My community is full of munafiqs. In an ideal world, I would create an Al Qaeda just to deal with munafiqs who call themselves hindu.
The next time I come to Bombay, I will knock to be your guest. Deal?
I asked a question and mentioned some big reasons. Do you have other reasons to add, feel free to do that.
Diversionary tactics to deflect from actions of muslims, and to gaslight hindus.
I have King James Bible, which I still keep on the highest shelf on my book shelf, along with Quraan, and make sure that I don't let dust settle on it. Because I will feel guilty that I am not respecting someones Holy book, despite using it only for academic reasons.
There is no comparison.
I read DN Jha in 2009 itself. Want to have a debate on his book? I can rip it apart.
Several months ago? Have I been active since several months after I resumed after. a long break?
It was very sensitive, but the people didn't have their voices heard.
As much hindu as Salman Rushdie is a muslim.
Islam has clear doctrines on apostasy.
The munafiq among hindus are the result of the secularism project after independence. It is the post independence which created an army of hinduism hating hindus, who are not even culturally hindus. During mughals and british, hindus still owned their own education. After independence, education was controlled by marxists. Our grandfather generation knew Sanskrit and Urdu (read/write), our generation only knew engineering and medicine. I was quite anti hindu myself. Like putting my feet near an idol which people worshipped, to tie my shoes. I was brought up on marxist literature, because I was hungry for books, and the marxist books were distributed for free.
If you are not here to defend someone else then why do you jump in the debate to rescue others or comment at their behalf.
For the nth time. You have asked the same question many time before. You do not have to accept caste system to become a Hindu.
What will happen to apostates? Just wanted to hear it from a Muslim.
Will increase your spiritual portfolio. More colors, more festivals, less judgement, more deities to choose from. Islam is bit bland because it was born in the desert. You can have the best of both worlds. The discipline of Islam and the freedom of Hinduism.
justifying their anti-abrahamic stance.
Come back to your roots. You don't have to be a practicing Hindu. Be a casual hindu. Heck, be a anti hindu hindu like some others here and taunt hindus with beef, but just convert.
RSS at the fundamental level are against anyone who is affecting the demography. Demography is destiny, a proven but forgotten truth. Many people have not learnt it from history. Even those anti hindu hindus who can mock other hindus with beef, can only do it because of this demography. The moment it is about to change, it will not make any difference whether you are a kattar hindu or an anti hindu hindu.
They are excommunicated.
Says who?
Come on, you are being disingenuous on purpose. The poster was inviting me to have beef. You also know what he was trying to do. I did not bother, but other posters saw that he was trying to attack my faith.
Caste is not a requirement of hindus. I don't keep a caste surname myself.
Oh the hypocrite at his best.
Can you prove it?
At least try, no credit card required. Cancel it when you don't want to continue. No punishment for apostasy.This is more intriguing, I can see genuine hindu depth to this calling. But consider my British disposition where the garish colours and noise of Bollywood trash has me running for cover. Could I really stomach a hundred festivals and dance parties a year?
Same goes for the advice from @Varun with regard to alcohol. Where is the pleasure in something that is on tap all day every day in front and behind? There is a reason we crave the forbidden fruit remember?
You said that ban on cow slaughter is anti muslim. But it applies to all religions, including hindus. And muslims have no religious requirement for beef. Then how is ban on cow slaughter anti muslim?
Same goes for the advice from @Varun with regard to alcohol. Where is the pleasure in something that is on tap all day every day in front and behind? There is a reason we crave the forbidden fruit remember?
Multiple verses in Vedas and Mahabharat.
Show me any verse from Quraan which says that cow slaughter is a religious requirement of the muslims.Why do you and your kind have problem with Muslims expressing their faith then? You asking for evidence but when someone brings up cows the inner navy comes out screaming and whining.
Ohh the double standards here!
Prove it to us that cows are scared to Hindus.
This secular state also prohibits its people from drawing cartoons of islamic holy figures. Will you apply the same logic, that why should others live by your beliefs?
Says tons of Hindus who have no caste. They just identify of caste. Ever heard of Arya Samaj?
Atharva Veda, YajurVeda, Mahabharata, Manusmriti. Bhagwat Purana.
You are asking tough questions.
