Discussion Board
Watch this board

Total 9683 messages Pages    <<  < Newer  | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260   Older >   >>
How to bring the dead back to life
by Koustuv Chatterjee on Feb 28, 2007 12:18 AM  Permalink  | Hide replies

As improbable as it may seem, in our country we seem to be practicing this feat for ages. We don't let the dead die and rest in peace. When will we ever stop living in the past and start looking at the future?
Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh, regardless of their points of view, are both dead. They don't impact our lives anymore. Instead, let%u2019s look at what we can achieve in the days to come. As Indians, rather than Hindus or Muslims.
And frankly, where there are millions who go to bed hungry, the debate whether one dead king was good or bad seems rather inconsequential. Let's first solve the problems that are more pressing and alive. Then we can ponder over the dead and their deed till the end of time.


    Forward  |  Report abuse
RE:How to bring the dead back to life
by ankur saraf on Feb 28, 2007 12:55 AM  Permalink
To take the past and the future as two mutually exclusive entities is a delusionary exercise. As is the exercise of trying to pass on culpability of historical crimes to the present day. Only a fool would blame the germans of the day for the holocaust. However, the person who wants to forget that a holocaust ever happened would be an equal fool. Same is the case with Aurangzeb.

The very fact, that the 'eminent' historians twist history to their own Marxist agenda has to be contested. We can better progress to 2019 with a responsible understanding of our past, atleast the correct facts.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:How to bring the dead back to life
by Unsung Humanist on Feb 28, 2007 01:29 AM  Permalink
Agreed, the past and the future are definitely linked symbiotically. But you learn from the mistakes of teh past to ensure a better future. When you do a selective reading of the past to justify your misdeeds of the present, you cut a dangerous path to the future.
Pop history formulated to excite in 1000 words is supposed to be applauded, while years of painstaking research is to be contested with a very convenient "Marxist" coinage. I wonder why your pop historians shy away from face to face debates with the "eminent" historians. Coz they are afraid to lose their three minutes of fame, thats why.


   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:How to bring the dead back to life
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 02:01 AM  Permalink
In the last televise debate between Arun Shourie and an "eminent" historian was a farce. Where the best response that the eminent historian could come up with was a muttering of "questionable sources". When Arun Shourie pointed out that the sources where actually Aurangzeb's court records, it was essentially the end of the debate. It can't get more farcical than that. So please do us a favour and watcht that interview rather than debating like a lit. crit. grad.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:How to bring the dead back to life
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 28, 2007 06:59 AM  Permalink
Koustav: Unless we learn from history, we are going to repeat the same mistake.

Why Secular fanatics and Islamic fundamentalists feel jitters when Aurangjeb's record is brought out?

While overwhelmingly India Muslims are of Indian origin, Aurangjeb was part of Invader dynasty and persecuted indigeneous people to sucg a ruthless level never seen in India before. Why Indian Muslims have objection to Aurangjeb? They are NOT same people.

Fact of the matter is: Because of Leftists pamper Islamists at a global level, we are seeing our Left ideologues oppose Aurangjeb's actual picture. Its as simple as that.

This has become very costly to India. NOT ONLY the country got divided because of Islamists insistence, we saw how non-Muslims completely thrown out from East & West Pakistan, Indian Kashmir.

Now we are entering into a situation WHEN EVEN VANDE-MATARAM WHICH SPARKED NATIONALISM IN INDIA IS BEING QUESTIONED.

THERE IS A LIMIT TO EVERYTHING. UNLESS THIS PAMPERING OS ISLAMIST FUNDAMENTALISM STOPS, WE ARE GOING TO SEE A HUGE PRICE COUNTRY PAY IN THE FUTURE.


   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:How to bring the dead back to life
by Perv Sharma on Feb 28, 2007 07:51 AM  Permalink
Koustuv

A learned person like should atleast know that U can only solve a problem if you got the freedom. Earlier hindus lost it to muslims / brithishers and now may be to pak/america. So, at the moment the most pressing problem is to feed the indians, teach them about freedom as well.

Every person has a bad / good points. The most important point raised by Mahamta Gandhi is forgotten. He had said what point is this freedom if the common man doesn't undertand meaning of freedom and only gets concerned about food. He wanted to therefore educated every indian about freedom. No doubt he failed and U have modern politicians taking advantage of the same.
U just can't solve the present without the knowing the past.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
Templ destruction continued for 1000 years in Almost every part of India under EVERY Muslim Ruler
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 27, 2007 10:43 PM  Permalink  | Hide replies

There are documentary evidence as per Islamic sources (NOT fabicration by Sanghis:)-) that 1000s upon 1000s temples were destroyed in large parts of India, starting from Afghanistan to east coast of Chittagaon , during 1000 years. ALMOST EVERY (if NOT all) rulers destroyed temples one way or another. This includes major Hindu sites like Ayodhya, Mathura, Varanasi/



South India escaped, because Muslim rule was less there. Still, the pinnacle of Hindu civilization, the bestest city of its time, Vijaynagar, was wholly destroyed and looted for 10 continuous months.



