It is not conversion ZZ.
Just reverting back
There were pandits in middle ages who got damn impressed by mohammad and wrote ‘mohammadopanishad’. Still there are blokes who would argue that ‘kalki awtar’ was mohammad. I think, if Aurangzeb had lost the battle with Dara Shikoh, we would have had plenty of ‘mohammadean hindus’ in subcontinent.
on The Laws of Manu
http://www.freespeech.org/manushi/117/manusmriti.html
From Manusmriti to Madhusmriti
Flagellating a Mythical Enemy
by Madhu Kishwar
On March 25 of this year, copies of Manusmriti were burnt by reformers protesting against the ill-conceived installation of the statue of Manu in the precincts of the Rajasthan High Court. The protestors believed that the text is the defining document of Brahmanical Hinduism, and also the key source of gender and caste oppression in India. In the ensuing controversy defenders of Manusmriti projected it as a pivotal canonical source of religious law for Hindus.
In a somewhat similar fashion, Deepa Mehta’s film Water revived an ongoing controversy about whether those who exploit and downgrade women are following shastric injunctions. In the course of trying to explain why this debate amounts to a misunderstanding of the role of the shastras in Hindu religious life, I commented in a recent TV interview that Manusmriti (and other shastric texts) have as much or as little authority for Hindus as have Madhusmriti (my writings) – or for that matter the pages of Manushi, for its subscribers.
This perfectly serious statement was dismissed as “facetious” by many feminists (see for example, Images of Widowhood in The Hindustan Times of Feb. 19, 2000 by Urvashi Butalia and Uma Chakravarti). Others, claiming to speak on behalf of Hindu culture, took my comment as an insult to the great shastrakar himself. These diverse responses indicate that there is a serious misconception among the modern educated elite over the actual status and role of the shastras in our religious life and cultural traditions.
The confusion is not theirs alone; these common misrepresentations are an unfortunate byproduct of our colonial education which we slavishly cling to, even though it is more than five decades since we declared our Independence. We keep defending or attacking the same hackneyed quotations from the shastras and the epics which, incidentally, colonisers used for the purpose of creating a new discourse about these writings. Their inaccurate and biased interpretations have continued to inspire major misreadings of our religious tenets.*
The Search for Non-Existent `Hindu Fundamentals’
The Englishmen who came as traders in the 17th century were befuddled at the vast diversity and complexity of Indian society. Having come from a culture where many aspects of family and community affairs came under the jurisdiction of canonical law, they looked for similar sources of authority in India. They assumed, for example, that just as the European marriage laws were based in part on systematic constructions derived from church interpretations of Biblical tenets, so must the personal laws of various Indian communities similarly draw their legitimacy from some priestly interpretations of fundamental religious texts.
In the late 18th century, the British began to study the ancient shastras to develop a set of legal principles that would assist them in adjudicating disputes within Indian civil society. In fact, they found there was no single body of canonical law, no Hindu Pope to legitimise a uniform legal code for all the diverse communities of India, no Shankaracharya whose writ reigned all over the country. Even religious interpretations of popular epics like the Ramayana failed to fit the bill because every community and every age exercised the freedom to recite and write its own version. We have inherited hundreds of recognised and respected versions of this text, and many are still being created. The flourishing of such variation and diversity, however, did not prevent the British from searching for a definitive canon of Hindu law.
Perhaps more egregiously, in their search, the British took no steps to understand local or jati based customary law or the way in which every community – no matter how wealthy or poor – regulated its own internal affairs through jati or biradari panchayats, without seeking permission or validation from any higher authority. The power to introduce a new custom, or change existing practices, rested in large part within each community. Any individual or group respected within that biradari could initiate reforms. This tradition of self-governance is what accounts for the vast diversity of cultural practices within the subcontinent. For example, some communities observe strict purdah for women, whereas others have inherited matrilineal family structures in which women exercise a great deal of freedom and social clout. Some disapprove of widow remarriage, while others attach no stigma to widowhood and allow women recourse to easy divorce and remarriage.
