an appeal to scholars

[Guest guest]

To the few scholars who may remain on this once scholarly list:

 

This list has once again been overrun by fanatics, this time by fanatics who

wish to characterize all Indologists as neo-Nazi racists. Well, I know that

there is no point in responding to these fanatics, since they have repeatedly

demonstrated that they do not listen to reason. But I am concerned about the

health of this list, in the absence of a rational and truly ethical response

to the unscholarly and truly immoral trash that has dominated the list lately.

 

In general, I respect the decision of those who have decided to ignore the

provocations of these Hindu fanatics. I myself have tried to do so. But how

can we. with good conscience. remain silent in the face of such outrageously

false and malicious slander? Should we remain silent before these vicious

assaults on good people, good people both living and dead, whom we know are

not racists at all?

 

I will declare once again that I detest racism as much as anyone on this

list. Anyone whatsoever. And that is why I refuse to remain silent before

the blatent racism of these Hindu apologists, who have repeatedly shown

themselves to be racist down to the bitter core.

 

I know. Scholars are scholars. We are not renowned for our courage. But it

is time for us to show some little bit of courage, isn't it? We shouldn't

let these thugs dominate what was once a good, respectable, scholarly

discussion group.

 

Sincerely,

 

George Thompson

[Guest guest]

The events that lead to WWII are born of economic blunders of

nations, along with stresses and strains of economies wherein a brand

new batch of investors (including US) fully went bankrupt every 2-5

years between 1900-1932 and failure of intellectuals of the world in

understanding the events. There were exceptions but they don't count

as they could not prevent the course of events that followed. Common

people had no choice other than live through.

 

AIT/OIT disucssion is the wrong way to go, not because it is harmful

by itself. The real problem is this obsession diverts attention from

the right issues (such as similarities and differences in economic

problems of 1930s and 2000s) and the flash points in current world

polity.

 

The discussion of who is right wing or left wing is in bad taste, and

another wrongful diversion from the issues.

 

Regards

Bhadraiah

[Guest guest]

The obvious religious bias of this post speaks for itself.

INDOLOGY, GthomGT@c... wrote:

> To the few scholars who may remain on this once scholarly list:

>

> This list has once again been overrun by fanatics, this time by

fanatics who

> wish to characterize all Indologists as neo-Nazi racists. Well, I

know that

> there is no point in responding to these fanatics, since they have

repeatedly

> demonstrated that they do not listen to reason. But I am concerned

about the

> health of this list, in the absence of a rational and truly ethical

response

> to the unscholarly and truly immoral trash that has dominated the

list lately.

>

> In general, I respect the decision of those who have decided to

ignore the

> provocations of these Hindu fanatics. I myself have tried to do so.

But how

> can we. with good conscience. remain silent in the face of such

outrageously

> false and malicious slander? Should we remain silent before these

vicious

> assaults on good people, good people both living and dead, whom we

know are

> not racists at all?

>

> I will declare once again that I detest racism as much as anyone on

this

> list. Anyone whatsoever. And that is why I refuse to remain silent

before

> the blatent racism of these Hindu apologists, who have repeatedly

shown

> themselves to be racist down to the bitter core.

>

> I know. Scholars are scholars. We are not renowned for our

courage. But it

> is time for us to show some little bit of courage, isn't it? We

shouldn't

> let these thugs dominate what was once a good, respectable,

scholarly

> discussion group.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> George Thompson

[Guest guest]

Contrary to what Thompson seems to believe, it DOES NOT take much

courage to brand others as 'Hindu fanatics' because this category of

the 'hated other' is so mild that no retribution can be expected. On

the contrary, it takes REAL courage to restraint one's own hysterical

outbursts, to reprimand one's own influential colleagues and friends

when they cross the line of decency and objectivity. And it takes real

courage to acknowledge and disown those Indologists who had shady

associations. It is very easy to whip up a fear psychosis against the

'other' to justify their persecution and ostracism, especially when

the other is very docile and mild AND is correct. I hope that GT will

withdraw his remarks, even if with the pretext that the message was

sent inadvertently because of a computer malfunction, just as he has

done some many times in the past.

