CC1981 Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 Achhoot is not the hindi word to describe non-hindus. It is similar to the usage of kaffir/kufar in terms of treatment of the people. Anyways, i know that in Sanskrit, 'mleccha' has the same usage as kaffirs, even though techincally it means 'barbarians' and not 'unbelievers'. If you wanted to get the sanskrit word for 'unbelievers', its anastik/anastika,though it rarely carried a perojative or discriminatory aspect in ancient India. Nastik/Anastik was simply based on whether you accepted the authority of the Vedas- those who did, were known as nastika, those who didnt, anastika. For eg, Buddha was anastika, as he categorically rejected the authority of the vedas.
sandtest Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 See this is the problem when certain wannabe madrassa sympathisers try to view Indic culture, philosophy and terminology, with Abrahamic myopia. There is a sea difference between Islamic words like kuffar and dhimmi kufrs when compared to Maleech. It is a lie shoved down our throat by leftists and commie intellectuals of India in modern time. Let's understand the meanning of Kuffar First. A Kuffar is anyone who refuses to accept -- Allah is the Only God and MO is his final prophet. (i.e. la Ilaha Illalaha Muhammad Rasool allah -- in arabic) Which effectively means, all non-Muslims whether they are Mother Terressa or a so called Mahatma Gandhi will remain a kuffar till death. In fact an Osama Bin Laden has a chance to go to so called heaven, but it is imposible for a Mother Terressa to go heaven -- according to Islam because of them being kuffars. Now coming back to the term Maleech, which has NOTHING to do with your belief or non-belief. In Manu-smriti, you can be called a Maleech if you are not good in "Sauch" (cleanliness). Sanatan Dharma gives a lot emphasis on cleanliness and hygiene. Any Hindu who doesnot take bath before morning Pooja/Meditation is a Maleech. Well, even my grandmother use to scold us --- "Maleech kahin ka" in our childhood, when we use to skip morning bath and brushing of teeth. It is clasasic example which reminds me of Harbhajan calling "Monkey' is considered as worst abuse than b*astard in west. But in India calling Monkey or Bandar never carried any racial meaning in it, before Abrahamic racist west taught us that Monkey is indeed racist because THEY have history of using it in racist ways..:hatsoff:
Lurker Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 See this is the problem when certain wannabe madrassa sympathisers try to view Indic culture, philosophy and terminology, with Abrahamic myopia. There is a sea difference between Islamic words like kuffar and dhimmi kufrs when compared to Maleech. It is a lie shoved down our throat by leftists and commie intellectuals of India in modern time. Let's understand the meanning of Kuffar First. A Kuffar is anyone who refuses to accept -- Allah is the Only God and MO is his final prophet. (i.e. la Ilaha Illalaha Muhammad Rasool allah -- in arabic) Which effectively means, all non-Muslims whether they are Mother Terressa or a so called Mahatma Gandhi will remain a kuffar till death. In fact an Osama Bin Laden has a chance to go to so called heaven, but it is imposible for a Mother Terressa to go heaven -- according to Islam because of them being kuffars. Now coming back to the term Maleech, which has NOTHING to do with your belief or non-belief. In Manu-smriti, you can be called a Maleech if you are not good in "Sauch" (cleanliness). Sanatan Dharma gives a lot emphasis on cleanliness and hygiene. Any Hindu who doesnot take bath before morning Pooja/Meditation is a Maleech. Well, even my grandmother use to scold us --- "Maleech kahin ka" in our childhood, when we use to skip morning bath and brushing of teeth. It is clasasic example which reminds me of Harbhajan calling "Monkey' is considered as worst abuse than b*astard in west. But in India calling Monkey or Bandar never carried any racial meaning in it, before Abrahamic racist west taught us that Monkey is indeed racist because THEY have history of using it in racist ways..:hatsoff: The problem with that thread is 2 fold: a) It doesnt start after 100 words have been rambled about leftists, commies, psecs/psyops etc etc. b) It suggests that since certain words are spoken at home in a Hindu family(mleccha, bandar) it automatically should be looked in that regard by others. Reality check, thats BS. If indeed one toes that line then Islam would come across as a very tolerant religion. The word kaafir is one of the most commonly used in Urdu sher/shayari world. And unlike mleccha, which an average Hindu would not understand(except if he is from UP/Bihar), Kaafir is understood by anyone who loves ghazal. Sample this gem from Mirza Ghalib Mohabbat mein nahin hai farq jeene aur marne ka ussi ko dekh ke jeete hain jis kaafir pe dam nikale hazaaron khwaishein aisi ke har khwaish ke dam nikale Kaafir here strictly means someone who is not worth beleiving and has little religious connotations. xxx
CC1981 Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 There is no word for Non-Hindus in Hinduism simply because it is the oldest religion ( one can safely say no other religion existed before it ) and is a religion that was not created by a single man or an empire. How can one safely say 'no other religion existed before it' ? you got the whole history of mankind catalouged, star ? It is the oldest extant religion- meaning, its the oldest religion that is still alive...doesnt mean it is the oldest. The term for non-hindus in hinduism is anastik - non-believer (of the vedas).
