Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/hum-do-hamare-do-concept-catching-up-among-muslims/article4414697.ece

What is the reason for the hindu minority numbers to have dwindled significantly in Pakistan? Is it the 'hum do-humara ek bhi nahi' policy?

Let's not go overboard with giving ourselves a pat on the back. First of all, it's not a +ve sign if one looks up to Pakistan as a rolemodel to prove that BJP is secular, that in itself explains it. Secondly, Buddhism, once thriving in India, met the same fate as Hinduism in Pakistan. Finally, Hinduism has not always been as peaceful as one like us to believe it to be, a lot of blood was shed be it's in-fights between different sects or intolerance towards other religions like Jainism, Buddhism or for that matter look at the modus operandi of present day's BJP or the frequency of attacks on lower caste Hindus. There's not even a modicum of truth in statements such as Hinduism is THE peace mongering religion and adheres to live and let live philosophy; it's nothing but baloney propagated by right-wing nationalists to cover-up their aggression. I know a bunch of you will come at me cranking up usual rhetoric like how many were killed in the terrorist attacks committed by right-wing Hindu groups etc., but it's all relative, right? the crux of the matter is whether or not the intent harm minorities with malice displayed.

>>>Why is it relative? Why can it not be a measure of which cultural background is more prone to terrorism?

i have heard some (caucasian) christians say that there was a time when muslims were more liberal than christians and that they became more fundamentalist/orthodox/rigid after the Crusades. Furthermore, even within Islam of today there exist liberal sects like sufism.

I think Indian Muslims are more liberal, educated, and sensible than Indian Christians any day who are being brainwashed and converted with truly backward and hateful stuff. About 33% of Indian Muslims seem to be aware that they have to contribute to the peace in the country if they want a normal life.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Why is it relative? Why can it not be a measure of which cultural background is more prone to terrorism?

Scratch that, Hindu atrocities are far worst than I thought. Crimes against SCs have doubled since the '80s and increased by 20% 2011 from 2010.
http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-CII2011/cii-2011/Chapter%207.pdf

>>>I am confused. The stats you have posted show 33,719 cases for presumably a billion hindus approx. in 2011 up from 30,031 in 2007. For starters, the jump between these 4 years is negligible to the point of being statistically meaningless against the population mass.  There is no comparable set of data for other religions. Most importantly, there is no data given on terrorist incidents by religion (hindu or muslim or any other religion for that matter). Are you contending that since hindus have done these things, as a population they have spawned as much terrorism as Islamic cultures?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Why is it relative? Why can it not be a measure of which cultural background is more prone to terrorism?

Scratch that, Hindu atrocities are far worst than I thought. Crimes against SCs have doubled since the '80s and increased by 20% 2011 from 2010.
http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-CII2011/cii-2011/Chapter%207.pdf

>>>I am confused. The stats you have posted show 33,719 cases for presumably a billion hindus approx. in 2011 up from 30,031 in 2007. For starters, the jump between these 4 years is negligible to the point of being statistically meaningless against the population mass.  There is no comparable set of data for other religions. Most importantly, there is no data given on terrorist incidents by religion (hindu or muslim or any other religion for that matter). Are you contending that since hindus have done these things, as a population they have spawned as much terrorism as Islamic cultures?

Kris, This discussion is about religious atrocities commited in modern India. How many Hindus do you think are persecuted by Indian Muslims on annual basis?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Why is it relative? Why can it not be a measure of which cultural background is more prone to terrorism?

Scratch that, Hindu atrocities are far worst than I thought. Crimes against SCs have doubled since the '80s and increased by 20% 2011 from 2010.
http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-CII2011/cii-2011/Chapter%207.pdf

>>>I am confused. The stats you have posted show 33,719 cases for presumably a billion hindus approx. in 2011 up from 30,031 in 2007. For starters, the jump between these 4 years is negligible to the point of being statistically meaningless against the population mass.  There is no comparable set of data for other religions. Most importantly, there is no data given on terrorist incidents by religion (hindu or muslim or any other religion for that matter). Are you contending that since hindus have done these things, as a population they have spawned as much terrorism as Islamic cultures?

Kris, This discussion is about religious atrocities commited in modern India. How many Hindus do you think are persecuted by Indian Muslims on annual basis?

CD,

We seem to be shifting the goal post (heck, even the sport  here:). My original question pertained to the correlation between religious background and terrorism. In any event, what is the reverse of the scenario you are positing above i.e. hindu on muslim violence? One of the problems, incidentally, as to why this problem continues to fester is that there is never an honest discussion of muslim/hindu issues in India. This applies to the past and to the present. The intelligentsia/media either goes through weird contortions to see moral equivalences or quite simply does not want to see the hindu side of things. The end result is like a balloon getting gassed up and we all know the inevitable consequence.  The chattering classes seem to be oblivious to this.

Kris wrote:
CD,

We seem to be shifting the goal post (heck, even the sport  here:). My original question pertained to the correlation between religious background and terrorism. In any event, what is the reverse of the scenario you are positing above i.e. hindu on muslim violence? One of the problems, incidentally, as to why this problem continues to fester is that there is never an honest discussion of muslim/hindu issues in India. This applies to the past and to the present. The intelligentsia/media either goes through weird contortions to see moral equivalences or quite simply does not want to see the hindu side of things. The end result is like a balloon getting gassed up and we all know the inevitable consequence.  The chattering classes seem to be oblivious to this.

The premise of this particular discussion, at least in my mind, has always been about India. If you want to expand then we need to include LTTE & Maoists too. LTTE is the pioneer of suicide bombs who seems to have passed on this legacy to Muslim brethren, there we go, Hindus again

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Wow! So much hatred and negativity for Hinduism? I am shocked! What's wrong with the religion/philosophy which mistreats its minorities in its majority countries and can't get along with the majority in the countries where they are a minority, however well they are treated? You have the same problem with the US too.

Anyway, I don't want to continue with this conversation. I'm disgusted! Adios!

I'm sorry you're so disgusted with your own religion. It's not my fault, Uppili asked me to be objective and I gave it a try and it didn't seem to go that well. Next time, I'm taking no advice from him.

Wow! Pretending not to notice that it's your religion that i am talking abt! Look around and see how all the minorities are treated in the muslim majority countries. And see if muslims are not creating problems in the countries where they are the minority. they are a problem everywhere. i believed that the educated indian muslims are different. Never knew that you folks hold so much hatred for hindus and hinduism, while living along with them. If you guys cannot coexist with the mellowed hindus, you can't get along with anyone in this world. Fools are the pseudos who support y'all. 

Anyway, I am out of this thread and out of this forum. I am so totally disgusted and cynical.

PS: May Modi win!

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Wow! So much hatred and negativity for Hinduism? I am shocked! What's wrong with the religion/philosophy which mistreats its minorities in its majority countries and can't get along with the majority in the countries where they are a minority, however well they are treated? You have the same problem with the US too.

Anyway, I don't want to continue with this conversation. I'm disgusted! Adios!

I'm sorry you're so disgusted with your own religion. It's not my fault, Uppili asked me to be objective and I gave it a try and it didn't seem to go that well. Next time, I'm taking no advice from him.

Wait....who said these crimes were committed by HINDUS ? and dont play that islamic christian game of separating SC/ST and Dalits from hindus.They are all hindus. Period. Let us make a simple definition. If they dont pray to Allah or jesus or mary, then they are hindus.

Now, how do you know these crimes are not committed by iSlamis? after all, they dominate the havala trade, Mafia world, and the criminal world - not to mention the terror world. The reason the crimes have gone up from 180 to 2007 is perhaps because of the rise in islamic fundamentalism and terrorism...just could be???

Do you have stats on the total number of terorist acts and how many are by iSlamis and non-iSlamis?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Wait....who said these crimes were committed by HINDUS ? and dont play that islamic christian game of separating SC/ST and Dalits from hindus.They are all hindus. Period. Let us make a simple definition. If they dont pray to Allah or jesus or mary, then they are hindus.

Now, how do you know these crimes are not committed by iSlamis? after all, they dominate the havala trade, Mafia world, and the criminal world - not to mention the terror world. The reason the crimes have gone up from 180 to 2007 is perhaps because of the rise in islamic fundamentalism and terrorism...just could be???

Do you have stats on the total number of terorist acts and how many are by iSlamis and non-iSlamis?

I think we've digressed a bit. My original point was Hinduism was/is not as peaceful as we like to believe. That was the reason for highlighting the numbers on SC atrocities. I think Indian Muslims are of a different breed, you can't put them in the same category as global muslims. For one, they are no clear links with Al-qaeda and even IM terror activities in India are as feeble & limp-wristed attempts as our Hindu nationalists. If you want to put them in the category as others then you should attribute LTTE & Maoists activities to Hindu culture.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Wait....who said these crimes were committed by HINDUS ? and dont play that islamic christian game of separating SC/ST and Dalits from hindus.They are all hindus. Period. Let us make a simple definition. If they dont pray to Allah or jesus or mary, then they are hindus.

Now, how do you know these crimes are not committed by iSlamis? after all, they dominate the havala trade, Mafia world, and the criminal world - not to mention the terror world. The reason the crimes have gone up from 180 to 2007 is perhaps because of the rise in islamic fundamentalism and terrorism...just could be???

Do you have stats on the total number of terorist acts and how many are by iSlamis and non-iSlamis?

I think we've digressed a bit. My original point was Hinduism was/is not as peaceful as we like to believe. That was the reason for highlighting the numbers on SC atrocities. I think Indian Muslims are of a different breed, you can't put them in the same category as global muslims. For one, they are no clear links with Al-qaeda and even IM terror activities in India are as feeble & limp-wristed attempts as our Hindu nationalists. If you want to put them in the category as others then you should attribute LTTE & Maoists activities to Hindu culture.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

There are killing and then there are iSlamic killings. LTTE and Maoists are not targeted at particualr religionists. But, iSlamic killings are SPECIFICALLY targeted and justified based on religion.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Wait....who said these crimes were committed by HINDUS ? and dont play that islamic christian game of separating SC/ST and Dalits from hindus.They are all hindus. Period. Let us make a simple definition. If they dont pray to Allah or jesus or mary, then they are hindus.

