did not cover entire India. Many Indian provinces were still ruled by Muslim rulers(especially in the east and in south). You cannot claim that marathas and sikhs ended islamic rule all over India. What do you say about the Nawabs of the east and the south?

Quote:
The Brits never provided any protection to hindus/ism. Thy just didnt discriminate between Hindu/Muslim when looting.



Forget about looting of money. The british didn't do in India what the spanish and portuguese did in brazil, argentina etc... On the contrary, by defeating many islamic kings they put an end to forced religious cnversions, jeziya and razakars. Make no mistake, Im not supporting the british, but thses are the facts.


T
Quote:
he Hindu is a hindu's greatest enemy.our history is riddled with instances where a hindu sided with an invader just to settle scores with another hindu(mostly a relative) a hindu is internally as brave/meek as a muslim. The only difference is something which is external... ie the relegious sanction for muslims to use any means to convert non peelievars.


Agreed.

Surinder: I never meant that India belonged to muslims before the british came here. The muslim rulers were dominated India at that time and they are gone for good.

Rather than being proud that muslim kings once ruled India, the pakis must be ashamed of their religious fanaticism, and the way Muslim kings rule, even today in KSA.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 16:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3417
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
prashanth wrote:
Forget about looting of money. The british didn't do in India what the spanish and portuguese did in brazil, argentina etc... On the contrary, by defeating many islamic kings they put an end to forced religious cnversions, jeziya and razakars. Make no mistake, Im not supporting the british, but thses are the facts.
Most certainly. What do these facts convey? Should we thank the British for not making the rape as physical and as brutal as some others did in other parts of the world?

Is a rape largely limited to the economic, social and political spheres more acceptable to the macuaylized mind?

Is the British colonists, what a tamed version of Islam, look like? I bring the analogy due to the differences in approach in exploitation and administration of colonies, which seem to indicate the differences in theology. i.e: the difference between catholics and protestants. Although, the physical rape of the natives of North America, was done by the very same British and their descendants. In India, Goa suffered the catholic fever of the portugese and their violence. These points seem to indicate that race theory has as much to do with colonialism as religious fever. So, how does one explain the differences in approach of rape. Maybe the Americas were more physically desirable to the Europeans than India was?

Is a non-physical rape more acceptable to most Sanatanis? Is that the message?

To me, it shows the limitations of a non-spiritualized society. A limitation clearly represented in the geo-political order of today. So India, be forewarned, the same vultures are out there is the message.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 17:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Nov 2007 20:06
Posts: 227
Admin note:

We are gong to stick to Islamic extremism here.

If anything is going to get discussed in a level headed and mature manner it is going to have to be by the rule I set.

Thanks

shiv


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 19:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21
Posts: 146
shiv wrote:

Shiba you are telling history the way it has usually been taught.

"Hindus are weak. Hindus are non violent. But only now, under extreme provocation, they are fighting a bit"

How about looking at the same thing from a different angle.

Hindus were fighters, perfectly capable of waging war and being violent. They just did not unite and fight over religion. That led to their eventual subjugation from islam that attacked Hinduism in areas that Hindus were not equipped to cope with. Hindusism went "underground" into non violent mode and survived and actually forced changes in islam. And after a few centuries, Hindus have once again gained the political power they lost and are now showing that they too can slaughter and massacre as well as the next guy.

The question is - can we analyse history honestly and be honest both about violent, disruptive Islam and the mythical weakness of Hinduism?

i am willing to accept any argument so long as it explains facts as we see them.

Shiv, seems you misunderstood me. I posted on the forced conversion to Hinduism as a myth. I am not advoating the theory that Hindus were dhimi, weak, non-violent. The wars and battles involving Hindu kings have been too well documented to even contemplate this; it is just that they never got together to fight for their religion, it is already covered.

Quote:
Over the years I have come across several pointers towards what people consider as Islamic extremism...Denying any one of the points on my list will lead to people falling on the denier like a ton of bricks. So no Muslim can participate unless he agrees. It is therefore a board for agreement, not debate. I do participate in a board for debate - but it is not this one. We do debate things here that we agree about. We are not free to debate what we disagree about.

