Anti-Hinduism 1: During Islamic Rule in the Indian Subcontinent

Anti-Hinduism 1

From Wikipedia

During Islamic Rule in the Indian Subcontinent [edit]

Photograph of the Surya Temple, The most impressive and grandest ruins in Kashmir, at Marttand-Hardy Cole's Archaeological Survey of India Report 'Illustrations of Ancient Buildings in Kashmir.' (1869)

Parts of India have historically been subject to Islamic rulers from the period of Muhammad bin Qasim to theDelhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, as well as smaller kingdoms like the Bahmani Sultanate and Tipu Sultans kingdom of Mysore. In almost all of those regimes, Hindus have had an inherently inferior status to the Muslim overlords. Islamic law demands that when under Muslim rule "polytheists" or "infidels" be treated as dhimmis (from the Arab term) ahl-al-dhimma.^[4]

Barrani [edit]

Somanatha Temple Prabhas Patan, Gujarat, from the Archaeological Survey of India, taken by D.H. Sykes in c.1869

Under the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, the Muslim cleric Ziauddin Barrani wrote several works, such as the Fatwa-i-Jahandari, which gave him a reputation as a "fanatical protagonist of Islam"^[5] and wrote that there should be "an all-out struggle against Hinduism", advocating a militant and dogmatic religiosity.^[6] He developed a system of religious elitism to that effect.^[6]

Tipu Sultan [edit]

Main article: Mysore invasion of Kerala

In the first part of his reign in particular he was a religious bigot destroying many temples within his own kingdom-proper and many more in the invasion of Malabar. Mass forced conversions took place during the invasion of Malabar, outnumbered Nair warriors were given choice of Islam or death and Tippu is said to get great pleasure by converting Namboodhiri Brahmins.

·         In battle

After being defeated in the first Anglo-Mysore war he started dealing cordially with the Hindus in his kingdom so as to avoid insurrection and get support in the face of the British power.^[7] Malayalam writer V.V.K. Valath has claimed^[8] In 1780 CE he declared himself to be the Padishah or Emperor of Mysore and H. D. Sharma writes that in his correspondence with other Islamic rulers such as Shah Zaman of Afghanistan, Tippu Sultan used this title and declared that he intended to establish an Islamic Empire in the entire country, along the lines of the Mughal Empirewhich was at its nadir during the period in question.^[9] C. K. Kareem notes that Tippu Sultan issued an edict for the destruction of Hindu temples in Kerala.^[10] The archaeological survey of India has listed three temples which were destroyed during the reign of Tipu Sultan. These were the Harihareshwar Temple at Harihar which was converted into a mosque, the Varahswami Temple in Srirangapatnam and the Odakaraya Temple in Hospet.^[11] The list is incomplete and has not considered temples such as in Keladi, Ikkeri and Sagara, and many more in Malabar, like Tirunavaya, .......

After such atrocities, Tipu's view towards Hinduism changed and its recorded his seeking reverential advice from the then Sringeri pontiff Sri Sacchidananda Bharati III (1770–1814). The Sringeri Sarada Peetam has in its safe possession some 24 letters written by the Sultan who also sent a silver palanquin and a pair of silver chauris to the Sarada Temple as well.^[11] Tipu had donated many silver vessels and gold ornaments to Sri Ranganatha swamy at Seringaptnam which is at stone's throw from his palace.

Historian C. Hayavadana Rao wrote about Tippu in his encyclopaedic work on the History of Mysore. He asserted that Tippu's "religious fanaticism and the excesses committed in the name of religion, both in Mysore and in the provinces, stand condemned for all time. His bigotry, indeed, was so great that it precluded all ideas of toleration". He further asserts that the acts of Tippu that were constructive towards Hindus were largely political and ostentatious rather than an indication of genuine tolerance.^[12]

Whilst no scholar has denied that, in common with most rulers of his period, Tippu’s campaigns were often characterized by great brutality, some historians claim that this was not exclusively religiously motivated, and did not amount to a consistent anti-Hindu policy. Brittlebank, Hasan, Chetty, Habib and Saletare amongst others argue that stories of Tippu's religious persecution of Hindus and Christians are largely derived from the work of early British authors such as Kirkpatrick^[13] and Wilks,^[14] whom they do not consider to be entirely reliable.^[15] A. S. Chetty argues that Wilks’ account in particular cannot be trusted.^[16]