The multiplicity of codes was a major reason for the wide divergence in judgments, interpretations and reports provided by the pandits appointed to assist British judges presiding over the newly established colonial courts. Often, the same pandits even gave different opinions on seemingly similar matters, confounding the judges of the East India Company. The British began to mistrust the pandits and became impatient with having to deal with such a range of customs that had no apparent shastric authority to back them, since that made it difficult for them to pose as genuine adjudicators of Hindu law. The British were even more nonplussed because they had a history of using the common law system, based on precedent. However, given the myriad opinions of the Indian pandits, they couldn’t depend on uniform precedents to make their own judgments.
An Anglo-Brahamanical Hybrid
In order to arrive at a definitive version of the Indian legal system that would mainly be useful for them, the East India Company began to recruit and train pandits for its own service. In 1772, Warren Hastings hired a group of eleven pandits to cooperate with the Company in the creation of a new digest of Hindu law that would govern civil disputes in the British courts. The Sanskrit pandits hired to translate and sanction this new interpretation of customary laws created a curious Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid. The resulting document, printed in London under the title, A Code of Gentoo Laws, or, Ordinations of the Pandits, was a made-to-order text, in which the pandits dutifully followed the demands made by their paymasters. Though it was the first serious attempt at codification of Hindu law, the text was far from accurate in its references to the original sources, or to their varied traditional interpretations.
The very idea of “Hindu” law, in fact, was as much a novelty as the idea of a pan-Indian Hindu community. In the pre-British era, people of this subcontinent used a whole range of markers based on region, jati, language, and sect to claim and define their identities. Hardly anybody identified themselves as “Hindu” – a term first introduced by foreigners to refer to people living across the Indus River. The British lent new zeal in bringing actual substance to the new identity markers imposed by Europeans on the diverse non-Muslim inhabitants of the subcontinent. The codification of their so-called “personal laws” became an important instrument in that endeavour.
Maha Pandit William Jones
This codification still could not put an end to the conflicts of opinion. The British mistrust of the pandits increased, along with their frustration at the way they thought they were misleading the court primarily by favouring the interests of their own caste, and dealing with a spectrum of customs that were not certified by any apparent shastric source.
The resulting confusions and reports of corruption led William Jones to work on a more `definitive’ code of Hindu law, as a reference work for Europeans in India. Jones’ statement says it all:
“I can no longer bear to be at the mercy of our pandits who deal out Hindu law as they please, and make it at reasonable rates, when they cannot find it ready made.” (Derret, p. 244)
He was determined that the British should administer to the Indian people the best shastric law that could be discovered. Jones went on to translate Manusmriti. It became one of the most favoured texts of the British. A policy decision was taken at the highest levels in the India Office to keep this particular document in circulation and project it as the fountainhead of Hindu jurisprudence, for the purpose of perpetuating the illusion that the British were merely enforcing the shastric injunctions by which Hindus were governed anyway, and that they had inherited the authority to administer this law.
Thus Manusmriti came to influence Oriental studies in the West far more profoundly than it had ever influenced the practices of any actual living communities in pre-British India. After Jones, Colebrook tried his hand at a similar compilation. In a few years time, Colebrook’s translations of the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga became the two most frequently referenced sources in court judgments. At the same time, several Sanskrit scholars were also writing legal treatises, but the work of European authors on shastric law was held in higher authority than even the genuine Sanskrit shastric works.
The British consistently promoted the myth that Hindus were governed by their codified versions of shastric injunctions. The modern educated elite in India, whose knowledge of India comes mainly from English language sources, were thenceforth systematically brainwashed into believing that the British were actually administering Hindu personal laws through the medium of the English courts. This was part of a larger myth-building exercise, whereby the people of the subcontinent were taught that theirs was a stagnant civilisation. The ignorant assumptions of our colonial rulers, that social stability in India was due to the supposed proclivity of its people to follow the same old traditions, customs and laws that had allegedly remained moribund for centuries, slowly came to acquire the force of self-evident truth over a period of time, both for those supporting as well as those opposing British rule.
Custom vs Anglo Shastric Law
Since then, the dynamism of customary law has been in constant conflict with the frozen and artificial Anglo-Shastric law. Dharmashastras, for instance, were not strictly religious treatises. Dharma itself means the aggregate of duties and obligations – religious, moral, social and legal – delineated for every individual and collective performing a specific role in society. For example, the obligations and duties of a person in his role as a king (raj-dharma) are different from his obligations as a husband or son (pati-dharma or putra-dharma). Similarly, guru-dharma demands specific responsibilities from a teacher just as shishya-dharma binds students to their own set of obligations. Even war demanded a very rigorous code – yuddha-dharma. The list is endless and refers mostly to secular duties.