Actually govt also doesn't want to know everyones caste. They are happy to put every caste in general category as long as it is not SC and OBC.
Problem is that he comes when it is my time to sleep ( I sleep early and wake up by 4:30 am). Mostly he avoids answering me. Sometimes very rarely he feels confident and replies but again stops answering.
The hymn 8.3. 25 of the Hindu scripture Atharvaveda (~1200–1500 BCE) condemns all killings of men, cattle, and horses, and prays to god Agni to punish those who kill. Prithu chasing Prithvi, who is in the form of a cow. Prithu milked the cow to generate crops for humans.
Are you sure? Mr Atheist expert in different religions
Multiple verses in Vedas, Bhagwat Purana and Mahabharata. Plus Lord Krishna, protector of cows.
Lets see... Below is from Manu Smriti 5.40. We don't believe in Manu Smriti. But still below is the explanation. No mention of cow. But nice try though.
www.wisdomlib.org
For the first time I feel lucky that you are an atheist plz explain this. As you always rely on logic what is your opinion on calves sacrifice here as compared to other 'beasts and goats sacrifice'
LOL. Manusmriti explicitly forbids cow consumption (4.162), and 5:40 does not allow it, it only makes generic statement, doesn't say anything about the cow.
4.162 explicitly mentions cows.
@CricketCartoons check this and Manusmriti ch 5 verse 40 too as follow:Lets see... Below is from Manu Smriti 5.40. We don't believe in Manu Smriti. But still below is the explanation. No mention of cow. But nice try though.
ओषध्यः पशवो वृक्षास्तिर्यञ्चः पक्षिणस्तथा ।
यज्ञार्थं निधनं प्राप्ताः प्राप्नुवन्त्युत्सृतीः पुनः ॥ ४० ॥
oṣadhyaḥ paśavo vṛkṣāstiryañcaḥ pakṣiṇastathā |
yajñārthaṃ nidhanaṃ prāptāḥ prāpnuvantyutsṛtīḥ punaḥ || 40 ||
Herbs, animals, trees, beasts and birds, reaching death for the sake of sacrifices, attain advancements.—(40)
Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
“How is it known that killing at sacrifices involves no sin?”
The answer is as follows:—‘killing’ is the greatest injury that can befall the being killed; because it involves such great evil as the loss of life, involving separation from wife, children and riches, and all the attendant evil consequences; and also because it carries the entities nearer to the fruition of their sins in the form of hell and the like. But when an animal is killed at a sacrifice, this killing becomes a great benefit conferred upon it, and it is not an injury; because it does not lead it to hell nr any such undesirable conditions. That this is so follows from the fact that those ‘reaching death’— destruction—at a sacrifice —‘attain advancements’—higher positions, in regard to caste and so forth;—being born as a God or a Gandharva, or as men born in better countries or continents—such as the Uttarakuru and the like.
The whole of this is a purely commendatory description. We do not find here any Injunction: the verb ‘attain’ being in the simple Present tense. Nor is there any justification for deducing an Injunction from the commendatory description,—as is done in the case of the passage ‘Pratitiṣṭhanti etc.’ (v ide, Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra, 4.3.17. et seq); because in the present case neither there is, nor is there any possibility of, any other Injunction (apart from those already set forth in the text).
The whole of this descriptive section is supplementary to the prohibition of the eating of unlawful meat; and the upshot of the prohibition contained in these verses is that ‘one should never seek to kill animals needlessly.’ (verse 37) As for the sanction (of killing) implied in the statement—‘animals have been created for the purpose of sacrifices’ (39),—all this is understood as involving the prohibition of eating which is going to be distinctly emphasised below in verse 48.
Nor can any Injunction (such as ‘desiring advancement, the animal shall die at a sacrifice’) be deduced from the text. Because such an Injunction could not be intended for the animals; for the simple reason that they would not understand it. And those for whom the Injunction is not intended cannot be the agent; and unless one is an agent, he cannot obtain any reward declared in the scriptures. Specially as in the present case, the result spoken of does not proceed in any perceptible manner from the nature of the thing involved; as there is, for instance, in the case of the poison, which produces its results even on ignorant persons who take it. There is no such thing in the case of things spoken of in the Veda.