CC1981 Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 So the name of the religion that existed before Hinduism in the Indian Subcontinent was .......... Could be jainism...historic proof of its existence and practice is atleast as old as hinduism. Besides, your question is a perfect example of how dishonest the hinduvtas are. This is the fact : Hinduism is possibly the oldest extant religion in the world today(Jainism is the other contender along with Zoroastrianism). What it means is Hinduism is the oldest religion ALIVE today. Hinduvta twisting and lie: Hinduism is the oldest religion and one can safely say no other religion existed before it. Proof : You have NO IDEA of the entire history of mankind. So how can you claim it is the oldest religion in the world ? how is it 'safe' to say that, given that we as a species have been around for atleast 200,000 years and yet we know only the last 3000-4000 years of human history ? How do you know that there wasnt another religion before hinduism that died out or got absorbed into hinduism ? Typical hinduvta lies, propaganda and disingeneousness. PS: If anything, there is cirumstantial evidence of civilization before hinduism in the subcontinent ( civilization almost always equals presence of religion ) : the INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION. They definitely had fundamental practice difference from hinduism, as they buried their dead and ate beef amongst various other animals.
CC1981 Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 Nope. Its widely accepted that Jainism started much after Hinduism and is a offshoot of hinduism. Widely accepted maybe by hindus...definitely not so by Jains or the academia. Claiming it is an 'offshoot of hinduism' is nothing more than hinduvta propaganda, similar to Han-Chinese propaganda where they claim 'all slant-eyed asians are offshoots of us'. It is the same type of propaganda that leads hinduvta fanatics to re-write our history books and claim Mahavir to be the founder of Jainism, when he is the 15th or 16th guide in their lineage- of which atleast two previous tirthankaras' exist in evidence. You do ? No i don't. Which is why i said 'oldest extant religion' and didnt LIE and indulge in PROPAGANDA like you do by saying it is the oldest religion. Your propaganda, disingeneousness and lies got exposed yet again. There is a HUGE difference between 'oldest religion alive' and 'oldest religion ever'. You claiming the latter is pure boolsheet propaganda of a hinduvta fanatic. I hope you teach the young ones to be more honest than you are.
CC1981 Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 Did I quote any "Hindu" references to make my claim ? You didnt quote any reference...just parroting what the hinduvtas have brainwashed you with. Because you claim to know the entire history of mankind and provided all the links to disprove what I said ... right ? Yet again, basic logic error. You CANNOT make a staetment and then say 'disprove it'. If thats how it is, i will then say : Hinduism is a religion plagiarized from an older dead unnamed religion. Disprove that. What is FACT is hinduism is the oldest religion alive. What is COMPLETELY UKNOWN is which is the first religion. What is a CATEGORIC LIE is to say it is the first religion. anyhow FWIW .... Heres a wiki link about the origin of Vedas as per Indologists : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas#Dating .. feel free to provide any Jain text that predates those ... Utterly irrelevant. By THAT token, religion of Sumeria ( Gods like Elnil, Gilgamesh etc) are CATEGORICALLY older than hinduism - there exists Sumerian cuneiform writing about their religion thousands of years before your vedic texts. Therefore, if written form is your criteria, oldest religion = comes from mesopotamia. Period, no questions about it.
CC1981 Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 Any different from your parroting that is brainwashed by Commie's ? Which commie book, champ ? Show me. in the Indian subcontinent ? I realize your English is very weak. But try and keep up. You said this : There is no word for Non-Hindus in Hinduism simply because it is the oldest religion ( one can safely say no other religion existed before it ) and is a religion that was not created by a single man or an empire. WHen i caught you out on your propaganda, you shifted the goalpost to 'indian religions'. Typical bossbhai evasive comment where you CANNOT admit you were in error.
