Hindu Cricket player calls Muslims murderers on Social Media while Pakistani cricket players are busy posting condolences after Odisha train accident

[Predd]

Yash Dayal points finger at hackers for controversial post

Gujarat Titans pacer Yash Dayal claims Instagram account hacked after controversial post goes viral

www.rediff.com

Now he claimed his account was "hacked".

 

[Joe Shearer]

In what universe is calling another religion false considered disrespectful? By your logic, having a disagreement with someone is considered disrespectful.

I regret to say that he has a point. It is possible as a Hindu not to consider Islam false, or Christianity false, and to accept that those are paths to God and to salvation that may differ from any of the Hindu ways and still be valid. Without claiming that it is binding on all, Swami Vivekananda's guru, Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, was credited with saying, "যত মত তত পথ ", meaning, "As many ways as there are individual opinions". There were other teachers who held similarly.

In this universe, therefore, another religion need not be called false. I say this without intending to gibe. By this logic, disagreeing with the way someone else worships is indeed to be considered disrespectful.

Strange, perhaps, but there it is.

That is why you might many Hindus to be hideously uncomfortable with these Sangh Parivar types and their special brand of Hinduism, political Hinduism, called Hindutva.

Just shows that no matter how high status one might be, some might still fall prey to hatred or propaganda. I wonder how much Indian cricketers might be closet communalists.

That is a mean thing to wonder.

Just shows that no matter how high status one might be, some might still fall prey to hatred or propaganda. I wonder how much Indian cricketers might be closet communalists.

Also, a cricketer playing the IPL is not particularly high status. If anything, they represent a triumph of talent over circumstances of birth and social standing.

Yash Dayal points finger at hackers for controversial post

Gujarat Titans pacer Yash Dayal claims Instagram account hacked after controversial post goes viral

www.rediff.com

Now he claimed his account was "hacked".

A creep will be a creep, no matter what the place or the circumstances.

I deeply disagree with this character @Suriya, but would be less than honest if I did not admit that he was partially right in pointing to a higher than normal distaste for inter-relationship with others among Vaishnavs, and entirely right in saying that (certain authorities within) Hinduism had pronounced other methods of worship and faith systems to be valid.

 

[kingQamaR]

What do you expect from some disgusting Indians no respect no clue. It never ceases to amaze me how the Indians , who claim to be so compassionate, always display such hate against anyone who isn't one of them. I think Pakistan cricketers teams should concentrate on playing cricket instead of virtue signalling .hope you Pakistanis learn from this embarrassment!!!

 

[_NOBODY_]

I regret to say that he has a point. It is possible as a Hindu not to consider Islam false, or Christianity false, and to accept that those are paths to God and to salvation that may differ from any of the Hindu ways and still be valid. Without claiming that it is binding on all, Swami Vivekananda's guru, Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, was credited with saying, "যত মত তত পথ ", meaning, "As many ways as there are individual opinions". There were other teachers who held similarly.

In this universe, therefore, another religion need not be called false. I say this without intending to gibe. By this logic, disagreeing with the way someone else worships is indeed to be considered disrespectful.

Strange, perhaps, but there it is.

That is why you might many Hindus to be hideously uncomfortable with these Sangh Parivar types and their special brand of Hinduism, political Hinduism, called Hindutva.

If you accept all the paths to salvation that fundamentally contradict each other, then you stand for nothing. I have immense respect for a person who may have completely different views from me as long as he/she firmly believes in them and stands for them.

 

[xeuss]

I regret to say that he has a point. It is possible as a Hindu not to consider Islam false, or Christianity false, and to accept that those are paths to God and to salvation that may differ from any of the Hindu ways and still be valid. Without claiming that it is binding on all, Swami Vivekananda's guru, Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, was credited with saying, "যত মত তত পথ ", meaning, "As many ways as there are individual opinions". There were other teachers who held similarly.

In this universe, therefore, another religion need not be called false. I say this without intending to gibe. By this logic, disagreeing with the way someone else worships is indeed to be considered disrespectful.