Further, since the herbs and other things spoken of here ore unconscious beings, the ‘principle of the priests’ cannot apply to their case. That is to say, it is found that in the case of sacrificial performances, results are spoken of as accruing to one person (the sacrificer) from the acts that are actually done by others,—i. e., the priests officiating for him; e.g., in the case of the passage—‘he desires one to become worse etc,’ In the case of such passages we admit of an Injunction, because what is there stated is not capable of being taken as supplementary to any other Injunction, and secondly because the indication of the Injunction, is quite clear, and lastly, because the Injunction indicated is found to be one that pertains to human beings.
In the case of all scriptural statements, we are entitled to deduce just as much us may be reasonably deduced from the actual words of the text. For instance, it has been declared that the Brāhmaṇa joining in the sacrificial bath of other people should have to perform an expiatory rite [and we have to accent this, even though we fail to see any reason for it]. In the present case, however, there is no possibility of any Injunction being addressed to the beings concerned (all of which are inanimate).
‘Herbs,’—grass and the like.
‘Animate,’—the goat and other beasts (which are mentioned as fit for being offered at sacrifices).
‘Trees,’—such as are objects of worship.
‘Beasts,’—those which, though not ordinarily regarded as fit for sacrificing, happen to be mentioned, in some passages, as to be offered; e.g., ‘one shall kill partridges.’ Though at the Vājapeya and similar sacrifices, the calves are used only for the purpose of carrying loads, yet they are called ‘beasts;’ and even though these do not suffer actual death, yet the term ‘death’ in their case stands for all the sufferings that they undergo.
‘Bird.”—the Kapiñjala and the rest; even though these are sometimes spoken of as ‘animals’, yet, as a rule, they are not known by that name: for in such passages as there are seven tame animals and seven wild animals’, the animals meant are the cow and the rest, which are not birds; in fact the term ‘paśu’, ‘animals, denotes quadrupods; or the difference between ‘animals’ and ‘birds’ may be regarded as similar to that between the ‘go’ and the‘balvarda’ (the former term being wider than the latter) (40).
Manusmriti Verse 5.40
Verse 40: Herbs, animals, trees, beasts and birds, reaching death for the sake of sacrifices, attain advancements.
www.hinduismfacts.org
first of all no one cares about Manu smriti. It is a terrible book. It is not an authority for Hindus. No one refers to Manu Smriti when questioned on Hinduism. It is either Vedas or Geeta.@CricketCartoons check this and Manusmriti ch 5 verse 40 too as follow:
===
40. Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences.
Manusmriti Chapter 5, the laws of Manu, English Translation
This is English Translation of Manusmriti Chapter 5 by George Buhler. It contains 169 verses. Manusmriti is a law book written by Manu.
Well you provided this yourself @Champ_Pal , now plz explain that calves mean cow's young ones or someone's else?Lets see... Below is from Manu Smriti 5.40. We don't believe in Manu Smriti. But still below is the explanation. No mention of cow. But nice try though.
ओषध्यः पशवो वृक्षास्तिर्यञ्चः पक्षिणस्तथा ।
यज्ञार्थं निधनं प्राप्ताः प्राप्नुवन्त्युत्सृतीः पुनः ॥ ४० ॥
oṣadhyaḥ paśavo vṛkṣāstiryañcaḥ pakṣiṇastathā |
yajñārthaṃ nidhanaṃ prāptāḥ prāpnuvantyutsṛtīḥ punaḥ || 40 ||
Herbs, animals, trees, beasts and birds, reaching death for the sake of sacrifices, attain advancements.—(40)
Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
“How is it known that killing at sacrifices involves no sin?”
The answer is as follows:—‘killing’ is the greatest injury that can befall the being killed; because it involves such great evil as the loss of life, involving separation from wife, children and riches, and all the attendant evil consequences; and also because it carries the entities nearer to the fruition of their sins in the form of hell and the like. But when an animal is killed at a sacrifice, this killing becomes a great benefit conferred upon it, and it is not an injury; because it does not lead it to hell nr any such undesirable conditions. That this is so follows from the fact that those ‘reaching death’— destruction—at a sacrifice —‘attain advancements’—higher positions, in regard to caste and so forth;—being born as a God or a Gandharva, or as men born in better countries or continents—such as the Uttarakuru and the like.
