Christians, Muslims Upset Over Tamil Nadu Conversion Decree

[Guest guest]

An interesting report from Express India:

 

NEW DELHI, Oct. 7: Christian and Muslim organisations on Monday

sharply reacted to Tamil Nadu Government's Ordinance banning use of

force or inducement in religious conversions in the state. The All

India Christian Council (AICC) has also threatened to challenge the

measure in court.

 

"Forcible or induced conversion is an oxymoron. It is not possible,

and is rejected by the Church. Conversion is the exercise of free

choice by an individual in fulfilment of his or her own spiritual

needs. This is a basic human right and is guaranteed in the Indian

Constitution and by the United Nations," AICC said in a statement.

 

Various state governments who have raised the bogey of induced or

forcible conversions have failed to find out even a single such case

in the past, it said adding that the Council which was already

challenging a similar law in Orissa was consulting legal experts on

the Tamil Nadu ordinance.

 

Terming the Tamil Nadu ordinance as a serious infringement of the

Freedom of Religion, All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat said the

Constitution grants anyone not only the right to freely profess and

practice a religion of one's choice but also to propagate it.

 

"Change of faith is not a criminal act but a human and constitutional

right. The ordinance is, therefore, ill- conceived and

unconstitutional", Syed Shahabuddin said.

 

Stating that India is a secular state and as such it should have no

stake in the rise or fall in the number of followers of one religion

or the other, he said "but the Hindutva brigade, which Jayalalithaa

has joined for political reasons, thinks that India is the land of

the Hindus and that a Hindu by birth has no right to change his

religion while non-Hindus can and should be reconverted to Hinduism."

 

Source: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=15584

Courtesy HPI

[Guest guest]

Yes Indeed. These religious leaders are right!! Why should any one (but them)

bother about the demographic picture?

 

The law against forcible or fraudulent conversions has been there for decades in

many parts of India. It was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court of India

decades ago. The Tamil Nadu was enacting the same law.

 

We have seen in India “missionaries” going to illiterate villagers with unbaked

clay images of Hindu deities and baked clay images of Christ and putting them in

water and when the unbaked clay images melt say “look your gods have no power”.

 

Dissolving medicine in water and giving it as “holy water” and curing diseases.

 

And in some areas in the North east raising western national lags and saying

that once you enter the church compound and baptize then you are citizens of

that country.

 

These are tricks played. But this is OK.

 

These people talk of “Constitutional rights” Right to forcibly and fraudulently

convert is not a “Constitutional Right” at all.

 

They are so socially conscious that they are threatening to close colleges and

hospitals if they are not allowed to convert in whatever manner!! The hell with

patients suffering and childrens education, conversion is the be all end all.

 

This shows that these institutions are created to aid conversion. They can close

it; but law is clear, the management will be taken over by Government in PUBLIC

INTERST.

 

Thank God things are coming out now.

 

Kochu

 

 

 

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

 

New Delhi, October 7: Christian and Muslim organisations on Monday sharply

reacted to Tamil Nadu Government's Ordinance banning use of force or inducement

in religious conversions in the state. The All India Christian Council (AICC)

has also threatened to challenge the measure in court.

 

"Forcible or induced conversion is an oxymoron. It is not possible, and is

rejected by the Church. Conversion is the exercise of free choice by an

individual in fulfillment of his or her own spiritual needs. This is a basic

human right and is guaranteed in the Indian Constitution and by the United

Nations," AICC said in a statement.

 

Various state governments who have raised the bogey of induced or forcible

conversions have failed to find out even a single such case in the past, it said

adding that the Council which was already challenging a similar law in Orissa

was consulting legal experts on the Tamil Nadu ordinance.

 

Terming the Tamil Nadu ordinance as a serious infringement of the Freedom of

Religion, All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat said the Constitution grants

anyone not only the right to freely profess and practice a religion of one's

choice but also to propagate it.

 

"Change of faith is not a criminal act but a human and constitutional right. The

ordinance is, therefore, ill- conceived and unconstitutional", Syed Shahabuddin

said.

 

Stating that India is a secular state and as such it should have no stake in the

rise or fall in the number of followers of one religion or the other, he said

"but the Hindutva brigade, which Jayalalithaa has joined for political reasons,

thinks that India is the land of the Hindus and that a Hindu by birth has no

right to change his religion while non-Hindus can and should be reconverted to

Hinduism."

 

Source: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=15584

Courtesy HPI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more

faith.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Forcible or induced conversion is an oxymoron. It is not

possible, and is rejected by the Church. Conversion is the

exercise of free choice by an individual in fulfilment of his or her

own spiritual needs. This is a basic human right and is

guaranteed in the Indian Constitution and by the United Nations,"

AICC [All India Christian Council] said in a statement.

 

Tell that to the Jews of Spain who during 1391 and for twenty

years after were forced to convert to Christianity or have their

rights and opportunities eroded or be killed. Over 50,000 were

murdered, 70 Jewish communities were destroyed and more

200,000 converted to Christianity.

 

As if that wasn't enough, the Inquisition of 1492 next accused

those Jews who did convert of heresy and then tortured and

executed them. Of the Jews who had keep their religion,

Judaism, they were offered the choice of forced conversion (not

much of a choice considering the above) or expulsion from

Spain. The Inquisition continued its draconian rooting out of

Jewish influences in the community until 1834 when it was

disbanded, all with the blessing of the Popes who presided over

the Roman Catholic Church for those 342 years.

 

Perhaps Tamil Nadu is right to protect its citizens from such an

immoral body that claims to be a religion.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

 

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta>

wrote:

> An interesting report from Express India:

>

> NEW DELHI, Oct. 7: Christian and Muslim organisations on

Monday

> sharply reacted to Tamil Nadu Government's Ordinance

banning use of

> force or inducement in religious conversions in the state. The

All

> India Christian Council (AICC) has also threatened to

challenge the

> measure in court.

