Islam and Hinduism

Salaam To: Bharatiya

Its accepted to read 'Francois Gautier', and quote him since he is pointing main issues to be tackled within Hinduism and provide a response.

However, I hope you are aware of Mr Gautire's Intelletuall leaning towards a certain group of people in India, of which you may be aware of, from this stand point Mr Gautier writings does not concentrate on assessing the objectivity, especially his writings on Islam.

I hope you will not loose sight when redaing his books or articles.

More Later

Regards

Fuhad

bharatiya wrote: Hello Friends!! ....... And another thing, I wanted to answer you the answer to the so called 'exploitation'.  I always start laughing when people talk about caste system.  As Francois Gautier points out,"Caste system is the favourite whipping boy of Hinduism".

Oh, you mean the exploitation of Brahmins for the last 3000 yrs was not in caste system only. Then in what else did they exploit? and if I am not wrong the very word "exploitation" was used by you and not by me. I didn't refer to it at all till you suggested such a suit followed in the history of hinduism but then, of course I remember you saying that it was very small as compared to the millinia history of hinduism. Its you who hinted on it and then you are blaming me to use it. Kindly correct your record simply because at least our previous conversations have not yet been lost. Here is your own quote "The minorities in India know well that a system such as a 'caste' system does not exist and the so called 'oppressors' who are Brahmins are in a minority." and then again its you who suggested and I quote "And exploitation of 'caste' system started around 3000 years ago.  Being so old a civilazation, 3000 years is very short time." 

No one knows what it is, but everyone talks about it.  Once a little girl asks her father what caste means, the father answers that she will understand it when she grows up.  She grows up and asks the same question again, then her father scolds her saying that she has grown up and should understand it by now. ........

Hopefully, we all be enjoying your jokes especially like this. Isn't it? However, if its your kind of Itiahas, then I must apologize for being rude. But then its you who don't let us understand what is the difference between human history and the mythical history (Itihas) that you quoted earlier for an example about a child and the angel of death.

Now, coming to brahmins, they just considered others to be untouchables.  But not all brahmins considered so.

As you say my brother, I don't want to argue other than what you tell us to look at. Now here you are giving us another dimension of the caste system and that is "untouchables" other than merely keeping the scriptures in their possession and not letting others to handle it. Now if I start probing into this "untouchability", you may again start accusing me of making slander remarks. But my purpose is to understand and understand from a logical point of view rather than mythological point of view. So what is this "untouchability"? How is it a necessary condition under an "exploited" caste system. I mean I do see why and then how the Brahmins (you say few) kept the whole of the other castes away from their own scriptures but what is the point in declaring "untouchability" on the lower castes? Moreover, how they did it to prevail all over the masses and not on just few isloated places. They must had some sort of scriptural support otherwise I just don't know what else could be the means to prevail wholesomely.

Only a few used to think that they were superior(just like muslims now think that theirs the only true religion).  Thats why we say that they are a minority.

Your example to compare the exploiters like Brahmins (let them be few) and the muslims is quite strange. I would leave it to you how you look at this exploitation of Brahmins for the last 3000 yrs as I have no interest to make insult of anyone, however, I do like to respond concerning the views of muslims about their relegion. Yes, we (atleast I) do think that Islam is the true way to recognise Allah. However, it may not be the only way. Quran is replete with verses asking people of the book (both Jews and Christians) to recognise Allah and Allah alone through their own scriptures (doesn't compel them), if they believe in them. However, Quran also tells that since their scriptures have not been left pure, so, they have all the more reason to find Allah through Quran (that is, but encourage them). Similarly, we also know that there were about a tenth of a million of prophets and messangers of Allah came to guide the mankind to the right path of reconginising Allah. What happened to them or their nations, we simply don't know and I don't want to go into the conjectures. So, I can't rule out the possibility of others recognising Allah through their own scriptural teachings. However, given the course of history usually does to these scriptures, this possiblity is quite rare. But again, the possibilty is still there. This may also be the reason, that we do regard very high of great people of all relegions e.g. Buddah and etc. However, since Quran doesn't tell us anything about them, so its futile to make conjectures. Some where in your post you also seem to highlight the question as to why atleast Bhuddha is not mentioned in Quran? Simply because Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad who was in the land of arab. The most immediate audiences for the Quran were the arabs, therefore logically speaking, most of the examples in the Quran are of those who these audiences well knew off about. You ask for Budha only, but as I said, there were almost a tenth of a million of them who came to this earth and only few (not more than 30-40) are mentioned in Quran.