Don't you find it paradoxical when you say that the Hindu will not consider Islam or Christianity false, but the same Hindu objects to the beliefs of a monotheistic religion, at the core of which, is one path to salvation?

So what is it then? Either you agree with the vile Suriya's brand of Hinduism or disagree with it entirely. You can't choose both.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If you accept all the paths to salvation that fundamentally contradict each other, then you stand for nothing. I have immense respect for a person who may have completely different views from me as long as he/she firmly believes in them and stands for them.

The point is not to judge what is contradictory and what is consistent. Those are matters beyond our judgement. Therefore the injunction that we should not sit in judgement but accept each at their own evaluation.

We stand for what we believe, and we do not stand for determining what is contradictory and what is not. That is left to those who are so advanced in theology that they can judge.

same Hindu objects to the beliefs of a monotheistic religion, at the core of which, is one path to salvation?

They do not. That is where that apparent contradiction breaks down.

Agreeing with a vile person who happens to say what is genuine is not a crime. Nor a mortal sin. Further, his self-contradiction is no concern of mine, as long as I am consistent.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Don't you find it paradoxical when you say that the Hindu will not consider Islam or Christianity false, but the same Hindu objects to the beliefs of a monotheistic religion, at the core of which, is one path to salvation?

So what is it then? Either you agree with the vile Suriya's brand of Hinduism or disagree with it entirely. You can't choose both.

One of the fallacies in your reasoning is that you consider Hindu doctrine to be uniform and rigid. It is not. There is no single source of authenticity; there is no equivalent of the Quran Sharif, or for that increasingly suspect body of belief, the Hadith. That is why it is not possible to say, as you have done carelessly, that 'the Hindu' will not consider this, and that 'the same Hindu' objects to the beliefs of what he will not consider.

The answer is very simple.

The moment a Hindu says that he will not decide for you, that he will decide for himself, he abdicates from any position from which he can judge a monotheistic religion, with a core one path to salvation. He is saying that he does not know about your beliefs, and is willing to let you hold them.

Two further things: Muslims usually make the very careless mistake of thinking that Islam has been judged with regard to doctrine. I may be wrong and some chuckle-head somewhere may have rushed in to put his or her own narrow-minded view into the public eye, but generally, as a rule, there has never been any criticism of either Islam's doctrine, or the path to salvation prescribed.

What has been criticised, bitterly, has been the extra-territorial nature of Islam in South Asia. Among other side-effects - SIDE EFFECTS - are the reactions of the pious Muslim against intermediation, where dargahs, and tombs of Sufi scholars and wise men, are sought to be declared anathema, and the doctrinal terms that ban all this intermediation are held out.

What has also been criticised is social practice, the practice of cow-slaughter, and the insistence on a personal law that is adjudicated by authorities not within South Asia but resident outside.

The second thing, almost laughable, except that in these things, laughter is invariably misunderstood and misinterpreted as mockery, even when it is amusement at gross errors in understanding, is the Islamic ignorance of Hindu doctrine that suggests monotheism, without making a fetish of it. Tauheed does not govern Hindu practice or belief, but it is well understood and accepted in the work of theologians who do not seek to preach to the common man what he (or she) is to do and to think.

 

[_NOBODY_]

The point is not to judge what is contradictory and what is consistent. Those are matters beyond our judgement. Therefore the injunction that we should not sit in judgement but accept each at their own evaluation.

We stand for what we believe, and we do not stand for determining what is contradictory and what is not. That is left to those who are so advanced in theology that they can judge.

For you that may be the case but for me it is extremely important to judge and figure out of which path to salvation is correct. How can you not judge this when the entire purpose of your life is at stake? When these different paths to salvation themselves reject each other then how can you declare all of them to be acceptable paths to salvation? This kind of belief can only be held by a polytheist, a monotheist can never accept all paths to salvation to be acceptable, especially not when they fundamentally contradict each other.

