How can our pre-Islamic ancestors be claimed to be following Brahmanic or Zorastrian traditions if they ate beef and buried their dead?

[AA_]

Just to clarify, any sources stating that The first wife of Prophet Ibrahim (AS), Hajra (RA) was a concubine, are strictly Christian sources. The Quran or Sunnah does not specify this, though she is referred to as “Ismail’s mother” a lot.

Not Hajra (ra), that guy is referring to another women starting with the Q name. No Islamic source on her whatsoever. He posted Christian and Jewish sources and they claim she was a concubine. That’s how he’s claiming to “Ancient Syed” and a Hindu term. He doesn’t sound like a Muslim with the crap he’s posting. I care about authentic Islamic history and when he can’t post Sunni sources, forget Shia (I’m Shia), that tells me he’s manipulating history just like that other Indian about “Hussein Brahmins.” I asked few times to provide authentic Islamic sources non Indian. He hasn’t.

 

[Neelo]

It's funny how the Gangadeshis are so triggered in this topic.

So desperately trying to claim they're Indo Aryan and Vedic.

I am sure u took that quote out of context. So tell me what use is to me thousands of years old "assertions" that may or maynot be true? Why do i care what Gods they worshipped? As long as i know am on the correct path.



We dont have any texts here just assertions based on stones and utlincils. Also when Islam came, it actually destroyed the old barbaric and jahalat based cutoms and culture.

Al Bakistanis and Pajeets....two sides of the same coin.

The reason why Pakistan's pre Islamic history is important is because it actually helps defend the existence of Pakistan beyond religion....even the Muslim League acknowledged this before your God Zia ul Haq rewrote Pakistan studies in 1982.

Learn before you write things.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0wHm7Nq8yWMCJtdFnDpJcZMhK8Rkw3vAQo1cr3qnKYcNZGxP1jAnz8RYVmjK9BqxJl&id=780770378649615

 

[epebble]

It is not easy to understand Hinduism, even by Hindus. From my experience, while Hindus differ in what they believe in, they do not necessarily reject the beliefs of other Hindus, unless it involves a mythological subject or a historical event. The philosophical expanse of Hinduism is very vast and daunting, almost impossible to make it a part of daily life. Hence apart from different beliefs, you also have varying degrees of practice. One could say that at its core, the concept of universe as the supreme being is a very simple one and if you accept it, there is actually not much to practice in daily life.

The main reason Buddhism declined in India was due to the political nature of Brahminical Hinduism. Brahmins kept themselves close to kings, or were kings themselves. The concept that the king is ordained to rule on people is something the Brahmins supported, which the rulers found useful. In return Brahmins got patronage. Buddhism did not support such a concept and this is also the reason why all the Mahajanpads (republics) were mainly Buddhist. For that period, republics were doomed to be conquered by kingdoms that had more centralised command

Though what you have written sounds reasonable, as a practical matter, I don't think any practicing Hindu would consider an Atheistic strand of philosophy part of his faith.

 

[epebble]

Can you follow a different religion like Christianity and still be considered a Hindu? If so what makes that Cristian a Hindu? Who is Hindu and who is not a Hindu? If for example someone wants to be a Hindu and be recognized as a Hindu by society at large
What's the first step?

Can't say about Hinduism, but I do know people can be Buddhists while being in other religions. It is very common in East Asia (Japan, Korea, China etc.) to have multiple faiths. Typically, a native or national faith like Shintoism or Taoism and be Buddhist too. East Asian cultures are pragmatic and not ideologically exclusive like Abrahamic faiths. It is a bit like PRC is a communist nation with capitalistic economy. Their thinking is a cat can be black or white as long as it catches mice.

Not Hajra (ra), that guy is referring to another women starting with the Q name. No Islamic source on her whatsoever. He posted Christian and Jewish sources and they claim she was a concubine. That’s how he’s claiming to “Ancient Syed” and a Hindu term. He doesn’t sound like a Muslim with the crap he’s posting. I care about authentic Islamic history and when he can’t post Sunni sources, forget Shia (I’m Shia), that tells me he’s manipulating history just like that other Indian about “Hussein Brahmins.” I asked few times to provide authentic Islamic sources non Indian. He hasn’t.

The story of Abraham, Sara and Hagar predates Islam by a thousand years and was first written in Hebrew (Torah book Bareshit i.e. Genesis in Latin).

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

Have you read/heard of a place called Central Asia?

Man, there must be Sanskrit texts after texts in Central Asia.

Or any of the Sanskrit texts available in India talks about Central Asia or how their life has been in Central Asia? The fact that most of you are making claims out of your rear with nothing to back it up. Look at the OP, Vedic people buried their dead Brahmins burned their dead. Then opens RV and the text talks in length about how to Burn the dead

Sanskrit originated in India, it wasn't a spoken language it was simply used in religious texts like Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas. Panini who lived in India is credited with codifying Sanskrit, with a treatise called Ashtadhyayi, which happened in around the 4th Century BCE.

Basically, all texts of Sanskits and their grammar are found in India. But Pakistani here thinks it is a Central Asian language because? Don't bring claims of some IU language with similarity with Sanskrit, historically we had connections with other parts of Asia. It will be like finding the Indus valley seal found in Mesopotamia to claim IV originated in Mesopotamia.