Kriterion Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 Kriterion many thanks for replying ..... as for Hadith vs Quran ..... it appears you dont trust the Hadiths ..... If so then on what do you base your knowledge of Muhammad as a person? How do you know about him, his life, his companions, etc? Do you perform the rituals of obligatory prayers fasting, hajj etc? If you do how do you know that is the way Muhammad intended them to be. There are no descriptions of these rituals in the Quran. All these details are in the hadith which constitute the basis of the sunna. But you deny the authenticity of the hadith. So where do you get the important information that is missing in the Quran? (Which will then blow a big hole in the fundamental concept of Islam i.e the Quran is the most flawless and clear cut book that there ever was or wil be with answers to everything on Islam) good questions. my approach towards it is simple. everything must have a beggining somewhere. in other words, ultimate skepticism, yields nothing i.e you must doubt everything and be reduced to decartes' "i think, therefore i am". how do i know muhammad existed at all? the answer is, I don't know and i cannot know. but this means that you cannot know either. if we don't whether muhammad existed, we necassarily cannot know that he was a "terrorist" or "demon possessed pedophile". this is the ultimate agnosticism and many people find such pathological uncertainty offensive. but thats the way it stands. therefore, if one is to believe anything beyond his own senses of taste, sight, sound, feel, and perception, you have to start somewhere. so i start with the principle that the quran is the sole, absolute authority on islam. it does not share its authority with the hadith or the sunna. the sunna is subordinate to it. majority, if not all muslims will attest to this. from the womanizing imran khan, to the puratancial bin laden. the quran rides in no ones backseat, and that includes the hadith/sunnah. so how do i know how to pray, fast, etc? the answer follows from my premise. The hadith are subordinate to the quran, and thus the only "authentic" hadith are those which DO NOT contradict the quran. So the quran says, many times, "establish prayer", the hadith says "pray in such and such manner". the hadith does not contradict the quran, it expounds upon it. in this manner, the hadith which says "kill apostates" is directly oppossed to the quranic instructions "there is no compulsion in religion, truth stands clear from falsehood" (2:256) and "those who believe then disbelieve...Allah will never pardon them..." (4:137). no mention of killing in either place. as one scholar of islam said, the quran is what to do, and the authentic (non-contradictory) hadith is how to do it.
Kriterion Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 This is most categorically false. Yes, technically speaking, hadith is on lower 'sunnah' level than the Koran. But FACT is, the hadith is used as a 'guide' for the Koran, which is written in a much more archaic and nebulous form. Every single school of Islam prescribes many many hadiths ( one of which is kill the apostate) as study aid for the Koran. i'm glad you used the word technically, because i believe purely in technicalities. one of the most widely accepted collections of hadith (the source of the sunnah) is the sahih al bukhari. in fact, the copy i have itself states the following on the cover of the book: All muslim scholars are agreed that sahih al bukhari is the most authentic and reliable book, after the book of Allah. cover of sahih al bukhari vol. 6 translated by Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan Darussalam Publications ISBN: 9960-717-31-3 (set) hence, sahih al bukhari itself attests to its own subordinate-ness vis a vis the quran. you are correct, the hadith is used as a guide. and 90% of muslims cannot or do not filter out the hadith which contradict the quran in their implementation of it. this is true, but it does not change the way in which the hadith should be used vis a vis the quran.
kumble_rocks Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 Even the constitution of the United States which was framed and adopted in 1796 has undergone 22 amendments till date . Surely a book written in medieval times and that to based on oral instruction should never be the sole, absolute authority on Islam. It should share its authority with modern hadith or the sunna in my opinion and this modern hadith should take into account that we live in 21st century.I am sure many educated muslims will agree with me here. After all , times have changed .. we don't live in Medieval period anymore . But I think Kriterion does make some valid points . I don't think Quran has anything to do with stoning people , maiming their arms, killing non believers etc . This is some absolute hadith by some crazy mullah rearing it's ugly head !
