......
in other religions no one dare question, oppose or disbelieve. all hell will break loose and heads will roll.
Dear sister renuka, I am with you with many things you say, about marriage and stuff like that. But if I were a person of Hindu faith, I will be a little less sanguine about Hinduism's freedoms and the intolerance of other religions. I am afraid you are using a rather broad brush.
(Many are now gasping, here he goes again,
, but somebody has to do this, or else TB will be floating in self fulfilling lake of pride and self-congratulation
.)
Christianity is not a monolith. On the one end we have nut cases like Dobson, Rick Warren and other gay hating, Jew loathing (they support Israel in a macabre way) evangelicals. Then there are Catholic, a little moderate in someways and equally retrograde in others. Then there is Anglican and Episcopalians, some of whom even concede that many biblical stories including crucifixion and resurrection as allegorical in nature and not literal. Finally, on the other extreme we have Unitarian Universalists church who are more progressive than any Hindus progressive.
The case of Islam is more complicated. They have armed jihad in their scriptures. They also subscribe to such abominations like the concept of Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb, dhimmy, umma and kafir, extreme laws against women.
But even Islam is not a monolith. There are gentle sects within Islam, such as, Ahmadees and Sufis. But, unfortunately, they are marginalized. Some sunny muslims even think these are not Muslims.
But, the west must understand the history if it is not to be repeated. It is the shortsighted US foreign policy starting with FDR's Faustian deal with the Saudi family, and countless other stupid interventions including Iran in the early 50's, which is now coming home to roost. The US has been the stalwart supporter of all the oppressive regimes in Islamic countries, starting from Algeria in the western Africa to the brutal Suharto regime of Indonesia. Much of the religious extremism comes from these countries ruled by oppressive regimes. Countries where the Muslims enjoy a modicum of freedom, like in India and Turkey, tend to be quite tolerant of others. In spite of the intolerance coded deep into their scriptures, extremism is found only in oppressive environments. Backwardness is another contributing factor also. So, the intolerance is astutely encouraged for political reasons by all sides. Common Muslim wants to pray 5 times and be left alone, just as a common Hindu. Both are blissfully unaware of the poison in their scriptures.
Please permit me to cite two personal instances in this context. One of my close friends, who happens to be from an orthodox Vadama family, married a Christian girl. She adopted the Brahmin ways of her in-laws. A young SV I know, who recites all the 4000 verses from memory, I say this to emphasize the orthodox nature of his family, married a Muslim girl from Hyderabad. Until the time I gave up on SV, I used see him come to temple regularly and participate in the sevakalam -- in other words he continued to be a SV even after marrying a muslim girl. His wife used to come to the temple with him, but she was never accepted by the Brahmins of the Goshti.
Now, about Hindus. Because of the insular nature of caste system, Hindus never went for proselytisation. In a perverse way, the proseleytizers are motivated by goodwill for the soul. On the other hand, the Hindus left others alone not because of respectful tolerance, but because the others are unclean and unworthy.
Further, Hindus became dominant in India by overcoming Bhuddists and Jains by force. There was no freedom to think for them. Let me cite couple of verses from the 4000 dhivya prabhandams. Be forewarned, these sound quite vile.
வெறுப்போடு சமணர் முண்டர், விதியில் சாக்கியர்கள், நின்பால்
பொறுப்பரியனகள் பேசில் போவதே நோய் அதாகி
குறிப்பெனக் கடையும் ஆகில், கூடுமேல் தலையை ஆங்கே
அறுப்பதே கருமம் கண்டாய், அரங்க மாநகர் உளானே.தொண்டர் அடிப்பொடி ஆழ்வாரின் திருமாலை, 8ம் பாசுரம்
In this pasuram Thondaradippodi Azhvar declares that it is his duty to cut the heads off of Jains, Buddhists, and Sankhyas.
தர்க்கச் சமணரும் சாக்கியப் பேய்களும், தாழ்சடையோன்
சொற்கற்ற சோம்பரும் சூனிய வாதரும், நான்மறையும்
நிற்கக் குறும்புசெய் நீசரும் மாண்டனர் நீள் நிலத்தே
பொற்கற்பகம் எம் இராமானுச முனி போந்த பின்னே.இராமானுச நூற்றந்தாதி #99
Talk about harsh language -- here, Thiruvarangaththu Amudhanaar uses some against all, Jains, Sankhyas, Saivas, and everyone who misinterprets Vedas.
There are stories that in Karnataka, Ramanuja defeated Jains in a debate and two options were given the vanquished, (i) join SV, or (ii) be put to death. Sounds very much like some Sunny Wahhabi.
Having studied Ramanuja's life history, I am quite surprised with stories like this. Ramanuja is routinely portrayed as an ocean of compassion. The same Amudhanar, in a different verse uses the phrase, "காரேய் கருணை இராமானுச", and yet talks of putting the defeated opponents to death. May be these are allegorical, but that could very well be self-serving rationalization.
Then there were the attempts on Ramanuja's life, once by Yadavaprakasha motivated by jealousy, and Nalooran motivated by religious bigotry. In this instance, heads did roll, Periya Nabmi lost his life and Koorathazvan lost both his eyes.
Cheers!