>

> "Forcible or induced conversion is an oxymoron. It is not

possible,

> and is rejected by the Church. Conversion is the exercise of

free

> choice by an individual in fulfilment of his or her own spiritual

> needs. This is a basic human right and is guaranteed in the

Indian

> Constitution and by the United Nations," AICC said in a

statement.

>

> Various state governments who have raised the bogey of

induced or

> forcible conversions have failed to find out even a single such

case

> in the past, it said adding that the Council which was already

> challenging a similar law in Orissa was consulting legal

experts on

> the Tamil Nadu ordinance.

>

> Terming the Tamil Nadu ordinance as a serious infringement

of the

> Freedom of Religion, All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat

said the

> Constitution grants anyone not only the right to freely profess

and

> practice a religion of one's choice but also to propagate it.

>

> "Change of faith is not a criminal act but a human and

constitutional

> right. The ordinance is, therefore, ill- conceived and

> unconstitutional", Syed Shahabuddin said.

>

> Stating that India is a secular state and as such it should have

no

> stake in the rise or fall in the number of followers of one

religion

> or the other, he said "but the Hindutva brigade, which

Jayalalithaa

> has joined for political reasons, thinks that India is the land of

> the Hindus and that a Hindu by birth has no right to change his

> religion while non-Hindus can and should be reconverted to

Hinduism."

>

> Source:

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=15584

> Courtesy HPI

[Guest guest]

Omprem,

 

In addition to what you wrote here, many Jews also "converted" then,

finding this was insufficient to save their lives and the lives of

their family members, fled to the "New World." Currently many

Catholics of Mexican decent are tracing back their lineage and making

a surprising discovery of their previously unknown Jewish heritage.

It's tragic really, that so much time was lost, so many years when

family traditions could not be openly transmitted and shared.

 

However, I find myself wondering about any laws regarding religion and

conversion. I feel that history tells that laws in regard to religion

tend to be motivated by a particular religious bias.

 

I am no friend of the radical evangelicals that spread out,

particularly from my own country and attempt to convert all of the

world. My distaste for them knows no bounds. I'm just unconvinced that

the folks pushing this particular law are free from that same type of

motivation.

 

Namaste,

 

prainbow

 

> Tell that to the Jews of Spain who during 1391 and for twenty

> years after were forced to convert to Christianity or have their

> rights and opportunities eroded or be killed. Over 50,000 were

> murdered, 70 Jewish communities were destroyed and more

> 200,000 converted to Christianity.

>

> As if that wasn't enough, the Inquisition of 1492 next accused

> those Jews who did convert of heresy and then tortured and

> executed them. Of the Jews who had keep their religion,

> Judaism, they were offered the choice of forced conversion (not

> much of a choice considering the above) or expulsion from

> Spain. The Inquisition continued its draconian rooting out of

> Jewish influences in the community until 1834 when it was

> disbanded, all with the blessing of the Popes who presided over

> the Roman Catholic Church for those 342 years.

>

> Perhaps Tamil Nadu is right to protect its citizens from such an

> immoral body that claims to be a religion.

>

> OM Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

[Guest guest]

We, Indians, come from a tradition where we tolerated and WELCOMED all religions

and gave protection to all. We have the first synagogue outside west Asia; we

have the first church outside west Asia (long before the west had any) and the

first mosque outside west Asia. We are the only country that DID not persecute

religions on any ground whatsoever.

 

The Christians came with all sorts of tricks and inducements to take advantage

of our poverty. Just to overt What is the basis of conversion? Destroy the

indigenous culture and impose theirs - then say that oh the natives had no

culture. The best examples are Africa and South America.

 

I have heard this statement again and again. Only a few weeks back someone said

"I can take an African from the bush but not bush from an African" - in

circumstances where it would have meant professional death sentence but being

white he escaped unscathed.

 

Now we are facing a cultural invasion of unprecedented nature. In such

circumstances these laws are needed. We have banned only "FORCIBLE AND

FARUDULENT" conversions. Not conversion on the basis of individual conscience

not induced by external influences is illegal. If people are protesting against

that, it indicates that what has been going on is "FORCED and FARUULENT". That,

sir, is unacceptable.

 

If there have been attacks on the so called “missionaries” it’s because they

crossed all boundaries of decency and attacked other peoples’ faith. That is the

natural reaction of nature.

 

Will these people go to Afghanistan and Middle East and start converting? They

WILL NOT they know the reaction will be quick and FINAL. So let’s stop this

conversion business. They tried it in India for 100s of years with all sorts of

tricks. The success has been limited. They tell the “dalits” that you convert

and your dalit status will go. It did go. They lost the benefits of affirmative

action. But the so called “forward caste” Christians continues to treat them as

untouchable.

 

So lets have strict rules on conversion.

 

prainbow61 <paulie-rainbow wrote:

 

Omprem,

 

In addition to what you wrote here, many Jews also "converted" then, finding

this was insufficient to save their lives and the lives of their family members,

fled to the "New World." Currently many Catholics of Mexican decent are tracing

back their lineage and making a surprising discovery of their previously unknown

Jewish heritage. It's tragic really, that so much time was lost, so many years

when family traditions could not be openly transmitted and shared.

 

 

However, I find myself wondering about any laws regarding religion and

conversion. I feel that history tells that laws in regard to religion tend to be

motivated by a particular religious bias.

 

 

I am no friend of the radical evangelicals that spread out, particularly from my

own country and attempt to convert all of the world. My distaste for them knows

no bounds. I'm just unconvinced that the folks pushing this particular law are

free from that same type of motivation.

 

 

Namaste,

 

prainbow

 

 

Tell that to the Jews of Spain who during 1391 and for twenty years after were

forced to convert to Christianity or have their rights and opportunities eroded

or be killed. Over 50,000 were murdered, 70 Jewish communities were destroyed

and more 200,000 converted to Christianity.

