Churches burnt in India

[Vinod2070]

No offense is being taken. It is an attempt to explore ideas and, as you said, have "dispassionate arguments".

It was not aimed at you, but someone who may feel otherwise.

See, what RR, I and others are trying to suggest is that with the recent revisions of the curriculum, to better reflect our pre-Islamic history, there is an official movement in Pakistan attempting to reverse all those years of neglect. The opponents to this move, the MMA, are projected to be routed in the coming elections, signifying the shift in society. What we are suggesting is that change in attitudes is already occurring, and even if it were not, there are many historians and Pakistanis who do respect their history and the achievements of their ancestors, and just because of such people, Pakistanis have every right to claim the achievements and history of our ancestors.

AM, No issues if you claim that.

Every issue, if someone tries to appropriate that. Same as you feel that India is doing. Though even you agree that it is only because of the confusion in nomenclature.

No Indian claims that it is exclusively our history. In fact its the opposite. Most feel it is the common shared history.

The change is from Pakistani side. First they totally neglect, abandon or do worse with that history. And now the other extreme of trying to exclusively appropriate it.

The middle path of sharing the history which would also be the truthful one is any day fine with us Indians (at least most I would believe).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But you also differentiate them from other religions. Their followers are called "People of the book" and given a separate status. No? They do have sommonalities and no one can deny that.

And "Dharmic" religions are differentiated form others. My point is that the argument that "Buddhism and Hinduism" are "sects" and somehow cannot be differentiated between, is flawed, just like claiming Judaism and Christianity are sects and cannot be differentiated between.

Are they still technically Kaafir though? This is always a bit confusing as many Muslims do refer to them as Kaafir.

Different discussion.

Good to know that. But the destruction was also by local militants and no one came forward to protect them

Do you see people coming up and protecting local Muslims who are being beheaded, threatened and getting their businesses blown up? A majority is being held hostage through the tyranny of a small group of extremists.

 

[Flintlock]

And "Dharmic" religions are differentiated form others. My point is that the argument that "Buddhism and Hinduism" are "sects" and somehow cannot be differentiated between, is flawed, just like claiming Judaism and Christianity are sects and cannot be differentiated between.

Branding them as "sects" doesn't mean that they cannot be differentiated.

 

[dabong1]

Newton did not win a nobel prize.
Secondly, people in the 17th century were deeply religious, because theories such as evolution and relativity had not been propagated at that time.

The term athéisme itself was coined in France in the 16th century, and was initially used as an accusation against scientists, critics of religion, materialistic philosophers, deists, and others who seemed to represent a threat to established beliefs.
The charge was almost invariably denied.
I was just pointing out an eminent scientist from the past that belived in a creator.
If the nobel prize had been around back then Newton would have won it!

Albert Einstein was a Deist. He did not believe in any religious doctorine, but was a skeptic who thought of god as an abstract scientific concept.

Albert Einstein
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

The main point is that Einstein belived in a creator.


50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God

 

[Flintlock]

What do you mean by "Integration".
The same way non muslims "intergrate" in UAE or saudi arabia is the same way muslims "intergrate" in non muslim countries.

By Integration I don't mean the fundamentalism practiced in Saudi Arabia. I mean the kind of integration that makes muslims of India feel that they are part of the local society, not part of an "islamic society" or a "pan-arabic society" or an "ummah"

Like the integration that is seen in Kerala. Keralite muslims are converts by interaction with muslim merchants. They don't consider themselves "superior" or "conquerers" etc.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod - since India didn't exist then either, how about we call it a "sub-continental/South Asian" religion? The use of the words Pakistan is necessary to differentiate which area of "ancient India" events occurred in.

If that helps, pl. do that. As even you may agree, when we talk of "India" before 1947, it does not mean modern India in the present boundaries.

India was the term the whole world used to refer to the whole region.

Any other term would be kind of un-natural I feel. May be more PC though for some.

 

[roadrunner]

Chinese people learned Buddhism from India. Isn't it? Even they don't deny that! Didn't a famous Chinese say thet India dominated China for a thousand years culturally without sending a single soldier?

Chinese people actually learned about Buddhism from Pakistan through the Silk Route. They don't deny that because there's good evidence for it. The central scrolls of Buddhism have been found in Afghanistan, and several places in Northern Pakistan have been important areas for development of Buddhism. The Chinese form of Buddhism originated in Pakistan.

Lets avoid verbal games here. There was never a country called Pakistan before 1947, so this name only creates confusion when discussing Pre-Islamic times!

