Ayodhya : Supreme Court Orders Mediation to Settle Dispute, Panel of 3 Mediators Appointed

[Alam_dar]

57 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

First, a book is indeed a form of proof, assuming one actually reads it and it provides reliable documentation for its assertions.

 

If you incapable of reading a simple book, I can give a dozen: verses of Sanskrit, historical instances, as well circumstantial evidence which directly refutes what you claimed in your post.

 

Not only that, the same book you plugged here, despite the fact that you haven't read that one either, is refuted by the very book you were assigned to read. 

Yes, that is the correct way of discussing the issue. 

 

Please bring your proofs here, and answer the questions about god of gods Indra and others which the so-called Communists raise.  I am totally open to change my opinion in light of new arguments. But if I find your arguments to be not satisfactory enough, then don't compel the other party to still accept whatever you are saying. This is the biggest which the aggressive parties do while discussing the issues. 

I just hope you take the sensible path of debating, instead of the aggressive one. 

 

57 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 I specifically asked you to prove that beef was part of so-called old culture in Hinduism or that Dalits ate beef for centuries or that Dalits especially ate beef. Provide proof.  

It is common history of India that it was Buddah who introduced the vegetarian culture in name of being humane upon the animals. Let me see your evidences first before moving to this history part. 

 

57 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

The rest of your post is clear obfuscation by you, in an attempt to defelct from addressing what you originally said. I am not interested in your opinion on or what you think about this or that. You are free to post that or whatever else without quoting me. Back up your assertions, or, once again, bother someone else. 

I believe that my 2 Questions are totally logical  while they are about the open Double Standards, and thus they still stand there to be answered. 

 

57 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

It is clear, you were talking out of your read-end and now are trying to deflect from supporting what you said. 

This is the typical aggressive and non-sensible aggressive attitude during a debate. 

[Tibarn]

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Please bring your proofs here, and answer the questions about god of gods Indra and others which the so-called Communists raise. 

Let me see your evidences first before moving to this history part. 

Sure, right after you provide something which supports one of the 3 claims you made:  

 

Stop avoiding the issue:  either provide evidence for your claims or admit you were talking out of your rear-end. Until or unless you do so, you will have to wait till the thread dies out for me to post the relevant evidence, like everyone else.   

 

Let's make this easy and simple for you, since you seem to struggle with following a single line of argument, maybe then you will stop avoiding direct questions

1) Show that Hindus ate Beef at any significant or widespread level before the arrival of Islam in the subcontinent.

2) Show the evidence that specifically Dalits ate beef for centuries.

3) Show the evidence that Dalits ate beef at a greater rate than other "castes" of Hindus. 

 

The burden of proof lies with you, don't be illogical

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

Spoiler

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

 

onus probandi

(also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

It is common history of India that it was Buddah who introduced the vegetarian culture in name of being humane upon the animals.

You can repeat the same thing ad nauseam,  that doesn't constitute proof. Provide direct evidence for the three claims you made above!

 

57 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

This is the typical aggressive and non-sensible aggressive attitude during a debate. 

 

I warned you not to bother me, at least 2-3 times, unless you provide evidence. You continue to do so without providing evidence.  Any "aggression" is your doing. Look in a mirror and introspect on your lack of integrity first before accusing others! 

 

[mishra]

Quote

1) Show that Hindus ate Beef at any significant or widespread level before the arrival of Islam in the subcontinent.

2) Show the evidence that specifically Dalits ate beef for centuries.

3) Show the evidence that Dalits ate beef at a greater rate than other "castes" of Hindus. 

For once, I assume that @Alam_dar soft message that dalits are not Hindus in his argument. Let me put some facts.

I am not very old but I distinctly remember, during my childhood days, Just beating a cow with stick was considered sin among allmost whole of Hindus.

 

Now assuming that Dalits were weakest section of society, How dare they go against the practices of stronger sections, which said cow is Holy?

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

It is common history of India that it was Buddah who introduced the vegetarian culture in name of being humane upon the animals. Let me see your evidences first before moving to this history part. 

 

As the resident history expert, you are WRONG.

Buddha categorically mentions that in his time, Jainism was one of the dominant religions, alongside vedic hinduism. Buddhist literature gives ample hints that while Vedic hinduism was the most numerous, jainism wasn't that far behind. The royal line of Kashi for eg, were all Jains. And nobody beats jains in vegetarianism, not even Buddhists. Jainism wasn't founded by Mahaveera, he was their LAST tirthankar ( great person). 