 

As if that wasn't enough, the Inquisition of 1492 next accused those Jews who

did convert of heresy and then tortured and executed them. Of the Jews who had

keep their religion, Judaism, they were offered the choice of forced conversion

(not much of a choice considering the above) or expulsion from Spain. The

Inquisition continued its draconian rooting out of Jewish influences in the

community until 1834 when it was disbanded, all with the blessing of the Popes

who presided over the Roman Catholic Church for those 342 years.

 

Perhaps Tamil Nadu is right to protect its citizens from such an immoral body

that claims to be a religion.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more

faith.

 

 

[Guest guest]

OM Prainbow

 

Yes, many Jews fled to the 'New World' to escape persecution

and death in Spain and Portugal. Unfortunately they discovered

that as Spain and Portugal controlled the New World at that time

they faced similar persecution even there.

 

Attempting to put a legislative stop to overzealous, immoral, and

deceitful 'Christian' proslytizing may indeed have the agenda of

protecting Hinduism. But is this a bad thing? Hindus are

generally gracious and peaceful. They are more than tolerant,

they are accepting, patient and welcoming. Hinduism itself is a

very sattvic religion, promoting the ideal of human perfectability

and God-realization. Christianity is a tamasic/rajasic religion:

tamasic in that it wallows the in the idea of sin as an permanent

element of human nature; rajasic in that it sees itself as the only

way to God and seeks to force this view on all. Hinduism,

whether God or Goddess oriented, views 'sin' as only temporary

desire that will eventually be replaced with an enlightened state

of being as one's discernment becomes more subtle. For

Hindusim, paths are many, Truth is One.

 

These most unchristian of 'Christians' take advantage of the

good graces of the people of Tamil Nadu (and elsewhere) and

manipulate their innocent and naivete but, in doing so,

demonstrate the negative and fundamentally flawed basis of

Christianity as practiced by all the branches of Christianity except

for the mystical ones.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

, "prainbow61" <paulie-rainbow@u...>

wrote:

> Omprem,

>

> In addition to what you wrote here, many Jews also "converted"

then,

> finding this was insufficient to save their lives and the lives of

> their family members, fled to the "New World." Currently many

> Catholics of Mexican decent are tracing back their lineage and

making

> a surprising discovery of their previously unknown Jewish

heritage.

> It's tragic really, that so much time was lost, so many years

when

> family traditions could not be openly transmitted and shared.

>

> However, I find myself wondering about any laws regarding

religion and

> conversion. I feel that history tells that laws in regard to religion

> tend to be motivated by a particular religious bias.

>

> I am no friend of the radical evangelicals that spread out,

> particularly from my own country and attempt to convert all of

the

> world. My distaste for them knows no bounds. I'm just

unconvinced that

> the folks pushing this particular law are free from that same

type of

> motivation.

>

> Namaste,

>

> prainbow

>

>

> > Tell that to the Jews of Spain who during 1391 and for twenty

> > years after were forced to convert to Christianity or have their

> > rights and opportunities eroded or be killed. Over 50,000

were

> > murdered, 70 Jewish communities were destroyed and

more

> > 200,000 converted to Christianity.

> >

> > As if that wasn't enough, the Inquisition of 1492 next accused

> > those Jews who did convert of heresy and then tortured and

> > executed them. Of the Jews who had keep their religion,

> > Judaism, they were offered the choice of forced conversion

(not

> > much of a choice considering the above) or expulsion from

> > Spain. The Inquisition continued its draconian rooting out of

> > Jewish influences in the community until 1834 when it was

> > disbanded, all with the blessing of the Popes who presided

over

> > the Roman Catholic Church for those 342 years.

> >

> > Perhaps Tamil Nadu is right to protect its citizens from such

an

> > immoral body that claims to be a religion.

> >

> > OM Namah Sivaya

> >

> > Omprem

[Guest guest]

OM Sankara Menon

 

As you already know, I have a great respect and liking for you and

your posts. However, in this last post of yours, I must make one

point.

 

You said, "If there have been attacks on the so called

"missionaries" it's because they crossed all boundaries of

decency and attacked other peoples' faith. That is

the natural reaction of nature."

 

There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for burning to death a

missionary and his small children in their car. This type of action

only drags one down to the mentality of the deceitful missionary.

The missionary destroys lives and cultures as you so correctly

point out. But such acts of revenge and frustration against

missionaries not only destroy lives including the lives of

uninvolved children but just as surely as the prosletyzing, those

acts destroy the vitality and sattvic nature of the community. That

community will never be the same again. With such gruesome

murders, the community chose to separate itself from Brahman

and wallow in desire and fear. We all know the undesireability

and futilityof that path.

 

As Swami Sivananda has said,

Serve. Love. Give. Purify. Meditate. Realize.

Be good. Do good. Be kind. Be compassionate.

Adapt. Adjust. Accommodate.

Bear insult, bear injury, highest Sadhana.

Bear insult, bear injury, highest Yoga.

Inquire, " Who am I. " Know thyself and be free.

Om Tat Sat. Om Tat Sat. Om Tat Sat. Om

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Paths are many, Truth is One.

 

Omprem

 

, sankara menon <kochu1tz>

wrote:

>

> We, Indians, come from a tradition where we tolerated and

WELCOMED all religions and gave protection to all. We have the

first synagogue outside west Asia; we have the first church

outside west Asia (long before the west had any) and the first

mosque outside west Asia. We are the only country that DID not

persecute religions on any ground whatsoever.

>

> The Christians came with all sorts of tricks and inducements

to take advantage of our poverty. Just to overt What is the basis of

conversion? Destroy the indigenous culture and impose theirs -

then say that oh the natives had no culture. The best examples

are Africa and South America.

>

> I have heard this statement again and again. Only a few weeks

back someone said "I can take an African from the bush but not

bush from an African" - in circumstances where it would have

meant professional death sentence but being white he escaped

unscathed.

>

> Now we are facing a cultural invasion of unprecedented nature.

