Dr. Zakir Naik and Sri Ravi Shankar

[WTF??? HP]

Jquader quoted this on the hinduism faqs thread and I thought answering this there would have lead the discussion astray. So here it is.

In an inter-religious dialogue between Sri Sri Ravishankar, Founder of the Art of Living, and Dr. Zakir Naik, Founder of Islamic Research Foundation, on the topic, "God in Hinduism and Islam", held at Bangalore, the Islamic scholar has said that Islam believes that "everything is God's" whereas Hinduism says "everything is God".

I would like to question the wisdom of holding such a debate in public when tempers are running so high all around? Shouldn't comparing religions be better left to the theologists and their research data? Clearly, this debate had been given zero rational thought before being organised. And from the sound of it, this seems to be a forum where the desired result was showing either of the religions as one-up on the other. Disgusting.

Condemning idolatry, he has said that God according to all religions is almighty and formless and so worshipping idols is wrong. He would not agree with Sri Sri Ravishankar that an idol is a symbol of divinity.

The issue is not who or what is being worshipped. Its a question of faith. And faith being such a subjective issue, we cannot generalise it in one sentence. All this statement does is foster ill-feelings among spiritually semi-literate or illiterate people, who form a thumping majority in today's world.

Dr. Zakir Naik has claimed, "At a higher level of consciousness, you do not need an image. Islam believes in a formless God. So I think we have reached the higher level of consciousness".

I really didn't know Dr.Zakir Naik was the author of the Quran Shareef. Or is he trying to say that it was a collective effort of all muslims? Who is the "we" he's referring to as having reached a higher level of consciousness? I'd like to meet this person. If you really have reached a higher level of consciousness, Mr. Naik, you would not be discussing such topics with confrontationist attitudes.

To his charge that Sri Sri Ravishankar's knowledge of Islam was not authentic, the latter has confessed, "I may not have read many books as Dr. Zakir Naik has."

All I can say is that my knowledge of Islam may not be as much as Dr.Naik's but my faith in God and his works is anyday higher than his.

[labelle]

Ram Mandir and Babri Masjid has been going on since ages. each section trying hard to lay their claim on the land. is it for the love of the lord or just to satisfy their egos that the dispute has been going on. why is there a competition to prove whose lord is mightier. isnt it said that god lies everywhere god lies in the heart it is the inner conscience which stops us from commiting crime. i dont understand one thing when people have such public debate on religion. isnt religion supposed to bring peace and harmony since it harnesses the qualities of peace and brotherhood rather than hatred and violence. when would that day come when people will rise above their religion and they would believe in the religion of humanism. because of our illogical and blind faith towards the negatives of the religion(which has not been propagated by the religion but its engineers who have manipulated it to suit their whims) the religious outfits craete a ridge.

[parinda]

Ram Mandir and Babri Masjid has been going on since ages

No they have not been going on for ages , they were planted by the British and were being supported by the hindu fundamentalists in RSS , who not only did not participate in the freddom struggle but actually opposed it..anywazy that issue is still being used by the present day Hindu fundamentalists in RSS etc to carry forward their agenda of mayhem ,destruction and chaos, the sad part is they have the full support of the government machinery in India and pose themselves and ridiculoulsy so by claiming to be only a cultural organization

[gyanster]

No they have not been going on for ages , they were planted by the British and were being supported by the hindu fundamentalists in RSS , who not only did not participate in the freddom struggle but actually opposed it.

You must have done a thesis on the activities of RSS. Can you please post any credible reference to this claim?



Note, again I am not for RSS, I do not accept how they react and force Hinduism down our throats, but they are a legitimate organisation.

[parinda]

You must have done a thesis on the activities of RSS. Can you please post any credible reference to this claim?

The best credible as you put it reference will be the andaman and nicobar jail where its leader pleaded for mercy from the Britishers , other than that there are a thousand references , the one I can remmeber over the top of my head is the following one .

http://www.ndfindia.com/content/view/138/

It is pertinent to note here that the RSS was born in 1925. Why didn’t Dr Hedgewar and his friends join the Hindu Mahasabha, which was revived in 1923? The answer is simple. The RSS is not a Hindu but a Brahmanical organisation and it doesn’t want to reform the Hindu society but wants to Revive Social Supermacy (RSS) of the Brahmins.
The RSS has nothing to do with nationalism or Hinduism. It had betrayed both. The RSS had played a traitorous role during the freedom struggle. It did not take part in the freedom struggle and many RSS volunteers like K.B. Limaye, the chief of the Bombay RSS unit, left it

Note, again I am not for RSS, I do not accept how they react and force Hinduism down our throats, but they are a legitimate organisation

As for you saying that you support it RSS as an organization but not its policies is as big an Oxymoron as RSS claiming itself to be only a Hindu cultural organization, replacing RSS with Al Khaeda above will only result in an equally big Oxymoron..