Similarly, the smritis are collections of precepts written by the rishis, the sages of antiquity. Smritis are presumed to be the compositions of human authors, not gods; these authors make it clear that they are merely anthologising traditions handed down to them over generations. They did not hesitate to propose changes and reforms in their writings. For instance, Apastamba, whose work embodies the customs of certain regions of southern India, and who authored one of the most respected Sutras, takes care, at the end of his work, to impress his pupils with the statement:
“Some declare that the remaining duties (which have not been taught here) must be learnt from women and men of all castes.” He adds, “the knowledge which… women possess is the completion of all study.” (Mulla, Principles of Hindu Laws, N.M. Tripathi Pvt., 15th ed., 1986, p. 15).
Neither shastras nor smritis suggest that there exists an immutable, universal moral doctrine. Rather, they emphasise that codes of morality must be specific to time, person, and place, and evolve according to changing requirements. For example, Narada states, “custom is powerful and overrides the sacred law.” Manusmriti itself stresses that the business of the ruler is not to impose laws from above but that,
“a king… must inquire into the law of castes (jati), of districts (Ganapada), of guilds (Shreni), and of families (kula), and settle the peculiar law of each…Thus have the holy sages, well knowing that law is grounded on immemorial custom, embraced as the root of all piety good usages long established.” (Mulla, Principles of Hindu Laws, 15th ed., 1986, p. 23).
The authority to change or create new customs rests with not just the biradari but also the kula or family. Our smritikars repeatedly stress the primacy of custom and practice over textual axioms.
People as Law Makers
Since different smritikars documented the customs of different communities, there were substantial differences in their approaches, perspectives, and precepts. But characteristically, none of the smritikars deny the authority of other smritikars or attempt to prove that theirs is the supreme, most authoritative version of a code of conduct. They acknowledge that the authority of the king and the law are derived from the people. Most of the leading smritikars make explicit statements to this effect. The Smriti of Yajnavalkya, for instance, lists twenty sages as law givers. The Mitakshara explains that the enumeration is only illustrative and Dharmasutras of others are not excluded. Nor is the authority of any shastrakar assigned hierarchical importance.
The smritikars were not rulers. Nor did they owe their authority to any sovereign political or military power. The authority of the codes they enjoined were not enforced by punitive measures. Their influence depended solely on the voluntary internalisation of such value systems by the groups to which they addressed themselves to, and people’s respect for their judgement. Actual enforcement was left in the hands of the local communities. An oft-repeated maxim was that reason and justice are to be accorded more regard than mere texts. Most important of all, a dharmic code, in the rishis’ view, was one that was “agreeable to good conscience.”
Gandhi is one of the few modern social reformers to have understood this principle underlying the shastras. Therefore, he could unhesitatingly declare:
“My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired… I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense.” (The Collected Work of Mahatma Gandhi, The Publication Division, Government of India, Vol. XXI, p. 246)
He goes on to add:
"1) I believe in varnashrama of the Vedas which in my opinion is based on absolute equality of status, notwithstanding passages to the contrary in the smritis and elsewhere.
-
Every word of the printed works passing muster as `Shastras’ is not, in my opinion, a revelation.
-
The interpretation of accepted texts has undergone evolution and is capable of indefinite evolution, even as the human intellect and heart are.
-
Nothing in the shastras which is manifestly contrary to universal truths and morals can stand.
-
Nothing in the shastras which is capable of being reasoned can stand if it is in conflict with reason." (The Collected Work of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. LXII, p. 121).
Gandhi could present himself as a modern day sage calling upon people to overthrow beliefs and practices that did not conform to principles of equality and justice – or went against “good conscience” – because he had inherited a tradition whereby the power to change its own customary law rested with each community.
People in India have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to accept changes in their customs, provided those who propose change take the trouble to win the confidence of the community, rather than attack or humiliate the community as hostile outsiders. The success of the 19th century social reformers is testimony to this inherent flexibility of Hindu communities. In recent decades, the work of Swadhyaya in parts of western India, the Radhasoamis in Northern India, and many other reform movements have carried forward the same tradition.