The 'eating beef an burying your dead' happened in the Indus Valley civilization. The cremation process was started by the Ochre color pottery civilization, which is also known as the last phase of IVC and its fragmentation stage. Given that we now have evidence of widespread disease being a big cause of depopulation ( smallpox and leprosy), it doesn't even seem like a standard ' new religion shift' as much as an obvious epidemic caused shift, that gradually became enshrined in religion.

 

[Stradlater]

Cow was considered extremely sacred in the Rigvedic period so much so that it is mentioned around 216 times in the Rigveda Samhitas books 2-10 . Many different stuff were named after cow such as Gaudhuli(sunset) , Duhitri for daughter (one who milks the cow) etc.

Wars were fought over possession of cows(Vishwamitra) and cattle raids were quite common considering their importance in the primary pastoral Rigvedic society.

 

Read a book , maybe?

 

 

[Alam_dar]

53 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

Sure, right after you provide something which supports one of the 3 claims you made:  

 

Stop avoiding the issue:  either provide evidence for your claims or admit you were talking out of your rear-end. Until or unless you do so, you will have to wait till the thread dies out for me to post the relevant evidence, like everyone else.   

 

Let's make this easy and simple for you, since you seem to struggle with following a single line of argument, maybe then you will stop avoiding direct questions

1) Show that Hindus ate Beef at any significant or widespread level before the arrival of Islam in the subcontinent.

2) Show the evidence that specifically Dalits ate beef for centuries.

3) Show the evidence that Dalits ate beef at a greater rate than other "castes" of Hindus. 

 

The burden of proof lies with you, don't be illogical

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

  Reveal hidden contents

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

 

onus probandi

(also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear.

 

You can repeat the same thing ad nauseam,  that doesn't constitute proof. Provide direct evidence for the three claims you made above!

I warned you not to bother me, at least 2-3 times, unless you provide evidence. You continue to do so without providing evidence.  Any "aggression" is your doing. Look in a mirror and introspect on your lack of integrity first before accusing others! 

 

It is all the same. People are not discussing the issues in order to understand each other, but only in order impose their opinion and to win the argument. And then they use tactics that their all questions should be answered first, but never answer the questions of the other party. 

 

[Alam_dar]

Just now, Alam_dar said:

1) Show that Hindus ate Beef at any significant or widespread level before the arrival of Islam in the subcontinent.

Following article published in the well known newspaper of India"The Hindu":

 

https://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/14/stories/13140833.htm

 

Beef eating: strangulating history

 

While one must respect the sentiments of those who worship cow and regard her as their mother, to take offence to the objective study of history just because the facts don't suit their political calculations is yet another sign of a society where liberal space is being strangulated by the practitioners of communal politics. PROF. D. N. JHA, a historian from Delhi University, had been experiencing the nightmares of `threats to life' from anonymous callers who were trying to prevail upon him not to go ahead with the publication of his well researched work, Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions.

As per the reports it is a work of serious scholarship based on authentic sources in tune with methods of scientific research in history. The book demonstrates that contrary to the popular belief even today a large number of Indians, the indigenous people in particular and many other communities in general, consume beef unmindful of the dictates of the Hindutva forces.

It is too well known to recount that these Hindutva forces confer the status of mother to the cow. Currently 72 communities in Kerala - not all of them untouchables - prefer beef to the expensive mutton and the Hindutva forces are trying to prevail upon them to stop the same.

 

Not tenable

To begin with the historian breaks the myth that Muslim rulers introduced beef eating in India. Much before the advent of Islam in India beef had been associated with Indian dietary practices. Also it is not at all tenable to hold that dietary habits are a mark of community identity.

 

A survey of ancient Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas, shows that amongst the nomadic, pastoral Aryans who settled here, animal sacrifice was a dominant feature till the emergence of settled agriculture. Cattle were the major property during this phase and they offered the same to propitiate the gods. Wealth was equated with the ownership of the cattle.

 

Many gods such as Indra and Agni are described as having special preferences for different types of flesh - Indra had weakness for bull's meat and Agni for bull's and cow's. It is recorded that the Maruts and the Asvins were also offered cows. In the Vedas there is a mention of around 250 animals out of which at least 50 were supposed to be fit for sacrifice and consumption. In the Mahabharata there is a mention of a king named Rantideva who achieved great fame by distributing foodgrains and beef to Brahmins. Taittiriya Brahman categorically tells us: `Verily the cow is food' (atho annam via gauh) and Yajnavalkya's insistence on eating the tender (amsala) flesh of the cow is well known. Even later Brahminical texts provide the evidence for eating beef. Even Manusmriti did not prohibit the consumption of beef.