I don't see how BRfites oppose Muslims (except may be fringes), it is the rabid extremism practised by Islamic fanatics and the tacit accetance/ encouragement by successive GoIs post-independence that is targeted the most. I might be wrong though, you have seen much more of BRF than me.

P.S.: The posts have been so enlightening here. I bow before the collective knowledge in this thread. Zimply amaazing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 20:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Posts: 2437
Location: Ahmedabad, India ; Bring JurySys ; http://fb.com/MehtaRahulC
Pulikeshi wrote:
Let me suggest what I want India to be: A Democratic Republic – ....


The word democracy means a system where in people have procedures to expel/replace and elect ALL important officials, which would include SCjs, HCjs, district police chiefs, RBI-chief etc. Democracy would also would also mean a regime where in citizens (Jurors) and only citizens have power to punish.

Is that a system you want?

----

I am asking ONLY because you are using the word democracy.

.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 20:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Posts: 308
Location: Bharatvarsha
ShauryaT wrote:
prashanth wrote:
Forget about looting of money. The british didn't do in India what the spanish and portuguese did in brazil, argentina etc... On the contrary, by defeating many islamic kings they put an end to forced religious cnversions, jeziya and razakars. Make no mistake, Im not supporting the british, but thses are the facts.
Most certainly. What do these facts convey? Should we thank the British for not making the rape as physical and as brutal as some others did in other parts of the world?

Is a rape largely limited to the economic, social and political spheres more acceptable to the macuaylized mind?
Is the British colonists, what a tamed version of Islam, look like? I bring the analogy due to the differences in approach in exploitation and administration of colonies, which seem to indicate the differences in theology. i.e: the difference between catholics and protestants. Although, the physical rape of the natives of North America, was done by the very same British and their descendants. In India, Goa suffered the catholic fever of the portugese and their violence. These points seem to indicate that race theory has as much to do with colonialism as religious fever. So, how does one explain the differences in approach of rape. Maybe the Americas were more physically desirable to the Europeans than India was?

Is a non-physical rape more acceptable to most Sanatanis? Is that the message?

To me, it shows the limitations of a non-spiritualized society. A limitation clearly represented in the geo-political order of today. So India, be forewarned, the same vultures are out there is the message.


Shaurya: You appear to have very little idea of how indians suffered under the rule of islamic kings.
The sultans, moghuls and their likes used extreme physical torture and tried to wipe out hinduism as far as possible.
Read this:
http://www.sandeepweb.com/2007/06/14/book-review-aavarana/

Islamic rulers lacked civility, and their sole intention was to torture and exterminate what they called kafirs. On the other hand the British were here purely to make economic profit. Tell me, which is better being poor or being dead?
The british atleast did some help to India in by establishing railways, survey of India, postal system etc. They gave us english which you and I today use today without the slightest gratitude to them,and because of which our so called IT sector,BPO exist . With the help of lord william bentinck, Raja ram mohan roy put an end to sati.


Now, could you have expected this from the islamic rulers. Would you be happy with sharia and talaq?On the contrary, much of our constitution is based on the govt of India act,1935.We can attribute the parlimentary form of govt to the british. I say do not blindly critisize the british for every thing they did. Give the devil its due!
Like it or not, the advent of the british to India was of some help. Many of the literary works of renaissance era in Europe got hold of india through english, and dont forget this gave a big push to our freedom fighters.Could you expect the din-e-ilahi do this work?

And for heavens sake stop overusing the word rape.
Agreed, Indians faced the brutality of british. That is condemnable. But of what use is venting out anger today is?

Merely highlighting good things that the british did to India does not make me a macaulayite, as you imply. In now way is this an outright support to the Raj.


Quote:
To me, it shows the limitations of a non-spiritualized society. A limitation clearly represented in the geo-political order of today. So India, be forewarned, the same vultures are out there is the message.