 

The frequent use of phrases like 'Hindu fanatics', 'Hindu fascists' is

offensive to neutral practicing Hindus like me. Such abusive

statements are based on the premise that 'Western' Indology is

inherently objective and unbiased, whereas its ideological

affiliations run deeper than any theory associated with Hindutva. What

business does GT have to call 'others' Hindu fanatics repeatedly? It

only reflects his contempt for Hindus as a category, who can be called

fanatics and fascists at the drop of a pin. So much for his opposition

to racist prejudices and the like!

 

In the current atmosphere of 'Western' Indology, the objectivity of

'Western' scholars is considered self-evident whereas an Indian seems

to require an Agni-Parikshaa. Even veteran Indian scholars have to

clarify again and again that 'I have never supported Hindutva' whereas

if they have any courage, they would not do so. Labels like 'Hindu

fanatic', 'fascist', 'Hindutva fanatic' are freely thrown at people of

Indian origin. This is a symptom of the prejudiced minds of some

'objective' scholars. And when we see how in the past (and to some

extent even in the present), these 'objective' scholars (or at least

their views) were linked with dangerous ideologies, it makes me pause

and think if this positive correlation also has some degree of

causation in it.

 

Enrica is so quick to defend her colleagues. Where was she when some

ill-informed people were lampooning scientists and Engineers in India?

May be she also thinks that all those who oppose the 'standard

paradigms' of Indology (in reality established in an age marked by all

kind of prejudices against the people of the 'colonies') are fanatics

and fascists and that she is truly objective, notwithstanding that the

so called Hindu fanatics have not done 1% of what the Fascists did. To

decide who is more dangerous, may we just look at the historical

record please?

 

The AIT/AMT question should have NO BEARING at all with Indian-ness

although you might certainly be aware of the ideological affiliations

of the various theories in CONTEMPORARY India. Contrary to the

writings of Indologists, things are not so simple. AIT in their most

rabid forms are eagerly promoted by some religious fanatics in India

(gave some URL's to Prof Witzel the other day), by Marxists and EVEN

by some Hindutva followers. In fact, the most prominent website on

Hindutva run by a Mr. Bedekar upholds AIT. However, it is

disappointing to note that ill-informed academics sitting in ivory

towers choose to ignore the complexity of the situation and singularly

blame a particular hate category. This amounts to hate mongering, and

putting the blame on a hated 'other', in addition to plain mental

lethargy. I need not dwell on the consequences that this hate

mongering can have.

 

An event or a process that supposedly took place 35 centuries ago

should not have any bearing on present state of affairs in India. I

stated precisely that in one of my first posts on the old Indology

list.

 

I have no axe to grind against 'Western' Academics when certain Indian

academics are no better. However, it is a democracy and each is free

to air his or her opinions. What is strange is that the so called

scholars resort to the most cheap, low name calling, demonization of

people who oppose their opinions, calling them fanatics, fascists,

crooks and crazies. All this reflects clearly their internalized

prejudices. If AIT skeptics are called fanatics, then there is much in

the views of AMT/AIT upholders to link their opinions to all kinds of

dangerous groups- past and present.

 

As an Indian citizen, I also feel concerned that certain academicians

should hob-knob with and promote Communist ideologue 'scholars' like R

S Sharma and K N Panikkar, and write for the publications of these

people. These academicians would not tolerate such third grade and

dangerous ideologies in their own country, but do not think twice

before indirectly supporting these ideologues in a third world country

like India.

 

Vishal

 

 

INDOLOGY, GthomGT@c... wrote:

> To the few scholars who may remain on this once scholarly list:

>

> This list has once again been overrun by fanatics, this time by

fanatics who

> wish to characterize all Indologists as neo-Nazi racists. Well, I

know that

> there is no point in responding to these fanatics, since they have

repeatedly

> demonstrated that they do not listen to reason. But I am concerned

about the

> health of this list, in the absence of a rational and truly ethical

response

> to the unscholarly and truly immoral trash that has dominated the

list lately.

>

> In general, I respect the decision of those who have decided to

ignore the

> provocations of these Hindu fanatics. I myself have tried to do so.

But how

> can we. with good conscience. remain silent in the face of such

outrageously

> false and malicious slander? Should we remain silent before these

vicious

> assaults on good people, good people both living and dead, whom we

know are

> not racists at all?

