Today\'s Indian Muslims were yesterday\'s Hindus, right?

by **bhai-bhai** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 1:59 pm

Incidentally, Bhagavath Geeta is one of the most wonderful religious books that one can read and improve ones knowledge about the day to day living to what it means to get a human life and LIVE it , the responsibilites of a human life and the relationships with other human beings and with God himself and why \'we\' NEED to pray to God and.. It essentially makes a person to think deep. Quarn must be speaking about the same things just as Bible and the rest of the other religious books do too .

by **Tipu** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:44 pm

Hi,Johnny,Here I want to correct you,first of all Islam doesnot permit the forefull conversion of anyone to Islam,this is bcos,Islam is purely based on the,inner faith(Imaan),which cannot come by forcing anyone,from example if I convert any other person to islam from his religion by force,then I can just change his name,if he prays,bcos of my fear,then his prayer is not going to be accepted,bcos it is not being offered for God.The main point in Islam is,ur good deeds(prayers,charity,etc...)are accepted by GOD only if are done solely for the God.For example if any muslims gives Charity just for the fame,then its not accepted by god,its the same case for the prayers.

by **Clearer** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:48 pm

Tipu,what johnny is trying to say is, when u said why people will convert into a strange religion, if it is not good? for that, he replies that not many converted on their own will, they were forced to do so ...

by **johnny** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 9:32 pm

exactly... many centuries ago many poeple were forcefully converted.... i am not taking away anything from u TIPU and i sure do know wat u mean.. but the topic of this thread is answered by me by saying that YES TODAYS INDIAN MUSLIMS(most of them) were converted yesterdays hindus...
 
 ps: by hindus i mean VEDIC religion.. as posted in my previous postings no word hindu existed.. it was coined by the inavders..

by **tipu** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 9:50 pm

Hi,Jonny I explained u that in islam its not allowed to convert forcefully.Also if I convert u tommorrow u will any how going to follow the same religion,so its not possible what u r telling

by **bhai-bhai** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 10:03 pm

Arre Yaar, Tipu Bhai ! The cat closes its eyes and drinks milk and thinks ke saara jamana bhi aanka bandh kar li, and nobody is watching it drink !! History states that there were forced conversions during the Moghul rule in India. There were forced conversions by the Christians too. All these are recorded facts, Bhai Tipu. Accept the facts as facts. The fear factor played an important role for the conversions. But again still, you did not answer the question, were the Muslims of today the Hindus of yesterday ? It is such a simple question and nobody is (except one..?) able to say yes or no to it ? .. and there are so many wows on this board !! puzzling.. huh !

by **tipu** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 10:41 pm

Hi,Bhai-Bhai,Not all the Indian muslims were previously hindu,but large nomber of todays muslims were hindus,some centuries ago,but Allah(swt) gave hidayat and they accepted islam.But thats not important,bcos before 570AD,most of the todays muslim countries were also Kafirs, like Iran(parsis,they used to worship fire,parsia and roman empire were two super powers during that period but most of that came under muslim rule people accepted islam,not by sword but looking at the acts of the muslims,and knowing the truth).so it doesnot matter really,whether ur forefahters were muslims or not,.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:54 am

So can I suggest you to read hindu literature, epics, vedas and upanishads to give the folks of muslimonline.com a piece of mind?
 I dont care what others think of Islam, dont care what you do with ur religion, all I care is about my religion and I dont like anyone criticize my religion based on half truths and ignorant views.
 I really tried hard not to use expletives at u for qouting from muslimonline site.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:58 am

Taa pattina kundelu ki moode kallu.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:09 am

Tipu, before the 10th century AD, Christianity was restricted only to Western europe with most of the middle east following Islaam. It was decided that the time was ripe for the spread of Christianity with the growing power of western europe. So began the crusade. People were looted, raped and nurned if they didnt convert into christianity. That was the darkest period of world and the evil face of people follwoign christianity which is actually a religion of peace. If you see Christianity in europe its courtesy of \'crusade\'. 10 centuries later, they dont remember what happened in 10 century AD, even if they do, they dont care whether their ancestors were muslims, turks or parsis. They are christians now. SO CAN IT BE ACCEPTED , USING UR LOGIC, THAT CHRISTIANITY IS A BETTER RELIGION BECAUSE BY JESUS\' GRACE MANY MUSLIMS CONVERTED INTO CHRISTIANITY?

