Originally posted by merkava
hinduism might have been a huge thing million years ago when stone idols were worshipped as gods. But when the Jews, Christians and Muslims came
along, they pretty much wiped out the idols by telling their followers that these pathetic idols can’t even protect themselves, so what protection
will they give you followers?
The latest example was how the Taliban blew up the bamyan buddas.Japs were ready to sign a blank cheque for those buddas but Mullah Omar the Taliban
leader said ‘he was born to destroy idols’.
Again, totally wrong. A million years ago, there was no mankind. Man has been around for just 10,000 years.
Also, Jews, Christians and Muslims didnt come from a place where Hinduism was prevelant.
Third, the Bamiyan Buddha's are "Buddhist" and it is self evident that these are Not Hindu idols, their significance is historical not so much
religious. Mullah Omar's attitude reflects the true savagery he is practices and symbolizes. As have other's like him before.
Lastly, in Hinduism the idols are not the central focus of the religion but rather it is enlightenment. Protection, safety, material gain etc are
primitive ambitions and needs that Hindu's back in the Vedic age itself knew were not worthwhile goals. The indigenous religions of the Middle East
which were idolatry and animistic were probably the victims of the monotheistic zealotry you represent.
Originally posted by merkava
Hindu fundamentalism is abit of a joke really, the hardcore hindu mobs are brave enough to run over a single mosque and rape a few women but they
ain’t got the guts to kill every Muslim and burn all their mosques to the ground.I can’t really use the word ‘compare’ between hindu mobs
weilding stick and machetes with the Islamists who are highly motivated,well trained,well organised,well funded backed up be various agencies and
sources that even great powers had to bend over their back into negotiations recently.
Yes, you really cant compare can you? Which is definitely a good thing in many ways.
The main reason is Hindu's are impaired with this thing called a conscience. It doesnt grant them the same capacity for the kind of inhuman savagery
that Muslims display; training for months on end for suicide missions against civilian targets as a symbol of bravery ? Demonstrably Hindu
fundamentalism is more spontaneous outbursts of violence.
Also, I would imagine one more factor is that unlike Islamic fundamentalists, Hindu's generally tend to live in civilized parts of the world and
basically subscribe to the civilized ethics. While I'm sure the genocide of muslims would be palpable to a few Hindu fundamentalists, neither the
state nor the majority would allow such barbarism to pass unchecked for long. Hindu fundamentalism is in that way more reactionary in nature rather
than the pre-meditation of Muslim fundamentalists. Also most notably, Hindu fundamentalists seek active political participation unlike Muslim
fundamentalists who resort only to savage military campaigns against civilians.
Originally posted by merkava
These hindu mobs know that if they dare treat the Muslims as they treat Christians than it will be an all out civil war in india. Gujrat and barbari
mosque siege was just a little preview that muslims don’t chicken out like Christians. Hundreds and thousands of hindus have died due to Islamic
militancy in india since than.
This again is factually incorrect. The total death toll for ALL Indians from Islamic terrorist attacks is somewhere around the 50,000 mark taking into
account attacks from all parts of India. This includes Kashmir. Even Statistically, that would mean, around 85-87% Hindu's. Nowhere near the
"hundreds of thousands" you claim.
If you look at history, Islamic terrorists have carrier out attack on Indians long before the two incidents that you've mentioned. Also, there have
been worse atrocities towards Muslims in India than Christians. In fact, the recent situation against the Christian missionaries in the tribal
districts of Orrisa was the first wide spread flash point between the communities. While Muslims have always had to suffer violence.
Further, Gujrath and Babri Mosque conflicts actually highlighted the vulnerability of Muslims in India against Hindu fundamentalists rather than what
you've said. In both situations they were haplessly attacked. Of course, the scale of the Gujrat riots cannot be compared to the sporadic violence in
Orrisa between Christians and Hindu's there. Also, Christians in Orrisa were able to present a more balanced response to the attacks they faced
compared to the Muslim populace in most conflicts.
Originally posted by merkava
I just checked my Sky box in UK, only 1 hindu religious channel and about a dozen Islamic religious channels.
Another thing about hindus is that when they move to the west, they forget their own culture, religion and honour. I guess the Phds and $$$$$$$
appeals more to them than their own religion.When I talk to hindus about cows as their gods, they start laughing and say they don’t have anything to
do with it.
As for TV, I dont know about TV in the UK but in the US we have 3-4 channels on DirectTv. Maybe the package you have is not of a high enough grade to
give you access to all channels. BTW, I havent seen any Islamic tv other than Al Jazeera and Al arabiya.
As for Hindu's in the West, I think in the UK they are more active but even in the US they are quite active. However, unlike Muslims they blend into
the host culture where as Muslims generally tend to form ghettos and exclusive communities to sustain themselves. They do not face the kind of
aversion from locals like the Muslims do because of terrorism. In America I have seen very few muslims who claim to follow their religion strictly and
go to mosque 5 times a day and grow beards and wear a rag on their head. Most muslims dont usually say that they are muslim but it is easy to find out
from their names.
In Hinduism, cows are not gods but rather held sacred. And unlike rigid Islam, Hinduism is more a philosophy in which there are no real hard and fast
rules. Everybody is allowed to follow their own set of practices with few limitations.
[edit on 7-3-2009 by IAF101]
[edit on 7-3-2009 by IAF101]
