Sanjeev,If Indian kings did not account more deaths than Muslim invaders was not because they were less violent.According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empire#Invasions_in_Bengal "During their occupation of western Bengal, the Marathas perpetrated atrocities against the local population.[44] The Maratha atrocities were recorded by both Bengali and European sources, which reported that the Marathas demanded payments, and tortured and killed anyone who couldn't pay. Dutch sources estimate a total of 400,000 people in Bengal were killed by the Marathas. According to Bengali sources, the atrocities led to much of the local population opposing the Marathas and developing support for the Nawabs."""The Marathas defeated the Rohillas, forced them to seek shelter in hills and ransacked their country in such a manner that the Rohillas dreaded the Marathas and hated them ever afterwards"""In 1791, irregulars like lamaans and pindaris of the Maratha army raided and looted the temple of Sringeri Shankaracharya, killing and wounding many people including Brahmins, plundering the monastery of all its valuable possessions, and desecrating the temple by displacing the image of goddess Sarada"The Sikhs were also great conquerors who spread fear and terror wherever they went.In fact if we go back in history violence was universal.According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinga_War#:~:text=The%20whole%20area%20of%20Kalinga%20was%20plundered%20and,that%20these%20figures%20were%20highly%20exaggerated%20by%20Ashoka. the death toll in Kalinga was 150000 perpetrated by Asoka.So if you go into the details of Indian history we see that our ancestors were no less violent than the invaders.On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 11:03, sanjeev kulkarni jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Xavier,
The rabbit is classified as 'quadruped' and so is the elephant. Being in the "same class" does not mean they are comparable in any other way. Famous historian Will Durant has observed that "Islamic conquest of India is the bloodiest chapter in world history where 800 million people lost their lives over several centuries.
He wrote in The story of civilization, Part 1: Our Oriental Heritage on page 459 :
Quote-
The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.
Unquote
Comparing Islamic violence with Maratha war is a gross miscalculation. Other warriors killed only the armed soldiers in the battle. But Muslims killed whole societies including women, children, old people and those who did not convert. Can you show even a single instance where Marathas killed the civilian population for not converting to Hinduism? You can go through even Muslim historians who have proudly listed hundreds of incidents where they killed the conquered population, destroyed their temples and converted them to mosques.
SANJEEV
On Thursday, 13 August, 2020, 07:28:33 am IST, Xavier William varekatx@gmail.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Dear Vasudeva,The subject matter of this discussion is that the Muslims have a history of violence. My contention is that they were no more violent than others.You say the Marathas were violent in the face of Muslim violence only as if Muslims are ressponsible for Hindu violence.Long before there was Islam the Muryas were waging war against Hindus from Afghanistan to Orissa. Then there was Pushyamitrra who was massacring Buddists long before there was any Islam. Harsha was plundering Hindu temples long before Mohammad was born.The biggest treasure trove in the world is stashed away in the coffers of the temple at Trrivandrum. Do you think that all these treasures were acquired by peaceful means from adjoining Hindu kingdoms?Myths reflect real life of the people who wrote those myths and from the violence, descrimination, debauchery and treachery in Hindu myths we can conclude with certainty that ancient Hindus were as violent and treacherous as any other people on earth.On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 10:53, vasudeva rao vasu_aryasri@yahoo.co.in [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Dear XavierFacts are facts.. Dayanand was not born when Manusmrithi was written, But Manu himself declares that Vedas are the ultimate authority and hence if the Slokas that are found in the corrupted version are not in conformity with Vedas or antagonistic to Vedas are to be set aside as unacceptable. This is what Dayanand did and besides this to unearth corrupted or interpolated slokas many other tests are also employed. like 1. out of context,2. repetitive,3.. mutually contradictory, 4. opposed to subjects, 5. opposed to Vedas, etc,6. opposed to style,etc. There are total seven tests to judge whether a particular sloka is genuine or fake, Accordingly, it is established that out of total 2685 Slokas appearing in Manusmirthi 1471 Slokas are found to be interpolated or fake. Needless to say that it is these fake Slokas that are being cited for condemnation and rightly too. Manu cannot be held responsible for the latter-day anticsComing to Ram, What he did was right. Abduction of woman constitutes a serious offence and therefore the abductor has to be punished. Gandhism don't work here, Ram