But they didn't force their feeling on others.  They didn't kill a single soul. They didn't use their scriptures to 'exploit' them.  Its just a feeling. So as you can see, its a moral thing than a legal.

How do you say this? The history of caste system (untouchability) as per your own statement is as old as around 3000 years. Why would you make such a sweeping statement despite you very well know the ups and downs of the history and especially once you also know that it wasn't an isolated phenomena but a very well spread all over the area. Now if the situation is changing, though it is encouraging, but you can't change the past history.  

Though I feel untouchability is a sin, I can't go on against them.  What we can do is appeal to them.

Yes, you can appeal to them only if you have any evidence against their practices through your scriptures. However, if they had muddled with these scriptures, as you also seem to suggest that caste system is in the scriptures, then you would really have a hard time convining them merely on the basis of these scriptures. What's happening now in India, I don't think is because of this realization of their past errors but because of the other social forces. It is in this regard that I always request to look beyond these ideas that have been developed in the later generations to subjugate the others. Your concept of Brahman is beautiful, and I think that is sufficient for us to recognise that monotheism used to be the prime doctrine of hinduism. However, I have yet to understand if that doctrine still prevalant or is considered far beyond human understanding and other gods have been called in to undestand Brahman.

Most of the Muslims(even Indian Muslims) consider Hindus "Kafi**".  Its your feeling.  We can't change it.  Should we ask all of them to apologize?

Brother, though theoretical considerations (by non hindus) is very different than physically abusing them (by higher castes of hinduism), yet I think everyone (who it may be) should apologize for their wrong doings to other human beings. All human beings are equal whatever their caste, creed or colour maybe. Also, all humans are superior to all the creations of Allah, therefore none is worthy of human worship except Allah and Allah alone.

There had been many Kings and their fellow brahmins who asked them to discard such a feeling as it was not a good idea.

Idea? not a good idea? Who proposed it was an idea? It was right in your own scripture. You confessed that, however, with modification that it was exploited. I, on the other hand, even challanged that very concept of caste system based on your logic of admissiablity in hindu scriptures. But alas, I didn't get any response on it. Nevertheless, I still feel, any idea (I repeat any idea) of a caste system in your scriptures is a valid proof of adulteration in your scriptures especially given that the same very scriptures carry such a beatuiful philosophy about Brahman.

But everyone I encounter ask the same question about caste system.

Brother, is it a point to laugh at or a point to think about? I may forego discussing exploitation of caste system, but how would you justify the very existance of any caste system that you also agree that it does exist but not valid for now a days.

Well, if you want to call it a polytheistic religion, so be it.

I just don't want to call it any thing. However can't resist when you yourself say "gods" and not just "God". 

And concept of Brahma is a complete different one.  The concept of Brahma does not come immediately after we study the concept of Brahman.  It is, sometimes, not considered at all.

Well, here I thought you would rather provide some detailed explanation or philosophy about Brahma. Alas, I have yet to wait (maybe forever) for your response. 

It needs a thorough understanding of Brahman, to understand Brahma.

Can we move on from here or just seems to be stuck here.

What hierarchy do you mean?  I numbered them as points, not as a hierarchy.

Cool down, man! It is the hierarchy that I could understand uptill now from your postings. You said Brahman is infinite, and I agreed to it. Then you say hindus worship Brahma and other similar gods. Then you said that Brahmin were the people who were asked to be the custodian of the holy scriptures. Its only they who know what is written in them and the proof you presented that 90% of population is ignorant of their true beliefs. Therefore whatever Brahmin tells them they have to believe it, whatever it may be. Hence they all believed to Brahma because of Brahmin and not to the Brahman as they should have.

