Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HINDU FANATICISM

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    HINDU FANATICISM

    HINDU FANATICISM

    It is a historical co-incidence that in the case of Hinduism while it
    accepted theological pluralism, it was intolerant with regard to the social
    structure of Caste associated with it. The Caste system is not religion, but
    this system was held together by the integration of religious dogma into the
    social structure. This made the Caste status of the exploited and exploiter
    classes, permanent, not just all through life, but for generation after
    generation. Unlike a similar social division in other parts of the globe
    between slaves and slave-owners, or serfs and lord. A slave could become free
    and even become a slave owner. No such luck for the serfs in ancient Hindu
    India - the Shudras. They were condemned to remain Shudras forever - despite
    the occasional reference to the inter-caste mobility in some shastras, such
    mobility never actually existed in practise.

    The Manusmriti represents the zenith (or rather the nadir) of fanaticism
    based on caste. It enjoins that the right to scriptural learning is the
    monopoly of the Brahmins and even the accidental hearing of the vedic chants
    by a Shudra is punishable by the lopping off of the Shudras ears. Although it
    will be said that the Manusmriti is not a religious text and no religious
    text has the kind of binding on all Hindus as the Bible has on Christians and
    the Qu'ran on the Muslims. But the fact is that the Manusmriti details the
    jurisprudence for a Hindu society; and the utterly unjust ideas of this text
    are still held in high esteem by the retrograde among the Hindus.

    Thus with complete theological tolerance, there was rigid social fanaticism in
    Hindu society. While a Hindu could pray to any God, he had to conform to one
    caste (of his birth). In this caste set up, the tyranny on the lower castes
    (Shudras) was dehumanizing. The caste system was inhuman beyond a shade of
    doubt.

    One needs to remember that Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the architect of India's
    constitution, who was born as a Mahar (a Shudra sebset in Maharashtra) had to
    drink water poured into his mouth from above, lest the "defiling" touch of his
    lips "pollute" the vessel of its upper caste owner!

    Thus while in theology Hinduism was tolerant, but in its social structure it
    was extremely intolerant - in other words in its casteist social structure
    Hindu society was (and is) inhuman and fanatical.


    #2
    All texts quoted are AUTHENTIC!!

    "If a man of one birth (Sudra) hurls cruel words at one of the twice-born, his tongue should be cut out, for he was born from the rear-end. If he mentions their name or caste maliciously, a red-hot iron nail ten-fingers long should be thrust into his mouth. If he is so proud as to instruct priests about their duty, the king should have hot oil poured into his mouth and ears." -- Manusmrti 8:270-272.

    "If a man of inferior caste tries to sit down on the same seat as a man of superior caste, he should be branded on the hip and banished, or have his buttocks cut off." -- Manusmrti 8:281.

    "If in the process of negotiating betrothal there are first ten suitors of the non-Brahmana varna for a woman (the marriageable girl), all of them lose their claims of marriage and, only the Brahmin, the learned one, if he grasps her hand would be her husband and only he. Not even the man of Ksatriya varna and not even the man of Vaisya varna but only the Brahmin is the husband of the bride in such cases of claimants of betrothal, and the sun, as it appears, revealing this fact to the people of five classes (4 varnas and the fifth avarna) rises up." -- Atharva Veda 5:17:8-9.

    "If someone born in a Ksatriya, Vaisya, or Sudra womb should be unable to pay his fine, he may absolve himself of the debt by labour; a Brahmin should pay little by little. The king should have women, children, madmen, and the old, the poor, and the ill chastised with a whip, a bamboo cane, a rope, and so forth." -- Manusmrti 9:229-230.

    "The Sudra's duty and supreme good is nothing but obedience to famous Brahmin householders who know the Veda. If he is unpolluted, obedient to his superiors, gentle in his speech, without a sense of 'I', and always dependent on the Brahmins and the other (twice-born castes), he attains a superior birth (in the next life)." -- Manusmrti 9:334-335.

    "…thereby the Ksatriya, whenever he likes, says, 'Hello Vaisya, just bring to me what you have stored away!' Thus he both subdues him and obtains possession of anything he wishes by dint of this very energy." -- Satapatha Brahmana 1:3:2:15.

    "One-fourth of (the punishment for) Brahmin-killing is traditionally regarded as (the punishment) for the killing of a Ksatriya, one-eighth for (killing) a Vaisya, and it should be one-sixteenth for (killing) a Sudra who knows his place." -- Manusmrti 11:127.

    "A Brahmin is a great deity whether or not he is learned, just as fire is a great deity whether or not it is brought to the altar. The purifying fire with its brilliant energy is not defiled even in cremation grounds, and when oblations of butter are placed in it at sacrifices it grows even greater. Thus Brahmins should be revered in every way, even if they engage in all kinds of undesirable actions, for this is the supreme deity. If the Ksatriyas become overbearing towards the Brahmins in any way, the Brahmins themselves should subdue them, for the Ksatriyas were born from the Brahmins." -- Manusmrti 9:317-320.