Kriterion Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 or I would pick this one which is in line with such acts : http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012 or This : http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.015 or this : http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.141 or this : http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.033 all pretty gory and vindictive for supposedly a holy book and leaves hardly anything to anyones imagination isnt it ? i'll admit that if i weren't a muslim or weren't aware of the context, i'd be incined to believe islam is as vile as the critics say. so you're take is perfectly understandable. understandable, but not necessarily correct. regarding the first 2 links, its interesting because in 8:61 muslims are exhorted to pursue peace even if the enemy are not. now, this is just me, but that seems almost ghandian and lets not forget the gory/vindictive circumstances at the time these verses came along. as for the third link, its interesting to note that the word friend is a translation not of habib (which of course relates to mahabbat = love) but awliya. the term awliya, singular wali...means guardian not friend. the verse is saying do not allow your enemies to be your guardian. further it isn't even an absolute command, it says if you have a choice between muslims and non muslims. as for the last link, who is the verse talking about? is it hannibal's army, is it napoleon's imperial forces, or is it the indian air force? answer is none of the above. it is a talking about the specific people (namely abu jahl and abu sufyan) and the soldiers they led into battle on the outskirts of medina during the battle of badr. its interesting to note that the battle of badr occurred at badr, hence the name, which is 1/4 of the way from medina to mecca, or 3/4 of the way from mecca to medina. if the muslims in medina were waging an offensive battle, why was the venue so close to home? were the meccan forces just vacationing there by happenstance? if war was declared ON the meccan pagans, wouldn't it have been fought in mecca. this is not only backed up by the authentic and unauthentic hadiths, but also by secular academic historians.
Kriterion Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 The complete list * Torment to Non-believers- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.056 -- 4:56 many religions believe in hell...christians believe that you and i both will be flung into a lake of fire for all eternity because we haven't accepted Christ as Lord and Savior. does it bother me? not in the least. do i thin christianity is a vile religion because of this? hardly. * Only Islam Acceptable- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.085 -- 3:85 same as above. * No friends from outsiders- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.118 -- 3:118 this one says not to take friends from those who seek to hurt you which i am sure is advice you would also follow regardless of religion. * No friends with Jews, Christians- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051 -- 5:51 as my last post, the word is not "friend" but rather "guardian" (awliya)...when a muslim asks to marry a woman, he asks her wali which is her guardian, not her friend. * No friends with non believers- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.114 -- 4:114 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.028 -- 3:28 4:114 makes no mention of non believes or of friends, must be a typo. 3:28 has again the word "awliyah" or guardian, not friend (habib) * No friends with parents/siblings if not believers- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.023 -- 9:23 once again the word is awliyah and not habib. awliyah means guardian. * Fight non-believers- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.123 -- 9:123 again which disbelievers are they talking about? the inuit in alaska? they were disbelievers. no the verse is in reference to abu jahl and abu sufyan and their followers (the quraishi army). the first battle was started in badr, had it been offensive on the part of the muslims, it would have been in mecca, not on the periphery of medina (badr is 80 miles outside of medina). and while we're on that topic, its worth mentioning how muhammad got to be in medina to begin with. he was born and raised in mecca. but he was evicted from his home city by the quraish. just as the kashmiri pandits have every right to re-settle kashmir by force, muhammad had every right to go back to his own home. but he did not. he settled in medina. * Kill non-believers- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.089 -- 4:89 same as above. * Anti Jew verses- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.082 -- 5:82 or "pro christian" verse. the fact of the matter is that its a reference to repeated machinations by certain individuals, not an entire race. the old testament itself is replete with the mistakes of certain jewish individuals (i.e worship of the calf at sinai). * God a plotter deceiver - http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.030 -- 8:30 the word deceive is not mentioned there at all...plotting means planning. christians and muslims frequently speak of god's "plan" for their lives. hardly controversial. * Killing Idolaters- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.005 -- 9:05 again see above verses. further, in the very next verse, muslims are commanded to offer protection to those very same idolators should they wave the white flag, and to even "convey them to their place of safety". * Idolaters are unclean just because they are idolater- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.028 -- 9:28 unclean in a spiritual sense. even muslims must perform ablution before engaging in rituals. * Forcing Christians and Jews to pay tax- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029 -- 9:29 i pay taxes too. taxes are the way the government pays for maintenance of civil society. muslims pay zakat, which jewish and christian citizens do not. but if they are to be looked after, then they need to pay taxes. every single country on earth levies taxes on citizens and foreign residents alike. furthermore, according to abdullah yusuf ali, there were tax exempt status for poor, elderly, and sick. but even if thats false, the above holds true. * The Torment of Hell- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/044.qmt.html#044.043 -- 44:43-58 same as first link above. * All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.062 -- 2:62 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.069 -- 5:69 this itself refutes the above claim of islam being "anti-jew". the quran states that all nations received the message of islam, and that those who followed achieved salvation. simple concept. regardless of whether thats true or false, its what muslims believe, and