FAMOUS HINDUS AND SCHOLARS ON HINDUISM

“THEY” SAID IT:

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

Dr. Radhakrishnan, ex-President of India and an eminent interpreter of Hinduism, as quoted in India: An Introduction by Khushwant Singh, New Delhi, 1990.

[Hinduism is] “… a name without any content… Its content, if any, has altered from age to age, from community to community. It meant one thing in the Vedic period, another in the Brahmanical, a third in the Buddhist [1] - one to Saivite, another to Vaishnavite and Sakta.”
(Dr. Radhakrishnan was the second President of independent India).

Jawaharlal Nehru, *The Discovery of India, New Delhi, 1983, p.75. *

“Hinduism, as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many-sided, all things to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word. In its present form, and even in the past, it embraces many beliefs and practices, from the highest to the lowest, often opposed to or contradicting each other.”
(Pandit Nehru was the first Prime Minister of independent India during 1947-64).

M.K Gandhi,* Hindu Dharma, New Delhi, 1991, p. 120. *

“Hinduism does not rest on the authority of one book or one prophet, nor does it possess a common creed - like the Kalma [sic.] of Islam - acceptable to all. That renders a common definition of Hinduism a bit difficult.”
(Mahatma Gandhi is known as the Father of the Nation, India).

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, *What Congress and Gandhi have done to Untouchables? *

“Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors. The sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas, Smritis and Shastras, the iron law of caste, the heartless law of karma and the senseless law of status by birth are to the Untouchables veritable instruments of torture which Hinduism has forged against untouchables. These very instruments which have mutilated; blasted and blighted the lives of the Untouchables are to be found intact and untarnished in the bosom of Gandhism."
(Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was the first Law Minister of independent India. He was the head of the committee that drafted the constitution of India, and he is known as the Father of Indian Constitution.).

Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 178.

“Frankly speaking, it is not possible to say definitely who is a Hindu and what is Hinduism. These questions have been considered again and again by eminent scholars, and so far no satisfactory answer has been given. Hinduism has within itself all types of religions such as theism, atheism, polytheism, Adwitism, Dwaitism, Saivism, Vaishnavism, and so forth. (emphasis added). It contains nature worship, ancestor worship, animal worship, idol worship, demon worship, symbol worship, self worship, and the highest god worship. Its conflicting philosophies will confound any ordinary person. From barbarious practices and dark superstitions, up to the most mystic rites and sublime philosophies, there is place for all gradations and varieties in Hinduism. Similarly, among the Hindu population are found half barbarian wild tribes, and depressed classes and untouchables, along with small numbers of cultured, gentle natures and highly evolved souls.”

Khushwant Singh, India: An Introduction, New Delhi, 1990, p. 19.

“Hinduism defies definition… It has no specific creed.”

Ardersir Sorabjee* as quoted in Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 178.*

“Their (Hindus’) religion is a standing travesty of ancient Hinduism, consisting as it does of rank idolatry mixed with superstition and fetishism of the most degrading type. They believe in the worship of their innumerable devas or good spirits and the propitiation of an equally large number of demons and evil spirits, both of which they assume have their resting places on earth in their idols of stone and marble, gold and silver.”

Sir Alfred Lyll* as quoted in Modern Hinduism by Wilkins, London, 1975, p. 310. *

“… the religion of the non-Mohamedan [2] population of India is a tangled jungle of disorderly superstitions, ghosts and demons, demi-gods, and deified saints, household gods, local gods, tribal gals, universal gods, with their countless shrines and temples, and the din of their discordant rites; deities who abhor a fly’s death; those who still delight in human sacrifices.”

P. Thomas, Hindu Religion, Customs and Manners, p.21.*

“Hinduism is not a religion established by a single person. It is a growth of ideas, rituals and beliefs so comprehensive as to include anything between atheism and pantheism. (emphasis added). Having grown out of the practices and speculations of various communities that were admitted into the Hindu fold at different times, Hinduism, as it stands at present, has very few set of dogmas. A formal recognition of the Vedas as revealed wisdom is all that is required for a Hindu to be known as such. But the latitude permitted in interpreting the Vedas is so wide that the atheistic Sankhya philosophy of Kapila and the polytheism of the Puranas are both recognized as Orthodox.”

Percival Spear, India: A Modern History, Michigan, 1961, p.40.

