Mauritius President meets Arcot Nawab and stresses world peace

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:00 pm

Mauritius president meets Arcot Nawab
TNN | Nov 10, 2012, 05.00AM IST

CHENNAI: The President of the Republic of Mauritius, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, along with his wife, Lady Jugnauth, visited the Prince of Arcot, Nawab Mohammed Abdul Ali, at his official ancestral home, Amir Mahal, on Friday during his visit to the city.

In his informal address, he stressed the need for world peace, among all people belonging to different faiths and to understand the oneness of God and respect to all religions. He also expressed the hope that India and Mauritius would establish a better bilateral relationship which will help strengthen the two countries in the years to come.

The Nawab and Begum Sahiba Sayeeda Abdul Ali hosted a reception in honour of the visiting dignitaries. Among those present was M M Rajendran, former governor of Orissa.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Mauritius-president-meets-Arcot-Nawab/articleshow/17164750.cms

----------

Earlier, Max had claimed that the Nawab of Arcot, as of today, is irrelevant and should not be given any importance. It seems the rest of the world disagrees with Max. Also the Nawab continues to hold the rank of cabinet minister in the state govt. in TN, by his birth, for perpetuity* and continues to draw a pension under an agreement with the Indian govt. with the British at the time of independence. It seems if the Nizam would have played his cards better his descendants would also have continued to enjoy the benefits the Arcot Nawab's descendants are enjoying today. I recently read that the retinue of the Arcot Nawab is about 600 people (which includes spouses and family members).

*i.e. his descendants will continue to be given the title of Nawab of Arcot and will continue to enjoy all the associated perks and benefits.

by Kayalvizhi Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:12 pm

See the 2 images. What is the difference?

Mauritius President meets Arcot Nawab and stresses world peace 451593_100727163915_MU27-100R

Mauritius President meets Arcot Nawab and stresses world peace 451593_100729160210_100R-2004

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:28 pm

i am not seeing any difference except the difference in colors. what is the answer?

by Hellsangel Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:36 pm

Tamil likes to be on top.

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:39 pm

hindi and tamil are sister languages. hindi is a direct descendant of sanskrit, whereas tamil has 35-40% words of sanskrit origin and its first book on grammar makes references to sanskrit grammar.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:Mauritius president meets Arcot Nawab
TNN | Nov 10, 2012, 05.00AM IST

CHENNAI: The President of the Republic of Mauritius, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, along with his wife, Lady Jugnauth, visited the Prince of Arcot, Nawab Mohammed Abdul Ali, at his official ancestral home, Amir Mahal, on Friday during his visit to the city.

In his informal address, he stressed the need for world peace, among all people belonging to different faiths and to understand the oneness of God and respect to all religions. He also expressed the hope that India and Mauritius would establish a better bilateral relationship which will help strengthen the two countries in the years to come.

The Nawab and Begum Sahiba Sayeeda Abdul Ali hosted a reception in honour of the visiting dignitaries. Among those present was M M Rajendran, former governor of Orissa.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Mauritius-president-meets-Arcot-Nawab/articleshow/17164750.cms

----------

Earlier, Max had claimed that the Nawab of Arcot, as of today, is irrelevant and should not be given any importance. It seems the rest of the world disagrees with Max. Also the Nawab continues to hold the rank of cabinet minister in the state govt. in TN, by his birth, for perpetuity* and continues to draw a pension under an agreement with the Indian govt. with the British at the time of independence. It seems if the Nizam would have played his cards better his descendants would also have continued to enjoy the benefits the Arcot Nawab's descendants are enjoying today. I recently read that the retinue of the Arcot Nawab is about 600 people (which includes spouses and family members).

*i.e. his descendants will continue to be given the title of Nawab of Arcot and will continue to enjoy all the associated perks and benefits.

The MOST backward districts in TN are South Arcot (Villupuram) and North Arcot (Vellore) - the citadel of the Arcot Nawabs for 150 years.

Why didn't the Nawab improve or develop his "kingdom?"

by Kayalvizhi Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:45 pm

HellsA is partly correct. Difference is in the second pic Tamil is top of Hindi.

These Hindian fanatics are trouble makers wherever the live. For over 50 years Tamil was above Hindi. In 1998 when new currency was issued Hindi was put above Tamils. Mauritius Tamils rose up and demonstrated and brought the fnancial operations to a stanstill. Government asked the Bankk Governor and Director to step down and Tamil was put above.

See the link below for photos of demonstrations

http://www.tamiltribune.com/00/0801.html

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:47 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:HellsA is partly correct. Difference is in the second pic Tamil is top of Hindi.

These Hindian fanatics are trouble makers wherever the live. For over 50 years Tamil was above Hindi. In 1998 when new currency was issued Hindi was put above Tamils. Mauritius Tamils rose up and demonstrated and brought the fnancial operations to a stanstill. Government asked the Bankk Governor and Director to step down and Tamil was put above.

See the link below for photos of demonstrations

http://www.tamiltribune.com/00/0801.html

why is tamil below english in both the notes? is tamil inferior to english?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:48 pm

arcot nawab << mauritus president <<<< anything relevant

by Kayalvizhi Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:48 pm

Rashmun wrote: tamil has 35-40% words of sanskrit origin.

Your ignorance shows. Limit your posts to Nawabs and such mattters. I don't know if you are ignorant on these matters too, I see only the title of those post. Dont click to read the thread

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:54 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Mauritius president meets Arcot Nawab
TNN | Nov 10, 2012, 05.00AM IST

CHENNAI: The President of the Republic of Mauritius, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, along with his wife, Lady Jugnauth, visited the Prince of Arcot, Nawab Mohammed Abdul Ali, at his official ancestral home, Amir Mahal, on Friday during his visit to the city.

In his informal address, he stressed the need for world peace, among all people belonging to different faiths and to understand the oneness of God and respect to all religions. He also expressed the hope that India and Mauritius would establish a better bilateral relationship which will help strengthen the two countries in the years to come.

The Nawab and Begum Sahiba Sayeeda Abdul Ali hosted a reception in honour of the visiting dignitaries. Among those present was M M Rajendran, former governor of Orissa.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Mauritius-president-meets-Arcot-Nawab/articleshow/17164750.cms

----------

Earlier, Max had claimed that the Nawab of Arcot, as of today, is irrelevant and should not be given any importance. It seems the rest of the world disagrees with Max. Also the Nawab continues to hold the rank of cabinet minister in the state govt. in TN, by his birth, for perpetuity* and continues to draw a pension under an agreement with the Indian govt. with the British at the time of independence. It seems if the Nizam would have played his cards better his descendants would also have continued to enjoy the benefits the Arcot Nawab's descendants are enjoying today. I recently read that the retinue of the Arcot Nawab is about 600 people (which includes spouses and family members).

*i.e. his descendants will continue to be given the title of Nawab of Arcot and will continue to enjoy all the associated perks and benefits.

The MOST backward districts in TN are South Arcot (Villupuram) and North Arcot (Vellore) - the citadel of the Arcot Nawabs for 150 years.

