Global Religious landscape- Pew Forum

[aakash_2410]

I grew up in Pakistan and I never heard of this caste nonsense in Pakistan until I came to this forum.

It doesn't mean it is not practiced by some Muslims, but a) it is not sanctioned by Islam, and b) if people are practising it, they are going against Islam anyway.

Exactly. Islam doesn't sanction it but it does exist. I'm not saying Islam promotes it any way or form but Muslims (the people) follow it.

 

[Vinod2070]

Grasping at straws!

Predicting something does not equate to condoning it.

Islam also predicts that there will be widespread rejection of morality; it doesn't mean Islam condones it.

But it does say that only one will go to heaven.

The only carrot laid out for the sheeple. Along with the stick of ever burning hellfire to keep them in line.

So again, which one are you?

And to claim:

Islam does not divide people

That is the biggest joke.

Islam enjoins you to do very bad things to those who don't surrender.

Like what happened to youe own ancestors and countless others.

And it is not limited to the other world, you make it true in this world as well.

 

[Vinod2070]

Quran (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve.

 

[Bang Galore]

I don't have to assume a racial characteristic, since it is established by the recent genetics study to which I linked, and which showed a concentration of Australoids in the south. Australoids, generally speaking, have darker skin than, say, Caucasoids though individual variations will occur.

You are assuming something not true. There is simply not a dominance of Australoids in the south. You are now indulging in deliberate falsification. Your evidence for this supposed battle in the South is a supposed battle in the North?

Of course, you will refuse to accept the genetic study also, since it is inconvenient.

Nope, I know to read & unlike you need not go far to see other South Indians.

Another backtrack: You doubted and asked for evidence of Dravidian nationalist movements beyond Tamils and I provided so.

Don't delude yourself. Tamil Nationalists claiming other lands is not an indication of an indigenous movement there in support of the demand. They could have claimed Pakistan too, doesn't make it any more correct.

Not by itself, but when historical legends indicate military conquest, it tilts the interpretation that way.

Nope.

You deliberately keep avoiding the legend of Agastya, for example, which talks about conquest south of certain mountain range (Vindhya?).

Agastya was a Rsi, not a conqueror.

It is only your claim that the dark-skinned interpretation only makes sense in the AIT context. The Vedas talk about southern conquests regardless.

Rubbish. Prove it.

I am using the phrase Dravidian culture in the same context as European culture or African culture. It is a shorthand aggregate for the various cultures to distinguish them, in this case, from Vedic culture.

Zero proof that any such "different" culture existed and even less so that anything other than language origin connections bound the various cultures of south India. They certainly felt no kinship.

As I noted, many of these cultures had their own mutual concerns, as in Tamil hegemony, etc.

Tamil hegemony? When Where?

I pointed out the specific verses in the Rig Veda which talk of fighting dark-skinned enemies. All it means, as I explained above, is that the general skin tone of the enemy was darker than the Vedic writer's. You are the one who immediately exaggerated the claim to require all enemy individuals to be dark skinned.

You took that North Indian battle (I dispute your interpretation that it refers to dark skin) and tried to introduce into an imaginary conquest of south India. You made all the skin connections, I didn't.

The Tamil legend of Agastya is variously interpreted, and some interpretations match with the Vedic claims of conquest.

None match. Some draw connections, others dispute that. Hardly clinching evidence.

On the contrary, you are claiming something our of the ordinary. We know about the Vedic conquests in the north. We know about Vedic claims of Agastya's conquest to the south. We know about later military conquests in the region. So, this claim is consistent with historical patterns. Why make an exception for this particular case unless there is compelling evidence to do so?

You know of no conquest except for the one you are rustling up in your brain. Zero evidence. Zero!

Lots of things could have happened. What we do have is various claims of southward conquest, but no mention of any northward conquest. If the reverse conquests happened, why no record?

No records either way, your claims of a southern conquest are free of any evidence & hence can only suit your desire for proof, does not constitute proof.

Influence typically flows with the conqueror, not the conquered, and we have a definite southward influence. The northward influences came much later, after the south had been brought into the Vedic fold.

More gibberish.

Many of you are singing from the same songbook of deliberately conflating this with the AIT. I lose track of which particular poster is propping that particular canard at any given time.

As opposed to keeping track of all the different canards that you keep tossing up.

This whole thread is about religion, and the trigger for the debate was a Hindutva claim about the superiority of Hinduism. Don't get upset when the mirror shows something you don't like.

Unlike you, I make no distinction about the religions i critique. Your mirror may show a religion, mine doesn't.

Buddhism was the predominant religion of the subcontinent at one point.

Never in the countryside.

Islam does not have the caste system and offers equality, regardless of what you guys may believe.

I have no interest in debating religion on this thread. Maybe some other time. Was merely pointing out your deliberate attempt at turning this into a nasty religious battle.

Already addressed, but you will continue to cover your eyes/ears and say "I don't believe that interpretation", so no point.

Likewise.

 

[Vinod2070]

Islam also predicts that there will be widespread rejection of morality; it doesn't mean Islam condones it.

So what is so final and perfect about Islam then?

Why is it so different from the 124009 earlier "prophets" and "revelations" if there again had to be "rejection of morality" and fitna?

 

[Developereo]

But it does say that only one will go to heaven.

As usual, simple concepts elude your understanding.

Islam predicts that many/most people will stray from the path, and those who remain true will reap the benefits. This is no different from other religions, including Hinduism, which predicate penalties for doing bad things in life.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Atheism is the future and rightly so,all religions will die the day man discovers time machine.All the messiahs,saviours,prophets,avatars,angels,gurus,babas and their miracles of legend and scripture will be exposed before the world.Hope to live to see taht day.It may take a hundred or a thousand yrsbut its inevitable.Man conquered electricity,the sky,the atom eventually he will conquer space and time too.The human empire will spread accross the galaxy.