more importantly what the quran states. adam was the first man, and was also the first muslim. afterwards humanity strayed and many muslims came under different names (jews, christians, sabeans, etc.). this is reason why some muslims claim that prophecies are contained in the vedas; they view hinduism as an older variant of islam just like judaism and christianity. if anything, this verse here would prove islam to be the most pluralist of faiths, because to my knowledge no other religion states that others can go to heaven. again, i might be wrong. however, islam does state that since the advent of the newest revelation, only islam is acceptable as other religions became corrupted. again thats a matter of belief. but thats what the quran says and thats what muslims believe. * Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012 -- 8:12 see above on quraish meccan comments * smite the neck of unbelievers - http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.004 -- 47:4 same as above * Severe Punishment for atheists- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/010.qmt.html#010.004 -- 10:4 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.010 -- 5:10 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.086 -- 5:86 see first link comments * Severe Punishment for non-believers- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/022.qmt.html#022.019 -- 22:19-22 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/072.qmt.html#072.023 -- 72:23 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/098.qmt.html#098.006 -- 98:6 see above * Punishing non-believers of Hereafter- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/017.qmt.html#017.010 -- 17:10 * Punishing for rejecting faith- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.091 -- 3:91 see above * Non believers go to hell- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.140 -- 4:140 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/007.qmt.html#007.036 -- 7:36 let me ask you a question. as a muslim, do you believe, i can achieve whatever it is you're tryin to achieve after death? if i can, might i ask who cannot? and if everyone can, than is the point of religion of any stripe? whats the point of rituals, rules, mosques, prayer, and morality? if adolf hitler can achieve nirvana, why avoid eating McDonald's double cheeseburgers? surely, that is a lesser sin than the murder of 12 million innocents in WWII? * Partial Believers go to hell too- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.150 -- 4:150-1 there is no such thing as a partial believer...unless you're talking about munafiq's who are hypocrites and hence disbelievers. * Sadistic punishments- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/056.qmt.html#056.042 -- 56:42-43 again see above comments * Punishment for apostates- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html#016.106 -- 16:106 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.086 -- 3:86-88 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.090 -- 3:90 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.137 -- 4:137 again see above comments. notice the absence of stoning to death commandments. if its so integral to the faith how can it be ignored in all 4 of the times its mentioned? in 3:90 there is even the distinction only for those who become "violent". * Threat of punishment for not going to war- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.038 -- 9:38-39 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/048.qmt.html#048.016 -- 48:16 not fighting injustice is itself injustice. consider this: you believe islam is vile and evil. many liberal hindus defend islam and/or muslims. you believe their defense of injustice is itself injustice. * God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.178 -- 3:178 it never mentions an increase in punishment. it only states that god allows sinners to continue sinning. as the quran says, "god doesn't change the condition of a person, until he changes the condition of his heart" * Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html#006.025 -- 6:25 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html#006.110 -- 6:110 the unbelievers had been preached to many times before. the verses preceding 6:25 even explicitly mentions that these verses are only for unbelievers who already have the intention of mocking the truth. as you can see, muhammad himself never prevented anyone from knowing the truth, because he has no idea of a person's inner intentions. but god does, because he's god. * Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/017.qmt.html#017.045 -- 17:45-76 see above. this is not true, because one of the preminent scholars of the quran, muhammad asad, was a ukranian born jew named leopold weis. his translation of the quran can be found at islamicity.com further, before their conversions to islam all muslims were "unbelievers". clearly, the verse deals with ulterior intent. * It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/017.qmt.html#017.097 -- 17:97 the quran states that "god misleads only those who mislead themselves". muhammad does not know inner intentions, but god does. * God could guide, if he chose to, but did not- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html#006.035 -- 6:35 god can do anything and everything. any god who is incapable of anything is not worthy of worship. suppose bhagwan was unable to prevent india from losing the series to sri lanka. would he then be worthy of worship? god guides those who he knows to be searching for the truth. otherwise humanity would only have one religion, the fact that they don't means that your god and everyone else's god must be doing the same thing. * Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/014.qmt.html#014.004 -- 14:4 he pleases to misguide those who do not want his guidance. the choice is ours. * Willfully misguiding some- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html#016.093 -- 16:93 ditto. * God causes human to err- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.143 -- 4:143 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/007.qmt.html#007.178 -- 7:178 ditto. * God deceiving human- http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.142 -- 4:142 this verse is of those hypocrites who are seeking to deceive god. note the word order: hypocrites attempts first before god misguides. ******************************************** i hope that this exercise has given you a different perspective on things...i'm sure that it won't change your mind, but thats not the point since changes of heart are so very rare in humans. but i hope you notices that in the 4 verses where apostacy is mentioned, there isn't even a hint at stoning them to death. and this is one of cruxes of the argument against islam. isn't it remarkable that muhammad forgot to include that important proviso all 4 times he mentioned it?