Now, how do you know these crimes are not committed by iSlamis? after all, they dominate the havala trade, Mafia world, and the criminal world - not to mention the terror world. The reason the crimes have gone up from 180 to 2007 is perhaps because of the rise in islamic fundamentalism and terrorism...just could be???

Do you have stats on the total number of terorist acts and how many are by iSlamis and non-iSlamis?

I think we've digressed a bit. My original point was Hinduism was/is not as peaceful as we like to believe. That was the reason for highlighting the numbers on SC atrocities. I think Indian Muslims are of a different breed, you can't put them in the same category as global muslims. For one, they are no clear links with Al-qaeda and even IM terror activities in India are as feeble & limp-wristed attempts as our Hindu nationalists. If you want to put them in the category as others then you should attribute LTTE & Maoists activities to Hindu culture.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

There are killing and then there are iSlamic killings. LTTE and Maoists are not targeted at particualr religionists. But, iSlamic killings are SPECIFICALLY targeted and justified based on religion.

Kind of like how low caste hindus were targeted by high caste hindus.

-----

But why is the sudra not entitled to philosophical wisdom? Adi Sankar answers (Sankar on Brahma Sutra i.3.34):

The sudras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters. But a sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecent the upamayana ceremony [i.e. the initiation ritual conferring on one the status of the dvija] and that ceremony belongs to the three higher castes only.

All this may appear to us to be a series of mere assumptions. Not so for Adi Sankar for whom, the derogatory attitude towards sudras by the law-givers like Manu, has the most infallible authority. As Adi Sankar himself says:

With reference to the sudras, on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is frequently mentioned; 'once born' only, and Manu x.4, where they are spoken off as 'once born only', and Manu x.126, 'A sudra cannot commit an offence causing loss of caste (pataka) and he is not worthy to receive the sacraments.'

But Adi Sankar finds it necessary to dilate the point(Sankar on Brahma Sutra i.3.38):
The sudras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages:

'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with [molten] lead and lac', and

'For a sudra is like a cemetry, therefore, the Veda is not not to be read in the vicinity of a sudra.'
From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how could he study scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, and express prohibition [of the sudra studying the Veda]:

'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.'

The prohibition of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as:
'He is not to impart knowledge to the sudra', and
'To the twice born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-on-sudras_325415_blog

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
CD,

We seem to be shifting the goal post (heck, even the sport  here:). My original question pertained to the correlation between religious background and terrorism. In any event, what is the reverse of the scenario you are positing above i.e. hindu on muslim violence? One of the problems, incidentally, as to why this problem continues to fester is that there is never an honest discussion of muslim/hindu issues in India. This applies to the past and to the present. The intelligentsia/media either goes through weird contortions to see moral equivalences or quite simply does not want to see the hindu side of things. The end result is like a balloon getting gassed up and we all know the inevitable consequence.  The chattering classes seem to be oblivious to this.

The premise of this particular discussion, at least in my mind, has always been about India. If you want to expand then we need to include LTTE & Maoists too. LTTE is the pioneer of suicide bombs who seems to have passed on this legacy to Muslim brethren, there we go, Hindus again

>>>So Maoist and LTTE terrorism are rooted in Hinduism? Remember my original point about the lack of intellectual honesty in this inquiry? Q.E.D.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
CD,

We seem to be shifting the goal post (heck, even the sport  here:). My original question pertained to the correlation between religious background and terrorism. In any event, what is the reverse of the scenario you are positing above i.e. hindu on muslim violence? One of the problems, incidentally, as to why this problem continues to fester is that there is never an honest discussion of muslim/hindu issues in India. This applies to the past and to the present. The intelligentsia/media either goes through weird contortions to see moral equivalences or quite simply does not want to see the hindu side of things. The end result is like a balloon getting gassed up and we all know the inevitable consequence.  The chattering classes seem to be oblivious to this.

The premise of this particular discussion, at least in my mind, has always been about India. If you want to expand then we need to include LTTE & Maoists too. LTTE is the pioneer of suicide bombs who seems to have passed on this legacy to Muslim brethren, there we go, Hindus again

>>>So Maoist and LTTE terrorism are rooted in Hinduism? Remember my original point about the lack of intellectual honesty in this inquiry? Q.E.D.

Do you consider Lebanon-Israel conflict as purely Islam issue or see any similarities with LTTE war? What about Libya & Syrian rebel moments, any different than Maoist stuff?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
CD,

We seem to be shifting the goal post (heck, even the sport  here:). My original question pertained to the correlation between religious background and terrorism. In any event, what is the reverse of the scenario you are positing above i.e. hindu on muslim violence? One of the problems, incidentally, as to why this problem continues to fester is that there is never an honest discussion of muslim/hindu issues in India. This applies to the past and to the present. The intelligentsia/media either goes through weird contortions to see moral equivalences or quite simply does not want to see the hindu side of things. The end result is like a balloon getting gassed up and we all know the inevitable consequence.  The chattering classes seem to be oblivious to this.

The premise of this particular discussion, at least in my mind, has always been about India. If you want to expand then we need to include LTTE & Maoists too. LTTE is the pioneer of suicide bombs who seems to have passed on this legacy to Muslim brethren, there we go, Hindus again

>>>So Maoist and LTTE terrorism are rooted in Hinduism? Remember my original point about the lack of intellectual honesty in this inquiry? Q.E.D.

Do you consider Lebanon-Israel conflict as purely Islam issue or see any similarities with LTTE war? What about Libya & Syrian rebel moments, any different than Maoist stuff?

>>.I don't understand your question, but I will try to answer it anyway. The fact that Israel is not an Islamic country is significantly a reason for the acrimony toward it, albeit that is not the only reason. Back to my question: are the LTTE and Maoist movements rooted in Hinduism in your opinion and that is what informs their cause?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
CD,

We seem to be shifting the goal post (heck, even the sport  here:). My original question pertained to the correlation between religious background and terrorism. In any event, what is the reverse of the scenario you are positing above i.e. hindu on muslim violence? One of the problems, incidentally, as to why this problem continues to fester is that there is never an honest discussion of muslim/hindu issues in India. This applies to the past and to the present. The intelligentsia/media either goes through weird contortions to see moral equivalences or quite simply does not want to see the hindu side of things. The end result is like a balloon getting gassed up and we all know the inevitable consequence.  The chattering classes seem to be oblivious to this.

The premise of this particular discussion, at least in my mind, has always been about India. If you want to expand then we need to include LTTE & Maoists too. LTTE is the pioneer of suicide bombs who seems to have passed on this legacy to Muslim brethren, there we go, Hindus again

>>>So Maoist and LTTE terrorism are rooted in Hinduism? Remember my original point about the lack of intellectual honesty in this inquiry? Q.E.D.

Do you consider Lebanon-Israel conflict as purely Islam issue or see any similarities with LTTE war? What about Libya & Syrian rebel moments, any different than Maoist stuff?

>>.I don't understand your question, but I will try to answer it anyway. The fact that Israel is not an Islamic country is significantly a reason for the acrimony toward it, albeit that is not the only reason. Back to my question: are the LTTE and Maoist movements rooted in Hinduism in your opinion and that is what informs their cause?

it's from chapter 7 of comrade's play book, to bring in nonexistent parallels from the left field as an obfuscation tactic. if you ask for clarification he'll take you down another rat hole that neitherilluminates nor clarifies anything and he'll declare victory. seen it play out so many times

Kris wrote:
>>.I don't understand your question, but I will try to answer it anyway. The fact that Israel is not an Islamic country is significantly a reason for the acrimony toward it, albeit that is not the only reason. Back to my question: are the LTTE and Maoist movements rooted in Hinduism in your opinion and that is what informs their cause?

It is not that difficult to fabricate err.. establish a relation. Prabhakaran's favorite god is Murugun - The HINDU God of War, also known as Skanda. Buddhists consider Murugun too violent thus did not include him in their puranas along with other vedic deities which ruffled Captain's feathers. If I had a few millions of disposable money, I would have my own CIA & propaganda machine to promote this theory (hire Uppili & Rashmun to publish their thesis). Sorta what west does with Islamic groups such as Hezbullah, it was formed by Islamic clerics so it must be a religious group, isn't it that true for  VHPs & Bajrang Dals of the world as well, which have Hindu priests blessings and involvement.

Propagandhi711 wrote:
it's from chapter 7 of comrade's play book, to bring in nonexistent parallels from the left field as an obfuscation tactic. if you ask for clarification he'll take you down another rat hole that neitherilluminates nor clarifies anything and he'll declare victory. seen it play out so many times

Years of working in corporate America helped me practice and hone those skills. Make client spend millions of dollars only to deliver a product that neither works nor can be scrapped or say unusable. In any case, do you have anything to add to the discussion other than shedding your pearls of wisdom on my debating technique?

Rashmun wrote:
Kind of like how low caste hindus were targeted by high caste hindus.

-----

But why is the sudra not entitled to philosophical wisdom? Adi Sankar answers (Sankar on Brahma Sutra i.3.34):

The sudras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters. But a sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecent the upamayana ceremony [i.e. the initiation ritual conferring on one the status of the dvija] and that ceremony belongs to the three higher castes only.

All this may appear to us to be a series of mere assumptions. Not so for Adi Sankar for whom, the derogatory attitude towards sudras by the law-givers like Manu, has the most infallible authority. As Adi Sankar himself says:

With reference to the sudras, on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is frequently mentioned; 'once born' only, and Manu x.4, where they are spoken off as 'once born only', and Manu x.126, 'A sudra cannot commit an offence causing loss of caste (pataka) and he is not worthy to receive the sacraments.'

But Adi Sankar finds it necessary to dilate the point(Sankar on Brahma Sutra i.3.38):
The sudras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages:

'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with [molten] lead and lac', and

'For a sudra is like a cemetry, therefore, the Veda is not not to be read in the vicinity of a sudra.'
From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how could he study scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, and express prohibition [of the sudra studying the Veda]:

'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.'

The prohibition of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as:
'He is not to impart knowledge to the sudra', and
'To the twice born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-on-sudras_325415_blog

WOW! that's cruel.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Kind of like how low caste hindus were targeted by high caste hindus.

-----

But why is the sudra not entitled to philosophical wisdom? Adi Sankar answers (Sankar on Brahma Sutra i.3.34):

The sudras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters. But a sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecent the upamayana ceremony [i.e. the initiation ritual conferring on one the status of the dvija] and that ceremony belongs to the three higher castes only.