    "A Ksatriya in adversity may also make a living by all of these (means); but he should never be so proud as to assume the livelihood of his betters. If a man of the lowest caste should, through greed, make his living by the innate activities of his superiors, the king should confiscate his wealth and banish him immediately. One's own duty, (even) without any good qualities, is better than someone else's duty well done; for a man who makes his living by someone else's duty immediately falls from (his own) caste." -- Manusmrti 10:95-97.

    "With whatever limb an inferior insults or hurts his superior in caste, of that limb the king shall cause him to be deprived. If he places himself on the same seat with his superior, he shall be banished with a mark on his buttocks. If he spits on him, he shall lose both lips; If he breaks wind against him, his hindparts; If he uses abusive language, his tongue. If a (lowborn) man through pride gives instruction (to a member of the highest caste) concerning his duty, let the king order hot oil to be dropped into his mouth. If a (low-born man) mentions the name or caste of a superior revilingly, an iron pin, ten inches long, shall be thrust into his mouth (red hot)." -- Visnusmrti 5:19-25.

    "His (Purusa's) mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were made into the Ksatriya, his thighs the Vaisya, and from his feet the Sudra was born." -- Rig Veda 10:90:12.

    In comparison, Sudras are as low as feet & Outcastes (avarna) are even below that status of course.

    Comment


      #3
      soo true...

      Hindoos by nature are fanatics who kill innocent civilians and they also burn their woman...


      Go to sleep happily.

      Comment


        #4
        Most Hindus don't take thier religion too its very limit. Those who do are very few in numbers and they all are in India. I have many Hindu friends who are tolerant and respected people. There are fanatics in every religion, including Islam, Christianity and Judaism, as well as moderates.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by kumarakn:
          soo true...

          Hindoos by nature are fanatics who kill innocent civilians and they also burn their woman...

          Ibrahim says; Well they do a lot more than that! I believe they can be inhumane.

          Since they are the only group of people on this planet who are still engaged in :-

          HUMAN SACRIFICE
          CASTE ATROCITIES
          FEMALE INFANTICIDE
          POISONING, BURIAL AND SUFFOCATION OF INFANT GIRLS
          BRIDE-BURNING
          WITCH-BURNING
          SATI (WIDOW-BURNING)
          AMPUTATION OF WOMENS' EARS AND NOSES
          HINDU WIVES PUBLICLY DEVOURED BY DOGS
          STRIPPING OF FEMALE PROPERTY
          NO DIVORCE
          NO REMARRIAGE
          MARRIAGE TO ANIMALS
          RAPE ENJOINED IN SCRIPTURES
          ENFORCED ILLITERACY


          Comment


            #6
            iamnot against any religion or anything
            i belive in humaity and as there are flaws in hinduism like wise there are flaws in every religion but since someone mentioned manusmriti here i wouldlike to provide this link check out the evils of hinduism yourself http://www.themodernreligion.com/com..._heretics.html

            Comment


              #7
              Please read my post with an open mind keeping you hatred against Hindus and Indians aside.
              • What was considered right 12 years ago in Russia, Communism, is not considered right anymore.
              • What was considered right 300 years ago in America, Slavery, is not considered right by Americans anymore.
              • All time estimates, (both, western and Indian) ones that do not assume the world to be only 4000 years old (based on biblical dating), clearly estimate Hindu scriptures mentioned here (in these threads) to be atleast 5000-7000 years old.


              Present day America and present day India have laws to reverse their previous practices and India even uses positive discrimination to reverse caste based effects -> 69% reservation for backward, most backward, shceduled caste, scheduled tribess and the remaining 31% is for open competition.

              As do enforcement of every other law, due to the poor political setup and bureucracy, India has not abolished casteism in every remote village of India as America did unto slavery, though nobody can get away through open caste based discrimination.

              In fact India has a democratic system in place, through which these dalits have repeatedly demonstrated their strength in many many states and set the agenda and policy.

              IMO, it would a shame on anybody to accuse present day America of slavery, or present day Hindus of casteism or Sati (In fact sati came into existence, as hindu women tried to save themselves from being raped by Islamic invaders. There is no sati in Hindu Tamilnadu - Muslims never captured it. After these Islamic invasions came down in British Raj, Sati became illegal.)

              No scripture in Hinduism, including manu smriti or Bhagavadh gita has to be followed or has to be left uncorrected in its implementation, by Hindus. Present day Hindusim does in NO way reflect the precriptions of Manu smriti and Gita on caste and guess what, they don't have to be - as it has been 6000 years since they had been written.

              Hinduism is open to change, is willing to change and is changing.

              If you still wanna stick to these books and talk about some aspects it that delight you, it is not "religion", it is "religious history". No offence, you may not be able to appreciate the difference between "religion" and "Religious history", because of the infancy of your religion. Your great grand children might!


              [This message has been edited by kumarakn (edited July 31, 2001).]

              Comment


                #8
                If you guys really would like to know about hindus, talk to them or visit India or Nepal.

                Don't learn about Hinduism from hate sites - for there are many against Islam too - which aren't true.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by kumarakn:
                  If you guys really would like to know about hindus, talk to them or visit India or Nepal.