[gyanster]

Ok, got a credible source. Thanks for that.

But, it is still an organisation, however shady it is, it does not give out death threats, it does not give out Fatwas, it does not encourage violence, like some terrorist organisations do. It is not banned, that is the point I am trying to make.

[Miffed HP]

Guys...this thread wasn't supposed to be a debate on RSS. And neither on the mandir-masjid issue. I had posted my comments on the views of a certain "scholar" (sic.) and I wanted to have a discussion on the views and my comments. So I'm requesting everyone (especially parinda) to please stick to that here. I've got better things to do than to either attack or defend the RSS anywhere and everywhere out of context.



Parinda...if you have a misgiving against the RSS, please start a new thread for that. I'm sure the board will give it a good response. But stop jutting in on every thread to puke your thoughts on the issue.

[jquader]

The article that I've refered to in the previous post was simply to explain MM that when people who call themselves as scholars and stand for the debates themself dont beileve in questioning so how can one expect a common man/woman to be an active part of an argument that cannot be finished till eternity...

I would like to question the wisdom of holding such a debate in public when tempers are running so high all around? Shouldn't comparing religions be better left to the theologists and their research data? Clearly, this debate had been given zero rational thought before being organised. And from the sound of it, this seems to be a forum where the desired result was showing either of the religions as one-up on the other. Disgusting.

Dr. Zakir Naik is simply trying to correct the beileves of the common Hindu people and it doesnt mean that you shouldn't correct anyone simply because these kinda tempers are going all around the world...
when you(referring to HP) had the brains to correct someone for doing so n so then why dint you prove this earlier on the forums when one of its members was using a picture that was extremely offensive as his avatar (now dont temme that you never came accross that post).... Dr. Zakir Naik is renowed as a dynamic international orator on Islam and Comparative Religion. I appreciate Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who has admitted that, "I may not have read many books as Dr. Zakir Naik has." he is a man of wisdom thats why he dint pull the arguement when he felt that he doesn't have enough knowledge to argue over something.

So by this I SIMPLY WANNA TELL HP THAT BEFORE YOU BLURT ANY OF YOUR CRAP, FIRST AQUIRE KNOWLWDGE ABOUT WHO YOU ARE BLURTING >>Knowledge is Power<<

The issue is not who or what is being worshipped. Its a question of faith. And faith being such a subjective issue, we cannot generalise it in one sentence. All this statement does is foster ill-feelings among spiritually semi-literate or illiterate people, who form a thumping majority in today's world

True... people today though are successfully educating themselves but still keep their mind-set confined and dont think upon researching and finding out the difference between "Truth and Blasphemy"... The research that you do should be so efficient that it should be able to clearly explain the basis of what you say.

Its a question of faith.

First, you define yourself what you mean by faith?

Faith is not anything that whispers in your mind... Faith is formed by divine laws and judgements established on the grounds of authentic scriptures and not anything, anyone may proclaim one fine day.

I really didn't know Dr.Zakir Naik was the author of the Quran Shareef. .

I'm forced to pity on your ignorance about Islam and Quran and you being so absurd to state the above line... what you've mentioned in that line above will be considered as awfully offensive by any muslim who reads this and for this you either need to apologise or else the mods shud delete the sentence from your post.

Or is he trying to say that it was a collective effort of all muslims? Who is the "we" he's referring to as having reached a higher level of consciousness? I'd like to meet this person. If you really have reached a higher level of consciousness, Mr. Naik, you would not be discussing such topics with confrontationist attitudes.

And again I pity your ignorance for makin out from no-where that Dr. Zakir Naik's attitude was quarralsome or as stated by you was confrontationist and this word which u've used can surely b applied to ur attitude in this post and your views on Dr. Zakir Naik. If you've ever seen any of his lectures he is not a person to behave in such a way but infact he was trying to correct that belief of hindus who make most of their things "their god"....

When you have faith and fully believe the existance of god then why dont you beleive in the unseen rather than makin different forms and trying to concentrate on it....