All this may appear to us to be a series of mere assumptions. Not so for Adi Sankar for whom, the derogatory attitude towards sudras by the law-givers like Manu, has the most infallible authority. As Adi Sankar himself says:

With reference to the sudras, on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is frequently mentioned; 'once born' only, and Manu x.4, where they are spoken off as 'once born only', and Manu x.126, 'A sudra cannot commit an offence causing loss of caste (pataka) and he is not worthy to receive the sacraments.'

But Adi Sankar finds it necessary to dilate the point(Sankar on Brahma Sutra i.3.38):
The sudras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages:

'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with [molten] lead and lac', and

'For a sudra is like a cemetry, therefore, the Veda is not not to be read in the vicinity of a sudra.'
From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how could he study scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, and express prohibition [of the sudra studying the Veda]:

'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.'

The prohibition of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as:
'He is not to impart knowledge to the sudra', and
'To the twice born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-on-sudras_325415_blog

WOW! that's cruel.

This is theory, Sankara is quoting from Manu Smriti. Notice that it is not any actual description of what actually happened. The idea is to discourage sudras from studying the Vedas. There was actually one very good way for a low cast hindu of intellectual bent to become a scholar ( though not a Vedic scholar): Become a Budhist.

The question I have is: why did all sudras not convert to Budhism when the opportunity presented itself to them?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>.I don't understand your question, but I will try to answer it anyway. The fact that Israel is not an Islamic country is significantly a reason for the acrimony toward it, albeit that is not the only reason. Back to my question: are the LTTE and Maoist movements rooted in Hinduism in your opinion and that is what informs their cause?

It is not that difficult to fabricate err.. establish a relation. Prabhakaran's favorite god is Murugun - The HINDU God of War, also known as Skanda. Buddhists consider Murugun too violent thus did not include him in their puranas along with other vedic deities which ruffled Captain's feathers. If I had a few millions of disposable money, I would have my own CIA & propaganda machine to promote this theory (hire Uppili & Rashmun to publish their thesis). Sorta what west does with Islamic groups such as Hezbullah, it was formed by Islamic clerics so it must be a religious group, isn't it that true for  VHPs & Bajrang Dals of the world as well, which have Hindu priests blessings and involvement.

>>> Are you saying the Islamic terrorist groups are figments of the west's imagination and they have no grounding in a certain religious ethos? It is like saying the Taliban are misunderstood students (which Mushy or some head honcho in Pakistan posited once).

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
What is the reason for the hindu minority numbers to have dwindled significantly in Pakistan? Is it the 'hum do-humara ek bhi nahi' policy?

Let's not go overboard with giving ourselves a pat on the back. First of all, it's not a +ve sign if one looks up to Pakistan as a rolemodel to prove that BJP is secular, that in itself explains it. Secondly, Buddhism, once thriving in India, met the same fate as Hinduism in Pakistan. Finally, Hinduism has not always been as peaceful as one like us to believe it to be, a lot of blood was shed be it's in-fights between different sects or intolerance towards other religions like Jainism, Buddhism or for that matter look at the modus operandi of present day's BJP or the frequency of attacks on lower caste Hindus. There's not even a modicum of truth in statements such as Hinduism is THE peace mongering religion and adheres to live and let live philosophy; it's nothing but baloney propagated by right-wing nationalists to cover-up their aggression. I know a bunch of you will come at me cranking up usual rhetoric like how many were killed in the terrorist attacks committed by right-wing Hindu groups etc., but it's all relative, right? the crux of the matter is whether or not the intent harm minorities with malice displayed.

>>>Why is it relative? Why can it not be a measure of which cultural background is more prone to terrorism?

i have heard some (caucasian) christians say that there was a time when muslims were more liberal than christians and that they became more fundamentalist/orthodox/rigid after the Crusades. Furthermore, even within Islam of today there exist liberal sects like sufism.

>>>There is no doubt that Christianity has not been the most pristine on this count. While it is still not perfect, the pursuit of science (read, rational thinking) has tempered the West's world-view significantly. It is not all nobility of course. There has been a tendency toward pragmatism driven by commerce/self-interest. India has been lucky in Hinduism due to dogma not gaining a central place in it. For every fundamentalist, there will be two or three who will oppose him and none of them can be ex-communicated. This may be happenstance and not by design, since the religion grew organically, but it is still a positive. Islam's sects such as the Sufis that you refer to don't have center stage in any Islamic society. There are groups like Ahmadiyas and Ba'hais who are treated on a par with "non-believers". The Islamic world which once was the forerunner on scientific learning turned inward along time ago. My main point is if there is going to be an honest discussion, we need to stop conjuring up moral equivalences.

In the Indian context, the two most populous sects of Muslims are barelvis and deobandis. Barelvis are more liberal than deobandis and they are also numerically greater in number. Actually both barelvis and deobandis should be considered sub-sects since they both follow or claim to follow Sunni Islam.

Now the chief difference between barelvis and deobandis is that barelvis say its ok to worship spiritual people like Sufi saints. And hence they encourage and participate in worship of Sufi shrines and tombs. I should point out that the tombs and shrines of Sufi saints are also visited by Hindus all across India ( the possible exception to this I think is Gujarat where hindus no longer visit Sufi shrines or tombs as per what I read recently); so in that sense the fact that members of two different communities are coming together in large numbers to pray at the same site is surely something noteworthy and perhaps praiseworthy.

Now deobandis say tombs and shrines of spiritual figures should not be worshipped because doing so would be akin to placing them on the same level as Allah(God) and hence they say only Allah should be worshipped. They carry this argument even to the worship of prophet Mohammad. In Saudi Arabia it is not permissible to worship the tomb of Mohammad. In that sense the Wahabi Islam is in agreement with Deobandi Islam.

Now Barelvis like to celebrate the birthday of Mohammad in India. But Deobandis are against even this. And so on various such occasions physical clashes have taken place between Deobandis and Barelvis with people getting injured and occasionally killed.

Now notice one other thing: neither Barelvis nor Deobandis are able to ex-communicate each other.

---

Your point about the Bahai and Ahmediya sects are well taken but unfortunately I do not know enough about these two sects other than the fact that the people adhering to these sects is minuscule in India and probably even outside India.

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Let's not go overboard with giving ourselves a pat on the back. First of all, it's not a +ve sign if one looks up to Pakistan as a rolemodel to prove that BJP is secular, that in itself explains it. Secondly, Buddhism, once thriving in India, met the same fate as Hinduism in Pakistan. Finally, Hinduism has not always been as peaceful as one like us to believe it to be, a lot of blood was shed be it's in-fights between different sects or intolerance towards other religions like Jainism, Buddhism or for that matter look at the modus operandi of present day's BJP or the frequency of attacks on lower caste Hindus. There's not even a modicum of truth in statements such as Hinduism is THE peace mongering religion and adheres to live and let live philosophy; it's nothing but baloney propagated by right-wing nationalists to cover-up their aggression. I know a bunch of you will come at me cranking up usual rhetoric like how many were killed in the terrorist attacks committed by right-wing Hindu groups etc., but it's all relative, right? the crux of the matter is whether or not the intent harm minorities with malice displayed.

>>>Why is it relative? Why can it not be a measure of which cultural background is more prone to terrorism?

i have heard some (caucasian) christians say that there was a time when muslims were more liberal than christians and that they became more fundamentalist/orthodox/rigid after the Crusades. Furthermore, even within Islam of today there exist liberal sects like sufism.

>>>There is no doubt that Christianity has not been the most pristine on this count. While it is still not perfect, the pursuit of science (read, rational thinking) has tempered the West's world-view significantly. It is not all nobility of course. There has been a tendency toward pragmatism driven by commerce/self-interest. India has been lucky in Hinduism due to dogma not gaining a central place in it. For every fundamentalist, there will be two or three who will oppose him and none of them can be ex-communicated. This may be happenstance and not by design, since the religion grew organically, but it is still a positive. Islam's sects such as the Sufis that you refer to don't have center stage in any Islamic society. There are groups like Ahmadiyas and Ba'hais who are treated on a par with "non-believers". The Islamic world which once was the forerunner on scientific learning turned inward along time ago. My main point is if there is going to be an honest discussion, we need to stop conjuring up moral equivalences.

In the Indian context, the two most populous sects of Muslims are barelvis and deobandis. Barelvis are more liberal than deobandis and they are also numerically greater in number. Actually both barelvis and deobandis should be considered sub-sects since they both follow or claim to follow Sunni Islam.

Now the chief difference between barelvis and deobandis is that barelvis say its ok to worship spiritual people like Sufi saints. And hence they encourage and participate in worship of Sufi shrines and tombs. I should point out that the tombs and shrines of Sufi saints are also visited by Hindus all across India ( the possible exception to this I think is Gujarat where hindus no longer visit Sufi shrines or tombs as per what I read recently); so in that sense the fact that members of two different communities are coming together in large numbers to pray at the same site is surely something noteworthy and perhaps praiseworthy.

Now deobandis say tombs and shrines of spiritual figures should not be worshipped because doing so would be akin to placing them on the same level as Allah(God) and hence they say only Allah should be worshipped. They carry this argument even to the worship of prophet Mohammad. In Saudi Arabia it is not permissible to worship the tomb of Mohammad. In that sense the Wahabi Islam is in agreement with Deobandi Islam.

Now Barelvis like to celebrate the birthday of Mohammad in India. But Deobandis are against even this. And so on various such occasions physical clashes have taken place between Deobandis and Barelvis with people getting injured and occasionally killed.

Now notice one other thing: neither Barelvis nor Deobandis are able to ex-communicate each other.

---

Your point about the Bahai and Ahmediya sects are well taken but unfortunately I do not know enough about these two sects other than the fact that the people adhering to these sects is minuscule in India and probably even outside India.

>>>If you get a chance, read up on the Ba'hais. I don't mean that they are in anyway high end philosophers, but there is definitely a concerted effort to be inclusive. I first heard about them from a classmate when I was new in this country and in retrospect, she was probably a latter day flower child. She was married to a Pakistani guy and had converted. The religion was founded in Persia draws from  the Abrahamic faiths as well as Hinduism/Buddhism. They don't have an easy go of it in conservative Islamic countries, given their views. Incidentally, one of the things that is coming out about early Christianity now is that it may been quite mysticism- oriented at the beginning, with the change to a rigid ideology coming about later due to the needs to unify the roman empire under one religion with set boundaries. There is a school of thought that there may have been exchanges between this early Christian world and India. There was a Goanese gentleman in the early days of Sulekha who explored some of this in his writings which I have been meaning to look up, but haven't had the time.