“The more Hinduism is considered, the more difficult it becomes to define it in a single phrase… A Hindu may have any religious belief or none; he may be an atheist or an agnostic and still be an accepted Hindu… It is public opinion working through the caste system which determines whether someone shall or shall not be regarded as a Hindu.”

The Economist, June 8, 1991, p. 22, col. l.

“Hinduism is far more unstructured than most other religions. It has no archbishops, chief rabbis, grand muftis. Each Hindu decides for himself which manifestations of God are most important to him, what scriptures to accept as authentic, which holy man to follow. The one ineluctable certainty is a person’s dharma.”

Footnotes:
[1] Buddhism founded by Gautoma Buddha is a religion different from Hinduism but the Brahmans made Buddha an incarnation of Hindu god Vishnu in order to make Buddhism a part of Hinduism.
[2] There is no such thing as ‘Mohamedan.’ The name of the religion is Islam and its followers are Muslims.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif


V~V~VHe came, He saw, He conqueredV~V~V**

Got Dharma?

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

Good Work Watcher.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/ok.gif

Our job is to let them know.
Hidaya comes from God for those who wants it.


Performace of good DEEDS avoids the evil ending.
He, who advises for the GOOD, is similar (in rewards)to the doer of it.
(Sahih Al-Jami 3797 & 3399 resp.)

[This message has been edited by Aapca (edited October 14, 2000).]

and the point was?

…come on man, you can’t afford to miss the point.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif


V~V~VHe came, He saw, He conqueredV~V~V**

i think i dun see any! everyone knows hinduism isnt one concrete thing, so whatz the big deal?

All thier sayings clash with each other!!

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif

Which one is right???

can’t Hindus ever agree??

I don’t get which one is right or wrong(all of them are wrong)

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif


Dil, Dil Pakistan
Jaan, Jann Pakistan!

desert fox,

you are so funny!

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif

how come with al the contradictions hindoos
dont kill each other except in cases of high caste and low castes which is color
and class diferences?. how with all the confusion and chaos thousands of languages
and 1000 years of alien rule were able to survive and also remain democratic elect
one primeminister for 1 billion peole.

on the other hand arabs with all the advantage of one religen one language
one god are devided and are not able to come under one leader under one god to take their
rightful place among nations.

it looks like indians are more islamic in practice than what they appear to be

[quote]
Originally posted by rvikz:
how come with al the contradictions hindoos
dont kill each other except in cases of high caste and low castes which is color
and class diferences?. ....
....it looks like indians are more islamic in practice than what they appear to be

[/quote]

Killing people because of their color is islamic?

[quote]
on the other hand arabs with all the advantage of one religen one language one god are devided and are not able to come under one leader under one god to take their
rightful place among nations.

[/quote]

Why do they need to come under one leader? Btw, don't generalize, Arabs are not all the same. What's wrong with being able to retain your own distinct culture, be it egyptian,syrian,lebanese,etc.? What matters is that a muslim is a brother to another muslim. Its perfectly alright in islam to retain your own ethnic identity, but it should never interfere with or hamper your committment to Islam.

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may get to **know* each other (not that you would despise each other).*(49:13)

islam does not accept colr differnces but the people who practise are still have human weakneses. i am sure you must have heard of african muslim being killed in libya recently

rkviz,

Libya is in Africa (where is your sense of geography)

Murders happen all over the place!
Islam comdemms the murder of an other muslim!
Why look at us look at your self first(hindus) killing for the sake of caste!!


Dil, Dil Pakistan
Jaan, Jann Pakistan!

caste system exist among the muslims in south asia

[quote]
Originally posted by rvikz:
*caste system exist among the muslims in south asia *
[/quote]

So, that is your excuse to have even worst caste system in hinduism? At least "other" caste system of asia do not kill each other like hindus do to their fellow hindus. Its a shame for a religion to treat on human being better than the other. Its just shameful.


*V~V~V*He came, He saw, He conquered*V~V~V*

[quote]
Originally posted by The Watcher:
** Its a shame for a religion to treat on human being better than the other. Its just shameful.

**
[/quote]

So Kafirs are fully equal to Believers?

astrosfan

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the KAFFIRS (non believers) can not treated the same as the muslims (believers). Why? because it says so in the Quran and here are just a few examples out of many many more.

008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.


009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.