Precisely, we should not shy away form fortifying ourselves. Whoever those vultures are, british, mullahs, america ,china, India's task is to fortify itself so that history does not repeat. And for this we must call a spade a spade. The more you hide inside the well of ignorance the more will you suffer.
Again, make no mistake, I am not calling the british good samaritans, but let us see facts as facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 20:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Posts: 856
Location: Badami
Vijnan wrote:
Quote:
Radical Islam & Hindutva: Can the two be equated ?


That such discussion took place is unbelievable.


Perhaps NDTV reads BRF :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 22:33 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53
Posts: 86
I don’t get it what comparision is there between Islamists and Hinduvta.

Islamism and its extremism is constantly evident in Indian history. But in India if institutionalized denial goes on than India is doomed. One don’t have to go far let’s take the example of Kerala. As recent as in 1921 “Moplahâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 22:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Posts: 292
Location: The Netherlands
Shiv wrote : < Being non vegetarian and smelling different. >

Although I am a vegetarian, I don´t have a problem with others eating meat, even beef. I think it´s none of my bussiness what others eat. Also, I am not in the habbit of sniffing other people out. :D

I do however have a problem with the manner in which Muslims slaughter animals, they could at least try to minimize the suffering of those poor animals. Both Christians and Muslims believe that animals are there to be used as they please. In the West they don´t slaughter animals in the open like in Muslim countries ( in India too, particularly after Ramadan, it´s sickening to see all that blood ) but their treatment of animals is equally cruel.

We should also keep in mind that many Hindu´s too eat meat ( except beef of course ).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 23:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31
Posts: 1184
deleted. news item already posted.


Last edited by Rye on 14 Jan 2008 00:11, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 23:35 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53
Posts: 86
ShauryaT wrote

Quote:
On the contrary, by defeating many islamic kings they put an end to forced religious cnversions, jeziya and razakars. Make no mistake, Im not supporting the british, but thses are the facts.


We still need to be very careful in generalizing that statement. We should not forget the Sikhs and Jats in Northern India had already subdued these Islamic customs and realities. Infact Islam was at the recieving end when British came. Infact Islam benefited in these areas with the coming of British.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2008 23:59 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 12 Jan 2008 04:46
Posts: 11
Pulikeshi wrote:
Peace will come only when the struggle against the unbeliever is an internal struggle - with no sanction for an external struggle.
This is but one illustration of Dharmic arbitrage - there are many more.


Can you please explain what do you mean by internal struggle and how it can be put in practice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 00:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31
Posts: 1184
This "internal struggle" and "external struggle" seems very similar to the whole "internal jihad" vs. "external jihad" "enlightened moderate" philosophy that Musharraf keeps spouting about. But I guess the point here is that "the hindu way" of resolving issues is by understanding oneself better, which leads to be a better understanding of the problem --- all religions seem to have threads of such thinking in them, even Islam...unfortunately in the case of Islam, "enforcing the supremacy of islam" and "maintaining purity" (by remaining separate from other communities by forming oil droplets) have come to occupy the thinking of religious muslims in India and elsewhere, it appears.


Last edited by Rye on 14 Jan 2008 00:27, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 00:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Posts: 292
Location: The Netherlands
Prashant wrote : < Forget about looting of money. The british didn't do in India what the spanish and portuguese did in brazil, argentina etc... On the contrary, by defeating many islamic kings they put an end to forced religious cnversions, jeziya and razakars. Make no mistake, Im not supporting the british, but thses are the facts. >

Shaurya´s reply : < Most certainly. What do these facts convey? Should we thank the British for not making the rape as physical and as brutal as some others did in other parts of the world?

Is a rape largely limited to the economic, social and political spheres more acceptable to the macuaylized mind?
>

The European sea pirates/colonizers didn´t do to the Asian countries what they did to the native Americans because it made more economic sense to let the Asians ( Chinese, Indians, Indonesians, Vietnames, etc. ) live and slave for them. The Asians had highly developed economies, they produced goods the Europeans wanted, highly developed trade systems, on the other hand the native Americans just produced enough to support themselves and they were not very good at being slaves. So the Europeans decided to de-populate the America´s, seize the land and import slaves from Africa and Asia ( Chinese and Indians ).