Practice of Self-Governance
Thus, the practice of self-governance continues to be a dynamic tradition in India. Each caste, sub-caste and occupational grouping continues to assert its right to regulate the inner affairs of its own community and does not pay much attention to either ancient textual authorities or to modern parliament-enacted laws. When an individual or a group in India seeks to defend a particular practice, the common statement one hears across the country is, “hamari biradari mein to yeh hi chalta hai” (This is how we do things in our community) – rather than quotations from the shastras.
Those who insist on attributing our social ills to the shastras repeat the mistake of our colonial rulers. Just as a doctor can kill a patient through wrong diagnosis and treatment of the disease – no matter how benign the intention – in the same manner social reformers can wreak havoc on the people if their understanding of social ills is flawed.
Discrimination against women or Dalits is neither inherently Hindu' nor is it scripturally mandated. This is not to suggest that such practices do not exist. Sadly enough, the disgraceful treatment of Dalits and downgrading of women are among the most shameful aspects of contemporary Indian society. But they will not disappear by burning ancient texts because none of the Hindu’ scriptures have projected themselves as commandment-giving authorities demanding unconditional obedience from all those claiming to be Hindus.
For example, oppressive widowhood was and is practised only in certain castes and communities in some regions among the Hindus. According to the 1901 census, the ban on widow remarriage applied to only ten percent of all the communities in India. And yet, in colonial critiques, this ban came to be projected as the universal situation of all widows in India.
If we look closely, we will find that many of the older widows have ended up in exploitative institutions of Varanasi and Vrindavan not because of Manu’s commands, or any other religious stipulations, or even the dictates of some contemporary patriarch. They are there primarily because of the failure of their community to provide secure rights for women in the family and many are there even because of ill-treatment by their daughters-in-law. It is also important to remember that of all the millions of widows only a few thousand end up in places like Vrindavan and Varanasi. True, many may live oppressed lives within their own homes. But it is also true that many others live respected lives as honoured matriarchs. If all Indian women are so subordinate, as suggested by a certain kind of feminist literature, we would not so frequently encounter the phenomenon of the dominating mothers-in-law who, in many homes, has the power to make or break their children’s marriages. Nor would we witness innumerable older women putting up with humiliation and neglect because their daughters-in-law have come to acquire such a powerful hold over their husbands that they can make them abuse their own mothers. Those who find this description of the situation far-fetched should do a survey of their own families. They are likely to find both these extremes coexisting within their own family circles, along with instances of fairly balanced and reasonably happy equations.
We are free to rid ourselves of any text that debases women or certain castes. Let us not imagine that Manu or any other shastrakar is obstructing our efforts to improve the lot of women or other oppressed groups. Despite some of the very negative and offensive things he might have said from our point of view (which many scholars hold to be later interpolations)** Mr. Manu did have the proper sense to pronounce that good karma was more important than biological lineage. He also emphasised that families and societies which demean women and make them lead miserable lives inevitably move towards destruction. He noted that truly prosperous families are only those in which women are honoured and happy.
I believe that Manu bhai would fully endorse my writing a Madhusmriti, no matter how much I differ with him. He would probably rejoice in the fact that many people of today prefer Madhusmriti to Manusmriti because Manu, like all other smritikars, emphasised that codes of morality are not fixed by some divine authority, but must evolve with respect to the changing requirements of generations and communities. q
- For a more detailed analysis see Duncan Derret, Religion, Law and State in India. The Free Press, New York, 1968; also see Codified Hindu Law: Myth and Reality by Madhu Kishwar, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXIX, No. 33, August 13, 1994.
** See for example The Manusmriti, with critical commentary by Dr. Surendra Kumar, Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust, Delhi, pp.452-53
on caste oppression
http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/1098/0046.html
Caste system in India - True perspective - India Post
Swami Venkata Ganapathi ()
October 9, 1998
It pains me to read various writers in India Post condemning our
Vedic culture and civilization because of castes or caste
system. They betray little understanding on one hand and effect
of centuries of brain washing on the other.
A simple and honest approach will help our understanding. But
this has been absent all along due to thousands years of
slavery.
Some of the biggest myths are Aryan invasion or the caste system
has been responsible for ruin of India. And Islam came to
uplift lower castes and liberated people oppressive caste
system.
Such malicious propaganda against India and India’s culture
continues to exist even to date due to mind sons of Macaulay,
Marx or actual sons of invading Arabs and Turks.