Why didn't the Nawab improve or develop his "kingdom?"

on what basis are you claiming that Vellore is a backward area in TN? Just take a look at the wikipedia page on Vellore and let me know if u continue to think Vellore is a backward place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellore

Places like Dharmapuri are the real backward places in TN.

Also, as per the wikipedia page on Vellore, the city is known for its linguistic and religious harmony--no doubt fostered by the Nawabs of Arcot. Incidentally, the lingua franca of the city seems to be Dakhini.

Most of the people in Vellore are Hindus. There is a significant Muslim population in the city—particularly in Kaspa, R. N. Palayam, Saidapet, Hazarath Makkan, Bakiyath Street and Sarbanamedu, which is considerably higher than the state average. Most speak Dakhni Urdu as their first language. Many of the churches located in the northern districts of Tamil Nadu belong to the Vellore Diocese. Both Catholic and CSI churches are under the jurisdiction of a bishop.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellore

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:55 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:
Rashmun wrote: tamil has 35-40% words of sanskrit origin.

Your ignorance shows. Limit your posts to Nawabs and such mattters. I don't know if you are ignorant on these matters too, I see only the title of those post. Dont click to read the thread

does the tamil of your native Sri Lanka have fewer words of sanskrit origin?

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:08 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Mauritius president meets Arcot Nawab
TNN | Nov 10, 2012, 05.00AM IST

CHENNAI: The President of the Republic of Mauritius, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, along with his wife, Lady Jugnauth, visited the Prince of Arcot, Nawab Mohammed Abdul Ali, at his official ancestral home, Amir Mahal, on Friday during his visit to the city.

In his informal address, he stressed the need for world peace, among all people belonging to different faiths and to understand the oneness of God and respect to all religions. He also expressed the hope that India and Mauritius would establish a better bilateral relationship which will help strengthen the two countries in the years to come.

The Nawab and Begum Sahiba Sayeeda Abdul Ali hosted a reception in honour of the visiting dignitaries. Among those present was M M Rajendran, former governor of Orissa.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Mauritius-president-meets-Arcot-Nawab/articleshow/17164750.cms

----------

Earlier, Max had claimed that the Nawab of Arcot, as of today, is irrelevant and should not be given any importance. It seems the rest of the world disagrees with Max. Also the Nawab continues to hold the rank of cabinet minister in the state govt. in TN, by his birth, for perpetuity* and continues to draw a pension under an agreement with the Indian govt. with the British at the time of independence. It seems if the Nizam would have played his cards better his descendants would also have continued to enjoy the benefits the Arcot Nawab's descendants are enjoying today. I recently read that the retinue of the Arcot Nawab is about 600 people (which includes spouses and family members).

*i.e. his descendants will continue to be given the title of Nawab of Arcot and will continue to enjoy all the associated perks and benefits.

The MOST backward districts in TN are South Arcot (Villupuram) and North Arcot (Vellore) - the citadel of the Arcot Nawabs for 150 years.

Why didn't the Nawab improve or develop his "kingdom?"

on what basis are you claiming that Vellore is a backward area in TN? Just take a look at the wikipedia page on Vellore and let me know if u continue to think Vellore is a backward place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellore

Places like Dharmapuri are the real backward places in TN.

Also, as per the wikipedia page on Vellore, the city is known for its linguistic and religious harmony--no doubt fostered by the Nawabs of Arcot. Incidentally, the lingua franca of the city seems to be Dakhini.

Most of the people in Vellore are Hindus. There is a significant Muslim population in the city—particularly in Kaspa, R. N. Palayam, Saidapet, Hazarath Makkan, Bakiyath Street and Sarbanamedu, which is considerably higher than the state average. Most speak Dakhni Urdu as their first language. Many of the churches located in the northern districts of Tamil Nadu belong to the Vellore Diocese. Both Catholic and CSI churches are under the jurisdiction of a bishop.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellore

The fact that the lingua franca of Vellore, like the lingua franca of Hyderabad is Dakhini (a variant of Hindustani) means that tamils cannot protest that hindi is not their language. Nawabs of Arcot ruled over large parts of TN and it is natural that Dakhini flourished in TN during their reign.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:02 pm

Rashmun wrote:
on what basis are you claiming that Vellore is a backward area in TN? Just take a look at the wikipedia page on Vellore and let me know if u continue to think Vellore is a backward place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellore

Places like Dharmapuri are the real backward places in TN.

Also, as per the wikipedia page on Vellore, the city is known for its linguistic and religious harmony--no doubt fostered by the Nawabs of Arcot. Incidentally, the lingua franca of the city seems to be Dakhini.

Most of the people in Vellore are Hindus. There is a significant Muslim population in the city—particularly in Kaspa, R. N. Palayam, Saidapet, Hazarath Makkan, Bakiyath Street and Sarbanamedu, which is considerably higher than the state average. Most speak Dakhni Urdu as their first language. Many of the churches located in the northern districts of Tamil Nadu belong to the Vellore Diocese. Both Catholic and CSI churches are under the jurisdiction of a bishop.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellore

If out of 32 districts, if Vellore and Villupuram come 27 and 28 - they are STILL backward. Period.

"Most speak Dakhni Urdu as their first language."

Here is a fine example on how you begin to twist facts. By making the sentence SO BIG, you want people to believe that MOST of Arcot Nawab Kingdom spoke Dakhni Urdu.

While the fact is that Most of the "Significant" (about 20%) of the muslim population of the Nawab Kingdom.

And, I have additional news for you. the Mulsims in that area overwhelmigly talk tamil and called Lubbai Muslims, who are looked DOWN by the superior urdu-speaking, supposed descendents of Turkish (Nawab and Nizam) muslims.

[size=30]HOWWWWWWWWWWWW IS THAT?[/size]

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:06 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
on what basis are you claiming that Vellore is a backward area in TN? Just take a look at the wikipedia page on Vellore and let me know if u continue to think Vellore is a backward place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellore

Places like Dharmapuri are the real backward places in TN.

Also, as per the wikipedia page on Vellore, the city is known for its linguistic and religious harmony--no doubt fostered by the Nawabs of Arcot. Incidentally, the lingua franca of the city seems to be Dakhini.

Most of the people in Vellore are Hindus. There is a significant Muslim population in the city—particularly in Kaspa, R. N. Palayam, Saidapet, Hazarath Makkan, Bakiyath Street and Sarbanamedu, which is considerably higher than the state average. Most speak Dakhni Urdu as their first language. Many of the churches located in the northern districts of Tamil Nadu belong to the Vellore Diocese. Both Catholic and CSI churches are under the jurisdiction of a bishop.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellore

If out of 32 districts, if Vellore and Villupuram come 27 and 28 - they are STILL backward. Period.

"Most speak Dakhni Urdu as their first language."

Here is a fine example on how you begin to twist facts. By making the sentence SO BIG, you want people to believe that MOST of Arcot Nawab Kingdom spoke Dakhni Urdu.