In such circumstances these laws are needed. We have banned

only "FORCIBLE AND FARUDULENT" conversions. Not

conversion on the basis of individual conscience not induced by

external influences is illegal. If people are protesting against

that, it indicates that what has been going on is "FORCED and

FARUULENT". That, sir, is unacceptable.

>

> If there have been attacks on the so called "missionaries" it's

because they crossed all boundaries of decency and attacked

other peoples' faith. That is the natural reaction of nature.

>

> Will these people go to Afghanistan and Middle East and start

converting? They WILL NOT they know the reaction will be quick

and FINAL. So let's stop this conversion business. They tried it in

India for 100s of years with all sorts of tricks. The success has

been limited. They tell the "dalits" that you convert and your dalit

status will go. It did go. They lost the benefits of affirmative

action. But the so called "forward caste" Christians continues to

treat them as untouchable.

>

> So lets have strict rules on conversion.

>

> prainbow61 <paulie-rainbow@u... wrote:

>

> Omprem,

>

> In addition to what you wrote here, many Jews also "converted"

then, finding this was insufficient to save their lives and the lives

of their family members, fled to the "New World." Currently many

Catholics of Mexican decent are tracing back their lineage and

making a surprising discovery of their previously unknown

Jewish heritage. It's tragic really, that so much time was lost, so

many years when family traditions could not be openly

transmitted and shared.

>

>

> However, I find myself wondering about any laws regarding

religion and conversion. I feel that history tells that laws in regard

to religion tend to be motivated by a particular religious bias.

>

>

> I am no friend of the radical evangelicals that spread out,

particularly from my own country and attempt to convert all of the

world. My distaste for them knows no bounds. I'm just

unconvinced that the folks pushing this particular law are free

from that same type of motivation.

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> prainbow

>

>

> Tell that to the Jews of Spain who during 1391 and for twenty

years after were forced to convert to Christianity or have their

rights and opportunities eroded or be killed. Over 50,000 were

murdered, 70 Jewish communities were destroyed and more

200,000 converted to Christianity.

>

> As if that wasn't enough, the Inquisition of 1492 next accused

those Jews who did convert of heresy and then tortured and

executed them. Of the Jews who had keep their religion,

Judaism, they were offered the choice of forced conversion (not

much of a choice considering the above) or expulsion from

Spain. The Inquisition continued its draconian rooting out of

Jewish influences in the community until 1834 when it was

disbanded, all with the blessing of the Popes who presided over

the Roman Catholic Church for those 342 years.

>

> Perhaps Tamil Nadu is right to protect its citizens from such an

immoral body that claims to be a religion.

>

> OM Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

>

 

>

> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more

> faith.

>

>

[Guest guest]

hello kochu, namaskarams to you!

 

i enjoyed reading your 'frank and fearless' comments on the

conversion issue...

 

however, i do agree with ompremji when he says " There is absolutely

no excuse whatsoever for burning to death a missionary and his small

children in their car...... etc... "

 

this is totally unacceptable, undesirable and unethical... this is

certainly not Sanatana dharma as practiced by*real* hindus ...i am

very appalled that these violent acts occurred in the state of

Gujarat, the land to which our beloved, peace-loving Mahatma Gandhi

belonged....

 

KOchu , on another note- you have raised some interesting

questions...

 

you ask...RATHER INTERESTINGLY,

 

"Will these people go to Afghanistan and Middle East and start

converting? They WILL NOT they know the reaction will be quick

and FINAL."

 

kochu, i have just started reading the book 'Beyond belief' by the

Nobel laurette v.s. Naipaul- i recommend you read it, please...

 

in fact, in literary circles , it is being said rather jokingly that

shri v.s. naipaul won this coveted nobel prize for literature only

because his Book "beyond belief" crticizes 'islamic fundamentalism'

and the nobel award committee thought in the year 2001 when the 9/11

attacks occurred , this is the best way of showing their condemnation

of islamic terrorism... the point being made is naipaul was not being

awarded for his literary genius but for the choice of his theme -

islamic aggression!

 

well, i myself am an admirer of naipaul's narrative style -as you

know, his parents are from india , but he himself was born in

Trinidad and was educated in england and is now a resident of great

britain... so, he does have the makings of a great author- he is a

great story teller and a stylish writer.

 

in this book, naipaul undertakes an "Islamic Journey" and visit

Iran, Pak­istan, Malaysia and Indonesia.

 

kochu, you would love reading this - naipaul very eloquently points

out how in converting the local people, it destroys the sacredness of

the local culture and its environment- instead, " But it does allow

to one peoples, and only one peoples, the original peoples of the

Prophet. their sacred places, pilgrimage and earth reverences; and

these sacred Arab places have to be the sacred places of all the

con­verted peoples."

 

naipaul also observes " the converts are trying to erase their past;

the second is that though they were once victims of an aggression,

they are now all for the aggressor, for the Arabs. Whether in Iran,

Pakistan, Indonesia, their fundamental rage is against the past,

against history, and all this accompanied with the "impossible

dream of the true faith growing out of a spiritual vacancy."

but, naipaul notes "

 

"Pakistan still retains important fragments of the past in its dress,

customs, ceremonies, festivals and social organization. But it means

no relaxation, no relief for the people.

It only means that there is much more to do for fundamentalists, much

more to deny and repudiate and change."

 

Similarly, Naipaul finds that in Pakistan though most people are

converts, to them their ancient "land is of no religious or

historical importance, its relics are of no account; only the sands

of Arabia are sacred." Their concept of history has com­pletely

altered and that al­teration has inevitably dim­inished the

intellectual life of the country. All the his­tory of the ancient

land has ceased to matter; in the school history books, the history

of Pakistan has be­come only an aspect of the history of Islam. The

Muslim invaders, and especially the Arabs, have become the hero­es

of the Pakistan story."