by **Pradeep** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:00 am

I think i was the person who introduce that the word\" hindu\' is not present in vedas.this is a fact isnt it.
 Wel coming back to responses given by all. Bhai- BHai-,has mentioned many times that many mughals has come to India.so mughals were muslims.And before that many muslims came from Arab to spread Islam the --genuine religion and they had converted in not only hundreds but thousands, from hinduism, why then hindus what u call, convert dnt they know what is good and what is Bad , yeah they know it .What ever if any KAfir Accepts islam his all previous identities r washed. He takes his birth again but at different age.So if u tell he was hindu, why will he accept, becz he accepted the islam ,one way -- not several ways to go back and call him as hindu. right ?
 i think u got it
 all these facts i have taken from Books of Ajmer(my friend who lives there and he is secularist)

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 5:31 am

Ok, now post the same in English and use ur original identity.

by **IdontDiscriminate** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 7:47 am

I would like to pen down some facts related to the ongoing discussion.I know a couple of professors at a good university in the united states who specialize in islam,the middle east and history.these are some of the facts told to me by them adn some from the books.
 
 1.only 12% of the current india population are muslims and they represent the largest minority in india(this is a true fact and you can verify it anywhere.even the cia website has the same value)
 2.islam arrived in india somewhere around the 11th century brought in by invaders from afghanistan turkey iran etc.
 3. initially these invaders started preaching islam through peaceful means.
 4.but most of them took to violence.many of the lower class indians were threatened to take up islam or die.
 5.they used to troment non believers mercilessly.they were ravaged, killed, looted.
 6.only a handful of the invaders like akbar of the mughal dynasty were tolerant of the hindus and other religions.
 7.fanatics like aurangazeb and tuglak wreaked havoc in india and the indians.non-muslims suffered a lot and many places of worships of other religions were either destroyed or were vandalized and converted to mosques.
 8.besides these muslims rulers and brought laong with them slavs from russia,africa and some other countries who married the indians and adopted islam(they were forced to)and settled down in india.
 9. so it turns out that most of the non-indian origin religions in india were adopted.
 10. i would even like to point out that while most o the religions try to convert others, hindus don\'t because indian hindus believe in hinduism as a way of life and not as a religion.and we have people like shiv sena and rss only to counter radical islamic organizations.india is the only country in history which never t=invaded another country despite having the means and the resources.
 peace, jai hind!

by **johnny** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 10:39 am

i wanna share some facts which i have acquired after a thorough reasearch.. religion and spirtuality has always been my interest..
 Ok now coming ot the point of hindus.. well yeah no such term as HINDU exists anywhere in our VEDAS( vedas are the ultimate truth) the people who followed vedas were basically aryans.. and they were said to be belonging to the VAIDIKA MATHA ( vedic religion) and most of the present so called hindus are from vaidika matha...
 Previously in the original vedas there was never any mention of IDOL worship.. Vaidika matha believed in the existence of the PARMATMA ( the supreme soul) and all the human beings are the atmas... the original vedic people used to worship this parmatma who didnt have any form or shape and cannot be represented by an idol.. Now the question comes why are the present hindus extensively into IDOL worship?... in the late b.cs during the time of shankaracharya when BUDDHISM was in its full swing and mass conversions were takin place in the subcontinent.. shankaracharya to stop hinduism frm getting diluted, preached IDOL worship and the Temple constructions for a local god in each area so that people can easily identify with the god when they can have some form in their locality.. and hence the faith is strengthened.. well this wasnt totally a right approach but it had to be done to stop buddhism to spread to the major part of india....( cuz as buddhism spread it lost its original preachings and was involving in unethical activities in some parts of India.)
 
 The above information is true to the best of my knowledge in any case if i hurt the sentiments of any particular sect ia m sorry it was purely unintentional.
 
 COMMENTS PLEASE...

by **secularist** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:11 pm

MEANINGS OF HINDU
 The word Hindu is not a religious word. It is secular in origin. It has been derived from the word Indo, 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. After centuries the Aryans came down, and where they started living, they named the place Aryavart and long afterwards it was named as Bhartvarsh. When the Muslims came to the subcontinent 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. So whosoever was living across the Sindhu was called Indu & now Hindu whether Muslim, Christian etc.
 