Please do not represent the British as being ´more moral´ then the Spaniards or Portuguese because the Brits didn´t resort to wholesale slaughter in India. The Brits were just as ruthless in North America as the Spaniards and Portuguese were in what is now known as Latin America.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 00:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Posts: 292
Location: The Netherlands
This may be off topic.

Quote : < The british atleast did some help to India in by establishing railways, survey of India, postal system etc. They gave us english which you and I today use today without the slightest gratitude to them,and because of which our so called IT sector,BPO exist . With the help of lord william bentinck, Raja ram mohan roy put an end to sati. >

Oh boy !

The railways ´the British gave´ to India were paid for by the Indians. The Brits needed the railways to quicly move troops from one part of India to another and to transport the booty to the ports. Also, when did the Brits allow ordinary Indians to use the railways for travel ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 02:11 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53
Posts: 86
Quote:
The british atleast did some help to India in by establishing railways, survey of India, postal system etc. They gave us english which you and I today use today without the slightest gratitude to them,and because of which our so called IT sector,BPO exist . With the help of lord william bentinck, Raja ram mohan roy put an end to sati.


As Multatuli said Railways was to consolidate its grip on India and to subdue any revolt. English well it is better know as Macaulism and we are all aware of its losses on our society as a whole.

And lastly Raja Ram Mohan Roy, single man who is responsible for abolishment of Sanskrit from India. He staunchly apposed establishment of Sanskrit colleges during his time. If some good is done but at what cost. its all debatable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 03:34 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 15 Apr 2006 06:47
Posts: 96
Location: Banavasi
If Brits caused 90% damage and Mohmeddians 95% it is just matter of degree. No need to spare them. No need to spare anybody who caused any damage just because somebody else caused more damage.

Coming back to the thread topic, Santhana Dharma can mount appropriate responses to different challenges.

Sanatana Dharma can spawn a "religious" response to Abrahamic "religions" like christism, mohammedism etc. in the form of Hindu religion whose adherents can "kill to protect their beliefs".

It can spawn a political response like Hindutva to take on political beasts like secularism.

It can respond culturally to cultural opponents like English, Hollywood and McDs.

It can respond economically to economic challenges.

So though Sanatana Dharma is not "just a religion" it will mount a religious response to a religious adversary like Islam which I think is good. We need to be confident in our ability to not forget that our Dharma is more than religion while battling Islam and Xtianity using Hindu religion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 03:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Posts: 2174
Location: Dark side of the moon
An important component to tackling adharmic extremism is freeing all out temples from state control. Temples ought to br treated as private religious trusts- the same as Gurudwaras or churches. HP's PK Dhumal recently did so in HP.

Temple funds can and should be used to fund welfare programs from mass-langars to proslytization, oops, propagation of the good word of dharma.

Entities such as the Arya samaj are needed tobe replicated ona mass scale and all temple priests can and should be given license to convert folk, anyone who is interested in a walk in interview, to the path of dharma.

Rights and privileges available to minority edu institutions should be available to dharmic/indic ones too. Pronto.

And so on.

IOW, let secular non-interference w.r.t Hindu orgs be practised in constitutinal letter and establishment spirit.

JMTs etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 04:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3417
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
prashanth wrote:
Shaurya: You appear to have very little idea of how indians suffered under the rule of islamic kings. .....
....Merely highlighting good things that the british did to India does not make me a macaulayite, as you imply. In now way is this an outright support to the Raj.
.....


Precisely, we should not shy away form fortifying ourselves. Whoever those vultures are, british, mullahs, america ,china, India's task is to fortify itself so that history does not repeat. And for this we must call a spade a spade. The more you hide inside the well of ignorance the more will you suffer.
Again, make no mistake, I am not calling the british good samaritans, but let us see facts as facts.
Parshanth: I will not respond to your post, you seem to be new here, so welcome. I am glad that you have posted the above but let us stick to the thread topic. Also, hang around these threads, I have learnt many things over the years. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 04:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3417
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
indygill wrote:
ShauryaT wrote

Quote:
On the contrary, by defeating many islamic kings they put an end to forced religious cnversions, jeziya and razakars. Make no mistake, Im not supporting the british, but thses are the facts.