While the fact is that Most of the "Significant" (about 20%) of the muslim population of the Nawab Kingdom.

And, I have additional news for you. the Mulsims in that area overwhelmigly talk tamil and called Lubbai Muslims, who are looked DOWN by the superior urdu-speaking, supposed descendents of Turkish (Nawab and Nizam) muslims.

[size=30]HOWWWWWWWWWWWW IS THAT?[/size]

thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in the wikipedia article. even if we agree that it is the 20% muslims of Vellore whose first language is Dakhini, the point is that tamils cannot claim that hindi is not their language since Dakhini is after all a variant of hindi. For instance, Kannada is the first language of most kannadigas but other languages spoken in karnataka are coorgi, konkani, etc.

could it be that lubbai muslims are looked down because they were low caste or untouchable hindus before they changed their religion?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:17 pm

Rashmun wrote:

thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in the wikipedia article. even if we agree that it is the 20% muslims of Vellore whose first language is Dakhini, the point is that tamils cannot claim that hindi is not their language since Dakhini is after all a variant of hindi. For instance, Kannada is the first language of most kannadigas but other languages spoken in karnataka are coorgi, konkani, etc.

could it be that lubbai muslims are looked down because they were low caste or untouchable hindus before they changed their religion?

Whether lower caste or not, they CONVERTED, whereas the Urdu speaking Muslims consider themselves of superior original variety from TRUE muslim lands. Same way the Saudis mistreat Paksi, who in turn looked down on Indian muslims, who then lokked down on Lubbai and Biharis.

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:22 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in the wikipedia article. even if we agree that it is the 20% muslims of Vellore whose first language is Dakhini, the point is that tamils cannot claim that hindi is not their language since Dakhini is after all a variant of hindi. For instance, Kannada is the first language of most kannadigas but other languages spoken in karnataka are coorgi, konkani, etc.

could it be that lubbai muslims are looked down because they were low caste or untouchable hindus before they changed their religion?

Whether lower caste or not, they CONVERTED, whereas the Urdu speaking Muslims consider themselves of superior original variety from TRUE muslim lands. Same way the Saudis mistreat Paksi, who in turn looked down on Indian muslims, who then lokked down on Lubbai and Biharis.

high caste hindus who converted also look down on low caste hindus who converted. but here is the thing: high caste muslims do not consider low caste muslims as 'untouchables'. Hinduism is a great religion with a very wide variety of philosophies within it. But it also has many barbarities within it. for instance, untouchability, ill treatment of widows (including sati), etc.

there is some justification in the claim that budhism is a more refined version of hinduism.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:

high caste hindus who converted also look down on low caste hindus who converted. but here is the thing: high caste muslims do not consider low caste muslims as 'untouchables'. Hinduism is a great religion with a very wide variety of philosophies within it. But it also has many barbarities within it. for instance, untouchability, ill treatment of widows (including sati), etc.

there is some justification in the claim that budhism is a more refined version of hinduism.

You are comparing muslims as per their book with the hindus as they practice it. In reality, muslims PRACTICE caste system just as the hindus do. So, in a way they are worse bcz their book prohibits it and they practice it while citing the holy book for everything they do in their daily life.

..I know what you are response is likely to be...but still...

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:20 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

high caste hindus who converted also look down on low caste hindus who converted. but here is the thing: high caste muslims do not consider low caste muslims as 'untouchables'. Hinduism is a great religion with a very wide variety of philosophies within it. But it also has many barbarities within it. for instance, untouchability, ill treatment of widows (including sati), etc.

there is some justification in the claim that budhism is a more refined version of hinduism.

You are comparing muslims as per their book with the hindus as they practice it. In reality, muslims PRACTICE caste system just as the hindus do. So, in a way they are worse bcz their book prohibits it and they practice it while citing the holy book for everything they do in their daily life.

..I know what you are response is likely to be...but still...

i know this and i agree that it is prohibited in their holy book. But one clarification: to the best of my knowledge, only muslims in the indian sub-continent seem to practice the caste system. The clear implication is that this is due to hindu influence. Furthermore, even though the indian muslims seem to practice the caste system they never embraced untouchability.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

high caste hindus who converted also look down on low caste hindus who converted. but here is the thing: high caste muslims do not consider low caste muslims as 'untouchables'. Hinduism is a great religion with a very wide variety of philosophies within it. But it also has many barbarities within it. for instance, untouchability, ill treatment of widows (including sati), etc.

there is some justification in the claim that budhism is a more refined version of hinduism.

You are comparing muslims as per their book with the hindus as they practice it. In reality, muslims PRACTICE caste system just as the hindus do. So, in a way they are worse bcz their book prohibits it and they practice it while citing the holy book for everything they do in their daily life.

..I know what you are response is likely to be...but still...

i know this and i agree that it is prohibited in their holy book. But one clarification: to the best of my knowledge, only muslims in the indian sub-continent seem to practice the caste system. The clear implication is that this is due to hindu influence. Furthermore, even though the indian muslims seem to practice the caste system they never embraced untouchability.

You are wrong....again...but feel free to change your opinions.

The Koran bars any discrimination on the basis of ANYTHING among the muslims. While Indian/PakiSatani/Beggardeshi muslims discriminate based on "caste" (which is actually has racial basis), All other muslims discriminate based on denomination, tribalism, nationality, materialism, and other factors.

Bottomline, they ain't any holier than any others - despite their loyalty to their holy Book.

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:10 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

high caste hindus who converted also look down on low caste hindus who converted. but here is the thing: high caste muslims do not consider low caste muslims as 'untouchables'. Hinduism is a great religion with a very wide variety of philosophies within it. But it also has many barbarities within it. for instance, untouchability, ill treatment of widows (including sati), etc.

there is some justification in the claim that budhism is a more refined version of hinduism.

You are comparing muslims as per their book with the hindus as they practice it. In reality, muslims PRACTICE caste system just as the hindus do. So, in a way they are worse bcz their book prohibits it and they practice it while citing the holy book for everything they do in their daily life.

..I know what you are response is likely to be...but still...

i know this and i agree that it is prohibited in their holy book. But one clarification: to the best of my knowledge, only muslims in the indian sub-continent seem to practice the caste system. The clear implication is that this is due to hindu influence. Furthermore, even though the indian muslims seem to practice the caste system they never embraced untouchability.

You are wrong....again...but feel free to change your opinions.

The Koran bars any discrimination on the basis of ANYTHING among the muslims. While Indian/PakiSatani/Beggardeshi muslims discriminate based on "caste" (which is actually has racial basis), All other muslims discriminate based on denomination, tribalism, nationality, materialism, and other factors.

Bottomline, they ain't any holier than any others - despite their loyalty to their holy Book.

i am not sure how you can declare me to be wrong when in fact i am in agreement with you. Of course, a Saudi muslim looks down on a muslim from Pak or Bangladesh (or even India) but this is because of economic reasons in my opinion and not because of any caste system.

by truthbetold Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:40 pm

Saudi discrimination against pal or Bangladesh or Indian Muslim is not simply economic. It is racial and institutional. Saudi constitution considers Indians as only one third humans.