Clergy is a very anti-Islamic concept; although, it won't appear to you that way as many Muslim countries do have a clergy. In Islam, the connection between man and God is direct, there's no medium through which one has to go through. Contrary to mullah propaganda, a muslim should study the religion himself/herself in order to understand it. One can seek guidance from scholars but one also has every right to reject it if one doesn't agree with it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

For you that may be the case but for me it is extremely important to judge and figure out of which path to salvation is correct. How can you not judge this when the entire purpose of your life is at stake? When these different paths to salvation themselves reject each other then how can you declare all of them to be acceptable paths to salvation? This kind of belief can only be held by a polytheist, a monotheist can never accept all paths to salvation to be acceptable, especially not the ones that fundamentally contradict each other.

That is entirely up to you, and may well be as important to you as you have stated. The point - made repeatedly, ignored repeatedly - is that for a Hindu, your position on this is of no consequence. You are perfectly free to hold this view, and nobody among Hindus will object to it. If you wish to tell us that according to your reasoning and according to your faith, we will bake in hellfire, so be it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Clergy is a very anti-Islamic concept; although, it won't appear to you that way as many Muslim countries do have a clergy. In Islam, the connection between man and God is direct, there's no medium through which one has to go through. Contrary to mullah propaganda, a muslim should study the religion himself/herself in order to understand it. One can seek guidance from scholars but one also has every right to reject it if one doesn't agree with it.

That is well understood, that a Muslim accepts no intermediation. It arose and was emphasised to us during a period of strong resistance by Muslims of a particular persuasion to obstruct prayers to a holy man at his tomb, when it was stated unequivocally that in Islam, prayers to the Almighty through an intermediary were considered improper.

The problem is that we did not consult those of that persuasion before offering prayers to a Muslim holy man at his tomb. We followed other Muslims and did so. The obvious fallacy in the position of those who proclaim that there is one path and only one, and that they follow it, is quite clear. Again, it does not bother a Hindu. Please feel free to despise another Muslim for following a practice of which you disapprove, as that does not compel Hindus to similarly despise those same people. We choose to follow their lead, and fail to understand why that should be of concern to anyone but ourselves and to those whose lead we follow.

It seems to be unclear to some people that Hindus are not particularly impressed by the strong views and unshakeable conviction that some others have in their chosen path to salvation. We really are happy to let you do whatever you want, and believe whatever you want, and shall continue to think and to believe and to worship as we want. Good luck to you, and please feel comfortable in our sustained willingness to let you clasp your beliefs close to yourself.

 

[_NOBODY_]

That is entirely up to you, and may well be as important to you as you have stated. The point - made repeatedly, ignored repeatedly - is that for a Hindu, your position on this is of no consequence. You are perfectly free to hold this view, and nobody among Hindus will object to it. If you wish to tell us that according to your reasoning and according to your faith, we will bake in hellfire, so be it.

Of course, both of us are free to believe whatever we want. My issue is only with the sanctimony being displayed by Suriya for believing that all paths lead to salvation, including the ones that fundamentally contract each other. The idea of having conviction being considered inhumane is laughable.

 

[Gaomayaslayer]

One of the fallacies in your reasoning is that you consider Hindu doctrine to be uniform and rigid. It is not. There is no single source of authenticity; there is no equivalent of the Quran Sharif, or for that increasingly suspect body of belief, the Hadith. That is why it is not possible to say, as you have done carelessly, that 'the Hindu' will not consider this, and that 'the same Hindu' objects to the beliefs of what he will not consider.

The answer is very simple.

The moment a Hindu says that he will not decide for you, that he will decide for himself, he abdicates from any position from which he can judge a monotheistic religion, with a core one path to salvation. He is saying that he does not know about your beliefs, and is willing to let you hold them.

