What wrong doing? Was he killed? Jhihadi like you will never utter a single word for Kashmiri pundits killed by Islami Jhihadis.
1. Yes, he was murdered by driving him to the point of suicide because of the oppressive nature of India's 3000-year-old socio-economic system. Legally and more immediately it was the university's Upper Caste officials and other such types.
2. A "jihadi" like me will tell a Sanatani like you that the killings of the Kashmiri Pandits was wrong and unfortunate and that those Pandits who emigrated should return to the valley.
In fact there are a few Pandits in the valley. But the emigrant ones should be allowed to return and I think many Muslims in the valley will allow that.
Many of the things you quoted was there at that time.
You really believe that "Indians" were flying out to Mars and Jupiter in spaceships 3000 years ago ? Or as some say, 5000 to even 10,000 years ago ? What's the proof ? Why do the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians and even neighboring Iranians and Southeast Asians not have records of this technological advancement in India ? Where are the ancient "Indian" records on this ? So the 3000-year-old "Indian" book Manusmriti survived but not the manuals to build these vedic spaceships ?
You really believe that idiot Chief Minister of Tripura state, Biplab Kumar Deb, who declared in 2018 that the Mahabharata-era Hindu king, the blind Dhritarashtra, was able to know blow-by-blow account of the Mahabharata war because his charioteer, Sanjaya, gave him that info by watching it on an ancient computer that had satellite-relayed internet connection ?
Ayurveda and Yoga is getting steepingly popular in modern days across the world.
OK, Ayurveda is good for certain things but there are lot of things that it won't work or is dangerous to use. Where is Baba Ramdev's much publicized Ayurvedic cure for COVID ? That incident was laughable.
And yes, Yoga is beneficial to an extent, especially for women who, to be healthy, won't have to do bodybuilding in a gym which will spoil their womanly figure.
It is not teaching the human beings to kill fellow human beings.
But it has. Didn't Hindu kings massacre Buddhists or even fellow Hindus ? What was the Mahabharata war ? Doesn't the caste system exist ? And the Sanatan Dharm socio-economic system is history's most extreme Capitalist system which has caused misery for 3000 years including the suicide of 300,000+ farmers just between 1995 and 2017 mainly because of socio-economic reasons.
Practicing ancient Hindu thoughts, philosophies and yogic science to expand human perceptions.
And have you been able to perceive the wrongs and injustices in India especially including those farmer suicides ?
Our sanyasis , yogis, saints etc.spreads the message of humanity and contributs to a better world
I see, so what is "Sadhguru" Jaggi Vasudev's solution to Capitalist and culturally regressive oppression ? What is his solution for a progressive humanity in terms of politics, social structure, economics, technology and environment ?
unlike Abrahmic priest who promotes violance, enslaving women, dominance of their desert ideology and every wrong.
One Abrahamic prophet, Isa ( Jesus ), preached against the injustice done by money lenders. And in India we have Sanatani money-lending individuals and organizations who force farmers and business people to commit suicide.
About enslaving women, the last Abrahamic prophet, Muhammad, who came from a desert culture like you said, actually emancipated women. Below is a quoting from
my thread from 2015 whose OP is an article by an Indian Christian woman who married an Indian Muslim under Islamic marriage because that better secured her socio-economic future in case of divorce. Particularly note the underlined bits :
When we examine marriage laws in their historic context, it is interesting to note that the universally accepted notion that marriages are contractual rather than sacramental originates in Muslim law, which was accepted by the French law only in the 1800s and incorporated into the English law in the 1850s and became part of codified Hindu law as late as 1955. Today it appears to be the most practical way of dealing with the institution of marriage. Treating marriage as a sacrament which binds the parties for life has resulted in some of the most discriminatory practices against women such as sati and denial of right to divorce and remarriage, even in the most adverse conditions.
The cornerstone of a Muslim marriage is consent, ejab-o-qubul (proposal and acceptance) and requires the bride to accept the marriage proposal on her own free will. This freedom to consent (or refuse), which was given to Muslim women 1,400 years ago, is still not available under Hindu law since sacramental rituals such as saptapadi and kanya dan (seven steps round the nuptial fire and gifting of the bride to the groom) still form essential ceremonies of a Hindu marriage. Even after the codification of Hindu law, the notion of consent is not built into the marriage ceremonies.