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Why is it relative? Why can it not be a measure of which cultural background is more prone to terrorism?

i have heard some (caucasian) christians say that there was a time when muslims were more liberal than christians and that they became more fundamentalist/orthodox/rigid after the Crusades. Furthermore, even within Islam of today there exist liberal sects like sufism.

>>>There is no doubt that Christianity has not been the most pristine on this count. While it is still not perfect, the pursuit of science (read, rational thinking) has tempered the West's world-view significantly. It is not all nobility of course. There has been a tendency toward pragmatism driven by commerce/self-interest. India has been lucky in Hinduism due to dogma not gaining a central place in it. For every fundamentalist, there will be two or three who will oppose him and none of them can be ex-communicated. This may be happenstance and not by design, since the religion grew organically, but it is still a positive. Islam's sects such as the Sufis that you refer to don't have center stage in any Islamic society. There are groups like Ahmadiyas and Ba'hais who are treated on a par with "non-believers". The Islamic world which once was the forerunner on scientific learning turned inward along time ago. My main point is if there is going to be an honest discussion, we need to stop conjuring up moral equivalences.

In the Indian context, the two most populous sects of Muslims are barelvis and deobandis. Barelvis are more liberal than deobandis and they are also numerically greater in number. Actually both barelvis and deobandis should be considered sub-sects since they both follow or claim to follow Sunni Islam.

Now the chief difference between barelvis and deobandis is that barelvis say its ok to worship spiritual people like Sufi saints. And hence they encourage and participate in worship of Sufi shrines and tombs. I should point out that the tombs and shrines of Sufi saints are also visited by Hindus all across India ( the possible exception to this I think is Gujarat where hindus no longer visit Sufi shrines or tombs as per what I read recently); so in that sense the fact that members of two different communities are coming together in large numbers to pray at the same site is surely something noteworthy and perhaps praiseworthy.

Now deobandis say tombs and shrines of spiritual figures should not be worshipped because doing so would be akin to placing them on the same level as Allah(God) and hence they say only Allah should be worshipped. They carry this argument even to the worship of prophet Mohammad. In Saudi Arabia it is not permissible to worship the tomb of Mohammad. In that sense the Wahabi Islam is in agreement with Deobandi Islam.

Now Barelvis like to celebrate the birthday of Mohammad in India. But Deobandis are against even this. And so on various such occasions physical clashes have taken place between Deobandis and Barelvis with people getting injured and occasionally killed.

Now notice one other thing: neither Barelvis nor Deobandis are able to ex-communicate each other.

---

Your point about the Bahai and Ahmediya sects are well taken but unfortunately I do not know enough about these two sects other than the fact that the people adhering to these sects is minuscule in India and probably even outside India.

>>>If you get a chance, read up on the Ba'hais. I don't mean that they are in anyway high end philosophers, but there is definitely a concerted effort to be inclusive. I first heard about them from a classmate when I was new in this country and in retrospect, she was probably a latter day flower child. She was married to a Pakistani guy and had converted. The religion was founded in Persia draws from  the Abrahamic faiths as well as Hinduism/Buddhism. They don't have an easy go of it in conservative Islamic countries, given their views. Incidentally, one of the things that is coming out about early Christianity now is that it may been quite mysticism- oriented at the beginning, with the change to a rigid ideology coming about later due to the needs to unify the roman empire under one religion with set boundaries. There is a school of thought that there may have been exchanges between this early Christian world and India. There was a Goanese gentleman in the early days of Sulekha who explored some of this in his writings which I have been meaning to look up, but haven't had the time.

I read a little bit about them. You are right--there is a concerted effort made by them to be inclusive however this attempt at inclusiveness does not seem to extend to their attitude towards homosexuality.

----

Individuals who are openly homosexual are not prevented from entering the religion and joining in community life; however, someone involved in a same-sex marriage or union will be prevented from registering as a Baha'i and joining the community.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

i have heard some (caucasian) christians say that there was a time when muslims were more liberal than christians and that they became more fundamentalist/orthodox/rigid after the Crusades. Furthermore, even within Islam of today there exist liberal sects like sufism.

>>>There is no doubt that Christianity has not been the most pristine on this count. While it is still not perfect, the pursuit of science (read, rational thinking) has tempered the West's world-view significantly. It is not all nobility of course. There has been a tendency toward pragmatism driven by commerce/self-interest. India has been lucky in Hinduism due to dogma not gaining a central place in it. For every fundamentalist, there will be two or three who will oppose him and none of them can be ex-communicated. This may be happenstance and not by design, since the religion grew organically, but it is still a positive. Islam's sects such as the Sufis that you refer to don't have center stage in any Islamic society. There are groups like Ahmadiyas and Ba'hais who are treated on a par with "non-believers". The Islamic world which once was the forerunner on scientific learning turned inward along time ago. My main point is if there is going to be an honest discussion, we need to stop conjuring up moral equivalences.

In the Indian context, the two most populous sects of Muslims are barelvis and deobandis. Barelvis are more liberal than deobandis and they are also numerically greater in number. Actually both barelvis and deobandis should be considered sub-sects since they both follow or claim to follow Sunni Islam.

Now the chief difference between barelvis and deobandis is that barelvis say its ok to worship spiritual people like Sufi saints. And hence they encourage and participate in worship of Sufi shrines and tombs. I should point out that the tombs and shrines of Sufi saints are also visited by Hindus all across India ( the possible exception to this I think is Gujarat where hindus no longer visit Sufi shrines or tombs as per what I read recently); so in that sense the fact that members of two different communities are coming together in large numbers to pray at the same site is surely something noteworthy and perhaps praiseworthy.

Now deobandis say tombs and shrines of spiritual figures should not be worshipped because doing so would be akin to placing them on the same level as Allah(God) and hence they say only Allah should be worshipped. They carry this argument even to the worship of prophet Mohammad. In Saudi Arabia it is not permissible to worship the tomb of Mohammad. In that sense the Wahabi Islam is in agreement with Deobandi Islam.

Now Barelvis like to celebrate the birthday of Mohammad in India. But Deobandis are against even this. And so on various such occasions physical clashes have taken place between Deobandis and Barelvis with people getting injured and occasionally killed.

Now notice one other thing: neither Barelvis nor Deobandis are able to ex-communicate each other.

---

Your point about the Bahai and Ahmediya sects are well taken but unfortunately I do not know enough about these two sects other than the fact that the people adhering to these sects is minuscule in India and probably even outside India.

>>>If you get a chance, read up on the Ba'hais. I don't mean that they are in anyway high end philosophers, but there is definitely a concerted effort to be inclusive. I first heard about them from a classmate when I was new in this country and in retrospect, she was probably a latter day flower child. She was married to a Pakistani guy and had converted. The religion was founded in Persia draws from  the Abrahamic faiths as well as Hinduism/Buddhism. They don't have an easy go of it in conservative Islamic countries, given their views. Incidentally, one of the things that is coming out about early Christianity now is that it may been quite mysticism- oriented at the beginning, with the change to a rigid ideology coming about later due to the needs to unify the roman empire under one religion with set boundaries. There is a school of thought that there may have been exchanges between this early Christian world and India. There was a Goanese gentleman in the early days of Sulekha who explored some of this in his writings which I have been meaning to look up, but haven't had the time.

I read a little bit about them. You are right--there is a concerted effort made by them to be inclusive however this attempt at inclusiveness does not seem to extend to their attitude towards homosexuality.

----

Individuals who are openly homosexual are not prevented from entering the religion and joining in community life; however, someone involved in a same-sex marriage or union will be prevented from registering as a Baha'i and joining the community.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

I found this also smacking of intolerance and intrusiveness. How can you expel someone from a religious faith/sect because of what a person is doing in his personal life?

individual may be subject to administrative sanctions if their actions are decided by a Spiritual Assembly to be damaging to the image of the Bahá'í Faith. This response removes the right to contribute to funds, vote in elections for spiritual assemblies, hold office, or attend the Nineteen Day Feast. It may be applied to extreme cases of alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and anything that is considered flagrant immorality. However this consequence is meant only to be applied in cases of "public scandal", "very flagrant cases", or if the conduct of the Bahá'í is "seriously injuring the Faith in the eyes of the public". [17] In cases of Bahá'ís who are flagrantly promiscuous, they are to be approached by a Spiritual Assembly and informed of the teachings on personal conduct. If after a probational period the person continues to present a disregard towards the laws in a public way, then the assembly may remove the person's administrative rights, "administratively expelled from membership in the Bahá'í community," [21] though this action is not the same as ex-communication, as there is no directive to avoid fellowship with the individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

Rashmun wrote:Baha’is claim to unite religions. Yet they have no thought or opinion on how they can unite the tangential beliefs in religions without antagonizing the other. Christianity believes that Jesus is the son of God. Islam says no. Christianity believes that Jesus was crucified. Islam says no. If the Baha’i Faith was truly the next generation revelation which is meant to unite religions, it must address these very clear contradictions. But you know what. They will never call a spade a spade. They will go onto a tangent. So who is Jesus? Is he the son of God? Ask the Baha’is – they will say he is a Manifestation of God. Sure. But is he the son of God? He is a Manifestation. Oh, but is he the son of God?..whew…You will never hear anything from them. Why can’t they come clean on this? Why cant they either tell the Christians that you guys have been misguided all these year – Jesus is not the son of God. Or simply tell the Muslims – there is no unity of God. Jesus is the son of God. Perhaps they can’t come clean on this without antagonizing either Islam or Christianity. So as the adage goes – if you can’t convince, then confuse!

I am still unable to reconcile the fact that Baha’is are not meant to teach the Faith to Jews. Huh? C’mon are you not a universal religion or Bahaullah the messenger of all times etc etc, as you claim? Then why are you depriving the Jews of guidance. Ask the Baha’is and they will tell you that this is as per pact which Bahaullah entered with the Jews. Huh? A messenger of God entering into an arrangement with a community to deprive them of the teachings of God? Ask the Baha’is and they will shy away from this. What right do they have to stake claim to being a universal religion when they cannot teach such an important community in the world? So whenever a Muslim comes to me, that’s what I tell him – ask the Baha’is to teach the Jews first and then Christians and then Islam. In any case that is the sequence in which Allah revealed his message in any case. Or else, tell us that the Jews are right and we all will follow the Jews and not Bahaullah.