Although the attitudes of Muslim ruler Tippu Sultan have been criticized as being anti-Hindu by Indian historians, left-wing historians note that he had an egalitarian attitude towards Hindus and was harsh towards them only when politically expedient.^[17] Former IAS Officer, Praxy Fernandes has mentioned in his book that Tipu Sultan displayed reverence to the head of the Hindu Shringeri Mutt, by

Irfan Habib and Mohibbul Hasan argue that these early British authors had a strong vested interest in presenting Tippu Sultan as a tyrant from whom the British had "liberated" Mysore.^[18] This assessment is echoed by Brittlebank in her recent work^[19]

S. Chandrasekar, Travel writer & Photographer, 2010, records from his family genealogy (Visanasola, Kuthsa gothra, Telugu Konaseema Dravidlu):

"One of my anscestors, Someswara Iyer was mistakenly imprisoned by Tipu in 1789. He was a pure saivite and an innocent brahmin. He refused to eat or drink in prison due to shame and humiliation. Soon he dropped and fell unconscious. That night Lord appeared in the dream of Tipu and ordered him to release the poor brahmin. Tipu apologized and repented for the sin committed. Someswaran was too fragile and couldn't move. Tipu asked his court physician to smear battered curd-rice paste throughout the body twice a day. His skin pores absorbed them. On the third day it was said that he regained energy to speak. Tipu granted few villages and an emerald Shivalinga to Someswaran Iyer as a token of respect. The lands and lingam have vanished over the centuries. Henceforth Someswara Iyer was called Nawab Somayajulu (wife Subbulakshmi). They belonged to the Konaseema Telugu speaking kuthsa-gothra brahmin family of south india Konaseema dravidlu, kuthsa gothram, Visanasola telugu brahmins. Someswaran was the 8th descendent from Madhyarjunam Subbarao who was a minister at the court of King Sri Krishnadevaraya of Vijayanagara Empire c.1500AD (approx.)"^{[citation needed]}

Opinion of a Christian about Hinduism

My Opinion about Hinduism, Islam and Christianity

By Simona Rich+ in All Articles, India, Spirituality on October 29, 2011

In this post I express my opinion about three main religions, which are Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. I don’t intend with this post to change your opinion about any of these religions, however I hope that this post will help those who are confused about these religions. Hopefully my post will inspire and empower those lost in religions to think more outside the box and find God in their own unique way.

My opinion about Christianity

I was born into a non-practicing Christian family. From my extended family only my grandmother used to quite regularly go to church. However she was the most “lost” member of my family without even knowing it. She would get angry for nothing and take action as a result of this negativity. Finally she got cancer and died, which wasn’t a big surprise for anyone in my family considering how much anger and hatred she stored inside.

In the past I sometimes used to go to church too because my best friend in my childhood was from a religions family and they would go to church every Sunday. Church people, as I came to find as years passed by, was the most narrow-minded bunch I ever came across. They think they are very spiritual but they don’t know anything about spirituality. They consider themselves superior to those who don’t go to church. They busy themselves with setting others straight whilst they themselves are the biggest sinners.

I’m not saying all church people are the same, but a lot of them commit many sins outside of the church, like talking bad things about others and getting jealous and angry about small things, and then they go to church, confess their sins, say a few prayers and again commit the same sins. This practice is widely accepted in the Christian community.

Some Christians truly believe that disclosing their sins to the priest was all it took to get God’s mercy. Isn’t that the most childish idea anyone can think of? Why would God grant the priest an authority to forgive other human beings? Priest is the same human being as me and you – he doesn’t have any higher powers or anything else that would make him more God-like than the rest of us.

Those who are sworn Christians are mainly fanatics. They live by the Bible but they don’t feel it. They are merely fools ready to fight anyone who doesn’t belong to their religion and blindly following the text but not pondering on the meaning of it. That’s why they ignore many contradictions that one finds in the Bible and get angry when someone challenges their beliefs. This also makes them one of the most egoic communities you can find around.

I met a few healthy Christian families. They live a good life but their life is fear-based. It seems that the only reason they live a sin-free life is because they are afraid to burn in hell.