What is said in religious books is useless unless it can guide its followers. I do not know whose fault it is but Koran fails to lead Pakistanis in any meaningful way.

Uppili summed well in above posts when he said Muslims do discriminate against other Muslims based on religious division (Shia, Sunni), men vs women , color of skin , region, tribalism etc. they are no different than any other religion. Koran did not do much to change their behavior. In fact Muslim extremists used it as a cover for their misdeeds.

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:49 pm

truthbetold wrote:Saudi discrimination against pal or Bangladesh or Indian Muslim is not simply economic. It is racial and institutional. Saudi constitution considers Indians as only one third humans.

What is said in religious books is useless unless it can guide its followers. I do not know whose fault it is but Koran fails to lead Pakistanis in any meaningful way.

Uppili summed well in above posts when he said Muslims do discriminate against other Muslims based on religious division (Shia, Sunni), men vs women , color of skin , region, tribalism etc. they are no different than any other religion. Koran did not do much to change their behavior. In fact Muslim extremists used it as a cover for their misdeeds.

would saudis look down on Indians if we we were economically more developed than them? The answer is No. with respect to region, color of skin, etc. i agree that there is discrimination based on these factors amongst muslims. the question is: is there any theoretical justification for the discrimination (as there is in hinduism vis a vis the caste system)?

Why did conversions to Islam take place in India? Was it because of force; or was it because low caste hindus preferred to adopt a religion where there is at least theoretical equality ('all are equal'). The fact that there was no such thing as prohibition against widow remarriage, sati, and untouchability in islam needs to be appreciated.

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:57 pm

Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Saudi discrimination against pal or Bangladesh or Indian Muslim is not simply economic. It is racial and institutional. Saudi constitution considers Indians as only one third humans.

What is said in religious books is useless unless it can guide its followers. I do not know whose fault it is but Koran fails to lead Pakistanis in any meaningful way.

Uppili summed well in above posts when he said Muslims do discriminate against other Muslims based on religious division (Shia, Sunni), men vs women , color of skin , region, tribalism etc. they are no different than any other religion. Koran did not do much to change their behavior. In fact Muslim extremists used it as a cover for their misdeeds.

would saudis look down on Indians if we we were economically more developed than them? The answer is No. with respect to region, color of skin, etc. i agree that there is discrimination based on these factors amongst muslims. the question is: is there any theoretical justification for the discrimination (as there is in hinduism vis a vis the caste system)?

Why did conversions to Islam take place in India? Was it because of force; or was it because low caste hindus preferred to adopt a religion where there is at least theoretical equality ('all are equal'). The fact that there was no such thing as prohibition against widow remarriage, sati, and untouchability in islam needs to be appreciated.

there is definitely discrimination between men and women in islam. for instance, women are not permitted to go inside most mosques. but considering the fact that muslim widows were not treated harshly as was the case in hinduism, the position of women in traditional islam compares favorably with traditional hinduism in my estimate.
note that in both traditional hinduism and islam, polygamy was permitted.

by truthbetold Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:15 pm

Non sensical arguments. Just because Islam does not have the same superstitions or prejudices as another religion it cannot be better or worse. Each region of world developed its own religion and rules of discrimination. A single idea being absent or better than another region of world does not prove anything other than the ignorance of the reviewer. Look at whole set of superstitions, practices, and ability to change with times. Islam proved to be a harsh, rigid, anti progress religion that tied down billions of people in terrible economic social and living conditions. It became a handi tool in the hands of dictators such Saudi, Iran and past Iraq rulers. It became an easy cover for mullahs and extremists to kill innocent non Muslims and Muslims. If it has any good it never showed up in real life.

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:55 pm

truthbetold wrote:Non sensical arguments. Just because Islam does not have the same superstitions or prejudices as another religion it cannot be better or worse. Each region of world developed its own religion and rules of discrimination. A single idea being absent or better than another region of world does not prove anything other than the ignorance of the reviewer. Look at whole set of superstitions, practices, and ability to change with times. Islam proved to be a harsh, rigid, anti progress religion that tied down billions of people in terrible economic social and living conditions. It became a handi tool in the hands of dictators such Saudi, Iran and past Iraq rulers. It became an easy cover for mullahs and extremists to kill innocent non Muslims and Muslims. If it has any good it never showed up in real life.

Where am i denying that Islam has its own set of problems? I am only saying that it compares favorably to hinduism with respect to treatment towards widows, that it had no such thing as 'untouchability', etc. I give below what i found to be a good introduction to Islam:

Islam
by Swami Sivananda

Introduction
Islam is the name given by Mohammed, the Prophet of Arabia, to the religion which he founded. Islam is an Arabic word, which means peace. It means submission to the will of God. It means surrender, acceptance of the revelation and commands of God. The personal name of God is Allah. The aim of Mohammed's preaching was the establishment of the religion of one God, Allah. Islam is a religion of universal brotherhood like Theosophy. Firm, unswerving belief in one God is the essence of true religion according to Islamic faith. It makes no distinction between caste and caste, creed and creed.

"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah." This is the fundamental teaching of the Prophet of Islam. This is the cardinal tenet or doctrine of Islam. The religion of Islam is expressed shortly in this short formula. Mohammed preached the unity of God. He taught the love of God, respect for parents and the aged, reverence to women and a noble standard of life. Alms-giving or charity was a religious duty. He said: "Every good act is charity. Your smiling in your brothers face is charity. Putting a wanderer in the right path is charity."

The religion taught by the Prophet of Arabia is plain, simple and direct. The beauty of this religion is marred by the un-Islamic behaviour of some of the followers of Islam. It is clearly said in Quran, "No man is a true believer unless he desireth for his brother that which he desires for himself. God will not be affectionate to that man who is not affectionate to Gods creatures. Assist any person oppressed whether he is Muslim or non-Muslim. Love your fellow-being first."

Islam recognizes brotherhood of man. A Muslim is expected to treat a non-Muslim as a brother and with as much generosity and friendliness as possible. Islam is a religion of service. The service of man and the good of humanity constitute the service and worship of God.

Prophet Mohammed taught to the people more of ethics than deep philosophy, as they had no proper culture.

A Muslim believed in God, His Angels, His books and His messengers, the Last day, the Resurrection from the dead, Predestination by God, good and evil, the Judgment, the Balance, Paradise and Hell fire, the divine inspiration of Mohammed, the origin of the Quran as divine inspiration, the future state. He is ready to enter into the religious war (Jihad) when so ordered by the divine as a religious duty.

The first principle of Islam is "God has sent messengers to mankind throughout the ages to teach them that all messengers and all holy books are true," thereby emphasizing the universality of faith.

Teachings

The five cardinal tenets of Islam are:

Oneness of God and the revelation of Gods will to man through a series of Prophets, the last being Mohammed,
Prayer (Salat),
Fasting,
Alms-giving or charity (Zakat) and
Haj (pilgrimage to Mecca).
These are the five pillars of Islam.