There are several such instances which highlight the false sweetness of the Baha’i Faith. The sad part is that the Bahais themselves are not able to see through these contradictions. Anyways, if ever you meet any Baha’i who appears very sweet to you, just throw him these questions and watch the “sweetness” disappear!

http://bahaideceit.blogspot.com/2012/11/two-questions-expose-bahai-cult-fraud.html

http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_teaching_in_israel

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>There is no doubt that Christianity has not been the most pristine on this count. While it is still not perfect, the pursuit of science (read, rational thinking) has tempered the West's world-view significantly. It is not all nobility of course. There has been a tendency toward pragmatism driven by commerce/self-interest. India has been lucky in Hinduism due to dogma not gaining a central place in it. For every fundamentalist, there will be two or three who will oppose him and none of them can be ex-communicated. This may be happenstance and not by design, since the religion grew organically, but it is still a positive. Islam's sects such as the Sufis that you refer to don't have center stage in any Islamic society. There are groups like Ahmadiyas and Ba'hais who are treated on a par with "non-believers". The Islamic world which once was the forerunner on scientific learning turned inward along time ago. My main point is if there is going to be an honest discussion, we need to stop conjuring up moral equivalences.

In the Indian context, the two most populous sects of Muslims are barelvis and deobandis. Barelvis are more liberal than deobandis and they are also numerically greater in number. Actually both barelvis and deobandis should be considered sub-sects since they both follow or claim to follow Sunni Islam.

Now the chief difference between barelvis and deobandis is that barelvis say its ok to worship spiritual people like Sufi saints. And hence they encourage and participate in worship of Sufi shrines and tombs. I should point out that the tombs and shrines of Sufi saints are also visited by Hindus all across India ( the possible exception to this I think is Gujarat where hindus no longer visit Sufi shrines or tombs as per what I read recently); so in that sense the fact that members of two different communities are coming together in large numbers to pray at the same site is surely something noteworthy and perhaps praiseworthy.

Now deobandis say tombs and shrines of spiritual figures should not be worshipped because doing so would be akin to placing them on the same level as Allah(God) and hence they say only Allah should be worshipped. They carry this argument even to the worship of prophet Mohammad. In Saudi Arabia it is not permissible to worship the tomb of Mohammad. In that sense the Wahabi Islam is in agreement with Deobandi Islam.

Now Barelvis like to celebrate the birthday of Mohammad in India. But Deobandis are against even this. And so on various such occasions physical clashes have taken place between Deobandis and Barelvis with people getting injured and occasionally killed.

Now notice one other thing: neither Barelvis nor Deobandis are able to ex-communicate each other.

---

Your point about the Bahai and Ahmediya sects are well taken but unfortunately I do not know enough about these two sects other than the fact that the people adhering to these sects is minuscule in India and probably even outside India.

>>>If you get a chance, read up on the Ba'hais. I don't mean that they are in anyway high end philosophers, but there is definitely a concerted effort to be inclusive. I first heard about them from a classmate when I was new in this country and in retrospect, she was probably a latter day flower child. She was married to a Pakistani guy and had converted. The religion was founded in Persia draws from  the Abrahamic faiths as well as Hinduism/Buddhism. They don't have an easy go of it in conservative Islamic countries, given their views. Incidentally, one of the things that is coming out about early Christianity now is that it may been quite mysticism- oriented at the beginning, with the change to a rigid ideology coming about later due to the needs to unify the roman empire under one religion with set boundaries. There is a school of thought that there may have been exchanges between this early Christian world and India. There was a Goanese gentleman in the early days of Sulekha who explored some of this in his writings which I have been meaning to look up, but haven't had the time.

I read a little bit about them. You are right--there is a concerted effort made by them to be inclusive however this attempt at inclusiveness does not seem to extend to their attitude towards homosexuality.

----

Individuals who are openly homosexual are not prevented from entering the religion and joining in community life; however, someone involved in a same-sex marriage or union will be prevented from registering as a Baha'i and joining the community.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

I found this also smacking of intolerance and intrusiveness. How can you expel someone from a religious faith/sect because of what a person is doing in his personal life?

individual may be subject to administrative sanctions if their actions are decided by a Spiritual Assembly to be damaging to the image of the Bahá'í Faith. This response removes the right to contribute to funds, vote in elections for spiritual assemblies, hold office, or attend the Nineteen Day Feast. It may be applied to extreme cases of alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and anything that is considered flagrant immorality. However this consequence is meant only to be applied in cases of "public scandal", "very flagrant cases", or if the conduct of the Bahá'í is "seriously injuring the Faith in the eyes of the public". [17] In cases of Bahá'ís who are flagrantly promiscuous, they are to be approached by a Spiritual Assembly and informed of the teachings on personal conduct. If after a probational period the person continues to present a disregard towards the laws in a public way, then the assembly may remove the person's administrative rights, "administratively expelled from membership in the Bahá'í community," [21] though this action is not the same as ex-communication, as there is no directive to avoid fellowship with the individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

>>>The internal contradictions and cult-like behavior doesn't surprise me, given the time it came into existence. I thought it was a step up from people going to wars over different gods. There was one other interaction I had with this group. The International Student office told us of a local city council meeting in case we were interested. A few of us were bored and went. There was an invocation (a bah'ai prayer), which seemed like it went on forever but there was a lot of allusion to nature. I am not sure how they got away with this prayer, given the separation of state and church, btw. Ironically, one of my friends who was Algerian and had been raised at least nominally muslim, started complaining in a fairly loud voice that this whole prayer bit was over the top.

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

In the Indian context, the two most populous sects of Muslims are barelvis and deobandis. Barelvis are more liberal than deobandis and they are also numerically greater in number. Actually both barelvis and deobandis should be considered sub-sects since they both follow or claim to follow Sunni Islam.

Now the chief difference between barelvis and deobandis is that barelvis say its ok to worship spiritual people like Sufi saints. And hence they encourage and participate in worship of Sufi shrines and tombs. I should point out that the tombs and shrines of Sufi saints are also visited by Hindus all across India ( the possible exception to this I think is Gujarat where hindus no longer visit Sufi shrines or tombs as per what I read recently); so in that sense the fact that members of two different communities are coming together in large numbers to pray at the same site is surely something noteworthy and perhaps praiseworthy.

Now deobandis say tombs and shrines of spiritual figures should not be worshipped because doing so would be akin to placing them on the same level as Allah(God) and hence they say only Allah should be worshipped. They carry this argument even to the worship of prophet Mohammad. In Saudi Arabia it is not permissible to worship the tomb of Mohammad. In that sense the Wahabi Islam is in agreement with Deobandi Islam.

Now Barelvis like to celebrate the birthday of Mohammad in India. But Deobandis are against even this. And so on various such occasions physical clashes have taken place between Deobandis and Barelvis with people getting injured and occasionally killed.

Now notice one other thing: neither Barelvis nor Deobandis are able to ex-communicate each other.

---

Your point about the Bahai and Ahmediya sects are well taken but unfortunately I do not know enough about these two sects other than the fact that the people adhering to these sects is minuscule in India and probably even outside India.

>>>If you get a chance, read up on the Ba'hais. I don't mean that they are in anyway high end philosophers, but there is definitely a concerted effort to be inclusive. I first heard about them from a classmate when I was new in this country and in retrospect, she was probably a latter day flower child. She was married to a Pakistani guy and had converted. The religion was founded in Persia draws from  the Abrahamic faiths as well as Hinduism/Buddhism. They don't have an easy go of it in conservative Islamic countries, given their views. Incidentally, one of the things that is coming out about early Christianity now is that it may been quite mysticism- oriented at the beginning, with the change to a rigid ideology coming about later due to the needs to unify the roman empire under one religion with set boundaries. There is a school of thought that there may have been exchanges between this early Christian world and India. There was a Goanese gentleman in the early days of Sulekha who explored some of this in his writings which I have been meaning to look up, but haven't had the time.

I read a little bit about them. You are right--there is a concerted effort made by them to be inclusive however this attempt at inclusiveness does not seem to extend to their attitude towards homosexuality.

----

Individuals who are openly homosexual are not prevented from entering the religion and joining in community life; however, someone involved in a same-sex marriage or union will be prevented from registering as a Baha'i and joining the community.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

I found this also smacking of intolerance and intrusiveness. How can you expel someone from a religious faith/sect because of what a person is doing in his personal life?

individual may be subject to administrative sanctions if their actions are decided by a Spiritual Assembly to be damaging to the image of the Bahá'í Faith. This response removes the right to contribute to funds, vote in elections for spiritual assemblies, hold office, or attend the Nineteen Day Feast. It may be applied to extreme cases of alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and anything that is considered flagrant immorality. However this consequence is meant only to be applied in cases of "public scandal", "very flagrant cases", or if the conduct of the Bahá'í is "seriously injuring the Faith in the eyes of the public". [17] In cases of Bahá'ís who are flagrantly promiscuous, they are to be approached by a Spiritual Assembly and informed of the teachings on personal conduct. If after a probational period the person continues to present a disregard towards the laws in a public way, then the assembly may remove the person's administrative rights, "administratively expelled from membership in the Bahá'í community," [21] though this action is not the same as ex-communication, as there is no directive to avoid fellowship with the individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

>>>The internal contradictions and cult-like behavior doesn't surprise me, given the time it came into existence. I thought it was a step up from people going to wars over different gods. There was one other interaction I had with this group. The International Student office told us of a local city council meeting in case we were interested. A few of us were bored and went. There was an invocation (a bah'ai prayer), which seemed like it went on forever but there was a lot of allusion to nature. I am not sure how they got away with this prayer, given the separation of state and church, btw. Ironically, one of my friends who was Algerian and had been raised at least nominally muslim, started complaining in a fairly loud voice that this whole prayer bit was over the top.