 It is interesting to note that the word is neither Sanskrit nor Dravidian and did not originate in India. The word Hindu is also not mentioned in Hindu Scriptures. If, we go by the original definition of the word Hindu, any one who lives in the subcontinent is generally a Hindu, whatever religion he or she practices. It took the shape of an \"Ism\" lately, by Pundits and Brahmins. The rites, sects and ceremonies prevailing in the valley of River Sind were named as Hinduism. It means Hinduism in itself is nothing. It is a formulation and manipulation of Pundits and Brahmins and not of any Avtar or God.
 
 comment please

by **Pradeep** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:13 pm

hi securalist,
 I think u got good knowledge, to be precise,hinduism is one of the oldest religions of the world. The European historians of early 20th Century grudgingly accepted the period around 2500 B.C. But many present day scholars, especially from India, do not agree with this opinion. Hinduism can be better estimated from the astronomical evidence available in the Hindu Scriptures. These evidences suggest that the Hinduism has a long and checkered history of at least 6,000 years or more. Hinduism is not a religion, but a set of beliefs, rites, ceremonies, customs, traditions and cultures, which have evolved over a period of time in the valley of river Sindh. It is only a way of life, based upon a local group of religious movements evolved in the Indian subcontinent over a vast period of time. It is not based upon a single scripture. No definition of Hinduism truly justifies the true meaning and significance of Hinduism. Murti or Idol worship was added by Pundits & Brahmins. Now, it is for Hindu scholar\'s to think, as to where they stand.

by **Someone** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:15 pm

The VEDAS are divided into four books: Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and Atharva Veda. Of these, the first three books are considered the more ancient books, and the Rig Veda is the oldest of them. Swami Daya Nand, founder of the Arya Samaj, holds the opinion that the Vedas were revealed 1.3 billion years ago, while others scholars hold the opinion that they are not more than four thousand years old.
 

 
Yajur Veda chapter 31, Rig Veda Mandal 10 sukta 129, Atharva Veda 8/11/3-6 & Saam Veda 617 say that the knowledge of four Vedas is direct from God. According to four Vedas God is mentioned as SWAYAMBHUHU -- SWAYAM means self and BHUHU means powers which means power of God is due to His own power. God has unlimited qualities for example Yajur Veda mantra 40/8 says God is everywhere, He has no shape. Upanishads says \'TAD SRISHTA TADNU PRAVISHT\' means God created Universe & entered therein. All the four Vedas say about the God, in Yajur Veda chapter 32/3 \"The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.\" In Rig Veda Mandal 10 sukta 129 \" God creates but nobody create God\" and Rig Veda 5:1:81 says \"Verily, great is the glory of the divine creator\" and Atharva Veda 20:58:3 says \" God is verily great\" In Sanskrit Brahma means \"The Creator\" translated into Arabic means \"Khaaliq\" and Creator in English. According to Quran (15:86) \"Your Lord is the Creator, the knower\" and in (6:10) \" HE is the Creator of the heaven and earth.\" So, Worship of one God alone is mentioned in Veda for example Rigveda 8:1:1 \"O friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone\". These four Vedas also talks about the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in [Sama Veda II: 6,8] [Rigveda Book I, Hymn 53 verse 9] [Rig Veda V, 27, Mantra 1] and in [Kuntap Sukt, Atharva Veda, Mantra 3] details are coming below.
 

 
Unfortunately, the knowledge of the Vedas have been stopped to be listened during the last five thousand years, that is why, the worship of only one God is not being done. During the materialistic period this traditional task has been ear marked tough by mostly saints & public under the influence of so-called saints. For-example Tulsi says in Ramayan \"DWIJ SHRUTI BECHAK\" i.e., present Gurus have sold Vedas means they never study Vedas & do know nothing about Vedas. In the next saying \"SHRUTI BIRODH RAT SAB NAR NARI\" means man, woman & their children have taken bold steps against the Vedas. Up to the time of Mahabharta there was no temple. Thereafter, the knowledge of Vedas decreased & between two to three thousands years the temple has been made. The books (Mahabharta & Bhagwat Geeta etc) came after the Vedas have been described and explained on the basis of sects or self made views of present so called saints, whereas the Vedas were written by ancient Rishis. After MAHABHARAT war the knowledge of Vedas did minimize and almost came to an end, and therefore, so many sects and way of worship came in existence. So, the reason of the temples and murti is only due to the decrease and little knowledge of Vedas, for the last about three thousands years, because before this period there was no temple. Temple provision is only in the sects made by Pundits and not in the Vedas. So when there was the knowledge of Vedas, only one God was worshiped. This is how religion given in the Vedas changed or converted into Hinduism by the Pundits, Brahmins and so called saints

by **bhai-bhai** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:27 pm

Fascinating information..But, If what we are presently following is what the aryans have brought along with them, then what were the Dravidians following, prior to the Aryan conquest? How come we have Ayodhya (Lord Rama) , Dwaraka (Lord Krishna) and the Himalayas (Lord Shiva ) in the present India and not in the places where the Aryans are supposed to have come from? The south of India was the place of Dravidians. Who were settled in the north of India prior to the Aryans?