All I can say is that my knowledge of Islam may not be as much as Dr.Naik's but my faith in God and his works is anyday higher than his.

How can you be so sure of anyone's faith in god... its that only Almighty God who can judge a person's faith...

HP this simply proves that your understanding is partial and u are being stubborn to prove your points for which you are opting the ways to abuse others... When you do a research on all the religions thats when you acctully know what faith is?

[vakibs]

[quote="WTF??? HP"

I would like to question the wisdom of holding such a debate in public when tempers are running so high all around? Shouldn't comparing religions be better left to the theologists and their research data? Clearly, this debate had been given zero rational thought before being organised. And from the sound of it, this seems to be a forum where the desired result was showing either of the religions as one-up on the other. Disgusting.

[/quote]



What a pity !!!! ? If we can not hold a debate such as this in India, of what use is our democracy and free speach. We can very well call ourselves the divided, theocratic republic of India (instead of united, socialist, secular republic of India)



If anybody thinks his religious sentiments are hurt by listening to this debate, they can very well avoid this. I believe discussions such as this should actually increase. They are helpful for us to be aware of each other's principles.



In ancient Athens, debate was a favorite pastime and people discussed several issues including spiritual / religious / moral issues. This is not something to be left to self stylized philosophers.



As Ravindranath Tagore has once said,



"Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake"

[HP again]

The article that I've refered to in the previous post was simply to explain MM that when people who call themselves as scholars and stand for the debates themself dont beileve in questioning so how can one expect a common man/woman to be an active part of an argument that cannot be finished till eternity...

My point is...on what basis do they call themselves as scholars? Just by knowing some verses and their tranlations?

I would like to question the wisdom of holding such a debate in public when tempers are running so high all around? Shouldn't comparing religions be better left to the theologists and their research data? Clearly, this debate had been given zero rational thought before being organised. And from the sound of it, this seems to be a forum where the desired result was showing either of the religions as one-up on the other. Disgusting.

Dr. Zakir Naik is simply trying to correct the beileves of the common Hindu people and it doesnt mean that you shouldn't correct anyone simply because these kinda tempers are going all around the world...

To correct the believes of someone, your point should concentrate on why they are wrong and not on what other religions say and why they are better. If correcting someone is the desire, the one-upmanship should be absent.

when you(referring to HP) had the brains to correct someone for doing so n so then why dint you prove this earlier on the forums when one of its members was using a picture that was extremely offensive as his avatar (now dont temme that you never came accross that post)

Well...I do have the brains to correct a lot of things but most of the time, I choose not to do so. The reason being that trying to create an issue when none exists will just flare up things further. And I'm sure that many people here didn't really notice the avatar in question. Now that you bring it up, a lot of them would surely be curious. Good that you had the better sense not to name the member or the thread. Further, the issue was already in consideration by the moderators and they had warned the user for his avatar by the time I saw it. Do you still think I should have done something just for the heck of it?

Dr. Zakir Naik is renowed as a dynamic international orator on Islam and Comparative Religion.

Well....you have a choice to respect him as that...but since I do not agree with his views, I need not respect him....or is there some force? I see a person here who claims that the followers of one faith are superior to the follower of another. And doesn't the Quran itself say that all human beings are the sons and daughters of Allah and they are all equal? Isn't he contradicting the Quran by saying what he said about "they" (muslims) being spiritually more elevated than "you" (hindus)?

I appreciate Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who has admitted that, "I may not have read many books as Dr. Zakir Naik has." he is a man of wisdom thats why he dint pull the arguement when he felt that he doesn't have enough knowledge to argue over something.

I would have done the same here and I see nothing wrong with what Sri Ravi Shankar did. Infact, he should have seen the futility of the debate even before it started.

So by this I SIMPLY WANNA TELL HP THAT BEFORE YOU BLURT ANY OF YOUR CRAP, FIRST AQUIRE KNOWLWDGE ABOUT WHO YOU ARE BLURTING

You seem to have great regard for this wolf in sheep's clothing, don't you?

True... people today though are successfully educating themselves but still keep their mind-set confined and dont think upon researching and finding out the difference between "Truth and Blasphemy"... The research that you do should be so efficient that it should be able to clearly explain the basis of what you say.

The description fits you to a T.

First, you define yourself what you mean by faith?

Faith is not anything that whispers in your mind... Faith is formed by divine laws and judgements established on the grounds of authentic scriptures and not anything, anyone may proclaim one fine day.