Kriterion Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 heres 8:61 ..... I dont see any mention of pursuing peace despite enemies intentions to the contrary. By the way that entire chapter #8 is quite aptly titled "Spoils of War , Booty" .... please tell me how such a thing can find even a mention in a holy book unless your definition of holy is opposite to that of the conventional one. It being a chapter in Mein Kampf I can understand but this ..... ? 008.061 YUSUFALI: But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). PICKTHAL: And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower. SHAKIR: And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing i apologize...got a bit carried away. i forgot to say that in the very next verse 8:62, it says "and if they (disbelivers of course) would deceive thee, god is sufficient for thee" the verse could easily have said, "and if they deceive thee, kill em all" i think you should read the entire quran, and not the verses you find from the propaganda machine, bearing in mind the context of the history of the years 610-632. you see, i haven't read the entire gita or mahabharata, which is why i'm not going around quoting all the ridiculous contents i might find. each scripture has its beauty and some truth relevant to its audience.
kumble_rocks Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Yeah but other religions (especially Hinduism) dont take it upon themselves to fix the "unbelievers" .... Hindu texts doesnt even bother mentioning about others and what happens to others and how to share war booty and such arcane stuff. I find it quite alarming that you find it perfectly acceptable that a holy book talk about War killing maiming and vindictiveness (whatever the context and history ) A holy book is supposed to be spiritual not a War manual ! The Gita was written on the Battlefield but its all just spiritual. Do you see the difference ? Hate to nitpick , but when you say Hindu texts, keep in mind that most of these were written much before Abrahamic or any other dharmic religion even existed . So no question of mentioning what happens to others !
sandtest Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 The problem with that thread is 2 fold: a) It doesnt start after 100 words have been rambled about leftists, commies, psecs/psyops etc etc. It is not rambling about leftists. It is a REALITY of Indian leftist historians...You can't ignore that unless you and me ourselves are victim of that since we too are the products of the same education system. Indian leftists have twisted and presented many lies among Indian masses, to brainwash them and prove equal-equal with Islam. The Mughaliya history right from Babur till Tipu and Akbar is a clear example. As recently as 2-days back, I posted a link about 12th class Social Study chapter no.3, the latest hatred of Indian leftists for USA is evident and their intention to conduct a psy-ops upon young Indian minds is well reflected in the language and selective examples. Otherwise how you will justify the imaginative example of Ayesha in Iraq and Andrei in Australia which is not remotely relevevant to an Indian teen? It suggests that since certain words are spoken at home in a Hindu family(mleccha, bandar) it automatically should be looked in that regard by others. Reality check, thats BS. No It doesnot suggest that, it is an example to validate the fact from Hindu practice. it is PROVED from Hinduism scriptures as well as history that Maleech has nothing to do with your belief or non-belief in religion....It has everything to do with "Sauch" or cleanliness in Dharma. I remember a book -- Acharya Hazari Prasad Dwivedi written -- Banbhatt ki Atmakatha-- a beautifully narrated book, I guess it has somewhere words Maleech used. But book is good for reflection of how Hinduism and Budhism co-existed in ancient India through lengthy discourses and Shastrathas. If indeed one toes that line then Islam would come across as a very tolerant religion. The word kaafir is one of the most commonly used in Urdu sher/shayari world. And unlike mleccha, which an average Hindu would not understand(except if he is from UP/Bihar), Kaafir is understood by anyone who loves ghazal. Lurker your quoting of Urdu poetry of North India is hardly relevant here. Urdu poetry from pre-independence India at least from UP region is a classic example how Islamism of India brought out poetry when certain poets like Akbar Allahabadi, Jigar Muradabadi et al could not neglect their Indic roots, which reflcetd in their poetry. If anything, I will consider this as sheer glory of Indic dharma which brought out exceptions like these Urdu shayars. Also, Akbar Allahabadi of that era or even Mirza Ghalib are not held in very high regard by Islamists of pre-partition India. Particularly, Akbar Allahabdi (and yes I am proud to say that he is from