 

As a medicine

In therapeutic section of Charak Samhita (pages 86-87) the flesh of cow is prescribed as a medicine for various diseases. It is also prescribed for making soup. It is emphatically advised as a cure for irregular fever, consumption, and emaciation. The fat of the cow is recommended for debility and rheumatism.

 

With the rise of agricultural economy and the massive transformation occurring in society, changes were to be brought in in the practice of animal sacrifice also. At that time there were ritualistic practices like animal sacrifices, with which Brahmins were identified. Buddha attacked these practices. There were sacrifices, which involved 500 oxen, 500 male calves, 500 female calves and 500 sheep to be tied to the sacrificial pole for slaughter. Buddha pointed out that aswamedha, purusmedha, vajapeya sacrifices did not produce good results. According to a story in Digha Nikaya, when Buddha was touring Magadha, a Brahmin called Kutadanta was preparing for a sacrifice with 700 bulls, 700 goats and 700 rams. Buddha intervened and stopped him. His rejection of animal sacrifice and emphasis on non-injury to animals assumed a new significance in the context of new agriculture.

 

 

The threat from Buddhism

The emphasis on non-violence by Buddha was not blind or rigid. He did taste beef and it is well known that he died due to eating pork. Emperor Ashok after converting to Buddhism did not turn to vegetarianism. He only restricted the number of animals to be killed for the royal kitchen.

So where do matters change and how did the cow become a symbol of faith and reverence to the extent of assuming the status of `motherhood'? Over a period of time mainly after the emergence of Buddhism or rather as an accompaniment of the Brahminical attack on Buddhism, the practices started being looked on with different emphasis. The threat posed by Buddhism to the Brahminical value system was too severe. In response to low castes slipping away from the grip of Brahminism, the battle was taken up at all the levels. At philosophical level Sankara reasserted the supremacy of Brahminical values, at political level King Pushyamitra Shung ensured the physical attack on Buddhist monks, at the level of symbols King Shashank got the Bodhi tree (where Gautama the Buddha got Enlightenment) destroyed.

One of the appeals to the spread of Buddhism was the protection of cattle wealth, which was needed for the agricultural economy. In a way while Brahminism `succeeded' in banishing Buddhism from India, it had also to transform itself from the `animal sacrifice' state to the one which could be in tune with the times. It is here that this ideology took up the cow as a symbol of their ideological march. But unlike Buddha whose pronouncements were based on reason, the counteraction of Brahminical ideology took the form of a blind faith based on assertion. So while Buddha's non-violence was for the preservation of animal wealth for the social and compassionate reasons the counter was based purely on symbolism. So while the followers of Brahminical ideology accuse Buddha of `weakening' India due to his doctrine of non-violence, he was not a cow worshipper or vegetarian in the current Brahminical sense.

Despite the gradual rigidification of Brahminical `cow as mother' stance, large sections of low castes continued the practice of beef eating. The followers of Buddhism continued to eat flesh including beef. Since Brahminism is the dominant religious tradition, Babur, the first Mughal emperor, in his will to his son Humayun, in deference to these notions, advised him to respect the cow and avoid cow slaughter. With the construction of Hindutva ideology and politics, in response to the rising Indian national movement, the demand for ban on cow slaughter also came up. In post-Independence India RSS repeatedly raised this issue to build up a mass campaign but without any response to its call till the 1980s.

While one must respect the sentiments of those who worship cow and regard her as their mother, to take offence to the objective study of history just because the facts don't suit their political calculations is yet another sign of a society where liberal space is being strangulated by the practitioners of communal politics. We have seen enough such threats and offences in recent past - be it the opposition to films or the destruction of paintings, or the dictates of the communalists to the young not to celebrate Valentine's Day, etc., - and hope the democratic spirit of our Constitution holds the forte and any threat to the democratic freedom is opposed tooth and nail.

Prof. RAM PUNIYANI

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, someone said:

The crux of this issue is history. Today, Dalits are getting justice based on the past crimes done in our country. There are also countries like Israel, USA where past crimes are now being corrected.

 

Similarly, this Babri  is the symbol of tyranny. Yet, if courts don't take history into account, then whats the significance and relevance of the place being Lord Ram birthplace itself? They are foolish and wrong if they make judgement based from India 1947. That latter is the key point as one side only wants to show incomplete picture by analyzing it from 1947, while I along with many others wants the complete picture which consists of history to make the judgement. But that means dealing with secular "India" biggest taboo subject, Muslim atrocities...