There are monotheistic philosophies in Hinduism. For example:

Advaita Vedanta (/ʌdˈvaɪtə vɛˈdɑːntə/; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त, IAST: Advaita Vedānta) is a Hindu sādhanā, a path of spiritual discipline and experience,[note 1] and the oldest extant tradition of the orthodox Hindu school Vedānta.[note 2] The term Advaita (literally "non-secondness", but usually rendered as "nondualism",[4][5] and often equated with monism[note 3]) refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real, while the transient phenomenal world is an illusory appearance (maya) of Brahman.

Monism is a philosophy that believes everything in the universe is connected and part of one single point, the Maya also includes gods, demons, humans etc... Monotheism is the belief of one god the creator and supreme leader of the universe, two different things.

 

[epebble]

Man, there must be Sanskrit texts after texts in Central Asia.

The oldest Sanskrit manuscript is Spitzer manuscript from 130 A.D. in China. It is an early Hindu/Buddhist text.

Spitzer Manuscript - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Maula Jatt]

I guess they can be considered as Hindu as per the core beliefs. Religion is considered a personal belief in Hinduism and followers are free to choose the different interpretations within the framework of karma and samsara. Even an atheist is considered part of Hinduism. Hinduism is not a structured religion having set of rituals, or one or few holy books and a set guidelines. The term Hinduism itself is not correct as it was imposed later on. Hinduism includes a diversity of ideas on spirituality and traditions, but has no ecclesiastical order, no unquestionable religious authorities, no governing body, no prophet(s) nor any binding holy book; Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, pandeistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist. Ideas about all the major issues of faith and lifestyle – vegetarianism, nonviolence, belief in rebirth, even caste – are subjects of debate, not dogma. I agree its difficult to understand even for me. The term Dharma is more apt then the term religion for such beliefs.

can a Muslim call himself Hindu? or follower of Sanatam Dharm - what is it that would make him a Hindu, or him claiming to be one is enough
shouldn't he at least believe in some core concepts like Bhrama or Vedas etc even if he does not believe in gods

 

[ThunderCat]

can a Muslim call himself Hindu? or follower of Sanatam Dharm - what is it that would make him a Hindu, or him claiming to be one is enough
shouldn't he at least believe in some core concepts like Bhrama or Vedas etc even if he does not believe in gods

Yes a Sindh, Punjabi or Kahsmiri Muslim can call themselves Hindu since it means people of the Indus. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Menace2Society]

It's funny how the Gangadeshis are so triggered in this topic.

So desperately trying to claim they're Indo Aryan and Vedic.



Al Bakistanis and Pajeets....two sides of the same coin.

The reason why Pakistan's pre Islamic history is important is because it actually helps defend the existence of Pakistan beyond religion....even the Muslim League acknowledged this before your God Zia ul Haq rewrote Pakistan studies in 1982.

Learn before you write things.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0wHm7Nq8yWMCJtdFnDpJcZMhK8Rkw3vAQo1cr3qnKYcNZGxP1jAnz8RYVmjK9BqxJl&id=780770378649615

The bakistanis and and pajeets cannot tolerate a narrative of Pakistan that transcends beyond their narrow sphere of influence. I want everyone to remember religions come and go but Pakistani civilization will remain forever.

 

[epebble]

can a Muslim call himself Hindu? or follower of Sanatam Dharm - what is it that would make him a Hindu, or him claiming to be one is enough
shouldn't he at least believe in some core concepts like Bhrama or Vedas etc even if he does not believe in gods

I think belief in God is pretty much the minimal cost to entry. Optionally, you can accept Rigveda as a holy book, if you want.

 

[ThunderCat]

I think belief in God is pretty much the minimal cost to entry. Optionally, you can accept Rigveda as a holy book, if you want.

But not as the holy book of your Brahman friends. Even though they claim it.

 

[epebble]

But not as the holy book of your Brahman friends. Even though they claim it.

Not sure I understand. Is Rigveda not the holy book of Hindus?

 

[AlKardai]

Not sure I understand. Is Rigveda not the holy book of Hindus?

I thought it was the Gita

 

[hussain0216]

Yes a Sindh, Punjabi or Kahsmiri Muslim can call themselves Hindu since it means people of the Indus. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It currently means follower of Hinduism

The bakistanis and and pajeets cannot tolerate a narrative of Pakistan that transcends beyond their narrow sphere of influence. I want everyone to remember religions come and go but Pakistani civilization will remain forever.

The will of Allah swt remains forever, people and cultures can be defeated, destroyed and erased

 

[ThunderCat]

Not sure I understand. Is Rigveda not the holy book of Hindus?

Indeed it is; especially when nothing called "Hindu" is mentioned anywhere in it:

“"Hinduism" is largely a fiction, formulated in the 18th and 19th centuries out of a multiplicity of sub-continental religions, and enthusiastically endorsed by Indian modernisers. Unlike Muslims, "Hindus" have tended to borrow more than reject, and it has now been reconfigured as a global rival to the big three monotheisms. In the process, it has abandoned the tradition of toleration which lie in its true origins.” -Pankaj Mishra

"The term Hindu was first imposed on South Asian nations by the
Afghan dynasty of Ghori in the 12th century; this term was never
used in south Asia prior to the Muslim era and is not even found in
early (pre-12th century AD) Brahmanical or Buddhist texts. Such a
term and concept has no historical depth in any social, religious,
ethnic or national sense past the 12th century when Mohammed Ghori
for the first time named his conquered subjects Hindus." [G. Singh,
Sakasthan and India, Toronto, 1999, p. 20]