The sacred book of the Muslims is the Quran. This book deals with many different subjects, doctrines, morals, legal enactments, matters of State, manners and matters of private import. They have been collected into Surahs or chapters. To the Muslim it is the word of God eternal and uncreated conveyed by the angel Gabriel. The Holy Quran is divided into 114 chapters. The word Surah literally means eminence or high degree. The total number of verses is 6,247. The Quran was revealed bit by bit during a period of 23 years. Of the twenty-three years over which the revelation of the whole book is spread, thirteen years were passed by Mohammed at Mecca and ten years at Medina.

Islam is a religion of peace. It is submission to the will of God. A true Mussalman must be tolerant. Islam teaches that every religion is true. Islam teaches that God has sent Prophets and religious teachers to mankind to bring them to the path of goodness, to teach them the noble things of life, to be kind, to be noble, to be merciful, to be good and to be just. Islam teaches to regard not only human beings with kindness and tolerance, but also to treat animals with kindness.

Quran says: "Any man may attain liberation by his faith and good actions. The flesh and blood of the animals that are sacrificed shall never reach God, but your purity shall reach God. The flesh and blood of the animals you kill, shall not bring salvation for you. Kill this ego. Serve the suffering humanity. Sacrifice your money, time and energy in the service of the poor, the oppressed. This will give you salvation or freedom."

In Quran, the brotherhood of man and the equality of woman with man socially, economically and spiritually are emphasized. Man is a member of a great fraternity. Woman is the counterpart of man.

Selflessness and service are the ideals which a Muslim is enjoined to follow. The essence of Islam is the service of the suffering humanity. The sacred Quran says: "Woe to those who pray, who are unmindful of their prayers, who make a show and refuse to help the needy."

The Prophet of Islam also was a great lover of the doctrine of Ahimsa. Injuring people in any way or destroying any living creature is reprehensible. He taught that men would be specially judged on the day of judgment with regard to their cruel treatment of dumb creatures.

Prophet has enjoined on his followers full and broad toleration of the views and beliefs of people other than their own. Quran says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion."

There is no asceticism in Islam. The rigorous austere practices which cause torture to human body are strictly prohibited. What is wanted is a contrite heart, sincere repentance and serious continuous effort to avoid evil and practice virtue.

The great Muslim fast is that of Ramadhan. It is a fast for one month. Eating and drinking are forbidden during the day, but are allowed at night.

Jihad is exerting oneself for the cause of religion. It is not taking part in war against unbelievers. Islam strictly prohibits application of force for its observance. There is no compulsion in religion.

Islam teaches that the followers of it should acquire the manifold attributes of Allah. No on can be a Muslim and none can attain Allah without acknowledging the essential truths of all religions.

There is no such thing in Islam that a Muslim should fight in order that religion should live. Islam forbids fighting. Islam says: "You shall not take up arms except in the cause of self-defence." In every sentence of the Quran those who are tyrants have been told: "If you tyrannise over people, if you are cruel to them, you shall be punished."

The Muslims believe in the immortality of the Soul. There will be a day of resurrection when the dead will rise to receive the rewards and punishment of their deeds in life in accordance with their merits and demerits.

Conclusion

The Prophet of Islam taught the great orders of Angels who carry out Gods Will; four Archangels-Michael, the Angel who protects; Gabriel, the Angel who bears Gods messages; Azrael, the Angel of death and Israfil, the Angel of the last trumpet.

At a time when Europe was covered in ignorance and darkness, the early Mussalmans kept alive the burning torch of Science and learning. They were thinkers, philosophers and seekers of knowledge. From the eighth century till the fourteenth of our era, the children of Islam were the torch-bearers in the West. Universities were established in Cairo, Baghdad, in Cordova in Spain. Christian Europe learnt its earliest lessons in science, in astronomy, in chemistry, in mathematics from the Mussalmans.

There have been in the history of Islam many women who have contributed enormously not only to literature, but also to science. Read the history of the Arabs in Spain and Baghdad. You will be amazed to read therein that women have sat as High Court Judges, have written books and poems, have been scientists and mathematicians, have run schools and hospitals and had under their care thousands of males of every age. They had no Purdah system. The Purdah system in India is of foreign growth. It had its origin in Greece. From Greece it went to Iran and from Iran it was brought by the early Mussalman invaders into India.

Such was the splendid development of the Religion which the Prophet of Arabia founded. Its philosophical side too was very noble. It taught that all is from God, that there is no beauty in the world that is not His beauty, that there is no love in the heart of man that is not a breath of His love.

http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection&section_id=1659

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:04 pm

Rashmun wrote:
http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection§ion_id=1659

I deleted all the crap that you posted.

The point is you rightly blame Hindus for practicing casteism, while wrongly justify, reason out, diminish every discriminating and violent act of muslims.

Nothing surprising there. That is the point that every SuCHER has been trying to drill into your head for years.

EoD

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:11 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection§ion_id=1659

I deleted all the crap that you posted.

The point is you rightly blame Hindus for practicing casteism, while wrongly justify, reason out, diminish every discriminating and violent act of muslims.

Nothing surprising there. That is the point that every SuCHER has been trying to drill into your head for years.

EoD

my views have been shaped by reading people like the renowned hindu saint Swami Sivananda whose writings you are pleased to dismiss as crap.
I have never tried to justify the stupidities in Islam. All religions, with the possible exception of Budhism, have stupidities within them to varying extents.

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection§ion_id=1659

I deleted all the crap that you posted.

The point is you rightly blame Hindus for practicing casteism, while wrongly justify, reason out, diminish every discriminating and violent act of muslims.

Nothing surprising there. That is the point that every SuCHER has been trying to drill into your head for years.

EoD

my views have been shaped by reading people like the renowned hindu saint Swami Sivananda whose writings you are pleased to dismiss as crap.
I have never tried to justify the stupidities in Islam. All religions, with the possible exception of Budhism, have stupidities within them to varying extents.

i am referring now to the Budhism of Gautam Budha, and not to Later Budhism (eg Mahayana Budhism).

by truthbetold Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:52 pm

Rash,
Untouchability is unique to Hinduism and its absence from religion xyz does not make any religion better or worse as I explained earlier. Each religion developed in a different part of the world at a time of limited communications. Each contains its own peculiarities . Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and many other local religions do not condone untouchability.
A study of history shows that Buddha proposed his version of life philosophy as a counter caste ism and bhrahmanism of his day. He was proposing a new version of Hinduism. It became popular but failed over time because it subverted local economies. The revival of caste Hinduism revived economies and spelled doom for buddi in India.
Current day Hindu philosophy adopted more progressive way of thinking and is far more compatible to modern world than Islam. So the attempt to dig up antiquated documents of Islam and Hinduism to compare their usefulness to any one is a misguided effort. If a Hindu wants to find a new philosophy he has a choice of multitude of Indian born religions and multitude of modern non religious philosophies. Except the poorly informed no Indian need to consider a religion that is stuck at least 200 years backwards and is completely against women and progressive thought.
My understanding is that conversions to Islam are at an all time low in India thanks to islam's followers extremely poor behavior.