Give up on this ridiculous, pathetic argument for God's sake. It adds nothing to your credibility that you need to fall back on such a lame piece of weak trash. There was no country called India prior to 1947, but the "Indians" were known to the world as the people of the INDus Valley aka the Pakistanis, nothing to do with India of today.

And wasn't Ashok the greatest promoter of Budhdhism? He was the ruler of Magadha ()Modern day Bihar, quite far from present Pakistan). He sent emissaries up to Srilanka and beyond. No?

Pl. substantiate this accusation of persecution in India and it shifting to Pakistan (whatever that means).

Asoka made Buddhism the state religion, then their followed persecution in the region of today's India (Bharat). This led to Buddhism shifting to Pakistan, which retained a tolerance towards Buddhism as the Gangetic Indians started developing their own radical fundamentalism of any religion other than Hinduism. It's summarized here

"Gandhara, an ancient region of northern Pakistan containing Swat Valley, Peshawar area, and the north Indus Plain, was a heartland of early Buddhist development. According to stories, later in the Buddha's life he came to this part of the subcontinent to teach; including stopping at Taxila and Peshawar. During my trips, I made a point to see the fantastic sites and developed sculptural tradition which remains from this period. While Buddhism has left this area, Gandhara was an important core in the spread of this philosophy."
Takht-i Bahi : Ancient Buddhist Monastery

The persecution of Buddhists in modern India (Bharat) after Asoka is widely accepted.

It still does not take away anything from it's being an Indian religion. Pl. quote a single respected historian who says Budhdhism is not an Indian religion.

"Indian" in this context means Pakistani. Ancient India was Pakistan..the Indus Valley.

These kind of blanket personal opinions can't be taken at face value. You need to substantiate this!

I have.

 

[Flintlock]

The term athéisme itself was coined in France in the 16th century, and was initially used as an accusation against scientists, critics of religion, materialistic philosophers, deists, and others who seemed to represent a threat to established beliefs.
The charge was almost invariably denied.
I was just pointing out an eminent scientist from the past that belived in a creator.
If the nobel prize had been around back then Newton would have won it!

There are several eminent scientists in the past who believed in god. Ramanujan was a devout hindu.

I am talking about modern times, or better, modern societies.

Albert Einstein
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

The main point is that Einstein belived in a creator.

LOL...where did you get this quote from? Kindly give me a reference before I respond to it.

50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God

OH don't quote from bogus propaganda sites. I'm sure that less than half that numbers hold true.

BTW, why did the website have to work so hard to collect scientists who believed in god anyways? Wasn't it obvious to them that they all believed in god? Lol.

 

[dabong1]

By Integration I don't mean the fundamentalism practiced in Saudi Arabia. I mean the kind of integration that makes muslims of India feel that they are part of the local society, not part of an "islamic society" or a "pan-arabic society" or an "ummah".

So the way muslims where part of local gujrati society or christians in india?
Sorry pal.... but the way roman catholics will always look towards the vatican as there spiritual home or the way jews hold israel dear in there hearts no matter where they in the world or even even hindus around the world see india as the spiritual homeland the place the where there most holy temples and history is is the same thing for the muslims.

Like the integration that is seen in Kerala. Keralite muslims are converts by interaction with muslim merchants. They don't consider themselves "superior" or "conquerers" etc.

Only an idiot from the BJP or al qaeda would think he is "superior" to another human being.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If that helps, pl. do that. As even you may agree, when we talk of "India" before 1947, it does not mean modern India in the present boundaries.

India was the term the whole world used to refer to the whole region.

Any other term would be kind of un-natural I feel. May be more PC though for some.

Look at it this way, when most Americans refer to "American History", what is implied is the history of the United States or history associated with the formation of the US. The history of the Native American civilizations is referred to by either the specific name of the civilization, or as "Native American" History. The same kinds of distinctions need to be made in South Asian history.

 

[Vinod2070]

And "Dharmic" religions are differentiated form others. My point is that the argument that "Buddhism and Hinduism" are "sects" and somehow cannot be differentiated between, is flawed, just like claiming Judaism and Christianity are sects and cannot be differentiated between.

Even if we don't go into any similiarities or otherwise, the fact is they are all religions born in India. That is all, I want to claim here. RR claimed that Budhdhism is not Indian, which I don't agree.

Different discussion.

I just wanted to know this as a fact here (kind of official position, if there is such a thing). Sorry, if it came across as otherwise. You may PM me, if you will.

