Sustaining the myth of hostility

[Kazhugu]

This, form a link provided by one of yours (KS) in another thread:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...zVlfjv&sig=AHIEtbTNLN76eKyVA5fTxk3h8Uecb5QVHQ

There is scarcely any question that Hsuan Tsang arrived in India at a time when Buddhism was entering into a state of precipitous decline, and by the 13th century Buddhism, as a formal religion, had altogether disappeared from India.

Muslim invasions which had the effect of driving into extinction an already debilitated faith.

I like the euphemism that Buddhism was "absorbed" into Hinduism. That's just a fancy way of saying Buddhists were "reconverted" back into Hinduism.

Also, this particular gem is worth noting:

Hindu nationalists appear to think that many Muslim monuments were once Hindu temples, but partisans of Buddhism are inclined to the view that Hindu temples were often built on the site of Buddhist shrines.

This brutal obliteration of Buddhism from the Indian heartland by militant Hinduism is not a "secular" fabrication but an inconvenient (for some) part of history.

A. yes they were assimilated/ got converted whatever....but the manner in which they were assimilated is worth noting...they were not assimilated on the point of sword..it was done by the defeats of the buddhist scholars in theological debates by shankaracharya who reformed hinduism of its ills which made it attractive to the people once more..

B. second one takes the cake....it is clearly written that "partisans of buddhism think" (google for the term ambedkarites) and that becomes the basis of your interpretation which interpolates that "thinking of partisans" as fact......laughable attempt...

can you explain why the universities of nalanda (equivalent of al-azhar in context of buddhism or even more important), vikramshila were destroyed and burnt to ground by the islamic ghazis thus destroying the knowledge center of buddhism...?

 

[Rig Vedic]

This, form a link provided by one of yours (KS) in another thread:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...zVlfjv&sig=AHIEtbTNLN76eKyVA5fTxk3h8Uecb5QVHQ

There is scarcely any question that Hsuan Tsang arrived in India at a time when Buddhism was entering into a state of precipitous decline, and by the 13th century Buddhism, as a formal religion, had altogether disappeared from India.

Muslim invasions which had the effect of driving into extinction an already debilitated faith.

I like the euphemism that Buddhism was "absorbed" into Hinduism. That's just a fancy way of saying Buddhists were "reconverted" back into Hinduism.

Also, this particular gem is worth noting:

Hindu nationalists appear to think that many Muslim monuments were once Hindu temples, but partisans of Buddhism are inclined to the view that Hindu temples were often built on the site of Buddhist shrines.

This brutal obliteration of Buddhism from the Indian heartland by militant Hinduism is not a "secular" fabrication but an inconvenient (for some) part of history.

There was a certain degree of re-absorption, but it happened peacefully, after the Buddhist clergy were not able to justify themselves in debates with Adi Shankaracharya.

But the death blow to Buddhism in India came from the Islamic warriors, who proudly described themselves as "But-Shikan", which means "smasher of Buddha statues".

 

[Rig Vedic]

Here is a good analysis of the libel being spread by the Holocaust deniers - it a Chapter from volume 2 of the book "Hindu Temples - what happened to them" by ARUN SHOURIE, HARSH NARAIN, JAY DUBASHI, RAM SWARUP and SITA RAM GOEL

CHAPTER FIVE - SPREADING THE BIG LIE

The entire book, and many other books, may be accessed at Voice of Dharma

 

[Fireurimagination]

Girish Karad has either gone nuts because of his old age or was hunting for some cheap publicity, Naipaul doesn't hate Muslims he is married to a Muslim and we have his Muslim friends on every news channel defending him, yes he speaks the truth which may be bitter to some pseudo-secularists who want to turn a blind eye to Past, Present and Future

 

[Wickerman]

The civilised, innovative, and technologically advanced West stands out as a vibrant symbol of progress and modernity, whereas the Muslim societies Naipaul encounters, despite their varying experiences and trajectories, are destructive, inert, and resentful of the West

Yes, civilized west bombing muslim countries over lies like "weapons of mass destruction" and then expecting them to be PRO WEST?!

This is just another racist rant, if I may say so.

Yes Muslims did a lot of atrocities when they invaded India in the past, destroyed temples, massacred people, converted people forcefully at the point o fa sword and so on and so forth.

But its time to let go of all that, its been too long, India is different today. Our progress can only happen inclusively, not by alienating a significant part of our population. After all, they are people too. And they are Indians. So to support Hindutva is one thing, which I even do, although I do have a few reservations. But to support MILITANCY? This guy is a nutter.