This can't be sudden phenomenon, when this was seen 1000 years, in ALL PARTS OF INDIA.

    Forward  |  Report abuse
RE:Templ destruction continued for 1000 years in Almost every part of India under EVERY Muslim Ruler
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 27, 2007 10:45 PM  Permalink
That's the reason, why no large scale, grand temple can be seen in Northern India, from afghanistan to East coast of Chittagaon, which is supposed to be high center of Hinduism and Buddhism.



Few temples survived in the South because of less duration of Muslim rule/

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Templ destruction continued for 1000 years in Almost every part of India under EVERY Muslim Ruler
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 27, 2007 10:52 PM  Permalink
And it didn't end there.



We have seen how its unfolding in Bangladesh, Pakistan or even in Indian Kashmir where WORLD's WORST ETHNIC CLEANSING IS GOING ON.



10s of MILLIONS people, most of whom are Harijan, dalits, SC/STs are driven out, property appropriated, killed, raped by Islamic Fundamentalists.



By keeping mum on these contiuning atrocities, secularists are directly feeding onto Islamic facists.



No patriotic Muslim should allow this to continue.



After all, they are rooted in India, and MOST Muslim ruler were from outside India/

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Templ destruction continued for 1000 years in Almost every part of India under EVERY Muslim Ruler
by Unsung Humanist on Feb 28, 2007 12:48 AM  Permalink
Agreed, militancy has killed thousands in Kashmir. But among the victims were thousands of innocent Muslims as well. To label a dead body as Hindu, Muslim, Dalit, Harijan is entirely bizarre.

To treat the Kashmir issue on purely communal terms is farcical. You need to get your records straight on that. Trifurcating Kashmir on HIndu, Muslim, Buddhist sections was a plan attested by one of our own governors.

Its quite strange that in the midst of all this anti-Islamic tirade, there is hardly a sane voice that puts the whole issue in perspective.

In a country where there is a majority and a minority, I guess majority communalism can work within the framework of the so-called "Patriotism."

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Templ destruction continued for 1000 years in Almost every part of India under EVERY Muslim Ruler
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 02:08 AM  Permalink
Actually not, since depending on the religion the dead person, it's simply a different state of being. When Kashmir is claimed by Muslims in the name of religion and Hindus are killed in the name of religion, why does it make it farcical ? Sure Muslims have died in Kashmir innocent people caught in the cross fire and/or killed by the heavy handed approach of the Indian security forces but have you considered why the security forces are there in the first place. Have you paid any attention that has been coming out of Pakistan for the past 60 years. Or, you would rather listen to some "eminent" historians wishy/washy account of this rather unpleasant saga instead of looking at the facts.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Templ destruction continued for 1000 years in Almost every part of India under EVERY Muslim Ruler
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 28, 2007 07:01 AM  Permalink
When PSec and Islamists demanding special rights for J&K because its a Muslim majority, its NOT COMMUNAL.



But if its pointed out, its communal.



Do you want to believe in this psuedo logic?

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Templ destruction continued for 1000 years in Almost every part of India under EVERY Muslim Ruler
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 28, 2007 07:02 AM  Permalink
Islamic terrorists always kill Muslims.



However, 1000s of Hindus were killed by these same fanatics.



Some 400,000 Hindus driven out. And YOU SEEM NOT EVEN BOTHERED AT THAT.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
why does this topic generates huge comments and tensions???
by Dont Press on Feb 27, 2007 09:04 PM  Permalink 

We fight over the topic by making sure we are hiding behind the veils (women?). Why? If we are really so ashamed of being public on this issue, why not do some work which we can be proud of? there are many topics that can be debated in full public view. If I am a Hindu (or muslim or XYZ), I interact with many persons officially and unofficially irrespective religion other person belongs. Anyways, these messages conclude by saying -unity is strength - which every one of us knows. Why are you reinventing the wheel everytime?

    Forward  |  Report abuse
The truth about Arungzeb
by Indian on Feb 27, 2007 05:48 PM  Permalink  | Hide replies

Hi All.

I have been reading messages from everyone on this topic. Question to whether we allow exhibition or not.
I would like to express wihtout being bias on anyside. This is very common sense. if someone hindu goes and watch this exhibition, he develop negative feeling about Aurazeb, but as Auranzeg is not alive, he would develop hard feeling on his community people. This again lead to hatredness among communities. Please do not try to hielight any negatives things of our great county India. Every country has thier own negative and positive things. I would like express the words of Dr. Abdul Kalam.Once he had visited Israil, at that time war was going on between israil and other country. But in thier local news papers(Israil's) there is beautiful pic of girl standing in beautiful garden. It means that though there could lot of negative things but we should not heilight it. espially when it is going create unhealthy enviornment among ourselves.
Please I request all of you to heilight positive and live and let live other peacefully.
Regards,
Indian

    Forward  |  Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator
RE:The truth about Arungzeb
by biju nair on Feb 27, 2007 06:47 PM  Permalink
Yes I do agree not to hilight negative aspects but what about making it positive by biased politicians, historians and media.