That’s not what real spirituality is about. Anything fear-based is wrong because fear itself is a lie, an illusion.

I dislike many things about Christianity. I don’t like that it’s said in the Bible that everyone has to accept Christ as their saviour as only then they will go to heaven. It was even once said in the Bible that soul is mortal (though the Bible has been rewritten since then many times) and that the only way to save your soul and make it immortal is to, as I said, accept Christ as your saviour. It’s very cruel to fool people this way and waste their lives so that they would stick to this religion.

So basically Christianity claims that all people who haven’t got a chance to come into contact with Christianity are doomed. How wrong could that be? Why would God be so cruel as not to give a chance for some people to become aware of Christianity?

When one ponders on this issue for some time, she will most likely to realise that God could not limit itself to only one religion. She is most likely to come to the conclusion that this idea of only one religion being right is man-made and is made for the reason to convert more people into a particular religion.

Religion is profitable for priests, so the more converts they have, the more their churches will prosper.

Now another thing I dislike about Christianity is that it’s full of contradictions. Just do one exercise to find this out yourself. Read the accounts of the same event by different saints, like Matthew or John and then tell me how many inconsistencies and even contradictions of the events you will find in the Bible.

I do believe that the Bible is based on truth, but it’s been covered by so many false accounts that you are better off not reading it at all. It will only leave you confused, trust me. And those professors who claim that there are no inconsistencies in the Bible are only doing so because they have strong attachments to this religion and their minds cannot allow any denying of this religion to arise.

It’s very stupid for Christians to think that people who did not choose this religion will go to hell. This is so close-minded, so childish. Once I had a friend who stopped talking to me when she realised that I’m a non-practicing Christian. How silly.

What I find so annoying in Christianity as I do in Islam is the concept of a sin. The fear of sin prevents people from spiritually progressing, and let me tell you how. For example, if a person has a desire to have multiple sex partners and Christianity prohibits it, he will fear doing it and this fear together with this unrealised desire will freeze his spiritual progress.

Whist if he would have multiple sexual partners and finally experience what it’s all about, only then he may see this desire for what it really is and thus move on to higher ideals. Of course some people will get stuck in this desire for ever, but some would become spiritual. Whereas if they would never try this experience none could reach higher spiritual truths.

My opinion about Islam

Although Muslims and Christians always fight with each other, there are many similarities in these two religions. Both religions are made by men because women are considered of less importance in these religions. Both religions have a place called heaven. Both religions think that those who do not belong to their religion are eternally doomed.

The good thing about Quran is that it wasn’t changed (this claim is arguable however). But the worse thing about it is that through an ill-mind it can become a lethal weapon, because ill-minds interpret it in an evil way. That’s how fanatics of Islam come to being.

In reality both Christians and Muslims are good people. Some of them try their best to convert people to their religion so as to “save” them. This is a good intention, but it’s based on the belief that only their religion is right and this cannot be so, because God is fair.

If anyone would ask me which religion is better to blindly follow, Christianity or Islam, I would have to say Islam because their religion contains less contradictions in my opinion. Also many Muslim families are healthy and strong families, as I came to know. But this close-mindedness and less respect for people of other religions and atheists is what I really dislike about this religion.

Once I was in a hospital’s prayrer room in India, praying for my close friend who had a spine injury. One Muslim nurse came and started praying. She prayed a few seconds, just because a Muslim has to pray, and then spent the rest of her prayer time talking on her mobile. Then she finished talking, did a few seconds’ prayer and went away. Are the rituals is all it takes to be a good Muslim? She would sin less by no praying at all, then by praying just because it’s written in the Quran to do so.

That’s another thing I find so sad with so called religious people. Muslims as well as Christians follow their sacred texts with minds rather than hearts. This strips off any spirituality that could be felt by following the sacred writings. Any good Muslim or Christian would not be cruel or egoic with others. However many religious people have even childish character traits which, they think, count for nothing as long as they repeat the words of their religious texts and follow the rituals.

My opinion about Hinduism

Out of all the religions I know, Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism are closest to my heart. Jainism (but not extreme Jainism where one consciously chooses to slowly die so as not to hurt anything on this planet) makes most sense to me because it’s based on non-violence. Then Buddhism is next, because it’s based on non-attachment. And then comes Hinduism, because it came into existence through the writings of the sages who cared not to put their names on this religion. It’s the religion that was not born out of one person, like Christianity or Islam did.