being a follower of Veda and Manu rightly punished the abductor and his supporters and of course, there was bloodletting, This is unavoidable. Ram did not occupy Ayodhya but coronated the brother of Ravan to be the king of Lanka and returned to AyodhyaThe authentic version of Ramayan is the one penned by Valmiki, There is no reference to either to the banishment of Sita or the killing of Shambuk in the authentic version of Ramayan, These episodes are found to be in Uttar Ramayan which was added later to Valmiki Ramayan and therefore not authentic not history, The genuine version of Ramayan ends with the coronation of Ram after return from Lanka and that is all.People who accuse of Ram killing Shambuk conveniently forgets that Ram befriended Guha, a tribal lord. and Vanars, [ forest dwellers] to which stock Vali, Sugriva etc belonged. Ram partaking food from tribal woman Shabari is also overlooked. Read the correct version of Ramayan instead of believing the concocted versions.You always say that Ramayan and Mahabharath are mythologies and not history but readily believe hocus pocus found in Puranas as authentic and genuine, Parushuram exterminating Kshatriyas are all in mythologies and better they are not believed.Marathas, Sikhs etc fought wars to defend themselves, But Muslim hordes attacked to them to snach what legitimately did not belong to them, A Hindu lets his life to defend the honor of his religion but a Muslim takes away the life of the other to defend his religion, This is the differenceAll religions which are man-made are not perfect for the teachings contained therein are not free from time, place restrictions, besides the eccentricities of the founders are also could be seen, This applies to present-day Puranic Hinduism , Islam and Christianity.Only Vedic Dharma which is not chained by time and Place boundaries is free from the frailties that we see in religions of the present,Now tell me which age was free from war or violence? Presently I feel the Islam induced violence is the greatest threat to humanity,Vasu,On Wednesday, 12 August, 2020, 06:18:52 am IST, Xavier William varekatx@gmail.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Vasudeva,The subject matter of this discussion is that Islam is violent as if other religions are not violent.In Vedic times Asuras were always at war with Devas and Vishnu incarnates as Vaman and cheats Mahabali of his kingdom.Parasuram murders Kshatriyas left and right; Ram destroys Lanka to Rescue his wife and then banished her to the forest. Ram also beheads Shambuk because he is a Sudra. The Mahabharrath war is the most violent incident in any epics.Sanghis now sweep all this under the carpet and say that it is not the right version. What right do you or Dayananda Swaraswathy have to say which is the right version and which is the wrong version. Was Dayananda present when the Manusmrithi was written.Coming down to real history, The Mauryas, The Marathas, The Sikhs et al were as violent as Alexander or Caesar or Mohammad.So stop this nonsense about blaming Muslims for their violence while turning a blind eye to our own violence. The Bible is also full of violence and genocide. The fact is that in those days might was right and everyone irrespective of their religion resorted to violence as the first and last resort.On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 09:56, vasudeva rao vasu_aryasri@yahoo.co.in [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Sri ZavierManusmrithi contained lot of interpolations, It is estimated that nearly 40% of the Slokas obtaining in Manusmrithi are added later by vested interests. Yes, Dr Ambedkar or for that matter any conscientious person would have taken objection to them Hence it is no wonder that Ambedkar commented on this adversely and burnt this book, He did it only onceThe distortions obtaining in Manusmrtthi were first noticed by Swami Dayanand and he disowned and condemned them. However,he upheld the version of Manusmrithi in conformity with Vedas. For your kind information,swami Dayanand's commentary on Varna system as found in his magnum opus Satyarth Prakash was appreciated by Dr Ambedkar in his book " Who are Sudras"Efforts have been made to bring out the authentic and pure versions of Manusmrithi removing all interpolations, This is a gigantic task and one Dr. Surendra kumar after years of labour has succeeded in bringing our the purer version of Manusmrthi Called " Vishudh Manusmrithi" Needless to say that he belonged to Aryasamaj and worked as Registrar in the Centrally run Kangdi Gurukuk university at Haridwar, But it is in Hindi and English version is yet to see the light of the dayIn this connection, I may add one incident, In Jaipur [ Rajasthan] there exists a statue of Manu. Some Dalit activists agitated for its removal as they felt it offended Dalit sensibilities. The matter went to High court and after hearing arguments put forward by Aryasamaj advocate the judges appreciated the lofty principles of Manusmrithi and allowed the Statue to remain there.You say Narasimha, parushuram , krishna are all violent persons, The characters of Narasimha, Parushuram are mythological in character and they are not real although people believe in them, Krishna is completely on the different ground and he personified the best of Aryan culture, You say he was violent, Read the Mahabharath once again particularly his speeches preceding the Final war, He worked for the peaceful solution to end the war but selfish elements thwarted it. Krishna did not aspire anything, He retired to Mathura and lived as commone later. War and violence may not be in order but becomes justified where truth is to prevail. If you extend your logic then our Cr. P.C and I.P...C becomes violent documents, Is it so.?VasuOn Tuesday, 11 August, 2020, 08:24:21 am IST, Xavier William varekatx@gmail.