 

so naipaul notes islam is synonymous with Arabization. SOME PEOPLE IN

IRAN EVEN GAVE UP THEIR PERSIAN NAMES AND ADOPTED ARAB NAMES to show

their solidarity.

 

in the hands of naipual, 'conversion' has taken on a new meaning. "

"Though on one side it stands for aggression, on the side of victims,

it stands for self alienation, for es­trangement from one's

own people a more important component of the concept. The

converts have a special psychology. They became converts under great

press­ure;but subsequently they solve the problem by pretending that

the their conversion was voluntary'. Their fore­fathers were defeated

and humiliated; but they over­come this feeling by identifying

themselves with the vic­tors and the aggressors. Even after conversion

the pressure continues, they try to prove they are more loyal than

the king himself; they become ardent champions and standard&09;bearers

of Is­lam. In Iran, they think the Arabs are not sufficiently Muslim,

and it is Iran's manifest destiny to keep Is­lam's flag aloft."

 

kochu, i am going to write to Naipaul and ask him to write a book

on 'christian fundamentalism' and he should travel to south america

and other countries of asia etc and expose the ugly side of christian

fundametalism...

 

interestingly, naipaul himself is married to a pakistani muslim lady

named nadira- but she has not managed to convert him to islam - on

the contrary, she is an avid supporter of her husband and rather

defends him when he was recently attacked by the press for this

controversial book 'beyond belief.' - crusade against islamic

fundamentalism...

 

NAIPAUL ALSO SAYS THE HINDUS WERE QUITE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO

DESTROY THE 'BABRI MOSQUE' IN ayodhya because naipaul notes king

babar had no business destroying the hindu temple in the land of

ayodhya, the abode of king rama.... well, to be honest, this is going

too far! so, we are going to take revenge and seek retribution for

something that happened yaers and years ago? please, give me a

break!!!!

 

love

[Guest guest]

Well!! Some stray thoughts. This is a composite posting on some of the

messages.

 

The definition of “Hindu” that I found rather accurate is given below.

 

The word Hindu is not a religious word. It is secular in origin. It is derived

from the word Sindhu, which is the name of a major river that flows in the

northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent. The ancient Greeks and Armenians

used to refer the people living beyond the river Sindhu as Hindus and gradually

the name struck. When the Muslims came to the sub continent they called the

people living in the region as Hindustanis to distinguish them from the foreign

Muslims. Subsequently when the British established their rule, they started

calling the local religions collectively under the name of Hinduism.

 

It is interesting to note that the word is neither Sanskrit nor Dravidian and

did not originate in India. It was not used by Indians in their descriptions or

writings till the 17th century. If we go by the original definition of the word

Hindu, any one who lives in the subcontinent is a Hindu and whatever religion he

or she practices is Hinduism. The word Hindu is a secular word and literally

translated it means Indian and the word Hinduism denotes any religion or

religions that are practiced by the multitude of people living in the land

beyond the river Indus.

 

So Hind is not anyone who will allow is kith and kin to be killed by others and

watch on non-violently. He is not the person who is perforce forced to watch the

rape of his mother, sister or daughter. Whether a human is a “Hindu” or not he

is bound to defend his home and hearth. A person will not cease to a Hindu”

because he is a soldier fighting to defend his motherland.

 

About Naipaul, I think I know him reasonably well. I have autographed copies of

all his books sent over a period of time. I have read and where I disagreed I

have sent rather long and boring missives.

 

There is Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. Easily definable.

There is no such thing as Hindu fundamentalism. It is just a reaction of a group

of people with rather DIVERSE beliefs against the attack on their beliefs.

 

No I do not agree that there was any need for demolishing the Babari “MASJID”. I

emphasize that there was, in terms of quoranic injunctions, no mosque or Masjid

at that place. There was a building that one time was a masjid and was, at the

relevant time a temple. The act of demolition of that building was not an act of

faith – like the demolitions carried out by the Muslims and Christians in the

east and in the new world. It was a political and symbolic act by a political

group of Hindus (they also include Christians and Muslims, who also, by the

above definition are “Hindus”. BJP and its sister organisations are not PURELY

“Hindu” as defined by the West, but include lots of Muslims and Christians.). So

what was demolished was a HINDU TEMPLE that at one time about 100 years or so

ago WAS a Masjid and which was ABANDONED and by the tenets of Islam ceased to be

as such.

 

The reason for this entire hullabaloo is nothing but political and part of the

pan Islamic concept of religious expansionism.

 

I do not agree that the burning of the missionary was justified. We cannot be

the judges and executioners on the individual level. But maybe it was his Karma.

There is a saying “Samsargajaa dosha gunaa bhavanti”. It is by association that

good and bad takes place. Probably it was the association with this man and

unethical practices of his that caused the children also to fall victim to the

carnage.

 

I am just being open and frank and am penning the thoughts that come up. If I am

wrong forgive me.

 

Kochu

 

adi_shakthi16 <adi_shakthi16 wrote:

 

hello kochu, namaskarams to you!

 

i enjoyed reading your 'frank and fearless' comments on the conversion issue...

 

however, i do agree with ompremji when he says " There is absolutely no excuse

whatsoever for burning to death a missionary and his small children in their

car...... etc... "

 

this is totally unacceptable, undesirable and unethical... this is certainly not

Sanatana dharma as practiced by*real* Hindus ...i am very appalled that these

violent acts occurred in the state of Gujarat, the land to which our beloved,

peace-loving Mahatma Gandhi belonged....

 

KOchu , on another note- you have raised some interesting questions...

 

you ask...RATHER INTERESTINGLY,

 

"Will these people go to Afghanistan and Middle East and start converting? They

WILL NOT they know the reaction will be quick and FINAL."

 

kochu, i have just started reading the book 'Beyond belief' by the Nobel

laurette v.s. Naipaul- i recommend you read it, please...