>

> I will declare once again that I detest racism as much as anyone on

this

> list. Anyone whatsoever. And that is why I refuse to remain silent

before

> the blatent racism of these Hindu apologists, who have repeatedly

shown

> themselves to be racist down to the bitter core.

>

> I know. Scholars are scholars. We are not renowned for our

courage. But it

> is time for us to show some little bit of courage, isn't it? We

shouldn't

> let these thugs dominate what was once a good, respectable,

scholarly

> discussion group.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> George Thompson

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, GthomGT@c... wrote:

> I will declare once again that I detest racism as much as anyone on

this > list. Anyone whatsoever. And that is why I refuse to remain

silent before > the blatent racism of these Hindu apologists, who have

repeatedly shown > themselves to be racist down to the bitter core.

 

How does one recognize 'blatent racism'? And at what does one reach

the 'bitter core'?

[Guest guest]

While we are on the subject of definitions let us go the whole hog;

 

1. How does one define a scholar. Is somebody who stereotypes an

entire group of people as racists and fanatics qualify as a scholar ?

What has happened to the vaunted scholarship, the power of

discriminating between what is a scholarly discussion and a street

brawl ?

 

2. I know these terms - racist, fanatic,Hindu apologists (how does a

Hindu apologist differe from apologists in general ?) are bandied

about by Prof Thompson more frequently than he would like to admit in

polite company. I have been reading his postings going back to RISA-L

in 1996 and nothing much has changed. There were very few Hindus on

that list at that time and his protagonists were people like Edwin

Bryant, but that did not stop him from spewing a steady stream of

putdowns and condescending remarks on Indian Nationalists in general -

of course one needs to remind oneself that Gandhi would have been

proud to be called a nationalist. Some examples of Prof Thompson's

postings;

http://www.acusd.edu/~lnelson/risa/d-iaryan.txt

Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:55:00 -0700

 

"That is, nationalism is repulsive. Re

Joanne Waghorne's remarks: pointing out the repulsive colonialism and

nationalism of members of the British Raj does not make Hindu

nationalism any less repulsive. They're both repulsive, just as

American nationalism is also repulsive. [i hope the repetition is

clear: I mean *really* repulsive, as well as racist, etc.]."

 

 

http://www.acusd.edu/~lnelson/risa/d-iaryan.txt

"I was struck by the "balanced

view" that Flood took of the controversy re theories of the aryan

migration. Frawley,, Kak, Renfrew,et al., are all cited alongside

Allchin, Parpola, Mallory, et al., as if all of these were equally

competent authorities. This surprises me, because Frawley is in my

view a quack, Kak is, I confess, a complete unknown, and Renfrew is a

good archaeologist who has blatantly overstepped his competence

[VERY presumptuous to write a book about "Archaeology & Language" and

NOT know very much about the latter!], whereas the others ARE

authorities in their given fields [who don't go drifting strangely

into exotic fields beyond their control]."

 

Sat, 5 Oct 1996 17:34:09 -0700

"Sri Aurobindo may well have been a profound philosopher and an

enlightened

human being in his own right. I don't wish to challenge that view of

him. But I

do believe that his translations and interpretatations of the RV are

anachronistic.

[if the list doesn't like blunt assertions, then please,

put "I believe" before all of my previous assertions, and before all

of

those to follow]. I believe that you might well study his

translations and

interpretations in order to understand Sri Aurobindo, but I don't

think

that you will get an accurate picture of the RV from him."

 

 

There are rebuttals n the RISA-L by several people to

the 'assertions' by Prof. Thompson none of whom incidentally are

either 'Indian' or 'nationalist'.

 

So here we have a 'scholar' who at the drop of a button, puts down

all Indian Nationalists, calls David Frawley a quack and belittles

Sri Aurobindo , one of the greatest renaissance Indian philosophers

of the 20th century. So much for this scholar's scholarship.

 

Kaushal

 

 

 

INDOLOGY, "S.Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97> wrote:

> INDOLOGY, GthomGT@c... wrote:

> > I will declare once again that I detest racism as much as anyone

on

> this > list. Anyone whatsoever. And that is why I refuse to

remain

> silent before > the blatent racism of these Hindu apologists, who

have

> repeatedly shown > themselves to be racist down to the bitter

core.