by **Indian pure muslim** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:35 pm

The difference between Muslim and Hindu belief is the perception of God. The common Hindu consider everything as God like tree, sun, moon, snake and even human beings as manifestation of God. On the contrary, Muslim believe, that everything is God\'s. In other words everything belongs to God, like tree, sun, moon, snake, human beings and everything in this universe belongs to God. So the main difference between Hindu and Muslim beliefs is that Hindu says everything is God and Muslim says everything is God\'s. The common Hindu belief in multiple gods while learned Hindus, who are well versed in their scriptures, insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God. Lets take a look some verses about the basic concepts of God in Hindu scriptures with the comparison of Holy Quran.
 
 CONCEPT OF TAUHEED (WORSHIP OF ONE GOD \"ALONE\") IN HINDU SCRIPTURES
 * Qur\'an: \"Say: He is Allah, The ONE and ONLY. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.\" [Al-Qur\'an 112:1-4]
 
 * Hindu Scriptures: \"I am the goal of life, the LORD and support of all, the inner witness, the abode of all. I am the only refuge, the ONE true friend; I am the beginning, the staying, and the end of creation; I am the womb and the eternal seed. I am heat; I give and withhold the rain. I am immortality and I am death; I am what is and what is not\"[Bhagavad Gita 9:18-19]
 
 * Hindu Scriptures: \" O friends, do not worship ANYBODY but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him ALONE.\"[Rigveda 8:1:1]
 
 * Hindu Scriptures: \"He is ONE ONLY without a second.\" [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]
 
 * Hindu Scriptures: \"There is only ONE God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit.\"[Brahma Sutra]
 
 Do anybody know about this .Nobody has read upto this much extent and just follow up the what all said by the false saints who even would have read to this extent. Better go and catch their collar if they have for wrong preaching.

by **bhai-bhai** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:40 pm

WOW ! Someone, thats\' a good lot of information. Yes, I did have an idea of what you have said but it is becoming clearer.. One question: As the other religions belive, we too belive that there is one God. (Lord Krishna does say so in Bhagavath Geeta, though.. ) and the Gods whom we pray to are the incarnations of God himself, and we have several Gods standing for each virtue and strength, yet they are all one and the same, right?

by **Selimran** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:42 pm

Hey bhai-bhai let the conversation go on, why ur diverting it.

by **bhai-bhai** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:54 pm

This aint NO diversion ZC, it is a part of what I am seeking the information for. As I was reading the posts, those were the questions that occured to me, so\'s the querry. I started the board on an innocent note but it did become quite informative and interesting, nai?

by **johnny** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 6:31 pm

hi bhai bhai... Well contrary to the popular belief that aryans invaded india and then they pread the vedic knowledge... Aryans were originally the inhabitants of the indian sub continent.. and these aryans went to the central europe and settled there... vedas and vedic culture was born in india.. veads are called the words of GOD... DAIVA-VAANI
 The whole story of aryan invasion of India et al was made up by the western invaders later in the time to preach their supremacy of race and there by have this advantage.. the facts were wrongly manipulated by them, for their benefit..
 much before the westerners claim that aryans invaded india, Aryans were the original inhabitants of the epicentre of knowledge INDIA.. even the epics of Rama and Krishna which happened a loooong ago prove the same fact.. rama and krishna are not avatars or gods as people say them to be.. but they are mahayogis.. mahapurushs.. who are born by the grace of parmatma once in a YUG.. so they are like God\'s dearer children... God can never take human form or any other form for that matter,, god is formless...
 
 more info later in my next post

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 9:17 pm

This is what Mr.Murli Manohar Joshi can do to our history books, if left unchecked.........

by **bhai-bhai** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:36 pm

Meaning..? what are you not agreeing with?

Who is online