my neighboring district), has used veiled sarcasm to criticise Islamism in shayari. Also certain folks like Shahi Imams of UP has termed Jigar and Akbar as atheists because their references in poetry which meant -- they knew Allahs glory when they were drunk.:--D Coming back to Topic, the term Kuffar is not just about islamism in India, it's MORE about Pan-Islam worldwide. And it is a proven fact through Islamic scriptures that Kuffars means those who do not accept that--Allah is the only god and Mo as his last and final prophet, PBUH. So, twisting it with Shayars of India, who are not respected by islamic scholors anyway because of their alcoholic and various other activities which are "Shirk" and "Bidah" in islam, is literally toeing the line of Leftist historians of India. Moreover, if one reads and understands the metaphor behind Urdu shayari, he can also notice that Kuffar is used to make an example out of it. sample this of Akabr Allahabadi (apologies if I miss some words) -- Afasurdagee-e-jourr kee kuch bhee had nahin hai Akbar Kaafir ke Mukaabaley mein bhi deendaar naheen hoon main.
Kriterion Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 But what has that got to do with 8-12 and 8-15 ? what has 8-12 and 8-15 got to do with 8-61 and 62? the bottom line is, that no matter what the answer, you'll skirt around the issue similar to the discussion on oldest religions with the chicago e forummer. the fact is that 8-61 and 8-62 - which are from the same "violent" chapter of the quran as some of your quotes - explicitly vouch for peace.
Kriterion Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Does that mean 8-61 and 8-62 superseed 8-12 and 8-15 and that the message from 8-12 shouldnt be taken seriously ? In that case what about 8-65 ? where we go back to agression ... http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.065 ? Very hard to not miss the inherent message of warmongering .... isnt it ? But the question that still remain un-answered is how does something like "spoils of War and booty" find their way in a Holy text. And its not just something written in passing an entire chapter with a total of 75 verses is dedicated to it !! How do you even begin to justify that ? Is that your idea of "peace" ! And I didnt skirt any issue regarding oldest religion. Hinduism is by far the oldest religion .... Yeah if you want to get into pendatics like there existed a religion practiced by 100 people in Timbuktu at the same time ..... sure Iam wrong but its a given that when you speak about Hinduism and its origins you speak about the geographical region currently called the "Indian" Subcontinent (IIRC i did mention that in a subsequent post) wherein it is safe to assume that nothing preceeds it .... none can tell for sure because its just waay too old to ascertain with any degree of certainity. And I did tell him to give me links about any Indic religion that predates the Vedas . But then again what makes you think that the chirag-e-phorummer is interested in anything but pedantry and picking fights ? there's no need for superceeding. the verses are not contradictory...it states fight the meccans who declared war on you, and IF they offer a truce, you MUST accept it, even if you know its just a battle tactic. obviously, the debate will continue in circles. so there isn't much point in either of us (or anyone else) continuing whatever it is we've been doing. however, if you allow, we can change the subject a bit. you seem to have a problem with the title of that particular chapter of the quran, which is spoils of war. now i haven't been here long enough to sort through all the threads and posts, but what i'd like to ask is, do you have a problem with war in general? in other words, are you a pacifist? in my defintion pacificism is the idea that even if someone attacks me first and unprovoked, i will not attack them due to moral reasons. personally, i belive that pacificism can be construed as a higher "moral plane". however, in practice, pacificism doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work. its simply not in the human nature. i am sure you underestand this well if you support a strong indian military vis a vis china or pakistan.
CC1981 Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Sarky, that is most categorically not true. Nastik/Anastik was most categorically used in reference to believers/non-believers. There is 100s of reference to this, from Buddhist texts of Nagarjuna to the hindu texts of the bhakti movements- the vedas were considered on far higher level of importance than the Gita or any such text and a believer in Veda was known as a Nastik, a non-believer as Anastika. Buddha had declared himself as an anastika and both buddhist and jain texts of those times reflect this reality, since buddha himself rejected the ultimate authority of the vedas.
Recommended Posts