I have heard left cabal re-iterating there was no India before 1947. But claim to disputed territories has to be based on a Historical point of view. Sing a Ghazal and recite a Sufi poem and forget about Ram Mandir.

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Following article published in the well known newspaper of India"The Hindu":

 

https://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/14/stories/13140833.htm

 

Beef eating: strangulating history

 

While one must respect the sentiments of those who worship cow and regard her as their mother, to take offence to the objective study of history just because the facts don't suit their political calculations is yet another sign of a society where liberal space is being strangulated by the practitioners of communal politics. PROF. D. N. JHA, a historian from Delhi University, had been experiencing the nightmares of `threats to life' from anonymous callers who were trying to prevail upon him not to go ahead with the publication of his well researched work, Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions.

As per the reports it is a work of serious scholarship based on authentic sources in tune with methods of scientific research in history. The book demonstrates that contrary to the popular belief even today a large number of Indians, the indigenous people in particular and many other communities in general, consume beef unmindful of the dictates of the Hindutva forces.

It is too well known to recount that these Hindutva forces confer the status of mother to the cow. Currently 72 communities in Kerala - not all of them untouchables - prefer beef to the expensive mutton and the Hindutva forces are trying to prevail upon them to stop the same.

 

Not tenable

To begin with the historian breaks the myth that Muslim rulers introduced beef eating in India. Much before the advent of Islam in India beef had been associated with Indian dietary practices. Also it is not at all tenable to hold that dietary habits are a mark of community identity.

 

A survey of ancient Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas, shows that amongst the nomadic, pastoral Aryans who settled here, animal sacrifice was a dominant feature till the emergence of settled agriculture. Cattle were the major property during this phase and they offered the same to propitiate the gods. Wealth was equated with the ownership of the cattle.

 

Many gods such as Indra and Agni are described as having special preferences for different types of flesh - Indra had weakness for bull's meat and Agni for bull's and cow's. It is recorded that the Maruts and the Asvins were also offered cows. In the Vedas there is a mention of around 250 animals out of which at least 50 were supposed to be fit for sacrifice and consumption. In the Mahabharata there is a mention of a king named Rantideva who achieved great fame by distributing foodgrains and beef to Brahmins. Taittiriya Brahman categorically tells us: `Verily the cow is food' (atho annam via gauh) and Yajnavalkya's insistence on eating the tender (amsala) flesh of the cow is well known. Even later Brahminical texts provide the evidence for eating beef. Even Manusmriti did not prohibit the consumption of beef.

 

As a medicine

In therapeutic section of Charak Samhita (pages 86-87) the flesh of cow is prescribed as a medicine for various diseases. It is also prescribed for making soup. It is emphatically advised as a cure for irregular fever, consumption, and emaciation. The fat of the cow is recommended for debility and rheumatism.

 

With the rise of agricultural economy and the massive transformation occurring in society, changes were to be brought in in the practice of animal sacrifice also. At that time there were ritualistic practices like animal sacrifices, with which Brahmins were identified. Buddha attacked these practices. There were sacrifices, which involved 500 oxen, 500 male calves, 500 female calves and 500 sheep to be tied to the sacrificial pole for slaughter. Buddha pointed out that aswamedha, purusmedha, vajapeya sacrifices did not produce good results. According to a story in Digha Nikaya, when Buddha was touring Magadha, a Brahmin called Kutadanta was preparing for a sacrifice with 700 bulls, 700 goats and 700 rams. Buddha intervened and stopped him. His rejection of animal sacrifice and emphasis on non-injury to animals assumed a new significance in the context of new agriculture.

 

 

The threat from Buddhism

The emphasis on non-violence by Buddha was not blind or rigid. He did taste beef and it is well known that he died due to eating pork. Emperor Ashok after converting to Buddhism did not turn to vegetarianism. He only restricted the number of animals to be killed for the royal kitchen.

So where do matters change and how did the cow become a symbol of faith and reverence to the extent of assuming the status of `motherhood'? Over a period of time mainly after the emergence of Buddhism or rather as an accompaniment of the Brahminical attack on Buddhism, the practices started being looked on with different emphasis. The threat posed by Buddhism to the Brahminical value system was too severe. In response to low castes slipping away from the grip of Brahminism, the battle was taken up at all the levels. At philosophical level Sankara reasserted the supremacy of Brahminical values, at political level King Pushyamitra Shung ensured the physical attack on Buddhist monks, at the level of symbols King Shashank got the Bodhi tree (where Gautama the Buddha got Enlightenment) destroyed.