But how do you explain the fact that they will not try to convert any Israeli Jew and moreover even if an Israeli Jew wants to become a Bahai he simply cannot. Their relationship with Israel seems to be very peculiar considering their headquarters are in Israel.

http://bahai-israel.webs.com/faq.htm

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>If you get a chance, read up on the Ba'hais. I don't mean that they are in anyway high end philosophers, but there is definitely a concerted effort to be inclusive. I first heard about them from a classmate when I was new in this country and in retrospect, she was probably a latter day flower child. She was married to a Pakistani guy and had converted. The religion was founded in Persia draws from  the Abrahamic faiths as well as Hinduism/Buddhism. They don't have an easy go of it in conservative Islamic countries, given their views. Incidentally, one of the things that is coming out about early Christianity now is that it may been quite mysticism- oriented at the beginning, with the change to a rigid ideology coming about later due to the needs to unify the roman empire under one religion with set boundaries. There is a school of thought that there may have been exchanges between this early Christian world and India. There was a Goanese gentleman in the early days of Sulekha who explored some of this in his writings which I have been meaning to look up, but haven't had the time.

I read a little bit about them. You are right--there is a concerted effort made by them to be inclusive however this attempt at inclusiveness does not seem to extend to their attitude towards homosexuality.

----

Individuals who are openly homosexual are not prevented from entering the religion and joining in community life; however, someone involved in a same-sex marriage or union will be prevented from registering as a Baha'i and joining the community.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

I found this also smacking of intolerance and intrusiveness. How can you expel someone from a religious faith/sect because of what a person is doing in his personal life?

individual may be subject to administrative sanctions if their actions are decided by a Spiritual Assembly to be damaging to the image of the Bahá'í Faith. This response removes the right to contribute to funds, vote in elections for spiritual assemblies, hold office, or attend the Nineteen Day Feast. It may be applied to extreme cases of alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and anything that is considered flagrant immorality. However this consequence is meant only to be applied in cases of "public scandal", "very flagrant cases", or if the conduct of the Bahá'í is "seriously injuring the Faith in the eyes of the public". [17] In cases of Bahá'ís who are flagrantly promiscuous, they are to be approached by a Spiritual Assembly and informed of the teachings on personal conduct. If after a probational period the person continues to present a disregard towards the laws in a public way, then the assembly may remove the person's administrative rights, "administratively expelled from membership in the Bahá'í community," [21] though this action is not the same as ex-communication, as there is no directive to avoid fellowship with the individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

>>>The internal contradictions and cult-like behavior doesn't surprise me, given the time it came into existence. I thought it was a step up from people going to wars over different gods. There was one other interaction I had with this group. The International Student office told us of a local city council meeting in case we were interested. A few of us were bored and went. There was an invocation (a bah'ai prayer), which seemed like it went on forever but there was a lot of allusion to nature. I am not sure how they got away with this prayer, given the separation of state and church, btw. Ironically, one of my friends who was Algerian and had been raised at least nominally muslim, started complaining in a fairly loud voice that this whole prayer bit was over the top.

But how do you explain the fact that they will not try to convert any Israeli Jew and moreover even if an Israeli Jew wants to become a Bahai he simply cannot. Their relationship with Israel seems to be very peculiar considering their headquarters are in Israel.

>>>I didn't know they were based in Israel. However, it makes sense since Islamic countries likely see them as out of the fold. The arrangement of  not converting Israeli jews may be an explicit quid pro quo worked out with Israel for allowing them to set up shop there. I am just guessing on this. One other contradiction I thought of is the act of converting. If you believe in all religions, why convert anyone at all? As I said in my first post on this, there is no robust philosophy here, but this movement may have been the founder's vision of co-existence and as such was more a social experiment.

rawemotions wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

rawemotions wrote:Why don't they oppose Lord Buddha ? He left his family including a Child.

Many Indian women are deeply uncomfortable with how Lord Budha treated his wife.

Let us assume for a moment, that you somehow claim to know about Indian women.

If you say women should vote only on this basis,

How is that they are not uncomfortable when Muslim men are allowed four wives and Muslim Personal Law not treat them equally on  inheritance matters? Shouldn't that be their priority and they should vote only for those parties which disallow this, rather than focus on Bijli, Sadak, Paani.

How is that they are allow Muslim Society to force the Veil on them, in sweltering Indian sun, and why don't they vote only for those parties which will reform Muslim Society rather than focus on Bijli, Sadak and Paani ?

Rawmotions, is there anything at all you can discuss without talking about Muslims and Islam?? Considering your obsession with Islam, maybe you should just convert and get it out of your system.

Kris wrote:[>> Are you saying the Islamic terrorist groups are figments of the west's imagination and they have no grounding in a certain religious ethos? It is like saying the Taliban are misunderstood students (which Mushy or some head honcho in Pakistan posited once).

Absolutely not however, more often than not they like to exxagerate. For example, If you look at all the post-war violence in Irag it is mostly sectarian related not very different than the atrocities against low caste Hindus but majority of the media labels them as terrosit activities. While Kansas city incident & Wisconsin gurudwara incidents are simply by lone-wolf shooters (despite the fact that KKK is classified as a terrorist outfit) Fort hood incident is terror activity. You see the double standards.

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

I read a little bit about them. You are right--there is a concerted effort made by them to be inclusive however this attempt at inclusiveness does not seem to extend to their attitude towards homosexuality.

----

Individuals who are openly homosexual are not prevented from entering the religion and joining in community life; however, someone involved in a same-sex marriage or union will be prevented from registering as a Baha'i and joining the community.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

I found this also smacking of intolerance and intrusiveness. How can you expel someone from a religious faith/sect because of what a person is doing in his personal life?

individual may be subject to administrative sanctions if their actions are decided by a Spiritual Assembly to be damaging to the image of the Bahá'í Faith. This response removes the right to contribute to funds, vote in elections for spiritual assemblies, hold office, or attend the Nineteen Day Feast. It may be applied to extreme cases of alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and anything that is considered flagrant immorality. However this consequence is meant only to be applied in cases of "public scandal", "very flagrant cases", or if the conduct of the Bahá'í is "seriously injuring the Faith in the eyes of the public". [17] In cases of Bahá'ís who are flagrantly promiscuous, they are to be approached by a Spiritual Assembly and informed of the teachings on personal conduct. If after a probational period the person continues to present a disregard towards the laws in a public way, then the assembly may remove the person's administrative rights, "administratively expelled from membership in the Bahá'í community," [21] though this action is not the same as ex-communication, as there is no directive to avoid fellowship with the individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

>>>The internal contradictions and cult-like behavior doesn't surprise me, given the time it came into existence. I thought it was a step up from people going to wars over different gods. There was one other interaction I had with this group. The International Student office told us of a local city council meeting in case we were interested. A few of us were bored and went. There was an invocation (a bah'ai prayer), which seemed like it went on forever but there was a lot of allusion to nature. I am not sure how they got away with this prayer, given the separation of state and church, btw. Ironically, one of my friends who was Algerian and had been raised at least nominally muslim, started complaining in a fairly loud voice that this whole prayer bit was over the top.

But how do you explain the fact that they will not try to convert any Israeli Jew and moreover even if an Israeli Jew wants to become a Bahai he simply cannot. Their relationship with Israel seems to be very peculiar considering their headquarters are in Israel.

>>>I didn't know they were based in Israel. However, it makes sense since Islamic countries likely see them as out of the fold. The arrangement of  not converting Israeli jews may be an explicit quid pro quo worked out with Israel for allowing them to set up shop there. I am just guessing on this. One other contradiction I thought of is the act of converting. If you believe in all religions, why convert anyone at all? As I said in my first post on this, there is no robust philosophy here, but this movement may have been the founder's vision of co-existence and as such was more a social experiment.

The reason for wanting fresh converts is obviously because they need funds to construct their opulent buildings/temples/structures/gardens and presumably it is the parishioners who are supplying the funds. I did some reading on the founder of the Bahai (Bahaullah) and my preliminary impression was that he was a fraud.

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

In the Indian context, the two most populous sects of Muslims are barelvis and deobandis. Barelvis are more liberal than deobandis and they are also numerically greater in number. Actually both barelvis and deobandis should be considered sub-sects since they both follow or claim to follow Sunni Islam.

Now the chief difference between barelvis and deobandis is that barelvis say its ok to worship spiritual people like Sufi saints. And hence they encourage and participate in worship of Sufi shrines and tombs. I should point out that the tombs and shrines of Sufi saints are also visited by Hindus all across India ( the possible exception to this I think is Gujarat where hindus no longer visit Sufi shrines or tombs as per what I read recently); so in that sense the fact that members of two different communities are coming together in large numbers to pray at the same site is surely something noteworthy and perhaps praiseworthy.

Now deobandis say tombs and shrines of spiritual figures should not be worshipped because doing so would be akin to placing them on the same level as Allah(God) and hence they say only Allah should be worshipped. They carry this argument even to the worship of prophet Mohammad. In Saudi Arabia it is not permissible to worship the tomb of Mohammad. In that sense the Wahabi Islam is in agreement with Deobandi Islam.

Now Barelvis like to celebrate the birthday of Mohammad in India. But Deobandis are against even this. And so on various such occasions physical clashes have taken place between Deobandis and Barelvis with people getting injured and occasionally killed.

Now notice one other thing: neither Barelvis nor Deobandis are able to ex-communicate each other.

---

Your point about the Bahai and Ahmediya sects are well taken but unfortunately I do not know enough about these two sects other than the fact that the people adhering to these sects is minuscule in India and probably even outside India.

>>>If you get a chance, read up on the Ba'hais. I don't mean that they are in anyway high end philosophers, but there is definitely a concerted effort to be inclusive. I first heard about them from a classmate when I was new in this country and in retrospect, she was probably a latter day flower child. She was married to a Pakistani guy and had converted. The religion was founded in Persia draws from  the Abrahamic faiths as well as Hinduism/Buddhism. They don't have an easy go of it in conservative Islamic countries, given their views. Incidentally, one of the things that is coming out about early Christianity now is that it may been quite mysticism- oriented at the beginning, with the change to a rigid ideology coming about later due to the needs to unify the roman empire under one religion with set boundaries. There is a school of thought that there may have been exchanges between this early Christian world and India. There was a Goanese gentleman in the early days of Sulekha who explored some of this in his writings which I have been meaning to look up, but haven't had the time.

I read a little bit about them. You are right--there is a concerted effort made by them to be inclusive however this attempt at inclusiveness does not seem to extend to their attitude towards homosexuality.