Biju

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:The truth about Arungzeb
by Chankya Pandit on Feb 28, 2007 02:31 AM  Permalink
its funny that a lot of people are ready to click the 'report abuse' button. why dont you get it guys that truth cant be deleted or erased by these silly tactics! here is a message 'reported' for 'abuse'. these anti-hindu sickular bunch cant digest the TRUTH!

by chaitanya kumar:

the weird fact is, most Hindus admire Abdul Kalam and very very few Muslims. So i don't know what your point is. About Aurangzeb, people must know the truth. Hindus must know what their ancestral History has gone through. Don't use diversionary tactics about "hate" whenever Hindus want to learn something. Teach it to the Muslims who have been showing this intolerance irrespective of the fact that it has been that way since the inception of Islam and they still treat their women as objects and so many crude customs and worried about Iran and Iraq and what happens there than many things in India. Enough said. Guys like you who wave peace flag when tough issues come up for debate are the idiotic bunch who have made India a weak nation that it is. You people have no clue what you are doing. To solve issues, they go in depth into the History and see where it went wrong and the corrections that need to be made which can strengthen the society and ensure there is no shallowness in it. That is how they do it world across. Not by escaping and running away. Aurangzeb was a monster and every Hindu kind must be taught that way. What can you say about a guy who reimposed islamic rule of law which was removed by two of this predecessors so that he can convert who India before he was hunted by the wearied Hindu bunch for which he had run away from his capital city and shift it to someother place, and the guy razed sacred temples. Not one or two. Thousands of them. Think about it. Don't just issue loose statements of peace and make the future dangerous for the people when there are threats everywhere around and Hindus Never learn.


   Forward   |   Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator
RE:The truth about Arungzeb
by Young Toung on Feb 27, 2007 06:13 PM  Permalink
No doubt India is a Great country, one among the fastest developing Nation, let us keep our country great for ever and ever, and this can be achieved by removing all the hatred we have in hearts. Well said by our H'ble President sir, Ignited mind of youth is the best resource on this earth, above this earth and below this earth...
Jai Hind. - Ahmad


   Forward   |   'Report abuse' disabled by moderator
RE:The truth about Arungzeb
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 02:16 AM  Permalink
Who demanded the partition of India ? It was the Muslims, what followed was mayhem on a scale not seen in India since. Apart from Gandhi (who BTW in my eyes was a great man apart from a few lapses of judgment) which other Hindu was for it. None. You can't brush these issues under the carpet. Taking them head on and finding a real common ground and interest is in the interest of India. There are simmering tensions under the covers, further stoked by the new Islamofacist scourge that has now gripped the entire world and if you know a better way to fix it, please share it with us. But don't close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Ahmad on Feb 27, 2007 04:19 PM  Permalink  | Hide replies

Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
This Historic proof is still there...
Ancient mosque in kerela is much much older than the existance of Tipu Sultan..

I coudn't paste the pictures: but u can goto

http://kerala4u.in/49/thrissur

And search for the text Kodangallur

These are pictures of the first masjid in India, in a place called Kodangallur in Kerala. The story about this masjid is that the king of that place, Raja Rama Kulasekhara accepted Islam at the hands of the Sahabi of RasoolAllah (SAS), Malik Deenar (RA) (not the Tabayi of the same name but the Sahabi) who came here in 4 Hijri. He gave him and his companions land to build a masjid which was built by local carpenters. It resembles a Kerala temple in construction and has a brass lamp for lighting. Inside it has a minbar and mihraab. Just outside the main chamber are the graves of the son of Malik Deenar's son and his wife. Malik Deenar (RA) himself left this place and went to Kasargod where his grave is.

It is said that Raja Rama Kulasekhara then left to go to meet RasoolAllah (SAS) but died enroute (or maybe after he met Him - are there any ahadith to this effect?) and is buried in Salala in Oman. Can someone in Oman verify this please? Jazakallahu khairan.

Regrettably the grave of Malik Deenar (RA) in Kasargod has been made into a dargah with all attendant charmin g practices. But the graves of his son and daughter in law in the masjid in Kodangallur seem to be free from most such practices. The only thing I saw was that they place some green colored cloth on the two graves which they then sell as tabarruk. But at least none of the abominations that we see in the dargahs of most Sufis are done here.

This masjid also had the dubious honor of a visit by the current President of India who predictably called it a symbol of secularism. How a place of worship can be a symbol of godlessness is something which only a rocket scientist can understand, it seems.

At any rate this masjid is historic proof that Islam has been in India fro m 629 AD (4 Hijri) for 1376 years. So much for the BJP theories of Muslims being new comers to India.


    Forward  |  Report abuse
RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by digambar mhatre on Feb 27, 2007 05:32 PM  Permalink
Hi
I am not a historian or scholer on such subject but being Hindu we will treat Aurangazeb as a EVIL TO THE HINDUISM ...His treatment to other religions is shame to humanity on EARTH. There is no sense in exibiting such shameless/barberic personalities work. We respect QURAN, we respect Mohd.Paigambar but hate such personalities.

Jai Hind,,,,,,Vande Mataram.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Perv Sharma on Feb 28, 2007 07:28 AM  Permalink
Mate
nothing new.