One of the appeals to the spread of Buddhism was the protection of cattle wealth, which was needed for the agricultural economy. In a way while Brahminism `succeeded' in banishing Buddhism from India, it had also to transform itself from the `animal sacrifice' state to the one which could be in tune with the times. It is here that this ideology took up the cow as a symbol of their ideological march. But unlike Buddha whose pronouncements were based on reason, the counteraction of Brahminical ideology took the form of a blind faith based on assertion. So while Buddha's non-violence was for the preservation of animal wealth for the social and compassionate reasons the counter was based purely on symbolism. So while the followers of Brahminical ideology accuse Buddha of `weakening' India due to his doctrine of non-violence, he was not a cow worshipper or vegetarian in the current Brahminical sense.

Despite the gradual rigidification of Brahminical `cow as mother' stance, large sections of low castes continued the practice of beef eating. The followers of Buddhism continued to eat flesh including beef. Since Brahminism is the dominant religious tradition, Babur, the first Mughal emperor, in his will to his son Humayun, in deference to these notions, advised him to respect the cow and avoid cow slaughter. With the construction of Hindutva ideology and politics, in response to the rising Indian national movement, the demand for ban on cow slaughter also came up. In post-Independence India RSS repeatedly raised this issue to build up a mass campaign but without any response to its call till the 1980s.

While one must respect the sentiments of those who worship cow and regard her as their mother, to take offence to the objective study of history just because the facts don't suit their political calculations is yet another sign of a society where liberal space is being strangulated by the practitioners of communal politics. We have seen enough such threats and offences in recent past - be it the opposition to films or the destruction of paintings, or the dictates of the communalists to the young not to celebrate Valentine's Day, etc., - and hope the democratic spirit of our Constitution holds the forte and any threat to the democratic freedom is opposed tooth and nail.

Prof. RAM PUNIYANI

What nonsense muslim apology....brahmanism didn't succeed in destroying buddhism in the subcontinent, Islam did. They butchered over 20,000 monk scholars and 100,000 students in various buddhist monasteries in less than 15 years. Bhaktiyar Khilji is thanking this covert muslim.

large sections of lower caste does NOT eat beef. they cannot afford any meat, let alone the more expensive beef.

[dial_100]

Community 1: Written in a book, follows it exactly and still doesn't accept the fact.

Community 2: Written in a book, doesn't follow it as beliefs have evolved and get labeled.

Community 3: The so call liberals (don't wanna say anything about them as they #1 AH according to me)

 

 

[Alam_dar]

7 minutes ago, dial_100 said:

Community 1: Written in a book, follows it exactly and still doesn't accept the fact.

Community 2: Written in a book, doesn't follow it as beliefs have evolved and get labeled.

Community 3: The so call liberals (don't wanna say anything about them as they #1 AH according to me)

To be honest, if there were only moderate Muslims, and no extremist Muslims to show us the real image of Islam, then I would have not left Islam up till now. 

 

If there would have been no extreme Hindutva movement, then again I doubt there would have been so much opposition against the Hindu religion. 

 

People are evolving. Earlier no religion. Then religions were invented. Then people followed them literally for thousands of years. Then they evolved and introduced metaphor and lot of interpretation. 

But I believe that this evolution is not going to stop here, as we are watching in the advanced western countries, and in next stage people are totally abandoning the religion. 

I believe this process is not going to stop in the future, but the newer generations all over the world are going to abandon the religions of their forefathers. 

 

[Muloghonto]

21 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

To be honest, if there were only moderate Muslims, and no extremist Muslims to show us the real image of Islam, then I would have not left Islam up till now. 

 

If there would have been no extreme Hindutva movement, then again I doubt there would have been so much opposition against the Hindu religion. 

again, stop being a muslim apologist. There was no hinduvta for centuries and we still got raped, slaughtered and force-converted. Hinduvta is a reaction to the desert-jaahils, thats basic historical fact. 

21 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

People are evolving. Earlier no religion. Then religions were invented. Then people followed them literally for thousands of years. Then they evolved and introduced metaphor and lot of interpretation. 

But I believe that this evolution is not going to stop here, as we are watching in the advanced western countries, and in next stage people are totally abandoning the religion. 

And creating new ones. Doesn't serve your atheistic progress argument very well when the rates of identifying as Wiccan or Scandinavian religions are spiking when X-tianity is dying in the west. It means that the # of atheists being formed is greatly exgaggerated. I say this, as a pucca atheist myself. 