>

> How does one recognize 'blatent racism'? And at what does one reach

> the 'bitter core'?

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

ref :

INDOLOGY/message/928

INDOLOGY/message/950

INDOLOGY/message/976

 

My mail is not to put fuel into fire. So, please, no flames.

 

I have been reading these phrase "hindu fanatics", "hindu

fundamentalists", "hindu zealots", "hindu fascists", "hindu

bigots" et al in so many forums, in the Indian english media and

also in the western news media. And in Indology and other forums

as well. So its usage is not by just one person alone in only one

forum.

 

I would like to know who these people are. What actions -

speeches or writings or thoughts - should a person do to fall

under this category ?

 

Since all political parties in India use violence to settle

scores, please, let us not isolate BJP alone in this answer.

 

Also, please do not pose counter-questions like "who are Islamic

or Christian or Buddhist fundamentalists" because that will take

all of us into another world :-)

 

Is there something logically wrong when labelling

the followers of Christianity/Islam/Judaism as fundamentalists or

fanatics, when these religions are non-inclusive of other

faiths/Gods at their basic foundations ??

 

I think we must separate those who are respectful and tolerant of

other religions and Gods/Goddesses from those who don't.

 

Is this applicable to only western societies and not to India ?

 

I hope your answers will help me and all others to understand

this phrase better.

 

> Dr. LMF wrote:

> I personally think that if you are on a list where the public at

> large is admitted, it is your duty to speak up when nonsensical

> information is being propagated as the Truth.

 

The above line is of great interest to me and I hope to all on

this list too. Expanding this word "list" above to any forum,

this is true.

 

Whether it is an Indology forum or list or a news website, some

sort of propoganda war continues, which is "nonsense" to some and

"truth" to others. It is this "elegance of phrase and street-

smartness" in the volume & reach of the propaganda that is

carried out, that makes it difficult for so few to fight against

so many.

 

Like it or not, the western news media, in furthering its own

vested interests, would also like to see the same pattern emerge

in many other forums, where westerners ( Euro-Americans ) are

involved.

 

I shall leave out AIT/AMT as I am not well versed in it. But a

lot of other topics on India gets distorted repeatedly in the

media. [ media => a website / forum / list / press ] I am using

AIT/AMT just as an example here. For example, I have not noticed

any reference to ancient Indian medical practices, in some shows

I have seen on this topic on Discovery/TLC channels. I could have

missed some, but not in the ones I have watched over time (6 yrs).

 

If it is the map and the history of Jammu and Kashmir that gets

repeatedly distorted by the western media, then it could be

AIT/AMT that gets hammered out to the people by both Western and

Indian Indologists through their own outlets - books, seminars,

conferences, discussion-forums et al. The enormous damage to both

the cultural aspects and the Indian mindset is beyond

description. And it serves the western interests very well.

 

[ I am writing this on the study of (ancient) India very broadly ]

 

In this broader context, what Dr. LMF wrote is very very true.

The only contentious issue remains, what can be categorised as

just "nonsense" and what others can be termed as "truth" and by

"whom". It appears we do not agree on "what" [information] here.

 

Thank you all for your replies in advance,

 

Suresh - /messages/lsk/

[Guest guest]

IndianCivilization, sikhimail wrote:

 

Gentlemen,Kindly attempt to understand what

the issue here really is. The real issue is

not AIT or AMT or OIT; it is that an attempt

has been made to unravel the skeletons in the

cupboard of Indology, and that sends a shiver

up the collective spine of "scholars"

 

Witzellian pretensions notwithstanding, the

fire was ignited not by his bete noire but by

a certain "scholar"'s shrill missive the opening

sentence of which itself is a Freudian of sorts.

Contemplate this:

 

"this list has once again been overrun by

fanatics who wish to characterize all Indologists

as neo-Nazi racists .."

 

No names were named. Why? Because, if you go

back in the "indology and nazism" thread,

you'll discover that nobody was characterizing

all Indologists as neo-Nazi racists! This

gentleman was jumping the gun, and was relaying

to fellow "scholars" the information voices in

his head were feeding him. :-)

 

Did Salmon-ji chip in to aver that those who

were seeing a smear campaign in a mere discussion

of Indology's Nazi chapter were looking through

filters of their own? No he did not. :-) Never

mind.