The contract of marriage (nikahnama) allows for negotiated terms and conditions, it can also include the right to a delegated divorce (talaq-e-tafweez) where the woman is delegated the right to divorce her husband if any of the negotiated terms and conditions are violated.
Mehr is another unique concept of Muslim law meant to safeguard the financial future of the wife. It is an obligation, not a choice, and can be in the form of cash, valuables or securities. While there is no ceiling, a minimum amount to provide her security after marriage must be stipulated. This is a more beneficial concept than streedhan which is given by choice and usually by the natal family. In addition to Mehr, at the time of divorce, a Muslim woman has the right to fair and reasonable settlement, and this is statutorily recognised under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 as per the 2001 ruling of the Supreme Court in the Daniel Latifi case.
It is also important to address polygamy and triple talaq, two aspects of Muslim law which are generally used to discredit the community and argue in favour of a uniform civil code. While sharia law permits a man to have four wives (before 1956 Hindu law permitted unrestrained polygamy), it mandates equal treatment of all wives. If a man is not able to meet these conditions, he is not permitted to marry more than one woman. (Quran 4:3; Yusuf Ali’s translation)
On the other hand, though codification introduced monogamy for Hindus, the ground reality has not changed and Hindu men continue to be bigamous or polygamous. The most disturbing aspect is that while men in bigamous/adulterous relationships are allowed to go scot-free, it is the women who are made to pay the price. Women in invalid relationships with Hindu men are denied maintenance and protection and are referred to as “mistresses” and “concubines”, concepts specific to the uncodified Hindu law.
Though Muslim law stipulates many different ways to end a marriage, including a woman’s right to dissolve her marriage (khula), divorce by mutual consent (mubarra), delegated divorce (talaq-e-tafweez), judicial divorce (fasq)
And read the entire OP and the subsequent discussion in the thread.
And I will quote from
my 2016 thread. The thread is about Socialist / Communist activism among Muslims since the early 1900's. The quoting is about how an Islamic scholar in undivided India found similarities between Islam and Communism :
During the same period (1920s-30s), another (though lesser known) Islamic scholar in undivided India got smitten by the 1917 Russian revolution and Marxism.
Hafiz Rahman Sihwarwl saw Islam and Marxism sharing five elements in common: (1) prohibition of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the privileged classes (2) organisation of the economic structure of the state to ensure social welfare (3) equality of opportunity for all human beings (4) priority of collective social interest over individual privilege and (5) prevention of the permanentising of class structure through social revolution.
The motivations for many of these themes he drew from the Qur’an, which he understood as seeking to create an economic order in which the rich pay excessive, though voluntary taxes (Zakat) to minimise differences in living standards.
In the areas that Sihwarwl saw Islam and communism diverge were Islam’s sanction of private ownership within certain limits, and in its refusal to recognise an absolutely classless basis of society.
He suggested that Islam, with its prohibition of the accumulation of wealth, is able to control the class structure through equality of opportunity.
Basically, both Sindhi and Sihwarwl had stumbled upon an Islamic concept of the social democratic welfare state.
I will quote
some of the suffocating and oppressive views on women from an arch Sanatani, Yogi Adityanath, the current Chief Minister of India's most populous state :
He believes women need male protection from birth to death and their ‘energy/power’ should be regulated or controlled, lest it become worthless and destructive.
He adds the shastras say that a woman is protected in her childhood by her father, by her husband in her youth and by her son in her old age — so that way a woman is not capable of being left free or independent.
No surprise that the Sanatanis / Hindutvadis are vehemently against Hindu women marrying Dalits, Muslims, Christians or in fact anyone of their own choice.
So from the above, compare Islam and Sanatan Dharm, in their view and treatment of women and of humanity in general.
Lastly, there is no priest system in real Islam. No agent between Man and God. It's another thing that many modern Muslims have made the mullah to become the agent.
So you still haven't changed your stance despite my long post.