We still need to be very careful in generalizing that statement. We should not forget the Sikhs and Jats in Northern India had already subdued these Islamic customs and realities. Infact Islam was at the recieving end when British came. Infact Islam benefited in these areas with the coming of British.


Indygill: Those words are not mine.

Also, Multatuli: Please read my complete post, I am not sparing the British as being more moral. I clearly have referred to race theory and the genocide against the Natives in North America.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 04:47 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53
Posts: 86
vsudhir

Quote:
An important component to tackling adharmic extremism is freeing all out temples from state control.


Do you know what govt. institutions are controlling them? Because they claim that they are all controlled by temple boards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 04:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3417
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
JCage wrote:
Who defines what religion is? Why should we stick to the western depictions of religion alone! Hinduism, if you said was a religion and a way of life- it would be correct. But not the latter, and not the former.
JCage: Will request you to look at some of my other posts and am sure you will understand my positions, as of today.

One more request, to you or anyone: If someone can tell me where does Hinduism the religion ends and Hinduism the way of life starts, It will be very helpful.

I am not being lazy on the issue. I have scanned and all my readings lead me to believe the delineation is not possible. (Maybe I am dense) If you can post or link here on or off line references, I will be thankful. If Admins or others deem this to be OT, Please email me at shauryatatpatmediadotnet.

I am having the same debate, somewhere else, but that debate, if I do not get it right, will have consequences for me. TIA.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 04:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Posts: 2174
Location: Dark side of the moon
Quote:
Do you know what govt. institutions are controlling them? Because they claim that they are all controlled by temple boards.


IIRC, state governments have nominated seats on temple boards. The joke is that instances where commies (in Kerala) and xtians (in AP) have also been nominated to temple boards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 05:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3417
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
indygill wrote:
vsudhir

Quote:
An important component to tackling adharmic extremism is freeing all out temples from state control.


Do you know what govt. institutions are controlling them? Because they claim that they are all controlled by temple boards.
article 29 of the constitution is the culprit.

[quote]This article shows how the Indian government is purposely jeopardizing the future of Hindu temples.

With a little attention, anyone can see how Hindu institutions and Hinduism in India are unfairly targeted by a combination of Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists, vote bank politics and unscrupulous politicians and businessmen. Particularly alarming is the destruction of Hindu institutions and illegal mass conversions by other religions.

Through the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, Hindu temples and Maths are taken over by state Governments in the name of better administration, while mosques and churches are completely autonomous. This Act allowed the state governments and politicians complete control over the temples and their property. Many abuses are committed by multiple state governments using the power accorded through this Act.

In Andhra Pradesh under Chief Minister Y. Samuel Rajasekar Reddy, tens of thousands of acres of temple lands are sold away leaving temples with little economic basis. This is done without the permission of the local Hindu community. The state government and the endowments department whose duty is to safeguard the temple properties have turned a blind eye to such encroachments or take overs of temple properties. The state government recently went to the extent of regularizing encroachments at nominal prices. These encroachments are often found to be closely associated to various political parties.

In Andhra Pradesh, Hindu temples, institutions and Hinduism itself are illegally targeted by the crusade of the government. Under the Temple Empowerment Act, about 34,000 temples are under government control. Only 18% of the revenue of these temples is said to be given back for temple purposes, while the remaining 82% is used for other things by the government at their discretion. Such looting, massive sale of temple lands, demolition of temples, encroachments of temple properties, and the utilization of aggressive religious conversion tactics by Christians in the vicinity of temples is occurring all over Andhra Pradesh. The government, which is supposed to be a protector has become a destroyer of the culture, which threatens the very existence of Hindu institutions.

Even the world famous sacred temple at Tirumala-Tirupati is not spared. The government attempted to take over 5 out of 7 Tirumala hills for churches and tourism. The 1000 pillar Mantapam in Tirumala was illegally demolished. Recently in response to Sri Chinnajeeyar Swami's petition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared the demolition illegal and instructed the TTD management at Tirupati to reconstruct it. If anyone has seen the Tirupati temple and the difference there is without the 1000 pillar hall, it is shocking.