It only proves how broad minded Hindus were.

This fact was known to other cultures and that's why the parsis (from Iran) migrated when they were being forced to convert to Islam (this forcefull conversion shows how islam was spreading in that era).

The parsis have lived and practised their faith peacefully and that's why no Hindu has ever said anything against them.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Chandra Gowda on Mar 06, 2007 12:39 PM  Permalink
hi,

Too much broadminded is not good for hindus, it will be a problem already problem these muslims and christians wil take more advantage, first we should be united all hindus are same kannadiga,tamilian, telugite,keralites, sikhs, punj, maharas, bengalis, assam,etc., should be united then they will be scared of us. united we stand divided we fall,

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by biju nair on Feb 27, 2007 07:15 PM  Permalink
Ahmad is right only at South Indian Context.

Muslims came to South India especially Kerala as traders. The tolarent Hindu rulers had provided space and logistics to build mosques for the Muslims since Hindus respected other religious beleives also and accepted those beleives also can be right.

But the north and west Indian scenario is entirely different. Islam propogated through violent invasions similar to the ones described in Muslim Holy Book as expeditions.

Since holy Book is not giving any respect to non beleivers(Kaffirs) the invadors destroyed all idols and their worshippers.

Biju

   Forward   |   Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator
RE:RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Shameer on Mar 03, 2007 07:48 PM  Permalink
Question...Mr. Layman and Secular
Who paid u for waisting these much time to spread lies and hate against islam and Muslims.



   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Unsung Humanist on Feb 28, 2007 12:35 AM  Permalink
Hey Layman, you are at it yet again.
First and foremost, to define secularism, you need to have at least two religions, otherwise it just falls flat. Now, to dismiss the entire lot of Muslims as rigid, closed inside the four walls of religion would be taking things too far.
To say that Islam is closed to reform, would be discount whatever debate is happening in pockets. Educated Muslims are surely open to reform and you could sense that in Kerala where a culture of debate within Islam is evolving.
Seeing everying in black and white is simplistic, seeing Hinduism as one single entity would just be far from truth. You forget the simmerings of discontent within Hinduism which often come to the fore in the feudal hinterland of our great country.
I don't want to get into a which-religion-is=superior kind of debate. But it would suffice to say that the entry of Islam to a deeply casteist soceity was a radical challenge to teh existing traditions. The universal brotherhood concept, the equality of all men before God was something unpalatable to the Brahmanical hierarchy. The tensions started then, and the wealth-mongering conquests of many Muslim rulers only added to the threat.
Yet, despite this challenge, Islam did not uproot the local culture, in this case the Hindu tradition. That tells the story of a synergy between two great religions. Now to belittle one to uphold the greatness of the other would be to negate centuries of peaceful coexistence between Hindus and Muslims.
We read history mainly from the rulers' perspective without understanding the common people to people contacts on teh ground. History was often written by the victors, embellishing the exploits of some and rubbishing the achievements of the losers. That trend still continues.
When we read about Aurangazeb, we hardly get to know what transpired between ordinary Hindus and Muslims under his regime. Generalisations are easy, but to understand the threads of ordinary life requires painstaking research.
When we Hindus and Muslims hurl abuses and vitious generalisations against eachother, we seem to insult generations of our ancestors who lived in peace.



   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 10:06 AM  Permalink
How can you claim there is Synergy between Islam and Hinduism ? It leads to a paradox. Let me demonstrate.

1. Hinduism says all paths to the truth are equally valid.
2. Islam says our way is the ONLY way, we will ignore their ridiculous notion of a vengeful GOD for the moment.

Now Hinduism is a superset of Islam, however because Islams claims there is ONLY one way this leads to a paradox. If you know basic set theory, it should be obvious.

If Islam were to say we like our way better and even thought we are in disagreement, we agree to disagree.

However, the Koran does make some positive noises about accepting different view points but then contradicts itself in other parts where it claims the exact opposite.

Regarding your view on history studies, lets take the history of the common man,please read Guru Nanaks "Babur Vani", you will not only get a good idea of Baburs venality but also his cruelty. Guru Nanak was talking about the state and plight of the common man.

Was Banda Bahadur not a common man ? Why did the mughals rip his (4 year old) sons heart out and stuff it into his mouth, when he refused to convert to Islam. Why were 700 hundred of his followers executed for not agreeing to convert. If they were not common men, what were they common martians ? Please don't insult us with your patronizing attitude, other people can read too and make up their own mind. Did not the common mans life relove around his places of worship that were destroyed by the rulers and something about which they boasted and something that modern muslims take pride in. You only have to see then names of the Pakistani missiles to understand the reality, no amount of sophistry is going to change these facts.


   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Perv Sharma on Feb 28, 2007 07:36 AM  Permalink
Unsung

You are even unread. Talking about casteism in Hinduism, how can you turn your blind eye towards what islam introduced. Didn't the madrasa teach you how islam introduced the concept of making non-believers and people who surrendered in wars as Slaves, slaves. Some of your brothers till now say to Hindus as slaves.