----

Individuals who are openly homosexual are not prevented from entering the religion and joining in community life; however, someone involved in a same-sex marriage or union will be prevented from registering as a Baha'i and joining the community.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

I found this also smacking of intolerance and intrusiveness. How can you expel someone from a religious faith/sect because of what a person is doing in his personal life?

individual may be subject to administrative sanctions if their actions are decided by a Spiritual Assembly to be damaging to the image of the Bahá'í Faith. This response removes the right to contribute to funds, vote in elections for spiritual assemblies, hold office, or attend the Nineteen Day Feast. It may be applied to extreme cases of alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and anything that is considered flagrant immorality. However this consequence is meant only to be applied in cases of "public scandal", "very flagrant cases", or if the conduct of the Bahá'í is "seriously injuring the Faith in the eyes of the public". [17] In cases of Bahá'ís who are flagrantly promiscuous, they are to be approached by a Spiritual Assembly and informed of the teachings on personal conduct. If after a probational period the person continues to present a disregard towards the laws in a public way, then the assembly may remove the person's administrative rights, "administratively expelled from membership in the Bahá'í community," [21] though this action is not the same as ex-communication, as there is no directive to avoid fellowship with the individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá%27%C3%AD_Faith

>>>The internal contradictions and cult-like behavior doesn't surprise me, given the time it came into existence. I thought it was a step up from people going to wars over different gods. There was one other interaction I had with this group. The International Student office told us of a local city council meeting in case we were interested. A few of us were bored and went. There was an invocation (a bah'ai prayer), which seemed like it went on forever but there was a lot of allusion to nature. I am not sure how they got away with this prayer, given the separation of state and church, btw. Ironically, one of my friends who was Algerian and had been raised at least nominally muslim, started complaining in a fairly loud voice that this whole prayer bit was over the top.

I once went to the Lotus Temple in Delhi which is the only Bahai temple in India that i know of. From what i recall even though the exterior is well designed, the interior was completely sparse with no furniture, nothing. I don't recall now whether there was carpeting on the floors or not.

But i did not attend a Bahai prayer and i was impressed by the fact that you found many allusions to nature in the prayer. That was interesting and had some attraction for me. So i did a bit of research on the historical background of the Bahai faith. This is mere scratching of the surface, you understand.

So, there was this chap called Bab which means 'Gate'. He has a muslim name which is longer, but he called himself Bab and his followers came to be known as Babis and the sect was known as Babism. The faith he was propounding was a complete break from Islam but it clearly seems to have reactionary elements ingrained within it. For instance, there seems to be a prohibition to study Logic as per the wikipedia page on Babism. Now i don't know how much to trust wikipedia on this because it is possible the people contributing to the pages on Babism, Bab, etc. are Bahais. I will come to the relationship between Bahai and Babism in a while.

Now, the Bab seems to have been executed for blasphemy. This was 5-7 years after he had earlier been arrested but pardoned after being subjected to some 20 lashes on his feet. Wikipedia says that the execution was ordered "probably because various Bábí insurrections had been defeated and the movement's popularity appeared to be waning" but i think the opposite is a more likely explanation. The Bab seems to have taken an interest in active political activities and the repeated Babi insurrections may have led the rulers of the time to decide to put an end to the chaos by executing the Bab. The Bab was 31 years old when he died.

Before his death the Bab had appointed Subh-i-Azal as the leader of the sect after him but had also declared that his followers must submit themselves to a divine figure who would appear with the passage of time. (This is somewhat reminiscent of the Kalki avataar of Vishnu in Hinduism.) Several years after the Bab's death, Bahaullah--Azal's elder brother--declared himself to be this divine figure and there was a schism in the sect since Subh-i-Azal did not accept Bahaullah's claim of divinity.

Bahaullah founded a new sect called Bahai which claims to be a more evolved version of Babism. Subh-i-Azal's followers are called Azalis. I suspect the term 'Azalis' was coined by the Bahais and not by the so called Azalis themselves.

This is an interesting blog:

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2011/09/bahais-and-azalis.html

Now the reason the blog is interesting is because it includes a group picture of Bahais dated circa 1910, and of Azalis presumably in the same period. Just looking at the pictures makes you believe that the Azali sect must have been more progressive. For instance, the Azali group photograph includes women and also all the people in the Azali photo seem to be dressed in modern clothes. The Bahai group photo has no women and the people are dressed in traditional clothes.

Be that as it may, the Azali population according to wikipedia is today not more than a few thousand. However, the same wikipedia also says that Azalis often do not reveal their religion and that dissimulation seems to have become a part of the sect's belief system so the actual number may be somewhat higher.

Final words: After Bahaullah's death his son took over leadership of the sect and promptly ex-communicated some of his own family members who refused to recognize his leadership. Even today a Bahai can be kicked out of the sect by a decree of the governing council if he is found to have engaged in unethical activities.

As in Hinduism, there is no governing council and no leadership in the Azali religion which in my opinion must be also original Babism.

I am sure there is a lot of nonsense in both Bahai and Azali-Babi, but it should be recognized that Azali-Babi is in all probability a lot closer to Babism and perhaps identical to Babism.

Finally, the allusions to nature in the Bahai prayer that you heard may have been penned either entirely or partly by the Bab.

Rashmun wrote:I once went to the Lotus Temple in Delhi which is the only Bahai temple in India that i know of. From what i recall even though the exterior is well designed, the interior was completely sparse with no furniture, nothing. I don't recall now whether there was carpeting on the floors or not.

But i did not attend a Bahai prayer and i was impressed by the fact that you found many allusions to nature in the prayer. That was interesting and had some attraction for me. So i did a bit of research on the historical background of the Bahai faith. This is mere scratching of the surface, you understand.

So, there was this chap called Bab which means 'Gate'. He has a muslim name which is longer, but he called himself Bab and his followers came to be known as Babis and the sect was known as Babism. The faith he was propounding was a complete break from Islam but it clearly seems to have reactionary elements ingrained within it. For instance, there seems to be a prohibition to study Logic as per the wikipedia page on Babism. Now i don't know how much to trust wikipedia on this because it is possible the people contributing to the pages on Babism, Bab, etc. are Bahais. I will come to the relationship between Bahai and Babism in a while.

Now, the Bab seems to have been executed for blasphemy. This was 5-7 years after he had earlier been arrested but pardoned after being subjected to some 20 lashes on his feet. Wikipedia says that the execution was ordered "probably because various Bábí insurrections had been defeated and the movement's popularity appeared to be waning" but i think the opposite is a more likely explanation. The Bab seems to have taken an interest in active political activities and the repeated Babi insurrections may have led the rulers of the time to decide to put an end to the chaos by executing the Bab. The Bab was 31 years old when he died.

Before his death the Bab had appointed Subh-i-Azal as the leader of the sect after him but had also declared that his followers must submit themselves to a divine figure who would appear with the passage of time. (This is somewhat reminiscent of the Kalki avataar of Vishnu in Hinduism.) Several years after the Bab's death, Bahaullah--Azal's elder brother--declared himself to be this divine figure and there was a schism in the sect since Subh-i-Azal did not accept Bahaullah's claim of divinity.

Bahaullah founded a new sect called Bahai which claims to be a more evolved version of Babism. Subh-i-Azal's followers are called Azalis. I suspect the term 'Azalis' was coined by the Bahais and not by the so called Azalis themselves.

This is an interesting blog:

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2011/09/bahais-and-azalis.html

Now the reason the blog is interesting is because it includes a group picture of Bahais dated circa 1910, and of Azalis presumably in the same period. Just looking at the pictures makes you believe that the Azali sect must have been more progressive. For instance, the Azali group photograph includes women and also all the people in the Azali photo seem to be dressed in modern clothes. The Bahai group photo has no women and the people are dressed in traditional clothes.

Be that as it may, the Azali population according to wikipedia is today not more than a few thousand. However, the same wikipedia also says that Azalis often do not reveal their religion and that dissimulation seems to have become a part of the sect's belief system so the actual number may be somewhat higher.

Final words: After Bahaullah's death his son took over leadership of the sect and promptly ex-communicated some of his own family members who refused to recognize his leadership. Even today a Bahai can be kicked out of the sect by a decree of the governing council if he is found to have engaged in unethical activities.

As in Hinduism, there is no governing council and no leadership in the Azali religion which in my opinion must be also original Babism.

I am sure there is a lot of nonsense in both Bahai and Azali-Babi, but it should be recognized that Azali-Babi is in all probability a lot closer to Babism and perhaps identical to Babism.

 You must be a special breed. If you understand Bahaullah, you will appreciate the beauty of Hinduism.

Bahaullah must be giggling in his grave that you are a slave of Babar, Jalaluddin and Aurangazeb.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:I once went to the Lotus Temple in Delhi which is the only Bahai temple in India that i know of. From what i recall even though the exterior is well designed, the interior was completely sparse with no furniture, nothing. I don't recall now whether there was carpeting on the floors or not.

But i did not attend a Bahai prayer and i was impressed by the fact that you found many allusions to nature in the prayer. That was interesting and had some attraction for me. So i did a bit of research on the historical background of the Bahai faith. This is mere scratching of the surface, you understand.

So, there was this chap called Bab which means 'Gate'. He has a muslim name which is longer, but he called himself Bab and his followers came to be known as Babis and the sect was known as Babism. The faith he was propounding was a complete break from Islam but it clearly seems to have reactionary elements ingrained within it. For instance, there seems to be a prohibition to study Logic as per the wikipedia page on Babism. Now i don't know how much to trust wikipedia on this because it is possible the people contributing to the pages on Babism, Bab, etc. are Bahais. I will come to the relationship between Bahai and Babism in a while.

Now, the Bab seems to have been executed for blasphemy. This was 5-7 years after he had earlier been arrested but pardoned after being subjected to some 20 lashes on his feet. Wikipedia says that the execution was ordered "probably because various Bábí insurrections had been defeated and the movement's popularity appeared to be waning" but i think the opposite is a more likely explanation. The Bab seems to have taken an interest in active political activities and the repeated Babi insurrections may have led the rulers of the time to decide to put an end to the chaos by executing the Bab. The Bab was 31 years old when he died.