BTW, am afraid this anti-Islam speech is very dangerous for the world. Think about a 100 years ago, there was anti-Semitic speech, just like this. Hope nothing as bad as what happened in WW2 actually happens. Am sure we wont see it coming and am sure we'd find it extremely difficult to live with all guilt if such atrocities happen. But of course, I am just extrapolating to ridiculous lengths here. Just saying.

 

[Kazhugu]

Yes, civilized west bombing muslim countries over lies like "weapons of mass destruction" and then expecting them to be PRO WEST?!

This is just another racist rant, if I may say so.

mate this is mushirul hasan's take on naipaul and NOT naipaul's own words...i have read both "among the believers" and its sequel....but there is nothing like this there....hasan is just exaggerating things to strike an emotional chord with the readers...

Yes Muslims did a lot of atrocities when they invaded India in the past, destroyed temples, massacred people, converted people forcefully at the point o fa sword and so on and so forth.

But its time to let go of all that, its been too long, India is different today. Our progress can only happen inclusively, not by alienating a significant part of our population. After all, they are people too. And they are Indians. So to support Hindutva is one thing, which I even do, although I do have a few reservations. But to support MILITANCY? This guy is a nutter.
.

do the muslims first want to integrate....? honestly i dont think so..atleast a significant part of them..to most of them their first and foremost loyalty is towards their religion..it demands that from them....especially the ones in south asia.....

and again...it is hasan who extrapolates naipaul's support to hindutva to extremism.....these guys have not risen to the positions they are in without their strength of sophistry....

 

[Rig Vedic]

The following excerpt from Elst's book "Negationism in India" shows how hard it is to have an honest discourse -

A consequence of the negationist orientation of the Indian state's religious policy, is the readiness to ban books critical of Islam at the slightest suggestion by some mullah or Muslim politician. It is symptomatic that India was the first country to ban Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, at the insistence of Syed Shahabuddin, MP (in exchange, with some other concessions, for his calling off a march on Ayodhya). Among other banned books, we may mentioned pamphlet-like but nonetheless truthful books like Colin Maine's "The Dead hand of Islam" or A. Ghosh's "The Koran and the Kafir", which list what the Quran has in store for the unbelievers; but also more prestigious books like R.M. Eaton's "Sufis of Bijapur", which debunks the myth of the Sufis as bringers of a tolerant Islam (in fact they were not only fanatical preachers against idolatry, but also spies and sometimes mercenaries).

In March 1991, Ram Swarup's book "Understanding Islam through Hadis" was banned, after the Hindi version had already been banned in 1990. This happened after two committees set up by the Delhi administration had screened the book and found it unobjectionable, and after the judge had dismissed the plea for prosecution of its publisher, under the pressure of Muslim demonstrations. This book is a faithful summary of the Sahih al-Muslim, one of the two most authoritative Hadis collections (acts of the Prophet). According to the fundamentalist party Jamaat-i Islami the book contained "distortion and slander", and as an example of this slanderous distortion, it mentions this passage: "Mohammed saw Zaynab in half-naked condition, and he fell in love with her". With this revelation, the fundamentalists managed to get some agitation going, and the book was banned.

The interesting thing is that the quoted passage comes straight from the original Hadis, and is not a slanderous distortion at all. The agitation against the book reveals an important fact about the Muslim community: the ordinary Muslim does not know the contents of Quran and Hadis, and projects on Mohammed his own moral ideals, which he largely shares with his non-Muslim fellow-men. Because of his attachment to the mental image of a morally perfect Mohammed, he is shocked when he gets confronted with the historical Mohammed. Among the many historical acts of Mohammed is his arranging the hand-over to himself of Zaynab, the beautiful wife of his sdopted son. The fact that a revelation from Allah came to legitimize the marriage between Mohammed and Zaynab (which was a breach of the tribal incest taboo), became the classic illustration of the view that the Quran is nothing but the self-interested product of Mohammed's own mind.

This ignorance about the historical Mohammed, both among the common Muslims and among the Hindus, is precisely what the banned book wanted to do something about, in keeping with the Indian Constitution's injuction to "develop the scientific temper". But the Nehruvian establishment (which includes the Congress Party and its Janata Dal offshoot) has no liking for free research into the contents of Islamic doctrine and history, and in spite of loud slogans about secularism, the administration gave in to the Muslim fanatics. None of the so-called secularist intelectuals has bothered to protest against this obscurantist act of censorship.

Negationism In India - Concealing The Record Of Islam

 

[Kazhugu]

Rigvedic....i think you might already know....but check out the faith freedom website...there are so many things about islam..which if i say here would get me banned...and they are all from authentic hadiths and quran itself....

muslims ask the non-muslims to read quran, hadiths and understand the message...but if someone actually reads it and tells the true message they get agitated, protest and get that thing banned...