So much for islam bring equality. Shame on it for making another human being a slave. Hindus showed how they treated other human being when 1000 years ago Mohammed Ghouri was defeatd first time by Pritvi and still allowed to go back.
So don't compare a barbaric islamic religion to a tolerant religion like Hinduism.


   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 02:42 AM  Permalink
Wrong again, you sound too much like a lit. crit. grad.
You CAN have secularism with ONE religion.

"The promotion of secular policies like the separation of church and state. Not to be confused with Secularization, which aims to be a purely objective and value-free theory of in the sociology of religion. The USA is a secular state because the Constitution forbids establishment of a religion, but it is not secularised compared with much of the rest of the Western world."

I'm hoping and praying hard that the (Islamic) reform in Kerala pays dividends, really I am but if were a betting man I would not put money on it.

Where are the facts to backup your assertions regarding your claims ? Please don't make things up as you go along. What was Tipu Sultan doing ? If not uprooting Indian culture and Hinduism and this was in 1788 how come as per your claim all the Hindu lower castes because of the oppression they faced hadn't by then all converted to Islam because of it's brotherhood and equality etc.


You are well advised to read Dr. Ambedkars essay on why Islam is an even worse choice for Dalits. Don't take my word for it, read what he had to say before you go forth spouting your wishy/washy stories.

If you read his
book: "Pakistan or the partition of India" Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
esp. the chapter:

"Muslim Society is even more full of social evils than Hindu Society"

It weakens the argument a (wee) bit about the lower castes embracing the "largely theoritical" egalitarianism claimed by Islam.

Let me remind you that Muslims were leaders in trading of slavery till the Europeans took over, the Koran explicitly mentions slavery and the right of Muslims to keep slaves, just because it isn't called caste doesn't make it's claims of "Islamic brotherhood" justified. It comes with its own version of caste except that it's labeled differently. So please spare us this sanctimonious lecturing.


   Forward   |   Report abuse
Jailing Dad is AurangZeb in particular might have been more intolerant towards the injustices.........
by Madhu Sudhan Reddy on Feb 27, 2007 03:59 PM  Permalink  | Hide replies

As mohd says, Even Jailing dad is given in Quran as per Mohd and Aurangazeb. Its a part of Jihad. As his dad was causing many intolerant activities.He has Jailed ShahJahen.

FYI, Mohd, If Azim Prenji is a Parsi. He has begged US govt to allow him to US saying he is not a Muslim and I am Parsi. U might not be knowing this. If Hindus behave as Muslims then NO KHANS.. MJ AKBAR...... AR RAHMAN... SAYEED MIRZA... ANIS BAZMEE.... QAZI..... ZeeBusinessBazigar WINNER ok.

Even though no king has gone and ruled Srilanka, But when every person having more than 1 Wife as per ur Law and produce as many as they bcoz u should produce as per the law,Then what abt food for them.They have to migrate to other places with some activities they gain importance there.
What I mean to say is that every religion preaches good,But dont harm if they dont want to follow should be digested.
Do u think killing innocent people is as per Jehad. Dont tell this is not by Muslims. If u have problems open them.Show how u r facing and solve not killing innocent who might have gone for job for bread earning. As I dont have timeI am putting an end.
Be more realistic and what would u feelif u were a Hindu always Think both ways and write.
Madhu

    Forward  |  Report abuse
RE:Jailing Dad is AurangZeb in particular might have been more intolerant towards the injustices.........
by Shahryar Pax on Feb 27, 2007 05:19 PM  Permalink
Madhu - FYI AR Rahman converted from Hinduism to Islam at the behest of his mother! He was brought up until adulthood as a Hindu.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Jailing Dad is AurangZeb in particular might have been more intolerant towards the injustices.........
by chaitanya kumar on Feb 27, 2007 06:14 PM  Permalink
he is a sufi, isn't he. A.R. Rehman. Most Indian Muslims are Sunni and and it's hardline.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Jailing Dad is AurangZeb in particular might have been more intolerant towards the injustices.........
by Unsung Humanist on Feb 28, 2007 12:58 AM  Permalink
What are you implying, Mr. Kumar. Everyone here seems to be an authority on which sect of Islam is rigid, and which is more palatable. What are you trying to prove.
You could be a sufi and still be rigid about sufism. You could be a Hindu and be quite inflexible about any tenet of the religion if challenged by a non-Hindu.
Now, you would say being a sunni is different, becoz every sunni is a hardliner. For proof, you rely on a hardline fundamentalist's staetment conveniently assuming that that reflects the community's viewpoint. How distant from the truth could you get.