Hinduism came out of the writings of the Rishis, the “Seers” of India. In my opinion, Vedas, which are the most important sacred writings of the Rishis that Hinduism is based on, contains least contradictions and makes most sense. The Vedas make most sense logically and when you have spiritual experiences you come to know by the experience of the truth of the Vedas.

Hinduism is the oldest religion and the least cruel religion. It respects other religions and does not try to convert other people into it. Christianity and Islam looks like the religion of barbarians compared to Hinduism.

I’m not saying that Hinduism is the be all and end all, because I don’t know everything about this religion. I may never come to know every detail of it, because I don’t know the language of Sanskrit, and only if you read the sacred writings in the original language can they reveal themselves to you in their entirety.

But Hiduism is indeed the most truthful religion in my opinion. It doesn’t devalue women, firstly, but regards them as completely equal, because they are. Men could not exist without women and women could not exist without men. Good could not exist without bad. Black could not exist without white. So why are there more promises of goodness given to Muslim men after their sin-free life finishes than there are for women? This is unfair and God is fair. So what does it say about this religion? That it’s man-made.

Hinduism provides more spiritual teachings about how the world came into existence than any other religion. For example, Christianity uses a lot of parables or a very basic way of explaining spirituality, as though it’s directed to people with low awareness level. For example, it talks about an angry God living in the skies rather than about an impersonal universal intelligence.

When I think about it, such religious texts like those of Christianity are directed to people who cannot understand deep spirituality. And so they are created so that those people who are entirely ignorant of the laws of the universe would not commit sins or cause too much chaos.

For example, some people would not believe or understand that there is a universal law of cause and effect. This law states that if you do something bad you must receive something bad because you put a bad effect into motion which must bear its fruits. But ignorant people may be more affected if they are told that there is an angry God watching their every move from the skies and if they commit a sin they will be punished. So this fear-based teaching may produce a bigger effect on ignorant people than the teaching of an impersonal God and universal laws.

Hinduism is more suited for people with a better understanding of spirituality. Reading Vedas a person becomes empowered and more understanding whilst reading the Bible a person becomes frightened and confused.

In the Vedas and other Hindu spiritual texts there are so many eye-opening statements, there is so much wisdom. For example, in the Bhagavat Gita (another Hindu sacred text) it is told that a person should work all her life, but she must not become attached to the results of her work, that she should dedicate the fruits of her work to God. Only this way the working person can become happy. Any work done with some kind of expectation leaves one miserable.

Vedas explain everything about this world; This is the only text that in my opinion clearly explains the nature of this reality and the reason for it. This text makes me want to have been born an Indian in this life-time so that I would more deeply understand it.

Hindus in general are very accepting and less egoic people than the rest. For example, there is far less jealousy in a Hindu girl than there is in a Christian or a Muslim girl. There is much less aggression and hatred in Hindu people than in the people of other religions. Most Hindu people live in peace with nature and accept their circumstances. They seem to be quite pure in their hearts and little do they know that they are much happier than the people living in the West whose religion is either Islam or Christianity.

Hindu people care less about materialistic things than Muslims or Christians do. And although they worship gods by worshiping their images, which is prohibited in Christianity or Islam, they are the least evil race I have come across (which makes me doubt this whole belief that it’s a sin to worship idols).

What I have read about this idol worship issue and what I believe myself is that it’s not a bad thing. It’s for those people who cannot grasp this idea of universal intelligence and want a more concrete God. The vast majority of people can’t grasp the universal intelligence idea, so choosing to worship a picture or a statue is the only way for them to communicate with God.

From childhood I didn’t see the point in praying to a statue. It seemed funny and strange to me. For me it’s easy to feel God everywhere and I can pray to God by praying inside my head or by meditation. But I don’t judge those who can’t grasp this idea, because every person is different and therefore is on different levels of awareness.

Conclusion

I could go on and on about this topic of religion, but in this post I chose to express my most important feelings and notices about each religion. I hope that this blog post will help those still confused about or lost in a certain religion. In my opinion it’s better not to belong to any religion but find God in your own unique way, because each of us is unique. Religions, keep in mind, are made by men and not by God.