Indian society by far most ancient one existing on the face of
earth. It continues to be a living force instead of confined to
museums.
There are many sources open to us as to look at our society.
Vedas are of course one. The central message of Veda is one of
‘Hita’ or welfare of all life including all creatures. The
lowest in creation from Ant to highest Brahma, receive blessings
from Veda.
Such being the case to make them out to be or the ‘sastras’
based on them especially Dharma Sastra of Manu as some documents
perpetuating the evil of oppression is height of ignorance and
is most deplorable. At present besides the secular tribe, people
like Mayavathi or Kanshiram go around beating drums against
‘manuvadins’. Little do they know about Manu for sure and even
less they know about our society except to exacerbate existing
divisions to perpetuate themselves in politics to loot the
public treasury.
We have Ramayana and Mahabharatha. In both these epics the life
of society of India as it existed is well portrayed. They are
our standards. Oppression or exploitation of weaker sections of
society is nowhere in them.
Ramayana has many incidents of interaction of different section
of society. Brahmins with kshatriyas and both with Vaisyas or
merchants and all with Sudras. There is the beautiful harmony
and cooperation that prevailed in society not just in Ayodhya
but through out Bharath Varsha. There was no whole scale
massacre of defeated people. That is our standard. Only because
of such values great champion of Hindu in recent times, Shivaji,
following the foot steps of Sri Rama not only freed captured
wife of Subedar of Kalyan Durga but also honored her calling her
as his mother and sent her with honors and presents as one sends
his sister to in law home.
These are the values of our society that were handed to us from
ancient times. Exploitation of weak is not one of them.
Subjugation by Islamists and later by British is responsible for
many evils. Our society is condemned for institution of Sati and
for childhood marriages. Why did they come about? Kausalya,
Kaikeyi or Sumitra, wives of Dasaratha did not commit sati nor
the mother of Pandavas, Kunti. But during Muslim rule it became
common only because our people felt, our women like-those of
Rayasthan felt, it was far better to jump into funeral pyre than
into the bed of Muslim marauder. Similarly in order to guard
the girls from abduction and molestation by Muslim tyrants, the
girls were married off early. So there are many such unfortunate
customs evolved during the period of subjugation. And this
business of caste oppression was also one of them.
The Dravida Khajagam built itself over Brahmin bashing using
Ramayana episodes. They said Ravana and his followers were
Dravidians and Aryan Rama invaded them. But they did not tell
their followers that Ravana was a Brahmin while Sri Rama was a
dark colored Kshatriya slightly in ‘lower’ cast category!
Also this business of classifying, upper and lower castes did
not exist then, it is a recent invention of foul politician to
divide and perpetuate his rule. In Ramayana of Valmiki, one
finds excellent harmony and cooperation that existed in our
society before the Muslim invaders came to ‘uplift lower
castes’.
Our society is rightly compared to the body of Virat Purusha
with each section of society forming a limb of the same Purusha.
When we approach the Lord Narayana we first pray and offer
respect to the feet of Narayana which is the origin of Sudra
category.
When Mohammed Ghajzni invaded India, his contemporary Alberuni
chronicled his exploits. He noted that at the time there were
only 8 castes - four that existed from time immemorial and four
more perhaps sub castes or some other minor divisions.
Under Islamic rule no one suffered more than the Brahmin. As he
was guide and philosopher of society the Islamic axe fell on him
severely. In Iran, too, when Islam took over, all Zorastrian
priests were summarily executed. And in places like Afghanistan
which were centers of Buddhism, Buddhist priests and nuns were
killed in mass. So also in India. As Ambedkar mentioned this is
why Buddhism disappeared from India.
The caste oppression grew in India only due to unsavory effect
of foreign domination.
masooma, given the zeal with which u r dissecting the stories about hindu gods, i would like to know if u believe that adam and eve lived in heaven, ate apple and came to earth. if u believe that, what is ur problem believing that kali mata rode a tiger and killed a few deamons. the later story sounds more plausible to me.
Masooma, Andhra and ZZ. i think you guys are bashing each other's religion. What good will that do? It will further bridge us apart.
Andhra when I raise a question it is not to offend but rather to learn about hinduism as I have no prior knowledge of the religion.