   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:RE:Jailing Dad is AurangZeb in particular might have been more intolerant towards the injustices.........
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 03:34 AM  Permalink
Your general argument is correct, I totally agree with it. However, can you show me a moderate muslim please. My definition of a moderate Muslim is a muslim that is not a literalist and is open about it and doesn't have a fatwa (of some sort) hanging over his/her head. That's all.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator
Message deleted by moderator. | Hide replies
Message deleted by moderator
Message deleted by moderator
RE:RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by Unsung Humanist on Feb 28, 2007 01:12 AM  Permalink
Layman, any truth that does not conform to your narrow reading of modernity is trash. I wonder how you profess with such confidence your command over 'modernity." Gimme a break!
A muslim attempts to define, defend the scientific spirit in his holy book, and you rush to defile him. You cite a dirty Muslim street to prove your point. Of course, with an acutely prejudiced mind as yours, I dont expect your single track mental makeup to go beyond that.
By your same logic, should you defile the traffic rulebook everytime there is an accident. Should I blame the Hindu holy texts for the poverty stricken, unbearably dirty slums of perfectly Hindu religionists. I wouldnt stoop down to associate religion with that.
Honestly, how many events of conversions have been enlisted by you since independence. Your ilk blamed the christians for launching a countrywide conversion drive. But their numbers remain the same. (Of course, I now run the risk of getting into Muslim numbers, another stereotype often quoted by the Hindu Right.)



   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 03:43 AM  Permalink
Layman was only responding in kind to the drivel posted by the original poster. He was simply replying in kind, since when has that become crime.

Yes one should defile the traffic book if there is an accident and it can be proven that it was the book that needs to be fixed because it contains the wrong advice.

Yes you can blame the Manu smriti for some of the poverty and treatment of "lower" castes. So, what is your point. Hinduism encourages that sort of thing they are the first to attack their own primitive practices, a sampling of the posts (small sample set but representative of at least urban Indian population) will bear testimony to my claims.

For conversion you only have to look at Pakistan where the glories of (unfettered) Islamic practice can be observed first hand. From a population of 15% at independence in 60 year its down to 1.5%. Again please quote facts not some wishy/washy opinion.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator
RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by anoop shukla on Feb 27, 2007 05:48 PM  Permalink
Its a shame.
Shame that people who are supposed to be educated talk the way they do.

I fail to understand how religion got bigger than humanity.

Its weird that people get ready to spill blood on something that they "believe" to be true.

Even animals dont kill without a reason.. and we humans have become worse.. so much for the most gifted of living beings on this planet.

And to justify killings in the name of god, jihad, religion is loathful.

Shameful.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by Name on Feb 27, 2007 06:39 PM  Permalink
Jihad is not about killing people. rest what u wrote I agree to it. We are human at first.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 08:52 AM  Permalink
Oh, then every time Osama Bin Laden and his sidekick call for Jihad, whats that supposed to mean ? No amount of word games is going to change the meaning and intent of Jihad as mentioned and clearly explained in the Koran. This nonsense about Jihad being some sort of internal struggle is the standard Muslim apologists dodging/deflecting tactic. It's been over used and people have seen through it, please come up with something new.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by Perv Sharma on Feb 28, 2007 05:10 AM  Permalink
Aurangzeb's Islam & Idol Worship

Dear get ur facts right. Many people are writing here and there that Modern Civilisation is a product of Judeo-Christian tradition. This is totally false. In fact, modern philosophy and science are a delayed fruition of the tree that was ancient India or in other words Hinduism. On the other hand, Semitic religions did everything to suppress and destroy the development of knowledge especially science. In fact, if any thing is the final product of the Judeo-Christian tradition i.e. the Religion of Abraham, it is the Islamic fundamentalism.
Truth was considered a subject of investigation, not of belief. Every cause has an effect and this effect becomes a cause or another effect. The Universe (samsara) is but total of the complex system of causes and effects flowing in time. Hindu religion encouraged people to know and experience God rather than to believe Him. Because of this investigative temper, India was ahead of all other nations in science and mathematics till her subjugation by Muslim conquest in the 12th century.
On the other hand, Jewish religion was based on the faith that only their God is real and all others false. Hence it was not only belief in one God but it was also a belief in correctness of only one religion. Christians also adopted the same attitude and Islam also asserted the same. Fighting the nonbeliever was considered a prime duty of the believers. The words of the God as revealed to the Prophet is final and anything contradicting them has to be destroyed. This gave the concept of heresy.
Much later , Jesus Christ started his religion. Jesus was very much like an Indian ascetic. Like Hindu saints, he followed renunciation and practised celibacy, and preached non-violence. It is claimed that he had been to India and had received spiritual training in Indian tradition. Whatever be the fact, we find that many of the sayings and parables of Jesus, Pythagoras and the Upanishads are common. When Christianity was taking shape, that part of the world was inhabited by Hindus as well. When they converted to Christianity, they introduced many things to this new religion e.g. folding hands in Indian style whenever praying to God; ringing typical Indian style bells in the churches; introduction of a circular solar halo round the picture of Jesus etc. Practice of celibacy, renunciation of material life by the monks and asceticism adopted by Christian saints were Hindu influence on Christianity, because they are not found in other Semitic religions. But the vast majority of people who initially accepted Christianity were Jews. Therefore, they brought in with them the Old Testament(the Jewish scripture) and most of the beliefs and practices of the Jews. Therefore after the death of Jesus, Christians now believed , as the Jews did, that only theirs' is the right religion and only theirs' is the true God. Sorcery, miracle, witchcraft, mysticism, idol-worship, etc. are satanic acts and people accused to be involved in them would be killed. Raising any doubt or suggesting modification in religion was termed heresy, punishable with death. Fighting the non-Christians to convert or eliminate them was considered religious duty. This new religion was very anti-science, because science did not support what this religion preached.