To me, faith is what whispers in my mind. To me, its my conscience.

As I say that, let me also add that to me, my faith is not what someone proclaims one fine day.

I really didn't know Dr.Zakir Naik was the author of the Quran Shareef. .

I'm forced to pity on your ignorance about Islam and Quran and you being so absurd to state the above line...

I didn't state that on the basis of my knowledge of Islam or the Quran. The statement was made on the basis of Dr.Naik's contentions that muslims are spiritually more elevated than hindus.

what you've mentioned in that line above will be considered as awfully offensive by any muslim who reads this and for this you either need to apologise or else the mods shud delete the sentence from your post.

I do not see anything in my post that should offend muslims in general. If the mods feel so, they are free to delete this post. I'll cross the bridge when we come to it.

Or is he trying to say that it was a collective effort of all muslims? Who is the "we" he's referring to as having reached a higher level of consciousness? I'd like to meet this person. If you really have reached a higher level of consciousness, Mr. Naik, you would not be discussing such topics with confrontationist attitudes.

And again I pity your ignorance for makin out from no-where that Dr. Zakir Naik's attitude was quarralsome or as stated by you was confrontationist and this word which u've used can surely b applied to ur attitude in this post and your views on Dr. Zakir Naik.

In a discussion where you are comparing two schools of thought, you call your thought the better one of the two. Isn't that attitude confrontationist?

As far as my attitude towards Dr.Naik is concerned, I'm not ashamed of saying that it is confrontationist. Because he chooses to call himself a comparitive theologist and has a superiority complex vis-a-vis his own religion.

If you've ever seen any of his lectures he is not a person to behave in such a way

He is a very polite person on the face of it, but are his views polite?

but infact he was trying to correct that belief of hindus who make most of their things "their god"....

All I can say is....Charity begins at home.

When you have faith and fully believe the existance of god then why dont you beleive in the unseen rather than makin different forms and trying to concentrate on it....

When did I ever say that I worship idols? The last time I went inside a temple was when I was in my 10th standard. And the last time I prayed before a photograph or an idol was a year later to that. Infact, I don't owe you an explanation on this, but I guess you need it.

At the same time, I also say that let the ones who do it be. Its a part of their spiritual evolution and let them go through it. Are they harming anyone or disturbing the world's harmony by doing so?

I'd like to revisit my reply to the last statement quoted by you here. Charity begins at home. And there are many ills pervading Islam that are actually disturbing the world's harmony and harming people. Why doesn't Dr.Naik try to correct those things to begin with? If he does that, he'll earn far greater acceptance among people of other faiths too.

All I can say is that my knowledge of Islam may not be as much as Dr.Naik's but my faith in God and his works is anyday higher than his.

How can you be so sure of anyone's faith in god... its that only Almighty God who can judge a person's faith...

You expect a person to understand God himself. And you say that the same person cannot analyse a person's faith? Stop kidding me....

HP this simply proves that your understanding is partial and u are being stubborn to prove your points for which you are opting the ways to abuse others... When you do a research on all the religions thats when you acctully know what faith is?

I consider faith to be beyond the confines of religions. And hence, one need not research on religions to come to terms with the concept of faith. Again, you expect one to have faith in God as naturally as one breathes, but you also say that to understand the concept of faith by researching religions? Let's meet up and I'll help you break the shackles of those confusions.

What a pity !!!! ? If we can not hold a debate such as this in India, of what use is our democracy and free speach. We can very well call ourselves the divided, theocratic republic of India (instead of united, socialist, secular republic of India)

If anybody thinks his religious sentiments are hurt by listening to this debate, they can very well avoid this. I believe discussions such as this should actually increase. They are helpful for us to be aware of each other's principles.

In ancient Athens, debate was a favorite pastime and people discussed several issues including spiritual / religious / moral issues. This is not something to be left to self stylized philosophers.

I'm not against the concept of debate in principle. Heck...I'm one of the most voracious debaters on this board. What I found disgusting in the debate here was the objective behind it. Rather than discuss inane similarities and differences between religions, the thrust should have been on trying to explain to the common man the real meaning behind it all and the reasons why it is similar or different.



Instead, this debate went on the lines of quoting verses and their translations (something for which I don't need knowledgeable people...the internet itself is a huge resource). And nothing beyond that. And finally, the games of one-upmanship begin which makes me nauseate.