 

in fact, in literary circles , it is being said rather jokingly that shri v.s.

naipaul won this coveted nobel prize for literature only because his Book

"beyond belief" crticizes 'islamic fundamentalism' and the nobel award committee

thought in the year 2001 when the 9/11 attacks occurred , this is the best way

of showing their condemnation of islamic terrorism... the point being made is

naipaul was not being awarded for his literary genius but for the choice of his

theme - islamic aggression!

 

well, i myself am an admirer of naipaul's narrative style -as you know, his

parents are from india , but he himself was born in Trinidad and was educated in

england and is now a resident of great britain... so, he does have the makings

of a great author- he is a great story teller and a stylish writer.

 

in this book, naipaul undertakes an "Islamic Journey" and visit Iran,

Pak­istan, Malaysia and Indonesia.

 

kochu, you would love reading this - naipaul very eloquently points out how in

converting the local people, it destroys the sacredness of the local culture and

its environment- instead, " But it does allow to one peoples, and only one

peoples, the original peoples of the Prophet. their sacred places, pilgrimage

and earth reverences; and these sacred Arab places have to be the sacred places

of all the con­verted peoples."

 

naipaul also observes " the converts are trying to erase their past; the second

is that though they were once victims of an aggression, they are now all for the

aggressor, for the Arabs. Whether in Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, their

fundamental rage is against the past, against history, and all this accompanied

with the "impossible dream of the true faith growing out of a spiritual

vacancy."

 

 

but, naipaul notes "

 

"Pakistan still retains important fragments of the past in its dress, customs,

ceremonies, festivals and social organization. But it means no relaxation, no

relief for the people. It only means that there is much more to do for

fundamentalists, much more to deny and repudiate and change."

 

Similarly, Naipaul finds that in Pakistan though most people are converts, to

them their ancient "land is of no religious or historical importance, its relics

are of no account; only the sands of Arabia are sacred." Their concept of

history has com­pletely altered and that al­teration has inevitably

dim­inished the intellectual life of the country. All the his­tory of

the ancient land has ceased to matter; in the school history books, the history

of Pakistan has be­come only an aspect of the history of Islam. The Muslim

invaders, and especially the Arabs, have become the hero­es of the Pakistan

story."

 

so naipaul notes islam is synonymous with Arabization. SOME PEOPLE IN IRAN EVEN

GAVE UP THEIR PERSIAN NAMES AND ADOPTED ARAB NAMES to show their solidarity.

 

in the hands of naipual, 'conversion' has taken on a new meaning. Though on

one side it stands for aggression, on the side of victims, it stands for self

alienation, for es­trangement from one's own people a more important

component of the concept. The converts have a special psychology. They became

converts under great press­ure; but subsequently they solve the problem by

pretending that the their conversion was voluntary'. Their fore­fathers were

defeated and humiliated; but they over­come this feeling by

identifyingthemselves with the vic­tors and the aggressors. Even after

conversion the pressure continues, they try to prove they are more loyal than

the king himself; they become ardent champions and standard bearers of

Is­lam. In Iran, they think the Arabs are not sufficiently Muslim, and it is

Iran's manifest destiny to keep Is­lam's flag aloft."

 

kochu, i am going to write to Naipaul and ask him to write a book on 'christian

fundamentalism' and he should travel to south america and other countries of

asia etc and expose the ugly side of christian fundametalism...

 

interestingly, naipaul himself is married to a pakistani muslim lady named

nadira- but she has not managed to convert him to islam - on the contrary, she

is an avid supporter of her husband and rather defends him when he was recently

attacked by the press for this controversial book 'beyond belief.' - crusade

against islamic fundamentalism...

 

NAIPAUL ALSO SAYS THE HINDUS WERE QUITE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO DESTROY THE

'BABRI MOSQUE' IN ayodhya because naipaul notes king babar had no business

destroying the hindu temple in the land of ayodhya, the abode of king rama....

well, to be honest, this is going too far! so, we are going to take revenge and

seek retribution for something that happened yaers and years ago? please, give

me a break!!!!

 

love

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

 

 

[Guest guest]

hello kochu, thank you so much for responding so promptly....

 

well, i have read this poular explanation of the term 'hindu' on the

web in more than one place... specially on V.JAYARAM'S WEBSITE on

Hinduism...

 

but.... i have also read the other viewpoint that the " This

[sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably

ranked highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth would

not have been without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines

waiting to be discovered, identified and Christened by foreigners."

 

rather. in a book titled Self-Government in India by N. B. Pavgee,

published in 1912, The author tells of an old Swami and Sanskrit

scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient PuranA known as

Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained

the verse:

 

HIMALAYAM SAMARABHYA YAVAT BINDUSAROVARAM

HINDUSTHANAMITI QYATAM HI ANTARAKSHARAYOGATAH

 

TRANSLATION

 

"The country lying between the Himalayan mountain and Bindu Sarovara

(Cape Comorin sea) is known as Hindusthan by combination of the first

letter `hi' of `Himalaya' and the last compound letter `ndu' of the

word `Bindu.'"

 

SOURCE: Hinduism Today, April 1992.

http://www.HinduismToday.kauai.hi.us/ashram/welcome.html

 

SO, THEN REALLY WHO IS A HINDU? i know and i know very well that i

may change my dress, my hairstyle, my way of speaking (my accent) and

may even convert to islam but deep in my heart i will always be

a 'hindu' ... that is why i MAINTAIN ONCE A HINDU ALWAYSA HINDU -it

is not a religion, it is not a faith - it is the way of life ..... i

have been in usa for 25 years and i do not even follow many of my age

old customs and traditions but in my way of thinking i will always be

a HINDU...

 

 

during the hindu-muslim riots, for every hindu woman raped , there

were atleast two muslim women that were raped or vice-versa... for

every hindu shop that was burned down, there were two muslim shops

that were burned down and vice-versa, for every hindu child killed,

there were two muslim children who were killed or vice-versa...