The Zero, decimal system, Indian numerals, astronomy, astrology, trigonometry, ayurveda, chemistry, everything even up to the Hindu dream-analysis, had now reached Baghdad, and the local Irani scholars were now in a position to formulate further theorums. Fascinated by Indian astronomy, Caliph al-Mamun ordered an observatory built in Baghdad in 829 and one soon after outside of Damascus.

Another less well known fact is that almost all of the scholars known as Arabic to the posterity were actually Iranian e.g. al-Khwarizmi, al-Biruni etc and some were Spanish but they wrote in Arabic, Arabic being the language of the Emperor. On the other hand not much intellectual activity was going on in Arabian peninsula, which was still the centre of Islamic religious activities.

And lots of lots of history mate- It's just non-sense that islam brought everything. Don't just follow your madrasa history. You live in a modern world.
The English are still finding it hard to digest the findings around them.




   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by Secular Indian on Feb 27, 2007 02:40 PM  Permalink
Just because Islam made it to other parts of the world peacefully doesn't mean the same happened in India. You've reposted this thrice now. Please stop spamming.. You have made this claim earlier that Aurangzeb was a Hindu reformist, so he had to kill them to save them. Get a life. Additionally extra punctuation doesn't really add any semantic content it's irritating.

   Forward   |   'Report abuse' disabled by moderator
RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by biju nair on Feb 28, 2007 01:21 AM  Permalink
Dear Mohd Ahmed,

Who discovered oil in Arabia? Who explored? Who installed the machines to extract oil?

Is there any Muslim country who can manufacture even a bicycle without any external help?

Whole world knows Abdul Qadeer Khan(Father of first Islamic Bomb) stolen nuclear blueprints from Belgium and got help from China for Nuclear Bomb.

Whole world knows Pakistan received Missile technology from North Korea in exchange of Nuclear technology to them. Everybody knows who helped Iran in Nuclear technology.

Khatna is not started by muslims but by Jews.

Hindus used to wash daily not like muslims who washes only on Fridays.

Hindus used to wash whole body properly not like with two lottas of water as told in Islamic Holy Book.

This guy beleives no body were washing there hands before having food and this tradition started with Islam. It may be true in Arabian Desert context were water is a scarcity but not in India were there are enough water.

Biju

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by Unsung Humanist on Feb 28, 2007 01:41 AM  Permalink
Mr Nair, I guess you are a Keralite and has at least an observational knowledge of the relatively more educated Kerala Muslim.
How many Muslims have you counted taking bath only on Fridays.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by biju nair on Feb 28, 2007 03:29 AM  Permalink
Keralite Muslims are hygenic comparing most North Indian counter parts but majority prefers attar to bath.

Still in Kerala one will find Hindus and Christians more hygenic than Muslims.

My Answer is for Mr.Mohammed Ahmed.

Biju

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Understand the Basics, please!!!!!!!!
by omprakash valvekar on Feb 28, 2007 03:13 PM  Permalink
The Author here is not aware about the history. Auranzeb how crurely had killed the son of Shri. Shivaji Maharaj, .i.e. Shri. Sambaji., he had killed him by intense toucher, first removed eyes, then cut off hands, the legs, then ears, then tounge, then head......

On the other hand when Auranjeb once was doing namaz, that time it his camp was attacked by shivaji people. They wanted to kill him. But!they let him go because hindus don't kill people in prayer.

These two incidents tell us truth and difference. Hindu by it self is secular. Islam is ..........

That is just like muslim quote says 'Saw chuhe kake billi, haj ko challi'


   Forward   |   Report abuse
Muslim Rule in India
by nafis khan on Feb 27, 2007 11:46 AM  Permalink  | Hide replies

I just want to refer the research made by several Non Muslim Scholars like Dr. Ved Prakash Sharma etc. It concludes saying " If Muslims who ruled on India were not secular there would have been no India such a Hindu majority state like it exixts now. I therefore suggest our Indian Brothers be only Indian and do not dig the past.

Nafis Khan

    Forward  |  Report abuse
RE:Muslim Rule in India
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 27, 2007 10:18 PM  Permalink
Its NOT that Middle age Muslim rulers didn;t try. They tried their best, even Tipu Sultal forcibly converted 1000s of people, destroyed tons of temples.

Hindus survived because they were 2 many in number, and Indian society which is closely knit.


   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Muslim Rule in India
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 04:57 AM  Permalink
You are quite right, it's amazing how people get amnesia and suspends disbelief, and use the success of Hindu resistance to forced total Islamic conversion to show that because Muslims failed to bring the entire Indian population into the fold of Islam, not for lack of trying mind you, it's just that they weren't as successful as they would have liked, as an argument that there was no forced conversion. All facts are ignored and pooh poohed as Hindu propogand or even worse as victim hood.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:Muslim Rule in India
by mahesh kumar on Feb 27, 2007 12:30 PM  Permalink
15 crores -> pakistan
10 Crores -> Afghanistan
15 Crores -> Benagladesh
20 Crores- > India
Totally 60 crores Muslims in South Asia.Which was once 100 % Hindu.
It seems hindus have contributed more to the Islamic development than any one else ? So much for secularism...