Moreover, I consider religion to be something very personal to an individual. And healthy debates on religious issues should never be judgemental according to me, which this one was. Instead of talking about what and why, this debate transgressed on the domain of right and wrong, which I find to be bad timing considering the hate campaigns flowing around.

[CtrlAltDel]

Dr. Zakir Naik is renowed as a dynamic international orator on Islam and Comparative Religion.

ahem.. i beg to differ here. i dont know how he got his knowledge of hinduism. he is the one who proclaimed that there is an upanishad called "ALLOPANISHAD" thats talks about islam. the truth is that there is no upanishad by that name. its a figment of his imagination. any knowledgeable hindu or simple googling will tell u that.



googling for "ALLOPANISHAD" would only throw up links to islamic sites that talk about it. its mentioned no where else.

[Amused HP]

I wonder where Jquader is lost. Have been expecting a response from her for quite some time now.

[CtrlAltDel]

i think she is googling for ALLOPANISHAD

[akhilis2cool]

I have seen a few lectures of Dr. Zakir Naik on TV...he speaks well i must say. Having said that, I do feel that his views are confrotationist. In most of his lectures he ends up comparing Islam to other religions. In one of his speahes abt comapring the similarities between Hinduism and Islam he ended up talking abt how accroding to him Islam is better than Hinduism!

[CtrlAltDel]

absolutely right! he is a "Scholar of Comparative Religions" alrite, but he compares with a Two Point Agenda - (1) to prove that Islam is superior to the rest, and (2) that all other religions derive from Islam.



no wonder he is "revered" by muslims and others dont take him seriously



come to think of it, maybe Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's comment was more sarcastic (more like " I dont know what books he reads ") and "Dr." Naik took it as a compliment

[akhilis2cool]

come to think of it, maybe Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's comment was more sarcastic (more like " I dont know what books he reads ") and "Dr." Naik took it as a compliment

cld b.

[CtrlAltDel]

yooohooo...jquader, where r u?

[TruthSeeker]

Link to Dialog - The Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam

[HP again]

Link to Dialog - The Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam

The text just reinforces my earlier image of Dr.Naik as a person with an extreme superiority complex vis-a-vis his religion.

[CtrlAltDel]

you should read his other writings on internet!



abt those texts anyway, he is trying to prove that hinduism originally follows islamic principles. looking at how old hinduism is doesnt it seem more likely that basic islam might have been derived from hindu philosophy? those scriptures he quotes can be twisted to prove this too!

[jquader]

whooo..... so i've missed a lot! i got tons of thins to b done so was bzy wid dat...



em... cad i dint expect dat even u r a person wid incomplete knowledge... u know its afoten said dat incomplete knowledge is dangerous so b4 u write somethin just do a bit of research of which u can b confident n yea for that GOOGLING helps , it is synonomous to researching these days...



well for ur info islam is the only religion that can b traced back through Jesus to Moses and Abraham till Adam (the first human being on earth)...



and regarding the Allopanishads, when i tried googling for it i dint find any links to islamic sites but infact most of the sites that contained it were hinduism centered indian cultural sites....



this is wut i got while googling for "Allopanishads"

There are over 200 Upanishads, including such recent works as Khristopanishad and Allopanishad (Upanishads about Christ and Allah respectively).

it wasnt Dr. zakir Naik to proclaim by himself abt this upanishad... it was writtin but i donno by whom n for what purpose...



http://madhava.tripod.com/advaitinartic ... chools.htm



the above site mentions abt the allopanishad...



i wish i cud reply in detail to evryone but unfortunately no time... xams are ahead so wish me luck

[Smiling HP]

this is wut i got while googling for "Allopanishads"

There are over 200 Upanishads, including such recent works as Khristopanishad and Allopanishad (Upanishads about Christ and Allah respectively).

it wasnt Dr. zakir Naik to proclaim by himself abt this upanishad... it was writtin but i donno by whom n for what purpose...

http://madhava.tripod.com/advaitinartic ... chools.htm

the above site mentions abt the allopanishad...

You find a site made by some student as a conclusive proof of the existence of "Allopanishad"? Not very savvy. This is the internet. And not everything on it is true.

i wish i cud reply in detail to evryone but unfortunately no time... xams are ahead so wish me luck

Wish you all the best and come back to continue this.