21 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I believe this process is not going to stop in the future, but the newer generations all over the world are going to abandon the religions of their forefathers. 

Islam, Christianity, Judaism, which are of a different type than eastern religions are far more likely to catastrophically fail than the eastern religions, which are more syncretic, flexible and do not claim to often represent a direct transmission from God.

Without the fear of death or destitution, eastern religions will continue to mutate, absorb and evolve far more than the 'absolutist and therefore with less room for evolution' western religions. 

[dial_100]

3 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

To be honest, if there were only moderate Muslims, and no extremist Muslims to show us the real image of Islam, then I would have not left Islam up till now. 

 

If there would have been no extreme Hindutva movement, then again I doubt there would have been so much opposition against the Hindu religion. 

 

People are evolving. Earlier no religion. Then religions were invented. Then people followed them literally for thousands of years. Then they evolved and introduced metaphor and lot of interpretation. 

But I believe that this evolution is not going to stop here, as we are watching in the advanced western countries, and in next stage people are totally abandoning the religion. 

I believe this process is not going to stop in the future, but the newer generations all over the world are going to abandon the religions of their forefathers. 

people (including me) audaciously talk about god, evolution, Brahmins and many other things without knowing absolutely zilch about it.

[Mariyam]

19 hours ago, mishra said:

Maryam ji. Is Muslim Waqf Boar officially owner of all such Historic Mosques? Who actually owns them? Shouldnt it be Government, Some National Heritage/Acheological  type department?

 

ABove question is out of curosity, If they arent, then probably via this case they want to somehow cement ownership and earnings from various other such age old Historic mosques

So the Wakf board is a quasi governmental set up. All historic sites/ mosques are not Wakf owned. Only those that were grants by kings/ nobility/ religious leaders and can be proven with some degree of certainty. Wakf land can be sold but it needs an NoC from the state government. Ideally, the Wakf land is for the betterment of the people (Sunni Muslims) and the Wakf board is to use money from sales to open educational institutions/Islamic seminaries/parks etc. Even the revenue from Wakf property *ideally* is to be used for the same.

Like all other GoI bodies, the Wakf Board is also highly corrupt and most of the time ends up selling the lands to the highest bidder. It is a land mafia with the backing of most state governments. A very common example  Antilla (the ugly Ambani sky scraper. I use ugly for the skyscraper here ). Wakf land sold to the highest bidder under the aegis of the state government.

 

[coffee_rules]

9 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

So the Wakf board is a quasi governmental set up. All historic sites/ mosques are not Wakf owned. Only those that were grants by kings/ nobility/ religious leaders and can be proven with some degree of certainty. Wakf land can be sold but it needs an NoC from the state government. Ideally, the Wakf land is for the betterment of the people (Sunni Muslims) and the Wakf board is to use money from sales to open educational institutions/Islamic seminaries/parks etc. Even the revenue from Wakf property *ideally* is to be used for the same.

Like all other GoI bodies, the Wakf Board is also highly corrupt and most of the time ends up selling the lands to the highest bidder. It is a land mafia with the backing of most state governments. A very common example  Antilla (the ugly Ambani sky scraper. I use ugly for the skyscraper here ). Wakf land sold to the highest bidder under the aegis of the state government.

 

Did Wakf board sell Antilla land to Mukes?

 

[Tibarn]

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It is all the same. People are not discussing the issues in order to understand each other, but only in order impose their opinion and to win the argument. And then they use tactics that their all questions should be answered first, but never answer the questions of the other party.

Don't flatter yourself, I don't care about "winning an argument" with you. Neither you nor what opinion you hold is of any consequence or value to me. It is/was only you who felt the need to pontificate your opinions to me repeatedly. Keep trying to play holier than thou, when you were specifically avoiding giving evidence to back up your statements. 

 

Pro-tip: next time you try to lecture others about what is a "proof", (ie when you claimed that books don't count as a "proof"), try to not be as hypocritical as to, in the very same thread where you made such a ridiculous statement, provide a newspaper opinion piece,  as a "proof".  

 

 I am done wasting my time addressing you directly, it is fruitless. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On to the important stuff, ignoring the other guy's rambling 

 

Let's start by addressing the opinion piece in The Hindu given above: 

https://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/14/stories/13140833.htm

 

Anyone can go through the article themselves, and scroll through the corpus of its text or even simply scroll all the way down. There is not a single reference, in-text citation, or even a vague bibliography for anything this "Professor" claims in this "proof." Don't take my word for it, follow the link for yourselves.  Anything which is written in that article shouldn't be taken as fact, but only as the opinion of the author. 