 

"Fanatic", "fundamentalist" etc are the "academic"

and "scholarly" equivalents of the F-word.

When you see a denunciation punctuated with these

words, that's sure enough sign of _desperate_

abuse. Instead of being provoked, we must ask:

why the desperation?

 

Looking at the scholars' unholy haste to let

sleeping dogs lie, I wish I were a historian.

If I were, I'd right now be serving a worthwhile

cause authoring a book the title of which, sort

of tentatively, suggests itself to me: "Early

History of Indology: Max Mueller to Adolf Hilter".

 

I'd, of course, merely document facts, my intent

being to get social scientists, human rights

activists, holocaust victims and conscientious

poeple world over to turn the spotlight on the

influence of early European Indology in the

forcibly conducted social engineering of those

times. Objective: Never again shall half-baked

"scholarly" speculations lead, however indirectly,

to mass murder of innocent millions. The role

of scientists -- esp of biologists -- in wittingly

or unwittingly furthering the cause of Nazism

has been well-documented. Indology should be

subjected to the same kind of scrutiny.

 

Sikhivahan

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

-

<VAgarwalV

<indology>

Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:47 AM

[Y-Indology] Fwd: Re: an appeal to scholars

 

 

> IndianCivilization, sikhimail wrote:

>

 

>>>

> Did Salmon-ji chip in to aver that those who

> were seeing a smear campaign in a mere discussion

> of Indology's Nazi chapter were looking through

> filters of their own? No he did not. :-) Never

> mind.

> >>

 

No, he did not, but I thought about it when I wrote because I knew someone

would see it as unequal treatment. I decided I would tell that someone, if

he or she commented, that there is not a thing I wrote to Dr. Thompson that

did not equally apply to everyone on this list. We all have an interest in

freedom of speech and in reasoned discussion of ideas, and we all have our

individual filter patterns. I elected not to provoke Dr. Thompson with

that observation, as I am concerned about the diminution of scholarly

contributions and genuinely regret that the tenor of discussion lately has

been so inflammatory as to discourage him from participating in our

discussions. I do not think he should be driven away. Nor should Vishal.

 

Controversial ideas stir passion, particularly if each side thinks the other

is bending the data to fit a preconceived hypothesis, or thinks it is being

unfairly tarred with the misdeeds of some other culprit. Here we have both

sides thinking it is persecuted by bias on the part of the other, and both

are partly but only partly right. There is also a very great deal of simple

misunderstanding of the complexity of the other's point of view.

 

Heated, accusative discussions may help sort things out and lead to better

understanding, et al., but not if the heat level deprives the forum of the

participation of the Indologists themselves. What a victory for no one that

would be! Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. So, learned

men and women prefer to be addressed with courtesy and respect. Since when

is this new? or Eurocentric? Would Vishal address a Hindu assembly of men

learned in the Vedas in the same way, even if he vehemently disagreed with

them, as, for example, about caste? No, I think not.

 

Besides, courtesy is like grease in the gears, it makes discussion flow

smoothly, without getting sidetracked into charges and counter-charges of

religious bias which, upon examination, are bound to turn out to be

undeserved, on both sides, with very few exceptions, perhaps.

 

Dr. Thompson surely should know better than to label something controversial

as "Hindu," since the term is so widely inclusive as to be nearly

meaningless except by comparison with non-Hindu, but I am sure I have been

guilty of the same. I do not think there is or has been a confrontation

here with "Hindus" on any subject, but only with a particular sort of

political Hindu, and not only with such political Hindus, but also with

religious politicians of other religions who abuse religion for political

gain, in India and elsewhere. Vishal rightly objects to the identification

made by Dr. Thompson between "Hindu" and such groups, and to the patronizing

discrimination he believes he suffers for his views, though some of what he

suffers is because of his discourtesy, not his point of view.