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Vasudva,Dont think people are fools.I read Manusmithi from https://www.hinduismfacts.org/hindu-scriptures-and-holy-books/manusmriti/ which is obviously a Sanghi site..If you have another version of the Mnausmrithi please send me the link instead of trying to sweep things under the carpet.It is not only the Manusmrithi that promotes violence and discrimination.Take the avatars of Vishnu such as Narasimha, Parasuram, Vaman, Ram, Krishna. All of them leave death, destruction and deceit in their wake and you say they are peaceful.Take the Arthasastra. That too is full of unethical practices.Take the histories of the Mauryas, the Cholas, The Marathas, the Sikhs....... etc They are also as bloody as the History of Muslims or Christians...Sanghis think that all others are fools who cannot read.On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 10:50, vasudeva rao vasu_aryasri@yahoo.co.in [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Sirit is obvious that Sri Zavier has not Manusmrithi nor Vedas. He dishes out things that he has heard or read in sources that are eternally opposed to Sanathana Dharma. Maxmuller the Scholar considered Swami Dayanand as the greatest Vedic Scholar and paid his respects to him, However for men like Zavier he is bigot and intolerant, He has not read the highly popular book " Satyarth Prakash" to know what is contained in Vedas.... It is true that Dr. Ambedkar wrote critical commentary on Manusmrithi but that was based on highly polluted Versions, Now pure Manusmrithi is available and Zavier could read it to remove his misconceptions.VasuOn Monday, 10 August, 2020, 07:47:56 am IST, Xavier William varekatx@gmail..com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:If you have the right to comment on Mohammad and the Koran I have the right to comment on the Manusmrithi and other sccriptures which are as bad or worse than the Koran when it comes to violence and sex......On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 11:08, 'K.. C. Garg' kcg831@yahoo.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:You have no knowledge of Manusmriti.Therefore you have no right to comment on Manusmriti.August 8, 2020, 08:31:06 AM GMT+5:30, Xavier William varekatx@gmail.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Is there any religion that promotes peace?Manusmrithi is full of discrimination and violence towards Sudras and women. Parsuram was a violent man who went around with his axee and killed the kshatriyas 21 times.The Ramayan and the Mahabharath are epics of unprecedented war and violence.So much for the Hindu scriptures..Then there were historical figures like Harsha, The Mauryas, the Marathas, the Sikhs, The Gurkhas and so forth who lived by war and violence.The Bible is full of unprecedented violence and so are all the scriptures.So before you point your fingers at Muslims look inwards.On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 12:30, 'K. C. Garg' kcg831@yahoo.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Dr.Ali Sina
The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace; it is a religion of hate, of terror and of war.
Islam, as it is taught in the Quran (Koran) and lived by Muhammad as it is reported in the Hadith (Biography and sayings of the Prophet), is a religion of Injustice, Intolerance, Cruelty, Absurdities, Discrimination, Contradictions, and Blind Faith. Islam advocates killing of the non-Muslims and abuses the human rights of minorities and women. Islam expanded mostly by jihad (war) and forced its way by killing the non-believers. In Islam apostasy is the biggest crime punishable by death. Muhammad was a terrorist himself therefore terrorism cannot be separated from the true Islam.
Muhammad lived a less than holy life. His lust for sex, his affairs with his maids and slave girls, his pedophilic relationship at age 54 with Aisha, a 9-year-old child, his killing sprees, his massacre and genocide of the Jews, his slave making and trading, his assassination of his opponents, his raids and lootings of the merchant caravans and unarmed villagers, his burning of trees, his destroying the water wells, his cursing and invoking evil on his enemies, his revenge on his captured prisoners of war, his torturing of his captives for greed
Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123), slay them (9:5), fight with them (8:65), strive against them with great endeavor (25:52), be stern with them because they belong to hell (66:9) and strike off their heads; then after making a "wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" for ransom (47:4).
