Importance of being Narendra Modi!

[Sam.]

Hate is fascinating thing. Not only it closes one eyes but create own history so it can provide justification for continuing hate.

 

[VivasvatManu]

Thanks You cannot be better than this............

I don't think I need to be better than this with people like you. But than you for your feedback. It warms the cockles of my heart.

 

[Infinity]

I don't think I need to be better than this with people like you. But than you for your feedback. It warms the cockles of my heart.

Ya of course you display your virat Hindu culture

 

[VivasvatManu]

Ya of course you display your virat Hindu culture

You are absolutely right.

My Virat Hinduism has taught me that unlike Pritvijraj Chauhan, I do not need to show respect to someone who has come to destroy my value system.

But let me return the complement and say that you demonstrate your Christian culture very well. I just hope you do not start taking slaves anytime soon.

 

[Mamluk]

I just answered you question you idiot only you seem too stupid to understand my reply.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and bangladesh was Buddhist majority when Islam invaded and they are now almost 100% muslim. India was Hindu majority and continued to be Hindu majority.

Now if you still don't understand, don't as for clarification. Keep reading this post till you finally get it.

Something doesn't add up. Buddhism originated in India. Yet you're saying most of it's followers were in BD and Af-Pak.

So what happened to Buddhists in India. Are you skipping a rather dark ( ) chapter in history?

 

[VivasvatManu]

Something doesn't add up. Buddhism originated in India. Yet you're saying most of it's followers were in BD and Af-Pak.

So what happened to Buddhists in India. Are you skipping a rather dark ( ) chapter in history?

Adi Shankaracharya happened. Most Hindus are aware of this part of history, only Non Hindus seems unaware.

 

[Kal Muah]

1. I dont know what you are on about?
2. I'm not an archeologist so i can only depend on the proof produced by historians like this>>
http://www.hindustantimes.com/books...-a-pacifist/story-puxXlUpPsDy4TqELZ3UonN.html

The guy is definitely not a leftist.

I'm repeating, this is off topic.

Ashokavandana has been repeatedly told by historians to be fabricated for secretarian propaganda, both K. T. S. Sarao and Benimadhab Barua have acknowledged it. You should read this book "Popular Controversies in World History". Here's an excerpt from it :

Also let us take this for the sake of argument, that ashoka did order killing. But they were not Jains, they were ajivikas. Ajivikas are a whole different sect from Jains. They mocked Ashoka and draw insulting pictures, when ashoka finally lost his coolness and ordered persecution of Ajivikas. Remember the period when we are talking about, this kind of mocking and insulting religion is a great deal.

My whole point in dragging you to this argument is, "Religious extremism" is not same for Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. Jain monks leave their bodies for decay, isn't this religious extremism? Certain buddhist monks from Japan practice suicide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu) by not eating anymore, isn't this religious extremism? Media have wrongly portrayed religious extremism with killing other religions. Extremism is nothing but driving to the highest point. And let me rephrase again, in no point in our history will you ever find Dharmic Religions to kill other people in the name of religion. A quick comparison, is to look at the history of Vietnam and Afghanistan/syria/iraq, both the countries were oppresed, killed, maimed by US, while the former took time to restablish their country, the later took refuge in the name of religion and destroying others.
This is why i said, whats with this term "extremist hindu"? and since when in our time, have we ever went on a war with others because of religion.

Adi Shankaracharya happened. Most Hindus are aware of this part of history, only Non Hindus seems unaware.

Stop feeding the trolls. They don't know whether they are arabs or Indians and you are lecturing them on History. Let them first find their identity.

 

[911]

Ya of course you display your virat Hindu culture

Indian culture is Hindu culture. We are not wahabi or something similar western. Culture has no religion.

 

[Levina]

My whole point in dragging you to this argument is, "Religious extremism" is not same for Abrahamic and Dharmic religions.

I had cleared this in the very beginning>>>

Well, the word usually means an extremist Hindu( extremist, when compared to other Hindus and not non-Hindus).

Jain monks leave their bodies for decay, isn't this religious extremism?

Nope.
I don't think so.
Agian, I had cleared it in the very beginning what "religious extremism" means to me>>

That is being pious.
According to me religious extremism can be defined as a person or group that takes the position that if others do not follow their ways, they will be damned.