Masooma I think calling anyone's religion bogus is impolite and if you expect someone to convert the last thing you wanna do is misintepret your religion. Islam teaches accomodation for all religions and people and we should practice that and respect others for what they are and try convincing them amicably into what we believe vs what they believe.
ZZ the same goes for you, I think you blew a fuse after Masooma's letter. Lets all be cordial please as that is the right and educated thing to do.
Regards
is lingum/dildo worshipping just as pleasing?
i just cant help but stop laughing at some of the definitions that have popped up for hinduism… its been called a supermarket, unorganized, elastic to the point where it dont matter if anyone follows it or not, uncertain to the point anyone can go ahead and make amendements to suit their needs and demands.
u can call it a supermarket or super shopping center or a shopping mall… hindus here can deny caste system all they want but they cant deny the existence of 300 million shoodars cos they exist TODAY and have always existed as long as hinduism did.
Devdasies or religious prostitutes have existed too in some shape or form for centuries… only today these numbers are out in the open.
the always changing supermarket has still a lot to learn from the not so changing religions of the world. And the reason so many hindus especially the lowlife shoodars convert to other “not so changing” religions of the world is a proof of that.
mundayya.. lingum worshipping makes more sense than worshipping assholes who pose as messengers. take care. next time u call lingum 'dildo' u will get a harsher response. see ya..
People may move out of hinduism since they are allowed to. How can anyonme get out of ur barabaric faith when u are going to kill anyone who converts. Remove the death penaly by improving ur brand of islam and see how many stick to ur primitive faith. Otherwise comparison is not valid.
and if lowlife shuders converted, why the percentage of converted people so low. why islam is retricted to areas that were constantly invaded and did not spread elsewhere. christians did not convert by force. they could not convert even 3% of population. why?
why did parsis run all the way from iran. which barbarians were stopping them from prcticing what they believed. did they face any discrimination in india?
[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited August 10, 2000).]
maybe u should explain this to shoodars who have no faith in the brahman and the pile of filth brahman makes them worship.
well try converting the muslims of US to christianity or hinduism… there is no one here who will kill them for leaving their faith. no one would want to be a shoodar and worship lingum… or fall for the bs of an unorganized supermarket or whatever u think it is.
Muslims here in U.S convert more christians to Islam than anywhere esle in the world. Even famous personalities like Mohammad Ali, Yousaf Ali etc. are such devoted muslims today that they put the muslims who are born muslims to shame when it comes to following Islam.
is lingum not worshipped in india? pls explain the history of this and what differences it holds from dildos in ur mind. after u r done… i will post the similarities that exist it so everyone can see for themselves if this should be offensive or not.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by mundyaa (edited August 10, 2000).]
[quote]
Originally posted by mundyaa:
*maybe u should explain this to shoodars who have no faith in the brahman and the pile of filth brahman makes them worship.
well try converting the muslims of US to christianity or hinduism.... there is no one here who will kill them for leaving their faith. no one would want to be a shoodar and worship lingum.... or fall for the bs of an unorganized supermarket or whatever u think it is.
Muslims here in U.S convert more christians to Islam than anywhere esle in the world. Even famous personalities like Mohammad Ali, Yousaf Ali etc. are such devoted muslims today that they put the muslims who are born muslims to shame when it comes to following Islam. *
[/quote]
There could be as many converts to christianity or Hinduism in Saudi Arabia, if u allow them to convert.
Huge number of Kashmiri Pundits converted. All of us know how. We know the story Guru tegh bahadurr ji laying down his life for the freedom of pundits.
How many conversions to Islam take place today in India? zilch. only higher rate of population growth is increasing the number as well as their poverty. So remove force, and none converts.
hahahha so who will convert these saudies? their imported hindu maids? the followers of an unorganized supermart would convert saudies. the poor things who work for less than $10 a month would teach the saudies the benefits of lingum/dildo worshipping and caste system and widow burning. their $10 a month hindu maid will teach them how to be a servant of brahman and sing naked "hare krishna hare ram" along with the rest of the shoodars..... worship rats and drink milk with them, eat a womans ****** after she dies and the rest of the fun stuff.
yeah right! what else.... tell us more jokes.
[This message has been edited by mundyaa (edited August 10, 2000).]
ZZ stop using profanity about other religions and beliefs. All you are doing is belittling Hinduism whom on one hand you yourself claim to be the most accomodating. Where is your hindu accomodation when you are cross questioned.