Do you see people coming up and protecting local Muslims who are being beheaded, threatened and getting their businesses blown up? A majority is being held hostage through the tyranny of a small group of extremists.

Agreed.

 

[roadrunner]

Between the 2nd and 7th centuries AD, Hadda was one of the holiest sites in Buddhism drawing pilgrims from all over India and China. The scrolls are the earliest known Buddhist scripts and were produced by monks in the extraordinary civilisation of Gandhara, a synthesis of Indian (EDIT: Vedic..should say Pakistani or Indus Valley here) and Greek culture spread to Asia by the followers of Alexander the Great.

Afghanistan wants its 'Dead Sea Scrolls of Buddhism' back from UK - Independent Online Edition > Asia

Hadda is of course right on the border with Pakistan..the epicentre of Buddhist development.

 

[Flintlock]

So the way muslims where part of local gujrati society or christians in india?
Sorry pal.... but the way roman catholics will always look towards the vatican as there spiritual home or the way jews hold israel dear in there hearts no matter where they in the world or even even hindus around the world see india as the spiritual homeland the place the where there most holy temples and history is is the same thing for the muslims.

Look, again you are getting confused by misinterpreting my statements.

There is a difference between simply having a "spiritual home" and being loyal to that "spiritual home" over and above your own society.

Even the muslims of kerala consider mecca their spiritual home.

But they don't consider their own village an alien place.

Only an idiot from the BJP or al qaeda would think he is "superior" to another human being.

I'm afraid these feelings of superiority are more widespread in society that you realize.

 

[Vinod2070]

Chinese people actually learned about Buddhism from Pakistan through the Silk Route. They don't deny that because there's good evidence for it. The central scrolls of Buddhism have been found in Afghanistan, and several places in Northern Pakistan have been important areas for development of Buddhism. The Chinese form of Buddhism originated in Pakistan.

Hu Shih - (Former Chinese ambassador to the USA):
India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border.

He doesn't mention Pakistan here, does he?

All I am saying is that there was a continuum of civilization between the two present countries. You are trying to say this happened in this part and that happened in that part as if it proves something.

Budhdhism originated and developed in India and took off from there all around. So it is an Indian religion. Specific forms of it may have developed in different places of India (that included even Gandhara then). That doesn't take anything away.

Give up on this ridiculous, pathetic argument for God's sake. It adds nothing to your credibility that you need to fall back on such a lame piece of weak trash. There was no country called India prior to 1947, but the "Indians" were known to the world as the people of the INDus Valley aka the Pakistanis, nothing to do with India of today.

Let's try to keep it civil. If we can't, let's end it RIGHT HERE. I may not agree with your opinions but I don't call them names as you are doing here. You have kept things civil in many discussions till now, hope the same can continue. We are trying to have a dispassionate discussion.

India referred to all the lands east of Indus, not just to the current Pakistani parts. The Gangetic planes were always a part of it. Whenever the foreigners came in contact with South India, it was always called India. So, pl. get over this constant falsehood.

Asoka made Buddhism the state religion, then their followed persecution in the region of today's India (Bharat). This led to Buddhism shifting to Pakistan, which retained a tolerance towards Buddhism as the Gangetic Indians started developing their own radical fundamentalism of any religion other than Hinduism. It's summarized here

A map of Bharat in Mahabharat times:

Does it include Pakistan or no? Stop creating this false distinction between India and Bharat. Bharat always included the areas called Pakistan now.

The rest of your post does not prove that Budhdhism is not an Indian religion. Three of the first four Islamic caliphs were killed in Arabia. Hussain was killed in the most vile way. So many Muslims were persecuted and murdered in Arabia. Does it stop making Islam an Arabic religion?

 

[Flintlock]

RR, apart from one king Pusyamitra Sunga, there is little other evidence to indicate that buddhism was ever attacked in India.

Also, there is little consensus on the issue whether the persecution really happened or it was just a Buddhist version of the Sunga's campaigns against the Mauryas.

After all, the first accounts in buddhist books occur centuries after sunga's reign.

Most historians ascribe the decline of buddhism mainly to lack of patronage by the mostly hindu kings.

Another Important Point (perhaps the most important one): There is no "institutional discrimination" in Hinduism towards Buddhism.

What I mean is this: Islam is predisposed towards destroying idolatrous religions.

Christianity is predisposed towards anti-semitism.

But Hinduism is not predisposed towards anti-buddhism.