 

when riots break out, and violence erupts, there is no telling who is

a hindu, who is a muslim or a sikh or a christian.... so let us not

please pretend on this issue and have a 'holier than thou

attitude'...

 

when i was in London recently - i used a taxi service manned by

pakistani muslims--- while going back and forth to the tube station

from my home- these cab drivers were so polite, courteous and

treated me like a royal visitor- there was one muslim guy named

Khalid in particular - who played the best of 'kishore' kumar songs

for me while riding his cab, always chivalrous opening the door and

escorting me to my door step carrying my shopping bags - and above

all he addressed me as 'mataji.... so, kochu, you see , when you are

abroad- all these distinctions vanish- hindu, muslim etc.... there is

an affinity among the people from the sub-continent...

 

well, any kind of demolition of any structure or building is bad

whether on religious grounds or whether motivated by political

considerations....

 

muslim extremists at one point tried to demolish the Borobudhur

temple in Indonesia- this great buddhist monument was rebuilt and now

is a great tourist attraction- i am told it is visited by muslims,

hindus and other tourists alike...

 

of late, i see in india a different climate- this was not the case 25

years ago - when i was in india in the 60s, i never experienced any

hostility towards muslims .... all these hostilities are more

prominent now after the 'kashmir' issue... i wonder how much of this

is fuelled by 'external' elements..

 

 

kochu,- once again- sorry! i do not to the 'karma' theory-

we cannot use the 'karma' theory when it suits us and discard it when

it does not suit us...

yOU SAY THE MISSIONARY'S KIDS DIED BECAUSE OF THEIR BAD KARMA- THEY

WERE IN THE SAME CAR WITH THE MISSIONARY who obviously was guilty of

subversive conversion practices or whatever?

 

if that is true, all the innocent people who died in wtc on sep 11,

2002 died because of their bad karma? is it because they all lived

and worked in new york, usa - a country which haS a bad karmic past

AND INCURS BAD KARMA EVERY MINUTE WITH ITS seseless bombing in

afghanistan? no dear, everything is not just KARMA - IT IS DHARMA AND

KARMA --

 

everything that is taking place in the present day world IS BECAUSE

OF THE GREED FOR POWER - and we all are guilty to some extent to

adding fuel to this fire - the india of today is not the india of

mahatma gandhi? why else would we go nuclear? so, let us not kid

ourselves and say we are not fanatics ... we are 'sadhus'

and 'saints.'

 

love

[Guest guest]

OM Sankaraji

 

"I do not agree that the burning of the missionary was justified.

We cannot be the judges and executioners on the individual

level. But maybe it was his Karma. There is a saying

"Samsargajaa dosha gunaa bhavanti". It is by association that

good and bad takes place. Probably it was the association with

this man and unethical practices of his that caused the children

also to fall victim to the carnage."

 

It cannot be claimed that one's murder is simply due to one's

karma in an attempt to absolve those who committed the murder

of their responsibility, karmic and otherwise, for that murder. To

murder is also one's karma - and it carries some heavy

penalties. Those who murder do so in association with their

victim. they have the capacity to make choices. They chose to

associate with their their victim and with their fears instead of

associating with Devi. They chose tamas and rajas over sattva.

And they must pay the price for doing so.

 

So , yes it can be said, in one sense, that all actions are karma

but it must also be remembered that some actions carry further

karmic consequences. Only those actions that are selfless, with

not a hint of self interest, carry no karmic consequences. This

sort of selfless action is certainly not evident in either the

deluded missionary or those who murder him.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

, sankara menon <kochu1tz>

wrote:

>

> Well!! Some stray thoughts. This is a composite posting on

some of the messages.

>

> The definition of "Hindu" that I found rather accurate is given

below.

>

> The word Hindu is not a religious word. It is secular in origin. It

is derived from the word Sindhu, which is the name of a major

river that flows in the northwestern region of the Indian

subcontinent. The ancient Greeks and Armenians used to refer

the people living beyond the river Sindhu as Hindus and

gradually the name struck. When the Muslims came to the sub

continent they called the people living in the region as

Hindustanis to distinguish them from the foreign Muslims.

Subsequently when the British established their rule, they

started calling the local religions collectively under the name of

Hinduism.

>

> It is interesting to note that the word is neither Sanskrit nor

Dravidian and did not originate in India. It was not used by

Indians in their descriptions or writings till the 17th century. If we

go by the original definition of the word Hindu, any one who lives

in the subcontinent is a Hindu and whatever religion he or she

practices is Hinduism. The word Hindu is a secular word and

literally translated it means Indian and the word Hinduism

denotes any religion or religions that are practiced by the

multitude of people living in the land beyond the river Indus.

>

> So Hind is not anyone who will allow is kith and kin to be killed

by others and watch on non-violently. He is not the person who is

perforce forced to watch the rape of his mother, sister or

daughter. Whether a human is a "Hindu" or not he is bound to

defend his home and hearth. A person will not cease to a Hindu"

because he is a soldier fighting to defend his motherland.

>

> About Naipaul, I think I know him reasonably well. I have

autographed copies of all his books sent over a period of time. I

have read and where I disagreed I have sent rather long and

boring missives.

>

> There is Muslim fundamentalism and Christian

fundamentalism. Easily definable. There is no such thing as

Hindu fundamentalism. It is just a reaction of a group of people

with rather DIVERSE beliefs against the attack on their beliefs.

>

> No I do not agree that there was any need for demolishing the

Babari "MASJID". I emphasize that there was, in terms of

quoranic injunctions, no mosque or Masjid at that place. There

was a building that one time was a masjid and was, at the

relevant time a temple. The act of demolition of that building was

not an act of faith – like the demolitions carried out by the

Muslims and Christians in the east and in the new world. It was

a political and symbolic act by a political group of Hindus (they

also include Christians and Muslims, who also, by the above

definition are "Hindus". BJP and its sister organisations are not

PURELY "Hindu" as defined by the West, but include lots of

Muslims and Christians.). So what was demolished was a

HINDU TEMPLE that at one time about 100 years or so ago WAS

a Masjid and which was ABANDONED and by the tenets of Islam

ceased to be as such.