Secondly how many muslims have you seen beheaded for converting I don't recall any. Do you? Please let us know. Why would a muslim want to convert? So that he can drink or womanize or sodomize. Well he can still do that and it is between him and Allah. If he defies God then let him. He does not need to declare it, but Allah knows and He will catch up with him.
It is funny that you are making assumptions about Islam that if death sentence is removed people will convert. Look at your hindu fanatics. Everyday they are killing priests for converting people to Christianity. They are torching churches. Your papers are full of it. Can you deny it? I have given you proof that when someone converts from hinduism not only he but the person converting him is brutally burdered. Tell me when was the last time a muslim was beheaded for reverting.
Think before you speak. If Islam was spread on the point of sword then why is it still the fastest growing religion outside of the Islamic world and especially in the US? Are we still holding a gun at the head of the people to make Shahadah. Would you care to explain.
[quote]
Originally posted by mundyaa:
*hahahha so who will convert these saudies? their imported hindu maids? the followers of an unorganized supermart would convert saudies. the poor things who work for less than $10 a month would teach the saudies the benefits of lingum/dildo worshipping and caste system, dowry will teach them how to be a servant of brahman and sing naked "hare krishna hare ram".
yeah right! what else.... tell us more jokes. *
[/quote]
if u think saudis wont convert, allow preaching and conversion. otherwise shut up.
You have freedom to practice, preach and spread ur religion in civilized world. you dont give same freedom to others. So the goons who make rules that suit themselves benefit, so ur barbaric faith grows in world. big deal.
I am a poet, my father is a doctor, my mother a grinder of corn.
Rigveda, 9.112.3
From the Supreme Being arise the Holy Sages
From the Supreme Being (arise) these Kshatriyas
From the very same Supreme Being are born the Brahmins
From the Supreme Being (arise) the food producing third caste (Vaishyas).
The Supreme Being are indeed these Shudras serving the Kshatriyas,
The Supreme Being are all they who perceive (i.e. all living creatures).
The Supreme Being are all these benevolent officials
The Supreme Being are all these members of the assembly.
The Supreme Being are the fishermen,
The Supreme Being are the servants,
The Supreme Being indeed are these gamblers.
Man as well as woman originate from the Supreme Being
Women are God and so are men.
Atharvaveda (Paippalada Samhita) 8.9.8-10
"I do not know this, Sir, of what family I am. I asked my mother. She answered me: 'In my youth, when I went about a great deal serving as a maid, I got you. So I do not know this, of what family you are. However, I am Jabala by name; you are Satyakama by name.' So I am Satyakama Jabala, sir." To him he then said: "A non-brahmin would not be able to explain thus. Bring the fuel, my dear. I will receive you as a pupil. You have not deviated from the truth."
Chhandogya Upanishad 4.4.1-5
Listen about caste, Yaksa dear, not study, not learning is the cause of the twice-born status. Conduct is the basis, there is no doubt about it.
*Mahabharata III.312.106 *
O King of Serpents! He in whom are manifest truthfulness, charity, forbearance, good conduct, non-injury, austerity and compassion is a Brahmin according to the sacred tradition.*
Mahabharata III.180.20
O Serpent! He, in whom this conduct is manifest is a Brahmin, he in whom this is absent treat all such as Sudra.
Mahabharata III.180.27 *
The gods consider him a Brahmin (a knower of Brahman) who has no desires, who undertakes no work, who does not salute or praise anybody (with a selfish motive), the fruits of whose deeds have exhausted and who maintains equanimity.
*Mahabharata, XII.269.34 *
If one’s birth were to decide one’s caste, then all should be Brahmins because all humans beings have one Father- Prajapati (God, the protector and master of all creatures).
Sukraniti, Chapter 1
Vyasa, born of a dancing girl, became a great Rishi;
Hence, it is tapas that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.
Sakti, born of a Chandala woman, became a great Rishi.
Hence, it is tapas that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.
Parasara, born of SwapAki, became a great Rishi;
Hence, it is tapas that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.
Vyasa, born of a fisherwoman, became a great Rishi;
Hence, it is tapas that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.
Note: Tapas = performance of austerities, pious deeds, meditation and adherence to truth.