 

On the other hand, what was the point of demanding an investigation into

Indology and Nazism? Is anyone suggesting that anyone -currently- an

Indologist has Nazi affiliations, past or present? If so, name names and

cite facts in support. As to the past, it seems no study has been made and

some feel one should be made. So do the study. Studies don't do

themselves. If you feel it is important, do it. Otherwise, the thread was

provocative, trolling for a target, someone to flame, and not genuinely

inquisitive. When Dr. Thompson and Dr. Fosse raised their heads, both were

promptly shot at and condemned in vituperative terms. Just what was the

object of this exercise? To expose the hidden biases of Indologists? Was

this the right or reasonable way to go about it? And what was the point of

calling names, then generously offering "Indologists" a code of ethics to

prevent that sort of thing? Whatever the core of justice in these ideas,

being rude and provocative was a very poor way to begin the discussion.

Small wonder that people come to doubt the good faith of the writer.

 

They say of the best test pilots that they have "the right stuff," by which

they mean coolness under pressure, under fire. The more heated the

circumstances, the cooler and more reasoned must be the response. So here.

Analysis of controversial ideas requires mutual courtesy, or we all go down

in flames.

 

imho,

 

David

[Guest guest]

Namaskar

 

ref: INDOLOGY/message/978

 

[ Again, no flames please. I will be happy to continue this

discussion, off the list. ]

 

My quick replies :

 

ref : INDOLOGY/message/994

 

Thank you Dr. LMF for your response.

 

The Christians and Muslims in India, through their organisations,

have connections with foreign missionaries and forces inimical to

India. The fundamental problem lies with Christians and

Muslims - or rather, Christianity and Islam and not with Hindus.

 

Problems arise when,

either

Christians take up the divine right to convert Hindus either

forcibly or other means, and continue to ill-treat , insult, and

humiliate the Hindus and Hinduism,

or

Muslims, continue to treat Hindus as kafirs and idolaters and

hence must be killed; their extra-territorial loyalties with

their religion over their nation appears to weigh more.

 

Sadly, this still happens. If these two views are changed

completely, a lot of the problems will settle down. Let us wait

for another decade, and see how the west reacts, when they will

face India's same problems, with an increased Muslim population.

 

> Both Christianity and Islam have long and dismal histories

> of fanaticism.

 

It is this factor which is crucial to understand, highlight and

emphasise, before the world criticises the Hindus of being

fanatics. This is the fire. The reactions of Hindus is the smoke.

 

ref : INDOLOGY/message/1004

 

Thank you Dr. Bhadraiah for your response.

 

I agree that globalisation appears to be an anti-thesis to

intense nationalistic pride. And national pride also appears OK

only when it serves the vested interests of western nations.

 

NATO is just a post-WW-II bully.

 

Rigors of Indian life, be it political or religious or social

spheres, is a colorful mix of all known flavors of political

idealogies, religious dogmas and social orders into play.

 

The Balkanisation of India, appears to be aim of western nations.

Islam, Christianity, trade barriers, et al are its tools.

 

And the intellectual divide has been in play through this

Euro-Centric viewpoint on India and studies related to India

in all fields.

 

[ Again, no flames please. I will be happy to continue this

discussion, off the list. ]

 

Thank you

LSK - /messages/lsk/

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "L. Suresh Kumar - LSK" <tolsk@h...> wrote:

 

> I agree that globalisation appears to be an anti-thesis to

> intense nationalistic pride. And national pride also appears OK

> only when it serves the vested interests of western nations.

 

Dont take my word as a fact because financial advise is illegal.

Globalization is not going to create a "one world" society or reduce

nationalistic feelings. On the contrary it will increase tensions

because capital always concentrates according to its own sweet will.

Globalization, despite all pretensions, may accentuate problems of

nationalistic pride (or insult). There is actually an increased need

to work for needs of one's own nation (born, brought up or living)

and that is svadharma. The art is how to help one's own country men

happily live within the means.

 

Regards

Bhadraiah

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Lynken Ghose

 

ref

INDOLOGY/message/1016

 

INDOLOGY/message/1149

 

Thank you for the reply.

I am neither a medical doctor nor a Ph.D holder. :-)

 

>The Christians and Muslims in India, through their organisations,

>have connections with foreign missionaries and forces inimical to

>India. The fundamental problem lies with Christians and

>Muslims - or rather, Christianity and Islam and not with Hindus.