 

The closest thing to a reference in the article is this:

Quote

While one must respect the sentiments of those who worship cow and regard her as their mother, to take offence to the objective study of history just because the facts don't suit their political calculations is yet another sign of a society where liberal space is being strangulated by the practitioners of communal politics. PROF. D. N. JHA, a historian from Delhi University, had been experiencing the nightmares of `threats to life' from anonymous callers who were trying to prevail upon him not to go ahead with the publication of his well researched work, Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions.

This isn't surprising, DN Jha is the same Marxist Indologist whose's book the other poster gave a link to earlier. The pointless link to The Hindu article was just another rehash of the same: a link to the same one author. It doesn't really matter as addressing this one fellow and his work is enough.

 

The same DN Jha's most recent book on the subject Myth of the Holy Cow is almost a decade old and has been criticized outside of his echo chambers. Another poster, @Moochad on this forum gave another book, which provided a direct refutation of this book the first time the other poster was peddling the same thing but it appears all contrary views fall on deaf ears. 

 

Jha relies on Muller's translation mostly, which was from Sanskrit to German to English, and somewhat on another direct translation from Sanskrit to English by a one Wilson. None of the aforementioned three are considered fluent in Sanskrit. This was a large part of the criticism of Jha's book in No Beef in Vedas by BD Ukhul.  Muller himself is quoted as saying his translations into Sanskrit were conjectural in Ukhul's book:

The key verses which Jha alleges support his hypothesis consistently don't align with the commentaries produced by Swami Dayanand Saraswati, whose work on the Vedas was also endorsed by Maharishi Aurobindo, nor those of another two Sanskrit scholars: Swami Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar.  

 

This begs the question of who is more reliable in both translating and interpreting Hindu texts, and then the greater populace, almost all of whom are ignorant of Sanskrit, choosing which set of people to believe. The choice is between multiple Hindus vs a Marxist and two European Christians(with Jha not actually translating anything himself). I think it is pretty clear who is more reliable from the choice of the two.  

 

 Here are some of the verses directly in contention with each other, I will not post every screenshot of every verse from Ukhul's book as that is way too tedious and time consuming. 

 

Here is one regarding Indra supposedly consuming hundreds of buffaloes.

  

Notice the degree of contradiction here. Wilson takes the meaning to be roasting of buffaloes while Sw. Dayanand sees it as protection of buffaloes! The twain can never meet!

 

Here is another. 

Again, the translations/interpretations are completely different.

 

One final one for now, again involving Indra

 

The rest of the book goes on along this pattern. Completely different interpretations by European Christians vs Hindus. 

Ukhul states that one of the big issues with the Europeans translating is taking somethings literal 

Anyone who knows more than 1 language understands this intuitively: not all words/phrases translate directly into another language and carry the same meaning. 

 

I am not sure if other Indian languages have this phrase, but in Gujarati we have a phrase when we want someone to stop bothering/annoying us which is Maru mathum na kha --> in English it literally translates to "don't eat my head." 

 

If one were to translate that literally it would make it sound like Gujaratis are fleeing for their lives from random cannibals. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That addressed the serious questions on even basic translations used by this Jha fellow.

 

Let me now show how much this Jha lacks any credibility. Jha was one of the infamous historians exposed by one Arun Shourie in the great "Eminent Historians "

 

I won't write much on this, but I will paste these excerpts from Shourie's book in the spoiler below. This will give an insight into the type of "Historian" DN Jha is.  Here is how he obfuscated Islamic barbarity in the destruction of Nalanda University

Spoiler

 

A final part I would address is the bold-faced lies that Jha propagates in his book (this is just something which I caught while skimming through it) 

Page 127, The Myth of Holy Cow

Focus on the bold part I highlighted 

He is effectively saying that it was not a sin, according to the Vedas, to kill cows. Even a simple google search by a toddler could refute that. Here are some quotations from the Vedas which either directly or indirectly contradict the "Historian's" claim:

 

 

 

Anyway...

 

That is enough for now!

[Mariyam]

26 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Did Wakf board sell Antilla land to Mukes?

 

Yes. 

[Mariyam]

13 hours ago, someone said:

The crux of this issue is history. Today, Dalits are getting justice based on the past crimes done in our country. There are also countries like Israel, USA where past crimes are now being corrected.