Srimad Bhagvata Purana
Yousaf Ali a newly converted muslim of seventies has written a couple of books where he explains why he would never convert back to christianity or any other religion. This guy had it all.... name, fame, money number one song in the country when he left all of the above to be a Muslim. He stopped drinking, free sex, drugs all the things that are strongly prohibited in Islam. Today he runs a madrassa in England for muslims...... one of the reasons he lists for converting to Islam is that being a christian never forbade him from drinking, free sex, drugs etc.
Maybe you should read one of his books to know what really makes a muslim stick to Islam and the rest of the religions feel so fake to him after he embraces Islam. In that you will find the answer as to why so many muslims left hinduism and similar cults FOREVER and destroyed their old perverted ways of worshipping.
Its one of those things you have to do to feel it.
mundayya
unless u stop threatening people who convert out of ur faith with daeth penalty, there is litte reason to believe that mice who are not coming out of mousetrap do not want to come out.
rational, debate with astrofan if u want an intellectual debate. i am going to talk with mundayyas and xtremes alone, maybe massoma at times.
I am not against carrying out a logical analysis of fables in hinduism and i am sure most will not be seen as true. however, adopt same criterion to stories in quran. if u r ready to believe that jesus who was born 2000 yrs ago is not dead, why stop kalimata from riding a tiger. it is perfectly plausible as well.
[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited August 10, 2000).]
ZZ,
I asked u this before & u simply ducked this one - if there was really a mass forced conversion of hindus as u hooligans r taught in ur schools, then wats holding them now from reverting back to their original religion - there's no Islamic sharia in ur rat infested country. Provide a dildo to every muslim family there in ur country, tell them thats wat they are suppos to worship & lets see their response. Forced conversion my a$$ - u guys started out this thread with an obvious insinuating aim of thrashing Islam but....tough luck, ur own religion has been shattred down to a run down cheap food mart in ur own words. U have back tracked on almost every issue raised about hinduism, shrugging it off merely as some thing outdated, inhumane, abusive etc.... wat good a religion where a few preverts are impowered to abuse the rest jus by virtue of their birth - an obvious man made tool designed to cater the needs of few retards at the cost of millions of others. This one reason alone is enuf for a mass conversion to a religion which treats human being as such - a human being and not some low caste shoodar or devdasi. U would prolly never be able to swallow this simple fact about ur disgusted religion... no wonder why u been shouting around like tail chopped puppy here!!
You mean, forced conversions did not happen Are u ready to accept hisory written by westerners if not by Indians and also the diaries kept by people in courts of muslim kings. i can give u statistics on temples broken, people convberted by force etc. Some info. on Jizia also would help and information about Quranic treatment of non-muslims. Given the treatemnt, some of them converted.
look up the history of saudies, iranies, iraqies and the rest… they were all idol worshippers of some sort. Muslims evolved from them… and they themselves destroyed their old perverted sick ways of preaching.
If you claim Pakistani muslims have hindu ancestors then why do they detest their own ancestors so much? The hindu philosophy and preachings are just as flawed, unorganized and crooked as the faith itself… all of these non-muslims converted to Islam because they were fedup of their idol worshipping cults… this is why the shoodars convert today even under a hindu govt. They were fed up of brahman converting shoodar women into devdasies and lingum worshipping and practices of burrying their daughters alive, widow burning, shoodar molesting etc. This is why when they converted… and when they converted they spread the word just like those who converted them so all of the other stone age cult worshippers could also become muslims.
so remember when you say Muslims did this and that… remember all muslims and/or their ancestors were either stone age idol worshippers and/or christians or jews.
If anything… these newly converted muslims themselves got rid of their stone age cult practices that exist among only hindus of today. So if anything u should blame your unorganized supermarkets for letting them convert to other religions.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by mundyaa (edited August 10, 2000).]
Why is nobody converting to Islam in India today?
As far as hatred to Hindus in Islam, it is there because ur mullas and textbooks have systematically cultivated. Thus u r double victims. Your ancestors were victims of forced conversion and u are victims of propaganda in which another side is not heard. India has offices of Jamaat-e-islami, will u allow even mild ramakrishna mission to operate in Pakistan and bring people to what they think is true path.
This hatred was not there in little older times. In the saga of Heer Ranza, hero became a hindu jogi when he failed to woo heroine. absolutely blasphemous. and it iw written by muslim.