009.123
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).


caste system is is the major weakness and fundamental problem of india. actualy it benefitted mughals to take over india since
large percentage of people not integrated in to the system making it easier for outsiders
take advantage of divisions among the the people .caste system is introduced by fair-skinned so called aryans who are not indigenoius to india . before the arival of
aryans there was no caste system . all the
present troubles facing pakistan and india
were caused by the outsiders like mughals aryans

Sanjhabanda, thank you for your question.

A few selected verses from the Qur’an are often misquoted to perpetuate the myth that Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to kill those outside the pale of Islam.

The answer to your post is exactly the same for each of the verses you have quoted. Therefore I will take one example i.e. your reference to Chapter 9, Verse 5.

The following verse from Surah Taubah is very often quoted by critics of Islam, to show that Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and brutality:

"Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them."
[Al-Qur’an 9:5]

Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 9:5]

This verse is quoted during a battle.

We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote
him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.

Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, "Kill the Mushriqs where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.

Arun Shourie is one of the staunchest critics of Islam in India. He quotes the same verse, Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 in his book ‘The World of Fatwahs’, on page 572. After quoting verse 5 he jumps to verse 7 of Surah Taubah. Any sensible person will realise that he has skipped verse 6.

Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:

"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."
[Al-Qur’an 9:6]

The Qur’an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?

This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an to promote peace in the world.

Therefore, before taking verses from the Qur'an and trying to attach the wrong ideas to it, I suggest that you do your homework. For each of the verses you have referred to in your post has either been misqouted, mistranslated or it has been quoted completely out of context. For some of your references, all of these points are true.


They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

Partypooper

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 9:5]

Muslims consider Quran word of God and also last word which cannot be changed. I don't think because of Muhammad's fights with a few non-muslims, God will condemn all non-muslims for all time to come and make this and other similare verses part of the scipture. This will be extreme generalization and revengeful act...punishment inflicted on innocent people.

Now consider this..Sikh gurus and many Sikhs were tortured and killed by muslim rulers and their armies and betrayed by muslims, they never condenm average muslims or preached hatred against them.

Rani, thanks for responding...

[quote]
Originally posted by Rani:
**
Muslims consider Quran word of God and also last word which cannot be changed. I don't think because of Muhammad's fights with a few non-muslims, God will condemn all non-muslims for all time to come and make this and other similare verses part of the scipture. This will be extreme generalization and revengeful act...punishment inflicted on innocent people.

**
[/quote]

Rani, I agree fully with what you are saying. The Qur'an's meaning is entirely different. The meaning and the context of that verse has been misused by some non-muslims and misunderstood by many muslims themselves. In order to understand the verse, the whole chapter is important right from the start. In fact, 3 of the references given by sanjhabanda came from this same chapter. The other reference was to the previous chapter. So there should be no confusion.

[quote]
Originally posted by Rani:
**
Now consider this..Sikh gurus and many Sikhs were tortured and killed by muslim rulers and their armies and betrayed by muslims, they never condenm average muslims or preached hatred against them.
**
[/quote]

As before, I agree with you again. There is a true parable which is interesting here.
Adolf Hitler was a christian. He killed millions of people. Do we blame the fact that he was a christian for these massacres?

If you want to judge how good is the latest model of the "Mercedes" car and a person who does not know how to drive sits at the steering wheel and bangs up the car, who will you blame? The car or the driver? But naturally, the driver. To analyse how good the car is, a person should not look at the driver but see the ability and features of the car. How fast is it, what is its average fuel consumption, what are the safety measures, etc. Even if I agree for the sake of argument that the Muslims are bad, we can’t judge Islam by its followers? If you want to judge how good Islam is then judge it according to its authentic sources, i.e. the Glorious Qur’an and the Sahih Hadith. As Rani said, this is also the same with Sikhism.

If you practically want to check how good a car is put an expert driver behind the steering wheel. Similarly the best and the most exemplary follower of Islam by whom you can check how good Islam is, is the last and final messenger of God, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Besides Muslims, there are several honest and unbiased non-Muslim historians who have acclaimed that prophet Muhammad was the best human being. According to Michael H. Hart who wrote the book, ‘The Hundred Most Influential Men in History’, the topmost position, i.e. the number one position goes to the beloved prophet of Islam, Muhammad (pbuh). There are several such examples of non-Muslims paying great tributes to the prophet, like Thomas Carlyle, La-Martine, etc.


They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited October 17, 2000).]