 

Similarly, this Babri  is the symbol of tyranny. Yet, if courts don't take history into account, then whats the significance and relevance of the place being Lord Ram birthplace itself? They are foolish and wrong if they make judgement based from India 1947. That latter is the key point as one side only wants to show incomplete picture by analyzing it from 1947, while I along with many others wants the complete picture which consists of history to make the judgement. But that means dealing with secular "India" biggest taboo subject, Muslim atrocities...

You are going on a tangent here. This case is not of Muslim atrocities in the past. Nor is it about faith. The case is about land ownership. The ASI has done some work on the spot and the courts haven't yet been convinced that the Babri Masjid was built by entirely demolishing an existing temple or convinced enough to pass a judgement. What is worse is that instead of taking a stand on the issue, the courts are delaying a judgement. Probably status quo is good for all political parties involved.

 

I mention this in another thread too. The Muslim groups should have just given up any claims to the land in the 50s/60s. And built a masjid at some distance. That would have been a good move towards reconciliation. After the Babri masjid has been demolished, the Muslim groups will fight it out in the court. There is no choice. Anything else will be seen as a loss of face.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Mariyam

[Muloghonto]

 

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

Anyone who knows more than 1 language understands this intuitively: not all words/phrases translate directly into another language and carry the same meaning. 

 

I am not sure if other Indian languages have this phrase, but in Gujarati we have a phrase when we want someone to stop bothering/annoying us which is Maru mathum na kha --> in English it literally translates to "don't eat my head." 

 

If one were to translate that literally it would make it sound like Gujaratis are fleeing for their lives from random cannibals. 

 

 

It is BY FAR the most common phrase of annoyance Bengalis use ( or variations of it), when it comes to family:

 

1. Amar matha khaash na ---> don't eat my head ( meaning : dont bug me)

2. Oh hoo, amar mathata kheeye dilo era ! ---> Oh man, they ate my head ( meaning : i am now annoyed at being continuously bugged)

3. Ja giye tor baaper matha khaa..amar ta to puro puri kheye dili ! ---> go eat your father's head, you have already fully eaten mine ( meaning: go bug your dad, piss off and this is final warning)

4. amar matha ta chibiye chibiye kheye dili tui !! ---> you ate my head by chewing on it ( meaning: I am REALLY annoyed right now).

 

 

these phrases are called 'Idioms'. 

by far the most common idiom in bengali to signify a big fight ( words or fists but usually words) are:

 

1. Ram-Rabon-er juddho badhaloo era ( they are fighting the Ram-Ravan war !)

2. Bhitore jaash na, ora kurukkhetror juddho badhacche ( don't go inside, they are waging the kurukshetra war inside).

 

 

[Alam_dar]

@Tibarn

It is other way around. It is difficult  to believe in the modern Hindu Apologists translators, who add their own interpretations. And no wonder that the modern Maharishis will also endorse their work.  This kind of “interpretation” is often made by translators who cannot reconcile to the idea that some people who lived 3500 years ago could have been eating beef. But to my mind such interpretaions are only a creative curtain over something that the translator does not personally agree with. 

That is why even the translations of Dayanand differ from the other Hindu translators. 

 

There is another English Translation of Ralph T.H. Griffith present on the net. If Müller is wrong, and Wilson also had an agenda against Hinduism, then still we could look at Ralph T.H. Griffith's translation. 

 

For example:

 

Rig Veda (10/85/13):  The bridal pomp of Sūrya, which Savitar started, moved along.
In Magha days are oxen slain, in Arjuris they wed the bride.

 

Translated by Ralph T.H. Griffith (link)

 

Now this is the excuse presented by the Hindu Apologist (Link): 

// The mantra states that in winter, the rays of sun get weakened and then get strong again in spring. The word used for sun-rays in ‘Go’ which also means cow and hence the mantra can also be translated by making ‘cow’ and not ‘sun-rays’ as the subject. The word used for ‘weakened’ is ‘Hanyate’ which can also mean killing. But if that be so, why would the mantra go further and state in next line (which is deliberately not translated) that in spring, they start regaining their original form.//

 

Now this is a deception by the Hindu apologist, while "next line" has nothing to do with what he stated. Let us see the next line:

 

Next Verse :

Rig Veda (10/85/14): 14 When on your three-wheeled chariot, O Aśvins, ye came as wooers unto Sūrya's bridal,
Then all the Gods agreed to your proposal Pūṣan as Son elected you as Fathers.

 

I only see such type of lame excuses by the Hindu apologists where some times sacred texts become corrupted, or meaning of a word is different, or all others are making a mistake in understanding it ...