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:08 pm

truthbetold wrote:Rash,
Untouchability is unique to Hinduism and its absence from religion xyz does not make any religion better or worse as I explained earlier. Each religion developed in a different part of the world at a time of limited communications. Each contains its own peculiarities . Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and many other local religions do not condone untouchability.
A study of history shows that Buddha proposed his version of life philosophy as a counter caste ism and bhrahmanism of his day. He was proposing a new version of Hinduism. It became popular but failed over time because it subverted local economies. The revival of caste Hinduism revived economies and spelled doom for buddi in India.
Current day Hindu philosophy adopted more progressive way of thinking and is far more compatible to modern world than Islam. So the attempt to dig up antiquated documents of Islam and Hinduism to compare their usefulness to any one is a misguided effort. If a Hindu wants to find a new philosophy he has a choice of multitude of Indian born religions and multitude of modern non religious philosophies. Except the poorly informed no Indian need to consider a religion that is stuck at least 200 years backwards and is completely against women and progressive thought.
My understanding is that conversions to Islam are at an all time low in India thanks to islam's followers extremely poor behavior.

i have no quarrel with what you have written above. i was only trying to explain why conversions to islam took place in medieval India. i also agree that reforms have taken place in hinduism in the 20th century (for instance, the anti-Sati agitation led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the widow-remarriage agitation led by Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar) while corresponding reforms have unfortunately not taken place in Indian Islam. But this is not to say that Islam is incapable of reform. Kemal Ataturk's Turkey has shown that Islam can be reformed if some credible people commanding popular support take a firm, secularist position to eliminate the nonsense (e.g. triple talaq, burqa, polygamy, not allowing women to pray in mosques, etc.) in it.

by Guest Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:28 pm

Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rash,
Untouchability is unique to Hinduism and its absence from religion xyz does not make any religion better or worse as I explained earlier. Each religion developed in a different part of the world at a time of limited communications. Each contains its own peculiarities . Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and many other local religions do not condone untouchability.
A study of history shows that Buddha proposed his version of life philosophy as a counter caste ism and bhrahmanism of his day. He was proposing a new version of Hinduism. It became popular but failed over time because it subverted local economies. The revival of caste Hinduism revived economies and spelled doom for buddi in India.
Current day Hindu philosophy adopted more progressive way of thinking and is far more compatible to modern world than Islam. So the attempt to dig up antiquated documents of Islam and Hinduism to compare their usefulness to any one is a misguided effort. If a Hindu wants to find a new philosophy he has a choice of multitude of Indian born religions and multitude of modern non religious philosophies. Except the poorly informed no Indian need to consider a religion that is stuck at least 200 years backwards and is completely against women and progressive thought.
My understanding is that conversions to Islam are at an all time low in India thanks to islam's followers extremely poor behavior.

i have no quarrel with what you have written above. i was only trying to explain why conversions to islam took place in medieval India. i also agree that reforms have taken place in hinduism in the 20th century (for instance, the anti-Sati agitation led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the widow-remarriage agitation led by Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar) while corresponding reforms have unfortunately not taken place in Indian Islam. But this is not to say that Islam is incapable of reform. Kemal Ataturk's Turkey has shown that Islam can be reformed if some credible people commanding popular support take a firm, secularist position to eliminate the nonsense (e.g. triple talaq, burqa, polygamy, not allowing women to pray in mosques, etc.) in it.

with respect to budhism, i will say that one reason why it may have failed as spectacularly as it did in India (after having first captured the Indian imagination) was that the later Budhists (and by this i am specifically referring to the Mahayana Budhists) deviated from the teachings of the Budha.

by truthbetold Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:06 pm

The spread of Islam always followed the sword. To suggest otherwise is rewriting history. An occasional spiritual leader may have spear headed few groups every now and then. But Islam in India spread with conquering armies. Even the current concentrations of Muslim populations in India show that Islam confined itself areas of Muslim rule. It is probably associated with gov jobs and other incentives of the day.
India is probably the only country in the world which was run over by two powerful conversion oriented colonizing religions but retained its original religion despite its despicable untouchability.

by Guest Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:19 am

truthbetold wrote:The spread of Islam always followed the sword. To suggest otherwise is rewriting history. An occasional spiritual leader may have spear headed few groups every now and then. But Islam in India spread with conquering armies. Even the current concentrations of Muslim populations in India show that Islam confined itself areas of Muslim rule. It is probably associated with gov jobs and other incentives of the day.
India is probably the only country in the world which was run over by two powerful conversion oriented colonizing religions but retained its original religion despite its despicable untouchability.

in fact the concentration of muslim populations in greater india proves your theory wrong. for instance, why was there a greater concentration of muslims in present day bangladesh? my explanation is that the evils of the caste system and also the horrors inflicted on hindu widows were relatively more excessive than many other parts of india and hence low caste people converted voluntarily. there may have been a few forcible conversions but the great majority of conversions were voluntary conversions in my opinion in which low caste hindus converted as a means of social emancipation so as to get more respect from society.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:15 pm

Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:The spread of Islam always followed the sword. To suggest otherwise is rewriting history. An occasional spiritual leader may have spear headed few groups every now and then. But Islam in India spread with conquering armies. Even the current concentrations of Muslim populations in India show that Islam confined itself areas of Muslim rule. It is probably associated with gov jobs and other incentives of the day.
India is probably the only country in the world which was run over by two powerful conversion oriented colonizing religions but retained its original religion despite its despicable untouchability.

in fact the concentration of muslim populations in greater india proves your theory wrong. for instance, why was there a greater concentration of muslims in present day bangladesh? my explanation is that the evils of the caste system and also the horrors inflicted on hindu widows were relatively more excessive than many other parts of india and hence low caste people converted voluntarily. there may have been a few forcible conversions but the great majority of conversions were voluntary conversions in my opinion in which low caste hindus converted as a means of social emancipation so as to get more respect from society.

By your reasoning, Bengalis and Biharis should have converted to Christianity and not iSlam......definitely not bcz they fell in love reading Koran - bcz they could not read Arabic, let us read. Also, the Brits were there since 16th century with Calcutta their main base of operation.

by Guest Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:17 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:The spread of Islam always followed the sword. To suggest otherwise is rewriting history. An occasional spiritual leader may have spear headed few groups every now and then. But Islam in India spread with conquering armies. Even the current concentrations of Muslim populations in India show that Islam confined itself areas of Muslim rule. It is probably associated with gov jobs and other incentives of the day.
India is probably the only country in the world which was run over by two powerful conversion oriented colonizing religions but retained its original religion despite its despicable untouchability.

in fact the concentration of muslim populations in greater india proves your theory wrong. for instance, why was there a greater concentration of muslims in present day bangladesh? my explanation is that the evils of the caste system and also the horrors inflicted on hindu widows were relatively more excessive than many other parts of india and hence low caste people converted voluntarily. there may have been a few forcible conversions but the great majority of conversions were voluntary conversions in my opinion in which low caste hindus converted as a means of social emancipation so as to get more respect from society.