[CtrlAltDel]

ok...here are a few posts (with some exerpts) from sites pertaining to hindu scriptures:



This site gives the list of the 108 upanishads:

http://www.vedah.com/org/literature/upanishads/108Upanishads.asp



this is from the speeches of Vivekananda:

http://pturing.firehead.org/occult/vivekananda/volume_3/lectures_from_colombo_to_almora/the_vedanta_in_all_its_phases.htm

...The Upanishads are many, and said to be one hundred and eight, but some declare them to be still larger in number. Some of them are evidently of a much later date, as for instance, the Allopanishad in which Allah is praised and Mohammed is called the Rajasulla. I have been told that this was written during the reign of Akbar to bring the Hindus and Mohammedans together, and sometimes they got hold of some word, as Allah, or Illa in the Samhitâs, and made an Upanishad on it. So in this Allopanishad, Mohammed is the Rajasulla, whatever that may mean...

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/nov2000/0009.html

...In later days, many other texts were written and given the title
of Upanishad, either to enhance their stature or as a sign of respect.
For example, even the Bhagavad Gita is known as 'gitopanishad', though it is not part of the Veda. With time, the original intention was
forgotten and any such text began being considered by their respective
votaries as a real, honest-to-god Upanishad. So, we have texts such as 'rAma-tApanIya-upanishad', 'kali-santaraNa-upanishad', etc., which,
while not devoid of value, are essentially later, sectarian religious
documents which can hardly compare to the philosophical depth of the
principal 14 or 15. [ In much later times, an 'allopanishad' was written,
presumably to honor Allah, the Muslim name for God, and in recent
times people refer to a 'rAmakrishnopanishad' and 'tyagopanishad',
referring to Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Tyagaraja respectively...

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/1996-November/005872.html

...And the great damage was
> done to them by some foreign sanskrit scholars writing their
> own upanishads and puts them forth to support their own
> religion. For example, we have an upanishad called
> "SailOpanishad" means, "That which is told on mountains."
> This upanishad is nothing but a sanskrit translation of the
> "ten commandments"!. Same way we have another upanishad
> called "AllOpanishad" you can rightly guess the name itself
> contains "Allah" the muslim God. This upanishad Is again a
> translation of some parts of Holy Quron...

...this proves that Allopanishad is a fake, written much later during the muslim rule in india.

now, who has half knowledge and goes abt pretending to be a scholar of all religions?

...islam is the only religion that can b traced back through Jesus to Moses and Abraham till Adam (the first human being on earth)...

now...Adam, Eve, Abraham etc are a part of the belief of Abrahamic faiths. Others dont believe in that! u cannot quote that to prove Islam is ancient.

moreover, i am sure Jews n Christians would not appreciate Islam appropriating their heritage too, would they?

...but infact most of the sites that contained it were hinduism centered indian cultural sites....

but looks like u hadnt gone thru those links of cultural sites! or else u chose to quote from the most convenient, which sadly is not a credible site!





ALL THE BEST FOR YOUR EXAMS!!!! FORGET THIS DEBATE FOR NOW AND COME BACK AFTER THE EXAMS END!!!!!

[sachai]

This sudden denial is the very obvious pattern emerging in the fundamntalist Hinduism being propagated by the fundemantalist Hindu ganizations with a very hegemonic view towards the Muslim and Christian minorities .To meet the political agenda they are even denying their own scriptues ..err I mean the scriptures of the common Hindu people they are trying to brainwash..



Look at the other thread created VHP denies that Ramayan is the truth...just to prove that Babri Masjid was Ram's birth place...



I wont be susprised if VHP and other fundamnetalist organizations that you follow deny the Gita tomorrow they have already denied Ramayana and now Allopanishad, what is your source ten web sites(seemingly created by Hindutvadis) to deny centuries old Allopanishad , ramayana, Gita etc...is this the new trend in VHP RSS BJP and other hardline fundamntalist organizations to reject part of their scriptures that are seemingly propagating the monotheist practices...pathetic...



Its high time a common Hindu realizes that Hinutva is not Hinduism..otherwise the very reason he is mobilized in hordes upon the will of the RSS VHP masters will not be in existence...

[CtrlAltDel]

its not a part of the original upanishads..i have provided the list too...



and even swami vivekananda is skeptical of its origin! dont say he belonged to RSS!



and as further food for thot, dont u know that even Buddha was declared an "avtar" of Vishnu, when Buddhism became a popular movement in ancient time? this is just a beginning to appropriate mohammad as a hindu god and i am surprised to see that u to want that to happen!



and whats the basis for your belief? "Zakir Said So...."