 

[Rig Vedic]

do the muslims first want to integrate....? honestly i dont think so..atleast a significant part of them..to most of them their first and foremost loyalty is towards their religion..it demands that from them....especially the ones in south asia.....

The first step is to be able to speak honestly. It is not that Muslims are inherently antagonistic, but they are victims of dishonesty that prevents them from understanding their history. See my previous post.

 

[Wickerman]

do the muslims first want to integrate....? honestly i dont think so..atleast a significant part of them..to most of them their first and foremost loyalty is towards their religion..it demands that from them....especially the ones in south asia.....

and again...it is hasan who extrapolates naipaul's support to hindutva to extremism.....these guys have not risen to the positions they are in without their strength of sophistry....

Maybe, maybe not. Are we non-Muslims willing to integrate with THEM? If we are not, how do we blame a minority? Its a two way street bro. You cant just expect only one group to do everything to please the other. They shouldnt have to. They turn to religion and most identify themselves as Muslims before they identify as Indians.

But it begs the question. Is it the failure of that particular community? Or is it the failure of India as a state?

 

[Kazhugu]

Girish Karad has either gone nuts because of his old age or was hunting for some cheap publicity, Naipaul doesn't hate Muslims he is married to a Muslim and we have his Muslim friends on every news channel defending him, yes he speaks the truth which may be bitter to some pseudo-secularists who want to turn a blind eye to Past, Present and Future

girish karnad is just looking for some cheap publicity.....actually no one in karnataka takes him seriously...he along with his bosom buddy u.ananth kumar are well known pseudo-secularists there....

 

[Rig Vedic]

But it begs the question. Is it the failure of that particular community? Or is it the failure of India as a state?

It is not the failure of Muslims, it is the failure of India to allow honest and free discourse. We love to empower the most regressive elements in the Muslim community, and encourage a constant state of victim-hood and turmoil.

 

[Kazhugu]

i may appear politically incorrect....but being politically correct and not having a honest debate doesnt serve any purpose...

Maybe, maybe not. Are we non-Muslims willing to integrate with THEM? If we are not, how do we blame a minority? Its a two way street bro. You cant just expect only one group to do everything to please the other. They shouldnt have to. They turn to religion and most identify themselves as Muslims before they identify as Indians.

But it begs the question. Is it the failure of that particular community? Or is it the failure of India as a state?

actually that begs the question why is that its the abrahamics who find it difficult to "integrate" into the dharmic setup in india....i'll tell you..because of the inherent exclusivist tendencies which are the core of their religions/dogma.....because most of their ideals are exactly the opposite of what this civilization stands for....tolerance, skepticism, acceptance of differences, respect to diversity etc....but atleast renaissance helped the christians to shed some of their social ills and become more progressive..(thouh same cannot be said about some christian, the new converts, in india)..but the muslims world over are stuck up in their time warp and many are actually going on a regressive path....

why is that sikhs or buddhists or jains or parsis dont find it difficult to integrate with hindus or vice versa ?

and let me be honest bro....the history between hindus and muslims and how the islamic invaders came here, what they did is not something that can be easily forgotten....i dont know your faith...but personally every time i go to kashi or mathura or ayodhya and when i see those structures standing as living examples of the brutal past I cant help but remember them....

and second thing..after partition in which a huge chunk of land was sliced off and given off to them to assuage their insecurity, its their turn to adapt and try to live with the rest....not the other way around....

 

[Rig Vedic]

actually that begs the question why is that its the abrahamics who find it difficult to "integrate" into the dharmic setup in india....i'll tell you..because of the inherent exclusivist tendencies which are the core of their religions/dogma.....because most of their ideals are exactly the opposite of what this civilization stands for....tolerance, skepticism, acceptance of differences, respect to diversity etc....but atleast renaissance helped the christians to shed some of their social ills and become more progressive..(thouh same cannot be said about some christian, the new converts, in india)..but the muslims world over are stuck up in their time warp and many are actually going on a regressive path....

One should avoid making generalizations about groups, each individual is different and that individuality should be respected.

In the case of Muslims we have seen how there is a systematic effort to stifle debate and keep the common Muslim in ignorance.

 

[Developereo]

- The link already concedes that, by the time Hsuag Tsang came to India, Buddhism was already in "precipitous decline". Prior to that, however, Buddhism was the dominant religion in the subcontinent. The "assimilation" was already underway.

- I am not denying the anecdotes of scholarly debate, but the violent repression of Buddhists is also on record. The "assimilation" was so thorough that there are precious few survivors left to tell the other side of the story.

- No one has ever denied the atrocities committed by the Muslim invaders. Muslims are mature enough to accept the totality of their history, the good and the bad. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of some Hindus who continue to perpetuate the myth of a tolerant history and whitewash the historical record of Hindu excesses.