The whole of this is a purely commendatory description. We do not find here any Injunction: the verb ‘attain’ being in the simple Present tense. Nor is there any justification for deducing an Injunction from the commendatory description,—as is done in the case of the passage ‘Pratitiṣṭhanti etc.’ (v ide, Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra, 4.3.17. et seq); because in the present case neither there is, nor is there any possibility of, any other Injunction (apart from those already set forth in the text).
The whole of this descriptive section is supplementary to the prohibition of the eating of unlawful meat; and the upshot of the prohibition contained in these verses is that ‘one should never seek to kill animals needlessly.’ (verse 37) As for the sanction (of killing) implied in the statement—‘animals have been created for the purpose of sacrifices’ (39),—all this is understood as involving the prohibition of eating which is going to be distinctly emphasised below in verse 48.
Nor can any Injunction (such as ‘desiring advancement, the animal shall die at a sacrifice’) be deduced from the text. Because such an Injunction could not be intended for the animals; for the simple reason that they would not understand it. And those for whom the Injunction is not intended cannot be the agent; and unless one is an agent, he cannot obtain any reward declared in the scriptures. Specially as in the present case, the result spoken of does not proceed in any perceptible manner from the nature of the thing involved; as there is, for instance, in the case of the poison, which produces its results even on ignorant persons who take it. There is no such thing in the case of things spoken of in the Veda.
Further, since the herbs and other things spoken of here ore unconscious beings, the ‘principle of the priests’ cannot apply to their case. That is to say, it is found that in the case of sacrificial performances, results are spoken of as accruing to one person (the sacrificer) from the acts that are actually done by others,—i. e., the priests officiating for him; e.g., in the case of the passage—‘he desires one to become worse etc,’ In the case of such passages we admit of an Injunction, because what is there stated is not capable of being taken as supplementary to any other Injunction, and secondly because the indication of the Injunction, is quite clear, and lastly, because the Injunction indicated is found to be one that pertains to human beings.
In the case of all scriptural statements, we are entitled to deduce just as much us may be reasonably deduced from the actual words of the text. For instance, it has been declared that the Brāhmaṇa joining in the sacrificial bath of other people should have to perform an expiatory rite [and we have to accent this, even though we fail to see any reason for it]. In the present case, however, there is no possibility of any Injunction being addressed to the beings concerned (all of which are inanimate).
‘Herbs,’—grass and the like.
‘Animate,’—the goat and other beasts (which are mentioned as fit for being offered at sacrifices).
‘Trees,’—such as are objects of worship.
‘Beasts,’—those which, though not ordinarily regarded as fit for sacrificing, happen to be mentioned, in some passages, as to be offered; e.g., ‘one shall kill partridges.’ Though at the Vājapeya and similar sacrifices, the calves are used only for the purpose of carrying loads, yet they are called ‘beasts;’ and even though these do not suffer actual death, yet the term ‘death’ in their case stands for all the sufferings that they undergo.
‘Bird.”—the Kapiñjala and the rest; even though these are sometimes spoken of as ‘animals’, yet, as a rule, they are not known by that name: for in such passages as there are seven tame animals and seven wild animals’, the animals meant are the cow and the rest, which are not birds; in fact the term ‘paśu’, ‘animals, denotes quadrupods; or the difference between ‘animals’ and ‘birds’ may be regarded as similar to that between the ‘go’ and the‘balvarda’ (the former term being wider than the latter) (40).
Manusmriti Verse 5.40
Verse 40: Herbs, animals, trees, beasts and birds, reaching death for the sake of sacrifices, attain advancements.
prove it. like you asked me tio furnish some evidence about Islamic influence on Sikhism. also how you asked me to prove if someone of my claims affect you or others. your claim affects Muslims. whether I am Pakistani or American and not Indian, is immaterial to this debate.
I thought we had agreed that modern Hindus don't put any stock in vedas and upanishads were really the books of guidance for modern Hindus. there is all sorts of referenced to killing men in rig veda and because of that most Hindus don't care for it.
Manu Smeiti is not an authority on Hinduism. It is widely criticized and not accepted by majority of Hindus.
They don’t. No one refers to Vedas to support their faith. Many Hindus don’t even know how many Vedas are there let alone their names. Only scholars refer to it.
Buffaloes have calves.