                  Don't learn about Hinduism from hate sites - for there are many against Islam too - which aren't true.
                  Correct.
                  Now give me a history book or a reference which says that 'sati' originated because of Muslim invaders' raping Hindu women.

                  ------------------
                  We oughta be Changez like, don't we?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Following the GADP (like GAAP - D for discussion) rules of this forum regarding references,

                    "You should find it yourself as it is about your religion. Hey I know more about your religion than you..."

                    But, let us break the rule for a moment..I will be back with some...during the weekend.

                    Till then ponder on onething...
                    • There is no Sati in Hindu Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Southern Karnataka, Southern Andhra pradesh
                    • There is no Sati in Hindu Nepal
                    • There is no Sati in Hindu North East India
                    • There is no Sati in Hindu parts of Srilanka

                    • Sati was aggressively practiced by Rajputs and other people of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Southern UP. (These people and only these people faced the brunt of repeated Islamic/Other invasions.)
                    • Sati was legally banned during the British Raj (after the Islamic invasions subsided) by the efforts of many Social reformers.


                    Why could that be?


                    [This message has been edited by kumarakn (edited July 31, 2001).]

                    Comment


                      #11
                      only through legislation we can make it level playing field for everbody.
                      income of the family also taken into account
                      when quota system is implemented.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by kumarakn:
                        Following the GADP (like GAAP - D for discussion) rules of this forum regarding references,

                        "You should find it yourself as it is about your religion. Hey I know more about your religion than you..."

                        But, let us break the rule for a moment..I will be back with some...during the weekend.

                        Till then ponder on onething...
                        • There is no Sati in Hindu Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Southern Karnataka, Southern Andhra pradesh
                        • There is no Sati in Hindu Nepal
                        • There is no Sati in Hindu North East India
                        • There is no Sati in Hindu parts of Srilanka

                        • Sati was aggressively practiced by Rajputs and other people of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Southern UP. (These people and only these people faced the brunt of repeated Islamic/Other invasions.)
                        • Sati was legally banned during the British Raj (after the Islamic invasions subsided) by the efforts of many Social reformers.


                        Why could that be?

                        [This message has been edited by kumarakn (edited July 31, 2001).]
                        well, if you are here just to laugh keep laughin, i thought you have some 'serious-thinking' capability. keep laughing, i'm laughing too.

                        go and bring your refernces, Ibrahim already proved that you don't know about your religion , you don't have any idea about truthfulness of Islam and you think you know more than me then keep thinking, check your medicines if they cause hallucinations

                        ------------------
                        We oughta be Changez like, don't we?

                        [This message has been edited by Changez_like (edited July 31, 2001).]

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Changez_Like:

                          There is no need for mockery when we are seriously discussing things here. Read my post again to see if my post was serious or not.

                          I respect your challenge for a reference. I am not running away from it, nor am I saying like your friend to look it up yourself.

                          I will be back with proof about the fact that it is Islamic vandalism that brought up sati in India.

                          I have to do some search in the library. give me 1 day. If you have seen my previous arguments, you would know how religious I am with neutral references.

                          Though we are deviating from the main topic of "Hindu fanatism-does it exist? and Relevance of Manu smriti in present day India", I will surely come back with references



                          [This message has been edited by kumarakn (edited July 31, 2001).]

                          Comment


                            #14
                            The powerful feudal lords in Pakistan are all "upper caste" hindus. They still retain their titles like "Chaudhry" etc.
                            Three groups found in Indian Muslims of Bengal:

                            1.Ashraf or better class Muslims - The Sainads, Sheikhs, Pathans, Moghul, Mallik, and Mirza.
                            2.Ajlaf or lower caste Muslims - Cultivating Sheikhs, and others who were originally Hindus, Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir,


                            Mallah, Kula Kunjara, Kasai, Kalal, Dhunia, Abdal, Bako, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, Hajjan, etc.
                            3.Arzal or degraded class - include Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Maugta, Mehra.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by kumarakn:
                              Changez_Like:

                              There is no need for mockery when we are seriously discussing things here. Read my post again to see if my post was serious or not.

                              I respect your challenge for a reference. I am not running away from it, nor am I saying like your friend to look it up yourself.

                              I will be back with proof about the fact that it is Islamic vandalism that brought up sati in India.

                              I have to do some search in the library. give me 1 day. If you have seen my previous arguments, you would know how religious I am with neutral references.

                              Though we are deviating from the main topic of "Hindu fanatism-does it exist? and Relevance of Manu smriti in present day India", I will surely come back with references

                              [This message has been edited by kumarakn (edited July 31, 2001).]
                              Thats what I like to see in a person, 'discussion'. Thanks, thats much better.

                              I agree that your books will represent some history that Hinduism has gone through, and understand your concept of "religious history".

                              Hindu fanaticsm exists or not is as debatable as Muslim fanaticism exists or not. People are far from the religion, not following closely anymore. Day by day, less number of Muslims are following religion closeley.

                              Muslims or Islam is not open to 'adaption' all the way, there are limits to everything.

                              Christianity opened itself up for 'adaption' and now you can compare them how religious majority now is, and how religious was their majority 2-5 hundred years ago.

                              ------------------
                              We oughta be Changez like, don't we?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X