If casteism in Hinduism is bad and Islam a reforming religion then Islam followers looks like read everything with one eye. The islamic religion brought the concept of treating losers in War as Slaves from their roman rulers to this part of Hindus.
A religion which enslaves another human being because it of losing in war is nothing but barbaric. The islamic followers only took advantage of the tolerant and generousiy of Hinduism in war to ultimately defeat them and rest is history.
RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Vineet Saxena on Feb 28, 2007 10:04 AM Permalink
Other thing is that they call "Kafir" who dont believe in Islam. And as per Kuran, Kafir dont have right to live. Hindu philosophy is just reverse, they believe in "Vasudhaiv Kutumbm" and we don't hesitate to recite "Ishwar Allah tero naam" in our temples.
RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Feb 28, 2007 05:00 PM Permalink
Who told u that kafir don't have right to live as per koran??? Nothing like that is mentioned in Koran. Provide Chapter and verse numbers. Don't throw blind comments.
Kafir are living since the time of Adam and they will be there till the Day of Judgement.
RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Feb 28, 2007 01:47 PM Permalink
Slave is Haram (Totally not allowed) in Islam. Islamic follower never treated war prisoners as slave.. Any examples do u have.
Also note the 3 most severe crime in Islam: 1. Being unfathful to god. It even include not to cheat others and speaking only the words that are not offensive (killing and torture are far beyond). 2. Killing is the worst crime after the first one. 3. Adultery or ra** is the next severe crime. Still do u think Islamic followers are prone to these sins. I agree there will be some exceptions (its in all religion), but entire religion should not be addressed & targetted for that.
And for patience we have a separate Sura, chapter/ paragraph in Qur'an. We call it patience as sabr
RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Feb 28, 2007 01:54 PM Permalink
In brief, for Islamic foillowers the 3 major sin are: 1. Being unfaithful to god. 2. killing (People of any religion or races) 3. Adultery or ra**
RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 02:02 PM Permalink
Given what you've mentioned from (2) does it follow that Aurangzeb and all the other Muslim rulers that demolished temples and killed Hindus were sinners ?
Lets not even mention the other suras in Koran for the moment.
It is to the Koran that we have to go to find Muhammad's attitude to slavery. The subject is treated at many places in the Koran. We shall consider some of these statements in the order that they appear in the Koran, quoting the relevant part of the verse concerned(8).
(i) Sura 2 (The Cow) Verse 178
2.178: O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.
Retaliation for murder and other crimes was sanctioned by Arabian usage and accepted by Muhammad. Here it is said that a free(man) could be killed for the murder of a free(man) and similarly for a (free) woman and a slave. The mention of these three categories quite casually indicates that slavery is accepted along with the other two categories as an acceptable state for a human being. What is not clear is whether the person put to death is the person responsible for the killing. While this may be true of free persons this is not necessarily true of slaves. Thus if a slave is killed then it is not the killer of the slave that has to be killed but a slave of the killer! What this shows is that slaves are treated as pure merchandise of the slave owner. If a slave is killed then it is a loss to its owner and the retaliation for this is the killing of a slave belonging to the offender. Of course the slave killed may be quite innocent.
Of course it may be argued that the free people may have been responsible for the crime but to a kill an innocent slave for the crime of his master is truly a perversion of justice. The casual way in which slaves as a category of humans are mentioned along with free men and women in the application of this law shows that Muhammad completely accepted the slave status of humans to be a perfectly normal status.
RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Feb 28, 2007 03:09 PM Permalink
In Islam the best revenge is "Forgiveness". Retaliation is authorized to avenge an injury. However, the retaliation must be directed toward the guilty individual(s), must be proportional to the injury, and must not exceed the limits set by Allah. The Quran does not support substitutionary retaliation against individuals who are innocent of any offense.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 03:19 PM Permalink
Again I ask, have you read the Koran or are you just making up bullshit as this thread progresses. I will for your convenience post the Sura again:
(i) Sura 2 (The Cow) Verse 178
2.178: O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.
It clearly says "slave for slave"! So if you kill your neighbor's slave then he can kill your slave. This belies your claim of "substitutionary retaliation".
Secondly it clear mentions slaves, so that makes lie of your claim that slavery is haram in Islam.
Be honest, others can read too. The days when you could fool the world with this kind of double talk are long gone.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 03:07 AM Permalink
Rock n Roll,
If a Hindu has killed and raped in the past he doesn't justify it with his holy book in one hand secondly he doesn't have misogynistic sharia law to encourage him. Thats why, you will not find Hindus taking shelter behind their holy book for the crimes they commit, unlike the Muslims. Aurangzeb as the article above points out is a case in point.
Maulvi-ji you choose to be ignorant and blind to the true meaning of the verse. Rather than make up your own translation why don't we use one from here:
http://quranbrowser.com/
Let me pick one at random out of several.
Yusuf Ali O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.
How is this even remotely close to you what you claim ? Please indulge me.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Mar 01, 2007 01:57 PM Permalink
Remember one thing: DOT ("Nokta") k her pher se khuda juda ho jata hai. So read complete para with meaning and explanations..
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Mar 01, 2007 12:18 PM Permalink
I will ask Secular.. since hindus doesn't justify it with his holy book; so the killing of innocents are justified...?????
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 02:22 PM Permalink
I'm interested in a copy of the Koran that I can read not someone else's opinion. I like to make up my own mind.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 12:44 PM Permalink
Name,
No it's not justified, that is the point. So, now that we've agreed on something. Did Aurangzeb do the right thing by destroying Hindu temples and forcibly converting Hindus to Isam ?
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 02:55 AM Permalink
Your opinion is not a refutation it is just that opinion. Please show me one example of your refutation. This post is like your other claims. If Shenidh says so it must be a fact, Nice. You seem to have invented a universe in your head which seems to run on Shenidhian logic. Foisting your ignorance and blind faith on other people is not called a debate, it is called proselytizing.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Mar 01, 2007 01:50 PM Permalink
You can reach irf.net for correct Islamic info and koran info. Good thing is that u can post your questions there, or it will be already present in Q&A or FAQ section. Please avoid other sites for I am not sure they might be correct or might be misinterpreted..
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 01, 2007 02:41 PM Permalink
your interpretation of Quran, Name, and your brotherhood, altogether is very hideous. What we see from Islam in practice is disturbing. That is what people look at and approach credible informing sources. Not some jehadi site. They will get scared if they go there. You know what i mean.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 01, 2007 02:37 PM Permalink
these nuts report messages for abuse that gets some sense into their insane brains.