By your reasoning, Bengalis and Biharis should have converted to Christianity and not iSlam......definitely not bcz they fell in love reading Koran - bcz they could not read Arabic, let us read. Also, the Brits were there since 16th century with Calcutta their main base of operation.

christianity arrived several centuries after the arrival of islam. the more interesting question is: why did they not convert to Budhism?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:20 pm

Rashmun wrote:
christianity arrived several centuries after the arrival of islam.

you are quite certain of this?

by Guest Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:22 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
christianity arrived several centuries after the arrival of islam.

you are quite certain of this?

we are talking of bengal now (actually greater bengal i.e. present day west bengal + bangladesh) . and i am not talking of a few christian merchants or travelers who may have visited bengal before the arrival of any muslim (since these would have had a minimal impact on the local culture).

by Kris Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rash,
Untouchability is unique to Hinduism and its absence from religion xyz does not make any religion better or worse as I explained earlier. Each religion developed in a different part of the world at a time of limited communications. Each contains its own peculiarities . Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and many other local religions do not condone untouchability.
A study of history shows that Buddha proposed his version of life philosophy as a counter caste ism and bhrahmanism of his day. He was proposing a new version of Hinduism. It became popular but failed over time because it subverted local economies. The revival of caste Hinduism revived economies and spelled doom for buddi in India.
Current day Hindu philosophy adopted more progressive way of thinking and is far more compatible to modern world than Islam. So the attempt to dig up antiquated documents of Islam and Hinduism to compare their usefulness to any one is a misguided effort. If a Hindu wants to find a new philosophy he has a choice of multitude of Indian born religions and multitude of modern non religious philosophies. Except the poorly informed no Indian need to consider a religion that is stuck at least 200 years backwards and is completely against women and progressive thought.
My understanding is that conversions to Islam are at an all time low in India thanks to islam's followers extremely poor behavior.

i have no quarrel with what you have written above. i was only trying to explain why conversions to islam took place in medieval India. i also agree that reforms have taken place in hinduism in the 20th century (for instance, the anti-Sati agitation led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the widow-remarriage agitation led by Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar) while corresponding reforms have unfortunately not taken place in Indian Islam. But this is not to say that Islam is incapable of reform. Kemal Ataturk's Turkey has shown that Islam can be reformed if some credible people commanding popular support take a firm, secularist position to eliminate the nonsense (e.g. triple talaq, burqa, polygamy, not allowing women to pray in mosques, etc.) in it.

with respect to budhism, i will say that one reason why it may have failed as spectacularly as it did in India (after having first captured the Indian imagination) was that the later Budhists (and by this i am specifically referring to the Mahayana Budhists) deviated from the teachings of the Budha.

>>>> I think Buddhism may not have caught on in India since Hinduism may have co-opted the ideas or it was an off-shoot of hinduism and built upon and modified, depending on how you look at it. It may be that it didn't catch on since it did not differentiate itself enough from the common man's perspective.

by Guest Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:40 pm

Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rash,
Untouchability is unique to Hinduism and its absence from religion xyz does not make any religion better or worse as I explained earlier. Each religion developed in a different part of the world at a time of limited communications. Each contains its own peculiarities . Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and many other local religions do not condone untouchability.
A study of history shows that Buddha proposed his version of life philosophy as a counter caste ism and bhrahmanism of his day. He was proposing a new version of Hinduism. It became popular but failed over time because it subverted local economies. The revival of caste Hinduism revived economies and spelled doom for buddi in India.
Current day Hindu philosophy adopted more progressive way of thinking and is far more compatible to modern world than Islam. So the attempt to dig up antiquated documents of Islam and Hinduism to compare their usefulness to any one is a misguided effort. If a Hindu wants to find a new philosophy he has a choice of multitude of Indian born religions and multitude of modern non religious philosophies. Except the poorly informed no Indian need to consider a religion that is stuck at least 200 years backwards and is completely against women and progressive thought.
My understanding is that conversions to Islam are at an all time low in India thanks to islam's followers extremely poor behavior.

i have no quarrel with what you have written above. i was only trying to explain why conversions to islam took place in medieval India. i also agree that reforms have taken place in hinduism in the 20th century (for instance, the anti-Sati agitation led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the widow-remarriage agitation led by Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar) while corresponding reforms have unfortunately not taken place in Indian Islam. But this is not to say that Islam is incapable of reform. Kemal Ataturk's Turkey has shown that Islam can be reformed if some credible people commanding popular support take a firm, secularist position to eliminate the nonsense (e.g. triple talaq, burqa, polygamy, not allowing women to pray in mosques, etc.) in it.

with respect to budhism, i will say that one reason why it may have failed as spectacularly as it did in India (after having first captured the Indian imagination) was that the later Budhists (and by this i am specifically referring to the Mahayana Budhists) deviated from the teachings of the Budha.

>>>> I think Buddhism may not have caught on in India since Hinduism may have co-opted the ideas or it was an off-shoot of hinduism and built upon and modified, depending on how you look at it. It may be that it didn't catch on since it did not differentiate itself enough from the common man's perspective.

here are a few things on the basis of which budhism differentiated itself from hinduism:
1. rejection of caste system. this includes rejection of untouchability.
2. rejection of sati and rejection of subjecting widows to various forms of physical or mental torture
3. rejection of sacrificing animals in rituals.

There may be other points but i can't think of them now.

Hindus co-opted the third point (rejection of animal sacrifice) but the first two points continued to be a part of hinduism. the reason for budhism's decline may be attributed to the fact that some time after the Budha's death there was a split in the Budhism Sangha after which some budhist monks opted to continue following the budhism of gautam budha which involved leading a life of austerity and penance, while others (particularly the younger monks) preferred to live a luxurious lifestyle on the basis of doles provided by their followers. Mahayana Budhism, which came to dominate later budhism in India, believed in the second option i.e. it is ok for monks to lead a luxurious lifestyle. When this happened the Budhist monks essentially became social parasites living a luxurious lifestyle in magnificent monastaries. This spelt the doom of Budhism in India.