>

> The reason for this entire hullabaloo is nothing but political

and part of the pan Islamic concept of religious expansionism.

>

> I do not agree that the burning of the missionary was justified.

We cannot be the judges and executioners on the individual

level. But maybe it was his Karma. There is a saying

"Samsargajaa dosha gunaa bhavanti". It is by association that

good and bad takes place. Probably it was the association with

this man and unethical practices of his that caused the children

also to fall victim to the carnage.

>

> I am just being open and frank and am penning the thoughts

that come up. If I am wrong forgive me.

>

> Kochu

>

> adi_shakthi16 <adi_shakthi16> wrote:

>

> hello kochu, namaskarams to you!

>

> i enjoyed reading your 'frank and fearless' comments on the

conversion issue...

>

> however, i do agree with ompremji when he says " There is

absolutely no excuse whatsoever for burning to death a

missionary and his small children in their car...... etc... "

>

> this is totally unacceptable, undesirable and unethical... this is

certainly not Sanatana dharma as practiced by*real* Hindus ...i

am very appalled that these violent acts occurred in the state of

Gujarat, the land to which our beloved, peace-loving Mahatma

Gandhi belonged....

>

> KOchu , on another note- you have raised some interesting

questions...

>

> you ask...RATHER INTERESTINGLY,

>

> "Will these people go to Afghanistan and Middle East and start

converting? They WILL NOT they know the reaction will be quick

and FINAL."

>

> kochu, i have just started reading the book 'Beyond belief' by

the Nobel laurette v.s. Naipaul- i recommend you read it,

please...

>

> in fact, in literary circles , it is being said rather jokingly that shri=

 

v.s. naipaul won this coveted nobel prize for literature only

because his Book "beyond belief" crticizes 'islamic

fundamentalism' and the nobel award committee thought in the

year 2001 when the 9/11 attacks occurred , this is the best way of

showing their condemnation of islamic terrorism... the point

being made is naipaul was not being awarded for his literary

genius but for the choice of his theme - islamic aggression!

>

> well, i myself am an admirer of naipaul's narrative style -as you

know, his parents are from india , but he himself was born in

Trinidad and was educated in england and is now a resident of

great britain... so, he does have the makings of a great author-

he is a great story teller and a stylish writer.

>

> in this book, naipaul undertakes an "Islamic Journey" and visit

Iran, Pak­istan, Malaysia and Indonesia.

>

> kochu, you would love reading this - naipaul very eloquently

points out how in converting the local people, it destroys the

sacredness of the local culture and its environment- instead, "

But it does allow to one peoples, and only one peoples, the

original peoples of the Prophet. their sacred places, pilgrimage

and earth reverences; and these sacred Arab places have to be

the sacred places of all the con­verted peoples."

>

> naipaul also observes " the converts are trying to erase their

past; the second is that though they were once victims of an

aggression, they are now all for the aggressor, for the Arabs.

Whether in Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, their fundamental rage is

against the past, against history, and all this accompanied with

the "impossible dream of the true faith growing out of a spiritual

vacancy."

>

>

> but, naipaul notes "

>

> "Pakistan still retains important fragments of the past in its

dress, customs, ceremonies, festivals and social organization.

But it means no relaxation, no relief for the people. It only means

that there is much more to do for fundamentalists, much more to

deny and repudiate and change."

>

> Similarly, Naipaul finds that in Pakistan though most people

are converts, to them their ancient "land is of no religious or

historical importance, its relics are of no account; only the sands

of Arabia are sacred." Their concept of history has

com­pletely altered and that al­teration has inevitably

dim­inished the intellectual life of the country. All the

his­tory of the ancient land has ceased to matter; in the

school history books, the history of Pakistan has be­come

only an aspect of the history of Islam. The Muslim invaders, and

especially the Arabs, have become the hero­es of the

Pakistan story."

>

> so naipaul notes islam is synonymous with Arabization. SOME

PEOPLE IN IRAN EVEN GAVE UP THEIR PERSIAN NAMES AND

ADOPTED ARAB NAMES to show their solidarity.

>

> in the hands of naipual, 'conversion' has taken on a new

meaning. Though on one side it stands for aggression, on the

side of victims, it stands for self alienation, for

es­trangement from one's own people a more important

component of the concept. The converts have a special

psychology. They became converts under great press­ure;

but subsequently they solve the problem by pretending that the

their conversion was voluntary'. Their fore­fathers were

defeated and humiliated; but they over­come this feeling by

identifyingthemselves with the vic­tors and the aggressors.

Even after conversion the pressure continues, they try to prove

they are more loyal than the king himself; they become ardent

champions and standard bearers of Is­lam. In Iran, they

think the Arabs are not sufficiently Muslim, and it is Iran's

manifest destiny to keep Is­lam's flag aloft."

>

> kochu, i am going to write to Naipaul and ask him to write a

book on 'christian fundamentalism' and he should travel to south

america and other countries of asia etc and expose the ugly side

of christian fundametalism...

>

> interestingly, naipaul himself is married to a pakistani muslim

lady named nadira- but she has not managed to convert him to

islam - on the contrary, she is an avid supporter of her husband

and rather defends him when he was recently attacked by the

press for this controversial book 'beyond belief.' - crusade

against islamic fundamentalism...

>

> NAIPAUL ALSO SAYS THE HINDUS WERE QUITE WITHIN

THEIR RIGHTS TO DESTROY THE 'BABRI MOSQUE' IN ayodhya

because naipaul notes king babar had no business destroying

the hindu temple in the land of ayodhya, the abode of king

rama.... well, to be honest, this is going too far! so, we are going

to take revenge and seek retribution for something that

happened yaers and years ago? please, give me a break!!!!

>

> love

>

 

>

> Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

>

>