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

[hussain0216]

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]

The meaning of words can and do change over time,

It doesn't matter who imposed the word Hindu or what it originally meant

Today it in all essence means follower of Hinduism

If anyone else or any Pakistani or Muslim uses this word to describe themselves they are a Moron.

 

[AA_]

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).

That’s great, but wtf does that have to do with what @Novus ordu seclorum wrote.
He wasn’t talking about Ibrahim, Sara, and Hagar, but somebody else whose name starts with a Q who @Novus ordu seclorum claims is “Ancient Syed.” I asked for Islamic sources and he posted Christian and Jewish sources, which means diddly to me as a Muslim as our accounts differ on many important historical events. I will not let non Muslim distort Islamic history, and Ibrahim and his beloved family is as part of Islam as they are of Christianity and Judaism.
Btw, are you Indian as well?

 

[epebble]

I thought it was the Gita

People use it as a shorthand because the Rigveda is bulky. But Rigveda is generally considered as the original holy book.

 

[AlKardai]

That’s great, but wtf does that have to do with what @Novus ordu seclorum wrote.
He wasn’t talking about Ibrahim, Sara, and Hagar, but somebody else whose name starts with a Q who @Novus ordu seclorum claims is “Ancient Syed.” I asked for Islamic sources and he posted Christian and Jewish sources, which means diddly to me as a Muslim as our accounts differ on many important historical events. I will not let non Muslim distort Islamic history, and Ibrahim and his beloved family is as part of Islam as they are of Christianity and Judaism.
Btw, are you Indian as well?

This is a portion in history that I have never actually studied in much depth.

You’re better off asking @Sayfullah or @Nasr

@revol

 

[AA_]

This is a portion in history that I have never actually studied in much depth.

You’re better off asking @Sayfullah or @Nasr

I have limited knowledge but enough to know what these Indians are spewing lies again.

 

[ThunderCat]

The meaning of words can and do change over time,

It doesn't matter who imposed the word Hindu or what it originally meant

Today it in all essence means follower of Hinduism

If anyone else or any Pakistani or Muslim uses this word to describe themselves they are a Moron.

Explanation: I didn't read the first quote. Maybe because just I don't want to believe it.

 

[Paitoo]

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.

The issue is more with awareness than with willingness. Let's admit it, a vast majority of the people in the world are ignorant about the vast majority of information residing in the world. If you were to tell a Hindu that there is something called an atheistic religion, he will be surprised. The concept sounds like an oxymoron at first. Most people who believe in a particular religion are unaware of its history, characters and theology.

 

[epebble]

Most people who believe in a particular religion are unaware of its history, characters and theology.

There was a Governor of Texas, Miriam Ferguson, in 1920's and 30's. There was a debate about the need to provide bilingual public education for Spanish speaking children. Ferguson, a conservative, was opposed to it both for budgetary reason and as a matter of principle. She supposedly said during a debate or discussion "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas". Many Christians believe King James Bible as the original authentic Bible though it is actually from 17th Century.

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

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

You misunderstood me, I said texts relating to Central Asia. These are Buddhist texts.

 

[hatehs]

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.

They make this claim because it's origin comes from Indo-European migrants. Don't try to be duplicitous as is common with people in your community. We are not talking about mere similarities Sanskrit has with other Asian languages, nor can they be explained away by saying "Saar we had connections with other parts of Asia". We're talking about Sanksrit sharing COGNATES with European languages, which would imply a common ancestor. And by the way, this isn't something just Pakistanis believe. It was first proposed an Englishman in the 18th century after studying and comparing Sanskrit with languages like Latin and Greek. The ONLY people who now disagree with this theory happens to be your lying, fraud nasl.

 

[hembo]

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'm afraid I'm not qualified enough to dwell on such deep discussion. Being an atheist myself, my understanding is that the term Hindu, which was originally meant to define people of a certain geographic region, has over the years has changed to people following Hinduism. Hinduism itself is an incorrect terms which came much later. Like I said, its hell of lot complicated.

From my novice point of view, I have concluded that anyone having a free will, who excepts that their miniscule energy will ultimately be absorbed in the immense/ endless energy of the universe, can be considered a Sanatani. I avoid using the terms Hindu or Hinduism to the extent possible.

 

[epebble]

I'm afraid I'm not qualified enough to dwell on such deep discussion. Being an atheist myself, my understanding is that the term Hindu, which was originally meant to define people of a certain geographic region, has over the years has changed to people following Hinduism. Hinduism itself is an incorrect terms which came much later. Like I said, its hell of lot complicated.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no doorkeeper/door keeping function like baptism etc., if a person becomes a Hindu right? I know it is not there in Buddhism.

 

[hembo]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no doorkeeper/door keeping function like baptism etc., if a person becomes a Hindu right? I know it is not there in Buddhism.

That is my understanding as well. However, the modern day Hindus (some of them at least) have started something called ghar wapsi rituals to formally embrace people from other religion to the modern Hinduism. Like I said, there are no set rituals one is bound to follow. One can eat cow meat and still be a Sanatani. One may or may not conduct a Baptism like rituals. All are acceptable, even atheists. I am not a big fan of the modern Hinduism, which tries to enforce and is against free will, unlike the original concept.

 

[hatehs]

Being an atheist myself, my understanding is that the term Hindu, which was originally meant to define people of a certain geographic region, has over the years has changed to people following Hinduism. Hinduism itself is an incorrect terms which came much later. Like I said, its hell of lot complicated.

This is not true. People of Punjab were declared mleccha long ago because they didn't adopt Brahmin practices.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1317014971088330753

The term Hindu to denote everyone in South Asia is the modern, watered down definition of Hinduism created by people like Sorryvarkar as a way for Central Indians to pay claim to our territory and squat on it.

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

They make this claim because it's origin comes from Indo-European migrants. Don't try to be duplicitous as is common with people in your community. We are not talking about mere similarities Sanskrit has with other Asian languages, nor can they be explained away by saying "Saar we had connections with other parts of Asia". We're talking about Sanksrit sharing COGNATES with European languages, which would imply a common ancestor. And by the way, this isn't something just Pakistanis believe. It was first proposed an Englishman in the 18th century after studying and comparing Sanskrit with languages like Latin and Greek. The ONLY people who now disagree with this theory happens to be your lying, fraud nasl.

I hate to repeat myself, but if you don't understand what I have said read it again until you figure it out. Sanskrit was developed in India, and it has significant cultural and historical significance in Indian culture. While there are some cultural and historical connections between Sanskrit and other parts of Asia and Europe, Sanskrit is primarily associated with Indian culture and history. The majority of scholars agree that Sanskrit developed in India, and this is not a point of debate. Ask any scholar, where did Sanskrit originate. They will laugh at the claim that it originated in Central Asia.