1. New development formalised by foreigners, ay man it was a land of rivers and lakes, beautiful, they thought they need to worship those rivers and lakes and they found some unique ways, thus it is said that Hinduism originated in India.
2. The scriptures themselves ask it's followers to seek more knowledge rather than blindly believing something. So, you can find questions and answers or conversations between two people as part of the same text, or different texts. Which you call defiance.
3. The native ancestry of the land that you currently live in is somewhat described Mlecchas or barbarians, those are people who refused to move into fertile lands and who knows why exactly they were called barbarians.
4. Good, we were never taught to be passivist like Buddha did.
If you say Islam is Karma you're actually insulting your own faith by saying Islam is the result of bad deeds done by your ancestors. Please don't use Sanskrit words without understanding the context. lol!
Waste of time, these folks will repeat the same thing over and over, that whatever logic you bring is eventually a waste. The best way is to explain away their own stupidity and finding holes in their argument which is quite easy. Enjoy, don't quote texts.
Islam was karma for you lot. For us, it was and is manifest destiny.
@Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8
Sir, I truly have a life outside of pdf, hence bedtime got in the way of yesterday's pawrry jho hori thee.
Ultimately, you and your friends on this thread will claim that Vedic Hinduism is an indigenous "Indian" faith. I regard that claim as an opinion, tenuously linked to - as you have already pointed out - the site of oration of the Rig Veda. Assuming your information about this location is correct (and I'm not saying it definitely is), that still leaves several problems.
Let's use Christianity's example. Christianity originated in the middle east. Naturally its various denominations can be argued to have been formulated in Rome, Constantinople, Britain and elsewhere, but these are denominations of the precursor and root faith.
There is ample evidence that Vedic Hinduism's origins were either the IVC or the pontic steppe or most probably a syncretism of both with some infusion of local elements.
I don't often quote Wikipedia because of its constant pervasion by gangetic tecchies however, parts of it remain either unnoticed by your IT cells, or perhaps even unalterable because the facts simply cannot be obfuscated or manipulated to better reflect the sanghee narrative.
"The Vedic religion developed during the early Vedic period (1500–1100 BCE), but has roots in the Eurasian steppe
Sintashta culture (2200–1800 BCE) and the subsequent Central Asian
Andronovo culture (2000–900 BCE), and possibly also the
Indus Valley Civilisation (2600–1900 BCE).
[7] It was a composite of the religion of the Central Asian
Indo-Aryans, itself "a syncretic mixture of old Central Asian and new Indo-European elements",
[8] which borrowed "distinctive religious beliefs and practices"
[9] from the
Bactria–Margiana culture;
[9] and the remnants of the
Harappan culture of the Indus Valley.
[10]
During the late Vedic period (1100–500 BCE) Brahmanism developed out of the Vedic religion, as an ideology of the Kuru-Pancala realm which expanded into a wider area after the demise of the Kuru-Pancala realm. Brahmanism was one of the major influences that shaped contemporary
Hinduism...
[11][2][1][12][a]"
Put simply, Vedic Hinduism is a local version of the philosophy of foreigners.
How is it any different to local Sufi or hanafi variants of Islamic traditions?
Hinduism is as local to India as Islam is.