Before his death the Bab had appointed Subh-i-Azal as the leader of the sect after him but had also declared that his followers must submit themselves to a divine figure who would appear with the passage of time. (This is somewhat reminiscent of the Kalki avataar of Vishnu in Hinduism.) Several years after the Bab's death, Bahaullah--Azal's elder brother--declared himself to be this divine figure and there was a schism in the sect since Subh-i-Azal did not accept Bahaullah's claim of divinity.

Bahaullah founded a new sect called Bahai which claims to be a more evolved version of Babism. Subh-i-Azal's followers are called Azalis. I suspect the term 'Azalis' was coined by the Bahais and not by the so called Azalis themselves.

This is an interesting blog:

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2011/09/bahais-and-azalis.html

Now the reason the blog is interesting is because it includes a group picture of Bahais dated circa 1910, and of Azalis presumably in the same period. Just looking at the pictures makes you believe that the Azali sect must have been more progressive. For instance, the Azali group photograph includes women and also all the people in the Azali photo seem to be dressed in modern clothes. The Bahai group photo has no women and the people are dressed in traditional clothes.

Be that as it may, the Azali population according to wikipedia is today not more than a few thousand. However, the same wikipedia also says that Azalis often do not reveal their religion and that dissimulation seems to have become a part of the sect's belief system so the actual number may be somewhat higher.

Final words: After Bahaullah's death his son took over leadership of the sect and promptly ex-communicated some of his own family members who refused to recognize his leadership. Even today a Bahai can be kicked out of the sect by a decree of the governing council if he is found to have engaged in unethical activities.

As in Hinduism, there is no governing council and no leadership in the Azali religion which in my opinion must be also original Babism.

I am sure there is a lot of nonsense in both Bahai and Azali-Babi, but it should be recognized that Azali-Babi is in all probability a lot closer to Babism and perhaps identical to Babism.

 You must be a special breed. If you understand Bahaullah, you will appreciate the beauty of Hinduism.

Bahaullah must be giggling in his grave that you are a slave of Babar, Jalaluddin and Aurangazeb.

in Bahaullah's religion it is possible for the governing council to kick out a Bahai from the sect on various grounds like alcoholism and having homosexual relationships. If you are a genuine hindu you will reject the nonsense in the Bahai religion. Hinduism has its share of nonsense but at least nobody can kick you out of hinduism once you are born a hindu.

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:I once went to the Lotus Temple in Delhi which is the only Bahai temple in India that i know of. From what i recall even though the exterior is well designed, the interior was completely sparse with no furniture, nothing. I don't recall now whether there was carpeting on the floors or not.

But i did not attend a Bahai prayer and i was impressed by the fact that you found many allusions to nature in the prayer. That was interesting and had some attraction for me. So i did a bit of research on the historical background of the Bahai faith. This is mere scratching of the surface, you understand.

So, there was this chap called Bab which means 'Gate'. He has a muslim name which is longer, but he called himself Bab and his followers came to be known as Babis and the sect was known as Babism. The faith he was propounding was a complete break from Islam but it clearly seems to have reactionary elements ingrained within it. For instance, there seems to be a prohibition to study Logic as per the wikipedia page on Babism. Now i don't know how much to trust wikipedia on this because it is possible the people contributing to the pages on Babism, Bab, etc. are Bahais. I will come to the relationship between Bahai and Babism in a while.

Now, the Bab seems to have been executed for blasphemy. This was 5-7 years after he had earlier been arrested but pardoned after being subjected to some 20 lashes on his feet. Wikipedia says that the execution was ordered "probably because various Bábí insurrections had been defeated and the movement's popularity appeared to be waning" but i think the opposite is a more likely explanation. The Bab seems to have taken an interest in active political activities and the repeated Babi insurrections may have led the rulers of the time to decide to put an end to the chaos by executing the Bab. The Bab was 31 years old when he died.

Before his death the Bab had appointed Subh-i-Azal as the leader of the sect after him but had also declared that his followers must submit themselves to a divine figure who would appear with the passage of time. (This is somewhat reminiscent of the Kalki avataar of Vishnu in Hinduism.) Several years after the Bab's death, Bahaullah--Azal's elder brother--declared himself to be this divine figure and there was a schism in the sect since Subh-i-Azal did not accept Bahaullah's claim of divinity.

Bahaullah founded a new sect called Bahai which claims to be a more evolved version of Babism. Subh-i-Azal's followers are called Azalis. I suspect the term 'Azalis' was coined by the Bahais and not by the so called Azalis themselves.

This is an interesting blog:

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2011/09/bahais-and-azalis.html

Now the reason the blog is interesting is because it includes a group picture of Bahais dated circa 1910, and of Azalis presumably in the same period. Just looking at the pictures makes you believe that the Azali sect must have been more progressive. For instance, the Azali group photograph includes women and also all the people in the Azali photo seem to be dressed in modern clothes. The Bahai group photo has no women and the people are dressed in traditional clothes.

Be that as it may, the Azali population according to wikipedia is today not more than a few thousand. However, the same wikipedia also says that Azalis often do not reveal their religion and that dissimulation seems to have become a part of the sect's belief system so the actual number may be somewhat higher.

Final words: After Bahaullah's death his son took over leadership of the sect and promptly ex-communicated some of his own family members who refused to recognize his leadership. Even today a Bahai can be kicked out of the sect by a decree of the governing council if he is found to have engaged in unethical activities.

As in Hinduism, there is no governing council and no leadership in the Azali religion which in my opinion must be also original Babism.

I am sure there is a lot of nonsense in both Bahai and Azali-Babi, but it should be recognized that Azali-Babi is in all probability a lot closer to Babism and perhaps identical to Babism.

 You must be a special breed. If you understand Bahaullah, you will appreciate the beauty of Hinduism.

Bahaullah must be giggling in his grave that you are a slave of Babar, Jalaluddin and Aurangazeb.

in Bahaullah's religion it is possible for the governing council to kick out a Bahai from the sect on various grounds like alcoholism and having homosexual relationships. If you are a genuine hindu you will reject the nonsense in the Bahai religion. Hinduism has its share of nonsense but at least nobody can kick you out of hinduism once you are born a hindu.

But Bahaullah was in Persia. Some of his ideas relate to local ways. Also, Iran was a transition zone for culture. Some Western ways were imbibed before iSlam went there.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:I once went to the Lotus Temple in Delhi which is the only Bahai temple in India that i know of. From what i recall even though the exterior is well designed, the interior was completely sparse with no furniture, nothing. I don't recall now whether there was carpeting on the floors or not.

But i did not attend a Bahai prayer and i was impressed by the fact that you found many allusions to nature in the prayer. That was interesting and had some attraction for me. So i did a bit of research on the historical background of the Bahai faith. This is mere scratching of the surface, you understand.

So, there was this chap called Bab which means 'Gate'. He has a muslim name which is longer, but he called himself Bab and his followers came to be known as Babis and the sect was known as Babism. The faith he was propounding was a complete break from Islam but it clearly seems to have reactionary elements ingrained within it. For instance, there seems to be a prohibition to study Logic as per the wikipedia page on Babism. Now i don't know how much to trust wikipedia on this because it is possible the people contributing to the pages on Babism, Bab, etc. are Bahais. I will come to the relationship between Bahai and Babism in a while.

Now, the Bab seems to have been executed for blasphemy. This was 5-7 years after he had earlier been arrested but pardoned after being subjected to some 20 lashes on his feet. Wikipedia says that the execution was ordered "probably because various Bábí insurrections had been defeated and the movement's popularity appeared to be waning" but i think the opposite is a more likely explanation. The Bab seems to have taken an interest in active political activities and the repeated Babi insurrections may have led the rulers of the time to decide to put an end to the chaos by executing the Bab. The Bab was 31 years old when he died.

Before his death the Bab had appointed Subh-i-Azal as the leader of the sect after him but had also declared that his followers must submit themselves to a divine figure who would appear with the passage of time. (This is somewhat reminiscent of the Kalki avataar of Vishnu in Hinduism.) Several years after the Bab's death, Bahaullah--Azal's elder brother--declared himself to be this divine figure and there was a schism in the sect since Subh-i-Azal did not accept Bahaullah's claim of divinity.

Bahaullah founded a new sect called Bahai which claims to be a more evolved version of Babism. Subh-i-Azal's followers are called Azalis. I suspect the term 'Azalis' was coined by the Bahais and not by the so called Azalis themselves.

This is an interesting blog:

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2011/09/bahais-and-azalis.html

Now the reason the blog is interesting is because it includes a group picture of Bahais dated circa 1910, and of Azalis presumably in the same period. Just looking at the pictures makes you believe that the Azali sect must have been more progressive. For instance, the Azali group photograph includes women and also all the people in the Azali photo seem to be dressed in modern clothes. The Bahai group photo has no women and the people are dressed in traditional clothes.

Be that as it may, the Azali population according to wikipedia is today not more than a few thousand. However, the same wikipedia also says that Azalis often do not reveal their religion and that dissimulation seems to have become a part of the sect's belief system so the actual number may be somewhat higher.

Final words: After Bahaullah's death his son took over leadership of the sect and promptly ex-communicated some of his own family members who refused to recognize his leadership. Even today a Bahai can be kicked out of the sect by a decree of the governing council if he is found to have engaged in unethical activities.

As in Hinduism, there is no governing council and no leadership in the Azali religion which in my opinion must be also original Babism.

I am sure there is a lot of nonsense in both Bahai and Azali-Babi, but it should be recognized that Azali-Babi is in all probability a lot closer to Babism and perhaps identical to Babism.

 You must be a special breed. If you understand Bahaullah, you will appreciate the beauty of Hinduism.

Bahaullah must be giggling in his grave that you are a slave of Babar, Jalaluddin and Aurangazeb.

in Bahaullah's religion it is possible for the governing council to kick out a Bahai from the sect on various grounds like alcoholism and having homosexual relationships. If you are a genuine hindu you will reject the nonsense in the Bahai religion. Hinduism has its share of nonsense but at least nobody can kick you out of hinduism once you are born a hindu.

But Bahaullah was in Persia. Some of his ideas relate to local ways. Also, Iran was a transition zone for culture. Some Western ways were imbibed before iSlam went there.

But there is no governing council in the Azali-Babi religion and nobody can kick you out of the sect. And both these two sects (Bahai and Azali-Babi) came into being and co-existed in the same region at the same time.