Oh my God!  Hope you are not a scientist.  Meaningless assumptions give rise to meaningless conclusions.

Probably it was too hard on you. Nevertheless, I never claimed to be scientist and not even closer to it. However, I think I have provided the meanings to what you presented uptill now (you say meaningless assumptions) and provided one possible conclusions (you say meaningless conclusions). Can you provide other meanings and other possible conclusions so that I can understand better other than you keep repeating the same arguments again and again?

The hypothesis are being made by you my dear.   There was no 'exploitation'  the way you think.

Again, it were you who provided the word "exploitation" so why are you blaming me to logically connect them all togather in one fabric of common understanding. However, I am still open to listen and understand anyother way this exploitation could be looked at.

No, not again. Not even a single word has been changed in the Vedas etc.  They are as much intact as Quran is.

Even, despite the fact that 90% of vedas have been lost? and despite your own acknowledgement that Brahmin exploited the caste system and didn't let others (you say from lower castes) come near to it, and it were their generation to generation transmission of this knowledge to their own children? Yet you think such a system for the preservation of scriptures is error free? Where is your logical mind? Where is your analytical reasoning in this case? You simply base it because of your faith. Is that enough? I don't think so.

It is easy to explain when the situation is compared with Quran. In the other post titled "Need translations..." you pointed out that they were politically motivated translations.  Similarly, some of the verses in the Vedas were translated by someone who doesn't know how to translate them.

I do see the Brahmin's exploitation parallel with the misinterpretation of Quran, however, this is not the issue under discussion. How could you compare two different things? You got to compare oranges with oranges and apples with apples. There is no question about the authenticity of Quran in any of its misinterpretations by different people. Not even in Shias, sunnis, or any other sect. Everyone believes it is the true word of God revealed to Prophet Mohammad. However, the differences come in various interpretations depending upon an individual's motive. I don't want to go into defining those motives, however, suffice is to say everyone out of them agree that Quran is the revealed word of Allah through Prophet Mohammad. Whereas your own website states in its own statement that most of the Vedas literature have been lost. Then they also provide an estimate of this loss to be around 90%. It is this comparison that is significantly visible. Kindly do note that I am not being sarcastic about your scripture, but only to state the facts from your own source. Had this fact known from my source or any other non-hindu source, your possible argument of baisness in this fact would have been difficult to ignore. But its not; the evidence is from no one else but your own source. How can you challange it?

If Quran is translated correctly and it is true that Quran preaches 'equality' then why are women not given equal rights?

I think you have already been responded on it by no one else but a woman in Islam.

Why are there so many divisions like Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis etc.?

I have already provided the relpy that it is different interpretations and different sources. Yet everyone acknowledges it to be true word of Allah sent to us through Prophet Mohammad.

Why were Bangladeshis not considered true muslims?

Brother, what are you talking about? I think we need more discussion about Islam than Hinduism as I see you grossly wrong in your impression about Islam. I don't blame you because of general condition of Muslims at this time, but fact remain, for academic purposes, we don't quote examples from the people but from their scriptures and doctrines. Yet I never heard that people of Bangladesh are not considered muslims. If your allusion is towards seperation of east and west Pakistan, then it must be noted that the conflict between the two was highly political. People of the east Pakistan felt being deprived of their rights (personally I also don't oppose to their claim) so they struggled for their independance. I also don't want to go into the role that India played to add fuel to the fire, but fact remains that the whole issue was totally political and nothing at all to do with Islam.

(these are only few, there are many more to point) When I point such things, you people say that my mindset is a Kafi*** mindset.LOL

Did I say that? And why should I say such things to you to whom I now know is not very knowledgable about Islam. All you know about Islam is through your observations how muslim behave. Yes it is this behaviour that I blame all muslims (including myself) that we don't live up to the expectations of Quran. But that doesn't mean that Quran is not authentic, its a totally a different issue. Hope one may not try to confuse between the two.