 

[Vinod2070]

As usual, simple concepts elude your understanding.

Islam predicts that many/most people will stray from the path, and those who remain true will reap the benefits.

The question is which ones are those?

And since he mentioned one sect, which sect is it?

You guys have been killing each other over this for more than a thousand years and are doing it now. So it must be a big deal!

This is no different from other religions, including Hinduism, which predicate penalties for doing bad things in life.

Not for being born in a wrong sect!

And if it is no different, why is it "final and perfect"? What is so "final and perfect" about it anyway? Where are the "indications all around" that are claimed?

 

[A1Kaid]

Ever heard of SHUDDHI movement ?

Shuddhi?

Well yes I think I have heard of it, are you referring to Shudi Karan?

 

[Puchtoon]

Shuddhi?

Well yes I think I have heard of it, are you referring to Shudi Karan?

NO
It's a Movement From Arya Samaj .

Arya samaj is monotheist,anti-idolatory,anti-castist,anti-childmarraige reform movement started in late 19th century.

 

[Azazel]

The Vedas are from the north. Vedic culture was a northern construct which later spread to the rest of India.

Southern culture was not Vedic prior to the Vedic cultural conquest.

Read R. Nagaswamy’s latest book, ‘Mirror of Tamil and Sanskrit'.He is a former Director of Archaeology, Government of Tamil Nadu.
According to him At no point was there an isolated development of Tamil culture,it was always influenced by North Indian Indo Aryan culture.This goes both ways.Vedic culture as we know today is mixture of cultures of both.You must understand Vedic period stretches about many centuries.Through out this period There were continuous cultural exchange happening all across India.

Another good read
http://absolutetruth.in/2009/10/vedic-roots-of-early-tamil-culture/

Nothing ironic. Some Muslims have retained the concept of a caste system, but it is purely a local custom by those Muslims and has nothing to do with Islam.

I do find that part ironic.I don't care what you think about it.

 

[Developereo]

You are assuming something not true. There is simply not a dominance of Australoids in the south. You are now indulging in deliberate falsification. Your evidence for this supposed battle in the South is a supposed battle in the North?

Your reading comprehension problems would be alleviated if you actually read what is written rather than what you wish was written. Of course, as I predicted, you decided to disbelieve genetics studies also.

Don't delude yourself. Tamil Nationalists claiming other lands is not an indication of an indigenous movement there in support of the demand. They could have claimed Pakistan too, doesn't make it any more correct.

What on earth are you babbling about? What does that have to do with the ongoing discussion?

...More denial...

Translation: I choose not to believe.

Unlike you, I make no distinction about the religions i critique. Your mirror may show a religion, mine doesn't.

Bullshit.

Your entire babbling boils down to "I don't want to believe anything that goes against the Hindutva agenda".

You don't accept scientific genetic studies.
You don't accept linguistic studies.
You don't accept the Vedas text.
You don't accept established scholars' analyses of historical texts.
You don't accept anything that doesn't suit your preconceived agenda.

You keep playing the disingenuous game of "I won't believe it until there's a smoking gun", knowing full well that in ancient history there is rarely a smoking gun, only a collection of disparate clues, each of which you dismiss by covering your eyes/ears and accusing the experts of being incompetent or agenda driven.

I have no interest in debating religion on this thread. Maybe some other time. Was merely pointing out your deliberate attempt at turning this into a nasty religious battle.

Spare me.

The nastiness came from you and your buddies proclaiming the superiority of Hinduism over Abrahamic religions.

The fact that you don't see it shows your own prejudice in the matter.

 

[Developereo]

The question is which ones are those?

And since he mentioned one sect, which sect is it?

No one knows, which is why the best policy is to be a good person and let God sort it out.

I do find that part ironic.I don't care what you think about it.

People are people; what can you do?

They always form social strata, whether they are based on race, skin color, wealth, etc.

The important thing is that religion should be an equalizer.

 

[Bang Galore]

Your reading comprehension problems would be alleviated if you actually read what is written rather than what you wish was written. Of course, as I predicted, you decided to disbelieve genetics studies also.

Horse manure.

What on earth are you babbling about? What does that have to do with the ongoing discussion?

Read...or have you already forgotten your babble.

Translation: I choose not to believe.

Not your fiction, no.

Bullshit.

Your entire babbling boils down to "I don't want to believe anything that goes against the Hindutva agenda".

Nice try. Take your certificate issuing elsewhere. Not interested.

You don't accept scientific genetic studies.
You don't accept linguistic studies.
You don't accept the Vedas text.
You don't accept established scholars' analyses of historical texts.
You don't accept anything that doesn't suit your preconceived agenda.

More horse manure.

You keep playing the disingenuous game of "I won't believe it until there's a smoking gun", knowing full well that in ancient history there is rarely a smoking gun, only a collection of disparate clues, each of which you dismiss by covering your eyes/ears and accusing the experts of being incompetent or agenda driven.

An admission that you have nothing. Your fiction is yours to believe. Move on.

Spare me.

The nastiness came from you and your buddies proclaiming the superiority of Hinduism over Abrahamic religions.

I proclaimed superiority? Proof anywhere? Oh I get it, you don't do proofs, neither on the subject nor on accusations you choose to make.

The fact that you don't see it shows your own prejudice in the matter.

Says the bigot who came here to diss a particular religion.

 

[Azazel]

People are people; what can you do?

They always form social strata, whether they are based on race, skin color, wealth, etc.

The important thing is that religion should be an equalizer.

Hmm,I agree.But I don't think any religion on its own can ever play a role of equalizer in society.Religions will always discriminate against nonbelievers or dissenters then their is discrimination against women etc.Only a society of secular nature can achieve true equality.