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Muslim Rule in India
by Ahmad on Feb 27, 2007 03:33 PM  Permalink
It was the contribution of only Islam for a peaceful world; and I bet, no one can bring this much number of support by means of force.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:RE:Muslim Rule in India
by ajay Sharma on Feb 27, 2007 08:21 PM  Permalink
I think either u r pretending ignorant or u need to correct your basics...
I fully agree only weak people convert their religions... So many Weak Hindus converted to Islam means Islam has lots of weak hearted people who can convert back anytime.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator
Message deleted by moderator
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Muslim Rule in India
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 04:50 AM  Permalink
Layman has a point, Sita Ram Goel was actually persecuted by none other than the Govt. of India for having the temerity to tell the truth. Where was everyones objectivity then ? Most Indians are not even aware of his writing and the few that have heard of him tend to regard him as some sort of religious nut that had nothing worthwhile to say the lest. That is the extent of the suppression of his views. What mythical objectivity are you talking about ? RSS may have used his ideas but he was never a member, he made his arguments with facts quoting Islamic sources, no one has refuted his claims, except attack him personally. I wish more Hindus had his courage and fortitude.

Forward   |   Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Muslim Rule in India
by Unsung Humanist on Feb 28, 2007 01:18 AM  Permalink
Oh Layman, grow up. I guess its time you go beyond those two website links. You have been repeating them so often.
I suggest you keep a library to get u a crash course in elementary objectivity. Purely one-sided, single track arguments would do you no good. To be taken seriously, open your mind a bit. I suggest a good holiday. How about it.

Forward   |   Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator
Message deleted by moderator
RE:RE:RE:Muslim Rule in India
by omprakash valvekar on Feb 28, 2007 03:17 PM  Permalink
The Author here is not aware about the history. Auranzeb how crurely had killed the son of Shri. Shivaji Maharaj, .i.e. Shri. Sambaji., he had killed him by intense toucher, first removed eyes, then cut off hands, the legs, then ears, then tounge, then head......

On the other hand when Auranjeb once was doing namaz, that time it his camp was attacked by shivaji people. They wanted to kill him. But!they let him go because hindus don't kill people in prayer.

These two incidents tell us truth and difference. Hindu by it self is secular. Islam is ..........

That is just like muslim quote says 'Saw chuhe kake billi, haj ko challi'


   Forward   |   Report abuse
Aurangjeb is the hero of Pakistan
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 27, 2007 10:36 AM  Permalink  | Hide replies

I would just add one more thing:

Its this fanatic Aurangjeb who is hailed as hero by Pakistan, Pakistani Nationalism. So, we can imagine what will be outcome of socalled peace-process between India and Pakistan/

If an invader, destroyer of indigeneous culture is treated as hero by a section of its people, we can imagine what sort of peace we can think.

Cortez is treated as an invader by Mexicans. But Aurangjeb is treated as a hero by Pakistan and fundamentalist section of Indian Muslims/

    Forward  |  Report abuse
RE:Aurangjeb is the hero of Pakistan
by Ahmad on Feb 27, 2007 03:44 PM  Permalink
How a killer can be Hero. Now Pakistani's; were once had your own people.. what made them change.. and made them to say a killer as Hero. This indicates the Hero might have done many thing good to become Hero. So condratictions are there, and before concluding the things we should study world History w.r.t Islam and India. Once people of India were brothers (despite of being Hindu/Muslim).. its only after the British invaders, things became worst in relationship..

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Aurangjeb is the hero of Pakistan
by ajay Sharma on Feb 27, 2007 08:23 PM  Permalink
Hail Ahmad sahib...
He seems to act in the most dumb character here...

   Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:Aurangjeb is the hero of Pakistan
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 27, 2007 10:15 PM  Permalink
Why Pakistanis treat Aurangjeb as a hero? Because, as soon as they converted to Islam, and as moderation, rationality lacks most muslims, they started treating who destroyed them as their hero.

Mexicans though converted to Xtianity, its due to relative moderation, rationality seen amongst Xtians, they rightly treat Cortez as an aggressor.


   Forward   |   Report abuse
Aurangjeb was a Islamic Fundamentalist and Marxists whitewashed that.
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 27, 2007 10:28 AM  Permalink 

Many congratulations to Francois Gautier and whoever involved behind this unique project. We Hindus never good in history. Marxist fundamentalists have whitewashed these as a part of international bull work against Capitalism - however Marxists have been butchered in every Muslim countries.



Not only Aurangjeb, Islamic Fundamentalism of today (Deobandi and Wahabi) has direct link with some of the characters of his period like Shah Wahiullah.



Deobond's Madrasa was founded by people who traces their ideological lineage from Shah Wahiullah.



Its high time Indians understand this fundamentalist strand of Islam.

    Forward  |  'Report abuse' disabled by moderator
Total 9683 messages Pages:    <<  < Newer  | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260   Older >   >>
Write a message