The Andhra Pradesh government also allowed the demolition of at least 10 temples for the construction of a golf course. The son of the Chief Minister even blew up the Sunkulamma Hindu Temple in Anantapur, and his brother Vivekananda Reddy, by constructing his own building, has encroached on Gurukula trust lands worth crores of rupees. While taking extra precautions to protect churches and mosques with money from the state treasury, the government has been selling or donating, for various government schemes and non-Hindu purposes, tens of thousands of acres of temple lands worth thousands of crores of rupees that are meant for the perpetual sustenance of the temples. This will irreparably cripple Hindu institutions.

Temples and Maths that did not earlier come under government supervision are taken into government control for selling away their lands. The charge that 85 percent of the revenues is taken by the state exchequer was not denied by the state government. The State Endowment Board with 77,000 employees, all of whom are supported by 15-18 percent of the income from 33,000 temples, has done little for the welfare of the Hindu institutions. At the same time, priests of temples are penniless and temples are decaying due to lack of maintenance. Hindu priests do not want to train children in priestly activities for lack of economical basis. This seems to be the goal of the government to systematically wipe out Vedic culture in general across India.

Even while this is going on, the AP government pays 12,000 rupees per pilgrim for the Haj trip to Mecca, and is considering proposals to pay Christians for trips to Bethlehem. At the same time, the government has imposed a 50% raise on the fares of state buses on MahaShivaratri day, like a tax that takes advantage of the Hindu community and makes it even more difficult for them to observe their own holidays. Furthermore, the most important Hindu holidays, such as RamaNavami, are being taken off the government holiday list to be replaced by secular holidays.

The net result of this strategic and planned selling of all temple properties, along with taxing the Hindu community while providing funds for Christian purposes, seems to be designed to systematically and completely cripple Hindu institutions in the state with little hope for their survival. The Andhra Pradesh government Order 21 gave crores (tens of millions) of rupees for the renovation and construction of churches, thus, helping to pave the way for major Christianization of the state using illegal techniques for mass conversions. Almost all these activities are a violation of the Indian constitution that is supposed to separate the state and religion. The government also controls the media that ignore any Hindu representation. Even the rare newspapers like Eenadu that do represent the Hindu view of things are persecuted by unfair tax raids, and attempts to stop their Hindu devotional telecasts. They then use the secular news media to spread false claims of attacks on Christians by fundamentalist Hindus, and to defame popular Vedic saints who make great strides for the Dharmic cause. Their next step has been to convert movie stars to gain influential voices, and with large amounts of money buy the cooperation of politicians.

Activities in other parts of India include providing provisions to the poor, as long as they convert to Christianity. I have also seen where hospitals provide free medical care, such as for women giving birth to babies, as long as they sign papers that say they convert to Christianity. Or new water wells established in a poor village, but in front of a church where the pastor makes sure no non-believers are allowed to draw water. Or large corporations hire people for upper management only if they are Christian. In these and other ways, the plan is to convert with goods and allurements.

Other strategies include that Hindus and tribals are told that the worship of Vedic gods is actually the worship of the devil or Satan. Also create a fear in them of hell that can only be rectified by accepting Christianity, and tell them that they remain poor because they have not converted. The newly converted are asked to make other converts, and to destroy Vedic temples to prove their dedication to their new faith. These are all strategies that often involve trickery and lies that actually go against the real teachings of Jesus.

In Karnataka, for example, in 2003, as reported by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and in “India Todayâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2008 05:04 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 04 Jan 2003 12:31
Posts: 25
indygill wrote:
And lastly Raja Ram Mohan Roy, single man who is responsible for abolishment of Sanskrit from India. He staunchly apposed establishment of Sanskrit colleges during his time. If some good is done but at what cost. its all debatable.


Raja Ram Mohan Roy also wanted "idol worship" to be a criminal offense, he petitioned the British for it. He also presented himself as being more monotheist than the Christians, ridiculing the concept of trinity.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 321 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group