 

>Problems arise when,

> either

>Christians take up the divine right to convert Hindus either

>forcibly or other means, and continue to ill-treat , insult, and

>humiliate the Hindus and Hinduism,

> or

>Muslims, continue to treat Hindus as kafirs and idolaters and

>hence must be killed;

 

>> How could you even post such a thing? This is a blatant display

>> of mere propaganda attempting to stir up religious hatred and

>> violence towards Muslims and Christians. It even advocates

>> killing them! This is absolutely the worst post I have seen yet,

>> and that is saying a lot.

 

I posted it because it is the reality of life. Please accept it

or reject it. You are perhaps aware of the claims of the various

christian missionaries, the baptist groups et al who still

consider it is their right to convert Hindus and treat Hinduism

with utter contempt. The muslims still consider Hindus as

idolaters and kafirs who must be killed.

 

Helloooooooo, Please counter this first before you write

your next mail. Please identify the root of the problem first

before you reply.

 

It is your own fabric of imagination that the above remark is a

propaganda and other crap you wrote above.

 

I am not saying 'muslims must be killed'. What I am saying is the

muslims consider Hindus as kafirs, so the hindus must be killed.

That is because the Quran says so. Please read the Quran

yourself.

 

This is what Mr. Kaushal wrote in his mail at

INDOLOGY/message/1156 also.

 

I thought the scholars would easily understand a simple idea like

this. I cannot believe a scholar like you twisting info to suit

your narrow divisive mindset.

 

>It is this factor which is crucial to understand, highlight and

>emphasise, before the world criticises the Hindus of being

>fanatics. This is the fire. The reactions of Hindus is the smoke.

 

>> You state in your posting that Hindus are the "smoke" reacting to

>> the "fire" of Christianity and Islam. This is often the excuse of

>> every criminal and racist: that they are just reacting to

>> persecution against them?

 

So you admit those who start the fire are racists and criminals

?? That would mean the christians and muslims who have a long

history of religious violence are racists and criminals. Not to

speak of the blatant hypocricy of the Vatican.

ref lsk/messagesearch?query=vatican

 

Do you expect the people to keep quiet and get converted by

either the missionaries or by mullahs and not retaliate ??? Or do

you expect Christians to keep quiet and not retaliate when

muslims (or others) convert them forcibly ??? It does not matter

who does this forcible conversion. It is just a plain wrong act

that incites violence.

 

Have you read history Sir ???????????

Do you think before you write ???????????

 

Freedom of religion means the freedom for any individual to

practice any religion of one's choice. It does not mean or

provide a right to others to forcibly convert a person from one

religion to another.

 

>> Also, certainly, not all Hindus feel as you do, so, as well, you

>> should not claim to speak for them.

 

Any person, it does not matter if he/she is a Hindu or Christian or

Muslim or Parsee or whatever be their religious background, will

object strongly

when their religion is maligned

when an assault is made on their religion and their books

when members of a particular religious faith are targetted violently

when they are forcibly converted from their religion to another.

 

I hope you will write logically in your replies.

 

Suresh

lsk/messages

[Guest guest]

The notions that

- Hindus are idolaters and kafirs who must be killed

- Islam is the only true religion

- Allah is the one & only true God

and a lot more are what the Muslims used since the advent of

Islam through out the bloody history. Nothing has changed

significantly. The Talibans practice real Islam.

 

Please read the set of quotes from Koran at

lsk/message/686 and a lot more

elsewhere on the internet.

 

--------------------------------

 

from - INDOLOGY/message/1156

 

You can refute the allegation 'Hindus are Kaffirs and therefore

must be killed', as to whether it has validity in the Koran or

the Hadith or the Sunna but you are barking up the wrong tree

when you choose to falsify the meaning.

[Guest guest]

Dear Suresh Kumar, my remarks were directed towards Mr.Ghose not to

you,because I felt he had misinterpreted your sentence. Pl. read my

post again and understand it in that context,

 

kaushal

 

INDOLOGY, "L. Suresh Kumar - LSK" <tolsk@h...> wrote:

 

>

> from - INDOLOGY/message/1156

>

> You can refute the allegation 'Hindus are Kaffirs and therefore

> must be killed', as to whether it has validity in the Koran or

> the Hadith or the Sunna but you are barking up the wrong tree

> when you choose to falsify the meaning.