The coup de grace to Budhism in India was provided when Hindu intellegentsia declared Budha to be a Hindu God (an avataar of Vishnu).

by Kris Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:54 pm

[quote="Kris"][quote="Rashmun"]

Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rash,
Untouchability is unique to Hinduism and its absence from religion xyz does not make any religion better or worse as I explained earlier. Each religion developed in a different part of the world at a time of limited communications. Each contains its own peculiarities . Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and many other local religions do not condone untouchability.
A study of history shows that Buddha proposed his version of life philosophy as a counter caste ism and bhrahmanism of his day. He was proposing a new version of Hinduism. It became popular but failed over time because it subverted local economies. The revival of caste Hinduism revived economies and spelled doom for buddi in India.
Current day Hindu philosophy adopted more progressive way of thinking and is far more compatible to modern world than Islam. So the attempt to dig up antiquated documents of Islam and Hinduism to compare their usefulness to any one is a misguided effort. If a Hindu wants to find a new philosophy he has a choice of multitude of Indian born religions and multitude of modern non religious philosophies. Except the poorly informed no Indian need to consider a religion that is stuck at least 200 years backwards and is completely against women and progressive thought.
My understanding is that conversions to Islam are at an all time low in India thanks to islam's followers extremely poor behavior.

i have no quarrel with what you have written above. i was only trying to explain why conversions to islam took place in medieval India. i also agree that reforms have taken place in hinduism in the 20th century (for instance, the anti-Sati agitation led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the widow-remarriage agitation led by Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar) while corresponding reforms have unfortunately not taken place in Indian Islam. But this is not to say that Islam is incapable of reform. Kemal Ataturk's Turkey has shown that Islam can be reformed if some credible people commanding popular support take a firm, secularist position to eliminate the nonsense (e.g. triple talaq, burqa, polygamy, not allowing women to pray in mosques, etc.) in it.

>>>>The Ataturk model definitely worked for Turkey, albeit the tussle between secularism and fundamentalism is constantly just under the surface. This is further accentuated now with the advent of oil money which fuels fundamentalist activism. Nevertheless, the time window for Ataturk- type reformations of islamic societies is pretty much closed. With modern sensibilities, positing the western model as the ideal would be problematic from a politically correct perspective even for westerners.Add to that the impossibility of dragging whole societies screaming and kicking to a new way of life, with draconian punitive measures as the downside of not following..,.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Nov 11, 2012 3:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
christianity arrived several centuries after the arrival of islam.

you are quite certain of this?

we are talking of bengal now (actually greater bengal i.e. present day west bengal + bangladesh) . and i am not talking of a few christian merchants or travelers who may have visited bengal before the arrival of any muslim (since these would have had a minimal impact on the local culture).

Ahhhhhh..I see the Goal post moving...

by Guest Sun Nov 11, 2012 3:46 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
christianity arrived several centuries after the arrival of islam.

you are quite certain of this?

we are talking of bengal now (actually greater bengal i.e. present day west bengal + bangladesh) . and i am not talking of a few christian merchants or travelers who may have visited bengal before the arrival of any muslim (since these would have had a minimal impact on the local culture).

Ahhhhhh..I see the Goal post moving...

from my previous post:

for instance, why was there a greater concentration of muslims in present day bangladesh? my explanation is that the evils of the caste system and also the horrors inflicted on hindu widows were relatively more excessive than many other parts of india and hence low caste people converted voluntarily.

by truthbetold Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:18 pm

Rash,
I posted reply to your false propaganda of Islamic spread in Bangladesh in a new thread. Argue with real historical facts.

by Guest Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:33 pm

truthbetold wrote:Rash,
I posted reply to your false propaganda of Islamic spread in Bangladesh in a new thread. Argue with real historical facts.

i prefer to keep this discussion to one thread in the event that we have to go back to check up what any of us said about this subject. So you are free to make as many threads as you want but i will keep replying to you on this thread. In another thread, TBT writes:

Truthbetold wrote:
Rash,
You stated that concentration of Muslims east Bengal some how contradicted my theory of Islam following sword. The facts of history suggest that Islam indeed followed sword in east Bengal. That area of India was under muslin rule since 1200ad. That area had the least number of Hindu kingdom rise during a period of 500 years. While there were insurrections in those 500 years none succeeded in any meaningful. It is that isolation that caused Islamic spread in east Bengal.
To suggest that somehow those Hindus were attracted to Islam without coercion is a mere wishful thinking and against all available historical evidence.

You have a history of ignoring facts and throwing around your wishful thinking as truth by repeating false assertions. Get over that. Islam was never interested in uplifting downtrodden. It was always the religion of pompous ignorant rulers of Middle East. It's role in history is nearing an end. It will vanish much before Christianity.

if we read the stories of bengali writers like Sharad Chandra Chattopadhyaya, we find that women in Bengal were being subjected to most brutal oppression as is reflected in his writings. Many widows of Bengal would be quietly packed off to Benaras or Mathura/Vrindavan since they were considered a burden on the family. To the best of my knowledge, this getting rid of widows from one's family was not happening in Uttar Pradesh (at least not on the scale it was happening in Bengal). For the purpose of this argument when i refer to uttar pradesh it should be taken to mean Uttar Pradesh + Uttaranchal, since Uttaranchal is a small part of U.P. which some years ago was declared a separate state.

Uttar Pradesh was also under muslim ruler for at least as long as Bengal, but why is the percentage of muslims less in Uttar Pradesh? One reason could be that the caste system was less oppressive in Uttar Pradesh. Another thing to keep in mind is that Uttar Pradesh is such an intensely religious place (with numerous religious sites like Mathura/Vrindavan, Chitrakoot, Benaras, Prayag, and then also Haridwar, Rishikesh, etc. that orthodox hindus were able to do better propaganda and convince low caste hindus that in their next birth it would be their turn to be born as high caste hindus providing they behaved themselves in this birth. There are various religious festivals held in Uttar Pradesh where religious gurus comment on the Ramayana and Mahabharata and in these functions there is sufficient opportunity to do propaganda and convince low caste hindus that if they behave themselves they will be born as high caste hindus in their next birth.

by truthbetold Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:31 pm

Rash,
You are again practicing your style of asserting without facts. Oppression of women was present all over India and was worse among muslin women than Hindu women. In science facts do not equate causes of a problem. With a good cause and effect relationship you cannot claim a given facts support your claim. You need to develop a more scientific approach to developing your logical sequence. I will not put in much time to respond to your anarchic style of arguing without basis.

by Guest Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:26 am

truthbetold wrote:Rash,
You are again practicing your style of asserting without facts. Oppression of women was present all over India and was worse among muslin women than Hindu women. In science facts do not equate causes of a problem. With a good cause and effect relationship you cannot claim a given facts support your claim. You need to develop a more scientific approach to developing your logical sequence. I will not put in much time to respond to your anarchic style of arguing without basis.

the fact remains that if you would have been a widow in medieval India, you would have been better off being a muslim than a hindu. being a muslim would have ensured that you would have been permitted to marry again, you would not be forced to live on bland food for the rest of your life, you would not have to sleep on the floor or on some hard surface always, you would not be forced to avoid wearing attractive clothes, you would not be forced to always remain anti-social, you would not be kicked out of the house and dumped in some other city like Benaras or Vrindavan (where you would have to fill your stomach by begging or prostitution), and you would not be burnt alive.

Even Marathadi Samiyaar's father, a learned, scholarly, and erudite man, agrees with the above as per what Samiyaar told me once on Sulekha. Samiyaar's father agrees that the hindu widow was worse off than the muslim widow in medieval times right upto modern times (before the reforms in hinduism the 20th century initiated by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, and others).

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com