Two further things: Muslims usually make the very careless mistake of thinking that Islam has been judged with regard to doctrine. I may be wrong and some chuckle-head somewhere may have rushed in to put his or her own narrow-minded view into the public eye, but generally, as a rule, there has never been any criticism of either Islam's doctrine, or the path to salvation prescribed.

What has been criticised, bitterly, has been the extra-territorial nature of Islam in South Asia. Among other side-effects - SIDE EFFECTS - are the reactions of the pious Muslim against intermediation, where dargahs, and tombs of Sufi scholars and wise men, are sought to be declared anathema, and the doctrinal terms that ban all this intermediation are held out.

What has also been criticised is social practice, the practice of cow-slaughter, and the insistence on a personal law that is adjudicated by authorities not within South Asia but resident outside.

The second thing, almost laughable, except that in these things, laughter is invariably misunderstood and misinterpreted as mockery, even when it is amusement at gross errors in understanding, is the Islamic ignorance of Hindu doctrine that suggests monotheism, without making a fetish of it. Tauheed does not govern Hindu practice or belief, but it is well understood and accepted in the work of theologians who do not seek to preach to the common man what he (or she) is to do and to think.

Stay triggered "secular" Hindu. I love eating your gau mata. I'm so glad my grandfather volunteered to kick Hindus out of our areas. Imagine if there was no Pakistan. Our beautiful potahar region would have been over run by Hindus trying to destroy our way of life and telling us we can't eat cow.

 

[Joe Shearer]

My issue is only with the sanctimony being displayed by Suriya for believing that all paths lead to salvation, including the ones that fundamentally contract each other. The idea of having conviction being considered inhumane is laughable.

His sanctimonious behaviour should not lead you to condemn all who believe that all paths are acceptable, and if there are those who believe that such a path leads to salvation, none should forcefully disabuse them.

His putting forth any position that all paths do lead to salvation reflects his personal ignorance, and not any ignorance on the part of the Hindu who believes that all paths are legitimate, and that the question of any or all of them leading to salvation is beyond us to judge or to determine as a tenet of faith.

Stay triggered "secular" Hindu. I love eating your gau mata. I'm so glad my grandfather volunteered to kick Hindus out of our areas. Imagine if there was no Pakistan. Our beautiful potahar region would have been over run by Hindus trying to destroy our way of life and telling us we can't eat cow.

I am glad that your forefathers displayed such breadth of vision and such encompassing compassion for other human beings.

If they had not, your vulgarity and rudeness would have formed the milieu in which Hindus, right-thinking Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, all would have been condemned to live within.

Of course, that beef is freely available except in regions within India where it is specifically banned has nothing to do with your hysteria. It is a way of life that finds expression, and all who read it understand.

 

[Chute]

Keep on the negative ratings Indian. I don't know which idiot gave you that power on a Pakistani forum. Listen you people started the hatred. We don't want anything to do with your kind. Why are you people so obsessed wth us?

Please take it up with @SQ8 and @waz , who will educate you on basic manners as well to a respected elder here.

 

[_NOBODY_]

His sanctimonious behaviour should not lead you to condemn all who believe that all paths are acceptable, and if there are those who believe that such a path leads to salvation, none should forcefully disabuse them.

His putting forth any position that all paths do lead to salvation reflects his personal ignorance, and not any ignorance on the part of the Hindu who believes that all paths are legitimate, and that the question of any or all of them leading to salvation is beyond us to judge or to determine as a tenet of faith.


I am glad that your forefathers displayed such breadth of vision and such encompassing compassion for other human beings.

If they had not, your vulgarity and rudeness would have formed the milieu in which Hindus, right-thinking Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, all would have been condemned to live within.

Of course, that beef is freely available except in regions within India where it is specifically banned has nothing to do with your hysteria. It is a way of life that finds expression, and all who read it understand.

Of course, I don't condemn all the followers of this belief, that would be ridiculous. However, with all due respect, I strongly disagree with this belief. Please know that I have nothing but respect for civilized and rational people like you even if I may have strong disagreements with you on various topics. People like you are an asset to this forum.