As for the women, the book of Allah is emphatic that they are inferior to men and if they disobey their husbands, the latter have the right to beat them (4:34). Their punishment for disobeying their husbands does not end there because after they die they will go to hell (66:10). The Quran emphasizes the superiority of men by confirming that men have an advantage over the women (2:228). It not only denies women‟s equal right to their inheritance (4:11-12), it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their testimony is not admissible in the court of law unless it is accompanied with the testimony of a man (2:282). This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness. Muhammad allowed the Muslim men to marry up to four wives (although he himself had a score of them) and gave them license to enjoy their "right-hand possessions" (women captured in wars), as many as they can capture or afford to buy (4:3), even if the woman is married before being captured (4:24). The man who called himself the holy Prophet and a "mercy of God for all beings" did just that. Jawairiya, Rayhana and Safiya were beautiful young girls who were captured when he raided the tribes of Banu al-Mustaliq, Qurayza and Nadir. The prophet slew their husbands, fathers and their male relatives and let his men rape them while he kept the prettiest for himself and raped her in the same day while they were still in the shock of the loss of their loved ones.
Islam is a cult created by a psychopath. It cannot be reformed. It must be eradicated.
Islam must go because it teaches hate, it orders killing of nonMuslims, it denigrates women and it violates the human rights. Islam must go not because it is false, but because it is destructive, because it is dangerous, because it is a threat to peace and security of humankind. With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Islamic countries, Islam has become a serious and a real threat to the survival of our civilization. In order for you to appreciate the evilness of Islam, let us choose a few verses of the Quran and switch the words "Muslim" and "non-Muslims" and see how they look: - We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 8:12 - Let not the non-Muslims take for friends or helpers the Muslims. 3:28 - Rouse the non-Muslims to the fight against Muslims. 8:65 - Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them, 9:5 - Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. 9:14 - ye the non-Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Islam. 9:23 - Ye the non-Muslims! Truly the Muslims are unclean. 9:28 - Ye non-Muslims! Fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you. 9:123 - Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; at length. 47:4
What makes Islam dangerous is not because it is a religion, but because it is not. Islam is a thief in police uniform. The agenda of Islam is entirely imperialistic and political, but its modus operandi is religious. It is this disguise and duplicity that makes Islam unpredictable and dangerous.
--The greatest knowledge is the knowledge that there is so much more to know and the greatest discovery is the discovery that there is so much more to discover"All new ideas good or bad, great or small start with a one-man minority" - anonymousA man without god is a man. A God without man is nothing!!--The greatest knowledge is the knowledge that there is so much more to know and the greatest discovery is the discovery that there is so much more to discover"All new ideas good or bad, great or small start with a one-man minority" - anonymousA man without god is a man. A God without man is nothing!!--The greatest knowledge is the knowledge that there is so much more to know and the greatest discovery is the discovery that there is so much more to discover"All new ideas good or bad, great or small start with a one-man minority" - anonymousA man without god is a man. A God without man is nothing!!--The greatest knowledge is the knowledge that there is so much more to know and the greatest discovery is the discovery that there is so much more to discover"All new ideas good or bad, great or small start with a one-man minority" - anonymousA man without god is a man. A God without man is nothing!!--The greatest knowledge is the knowledge that there is so much more to know and the greatest discovery is the discovery that there is so much more to discover"All new ideas good or bad, great or small start with a one-man minority" - anonymousA man without god is a man. A God without man is nothing!!--The greatest knowledge is the knowledge that there is so much more to know and the greatest discovery is the discovery that there is so much more to discover"All new ideas good or bad, great or small start with a one-man minority" - anonymousA man without god is a man. A God without man is nothing!!
Posted by: KRISH BHARADWAJ <bharathwaj2015@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (10) |
To subscribe send a mail to Keralites-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Send your posts to Keralites@yahoogroups.com.
Send your suggestions to Keralites-owner@yahoogroups.com.
To unsubscribe send a mail to Keralites-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Homepage: http://www.keralites.net
No comments:
Post a Comment