 

[VivasvatManu]

Stop feeding the trolls. They don't know whether they are arabs or Indians and you are lecturing them on History. Let them first find their identity.

I almost never reply to Pakistanis, my posts were for 'secular' hindus who go around regurgitating this same propaganda.

 

[Mamluk]

Adi Shankaracharya happened. Most Hindus are aware of this part of history, only Non Hindus seems unaware.

I know Adi Shankaracharya.

It still doesn't answer the question. So, what is so special about BD and Af-Pak that Buddhists remained dominant until the Muslims came?

Let's face it, it wasn't Shankaracharya's teaching, but mass persecution of Buddhists under different Hindu kings that kept India Hindu.

Hindu dynasties in Af-Pak and BD (post-Buddhists dynasties) didn't reign long enough to accomplish their goals before the Muslim invaders came.

 

[Kal Muah]

I had cleared this in the very beginning>>>
Nope.
I didn't think so.
Agian, I had learned it in the very beginning what "religious extremism" means to me>>

Lets end this here then Mam. Our understanding of extremism is different. It all depends on culture and places of origin of that religion or practice(the very same reason why no matter how extremist Sufis get, you will hardly find them killing others). Some becomes extremist to inflict damage upon themselves, while some becomes extremist to inflict damage upon others.

 

[Levina]

Our understanding of extremism is different

I understood that on the 1st page of this thread but it took you 3 pages.

very same reason why no matter how extremist Sufis get, you will hardly find them killing others).

Wuttttt????

I will lead you to some tweets with proof to prove that wrong>>>

https://twitter.com/x/status/774587874675073024

Now I want you to go ahead and read all of TrueIndology's tweets on that thread(on Twitter). You will also read about a Sufi who used to carry a hammer to break skulls of Hindus.

Yeah. Let's stop it here.
Discussion on religious extremism will definitely not be entertained on the forum.

Ciao

 

[Infinity]

Something doesn't add up. Buddhism originated in India. Yet you're saying most of it's followers were in BD and Af-Pak.

So what happened to Buddhists in India. Are you skipping a rather dark ( ) chapter in history?

How can he reply for which he doesn't have answers...............

You are absolutely right.

My Virat Hinduism has taught me that unlike Pritvijraj Chauhan, I do not need to show respect to someone who has come to destroy my value system.

But let me return the complement and say that you demonstrate your Christian culture very well. I just hope you do not start taking slaves anytime soon.

Ya they complement Christian Culture when in Western countries...............

 

[VivasvatManu]

Lets end this here then Mam. Our understanding of extremism is different. It all depends on culture and places of origin of that religion or practice(the very same reason why no matter how extremist Sufis get, you will hardly find them killing others). Some becomes extremist to inflict damage upon themselves, while some becomes extremist to inflict damage upon others.

You got that wrong.

Sufi extremism has a very very violent past. The stories of spiritual and occult power of Sufis are nothing but fantastical myths and a modern day fabrication.

The well known Sufi Saint of Punjab, Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid) of the Naqashbandi order (1564-1634) held that the execution of the Sikh leader Guru Arjun Dev by Jehangir was a great Islamic victory.

Sufi saint Shayakh Ali Sijzi, provided financial assistance to one of his dervishes to participate in the lucrative slave trade. He advised the dervish that he should take “these kafir slaves to Ghazni, where the potential for profit is still greater”.

Sufi saint Ghazzali advised his people that "‘...one must go on Jihad at least once a year... One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire on them and/or drown them... One may cut down their trees... One must destroy their useful book (Bible, Torah etc.). Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...’

India’s greatest Sufi saints—Nizamuddin Auliya and Moinuddin Chisti—themselves came to India to participate in holy war against the infidels. Its only in the recent past they have been 'reformed' to be shown as 'saints'.

Ya they complement Christian Culture when in Western countries...............

Slavery complement christian culture ? ....... slavery IS christian culture. So is Genocide, colonialism and other virulent habits.

How can he reply for which he doesn't have answers...............
..

How cute to see to take refuge under a Pakistani. I guess in absence of any White Colonial master, you next best thing is a Islamic bigot.