I choose to follow the path of spirituality on my own terms. I make mistakes of course, but this path, as I came to know, is the most fulfilling one. If you tasted what’s like to belong to a religion and didn’t find fulfillment in this way of living, I urge you to try to drop your religion and find God using your intuition and your inspiration.

Story behind Swami Samarth’s First Photos taken by Kodak Company

Story behind Swami Samarth’s First Photos taken by Kodak Company

FIRST Original photos of Swami Samarth were taken by Kodak Company’s photographer

Following are the three original photograph of "Shri Swami Samarth" taken by Kodak Company's photographer from Europe who visited Akkalkot specifically for this purpose. With the story behind these photos, these are the FIRST ORIGINAL photos of Swami Samarth and all other photos of Swami Samarth were taken atleast few years after this one. Read the story behind this first Kodak photos of Swami Samarth below:

FIRST Original photos of Swami Samarth taken by Kodak Company’s photographer

The honour of taking the first photograph of Swami Samarth goes to the Kodak Company. The exact year of photograph is not known but it is expected somewhere between 1855 through 1870. George Eastman, the inventor of Kodak camera, is later known to have become a student of Swami Paramahansa Yogananda (1893-1952.) The Kodak company went Bankrupt in January 2012.

Here is how the story of Swami Samarth's First photo goes:

Kodak Company wanted to increase their business and publicize the art by photographing some great personality by way of advertisement. They decided that Swami Samarth would be a good choice because at that time Swami Samarth’s name and fame had spread and stories about him and a his Miracles used to be published in Mumbai newspapers. Even the British Government in Mumbai had ordered Akkalkot king to take proper care of Swami Samarth.

Kodak thought Swami’s photograph would serve as a great publicity for the promotion of their business. Accordingly, Kodak Company sent their best photographer with a special camera and all the necessary accessories to Akkalkot. The photographer was a European.

On reaching Akkalkot the photographer contacted some of Swami’s devotees and expressed his desire of photographing Swami Samarth. They told him that Swami's photo could not be taken without Swami’s permission. The photographer felt challenged and decided to photograph Swami Samarth anyhow. The photographer was highly confident of his skills and though that he could take the photo without Swami or anyone else noticing it. He then arranged his camera and tripod at some distance from where Swami Samarth was sitting and waited for a favorable pose. The photographer though - Camera is a material science and who can defy the science? After some efforts the photographer took a picture (photo) without Swami being aware of it!

Overjoyed after taking the photo without permission of Swami he went and developed the plate, took prints and brought them to Swami Samarth asking his opinion about it.

Swami Samarth without looking at the photo gave it to one of the devotees who looked at it said, “What a wonderful photo of Khandoba!” (Avatar of Sri Maheshwar – Shiv Shankar), another said it was that of “Sri Rama!”, another one said it is a beautiful picture of Ambabai. Everyone saw in it their own family deity, but none of them said it was a photograph of Swami Samarth. The photographer laughed at them saying that they could not identify the picture of their own Master. Finally the photographer said, "Maharaj, this is your photograph" and asked Shri Swami Samarth himself to see the photograph.

Shri Swami Samarth looked at the photo, burst into laughter and asked, "What? Is this my picture? Do I look funny as this?" and gave the picture back to photographer who when looked at saw the picture of a monkey on the print. The photographer felt highly embarrassed. He realized his mistake in taking the photo without Swami Samarth's permission. He relied on his confidence and the power of science, and learnt a lesson!

Photographer begged Swami’s pardon and said, “Maharaj, ours is a new company. We wish to popularize it by publishing saint’s photos in India. I have been specially sent here from Europe to take your photo. Please be kind enough and give me permission to take your photograph. Your picture is sacred and is worthy of being kept in every home".

Once the photographer showed his repentance and requested humbly for permission Swami Samarth smiled indicating consent and allowed him to take the photograph. The photo was taken and it came out so well - fully capturing the visible manifestations of the Divine. Every one was delighted to see the picture.

The possession of an excellent camera, the skill of the cameraman, good light, etc were all of no avail. It was only when Sri Swami Samarth was gracious enough to consent that his photograph could be taken but not before.

(On the other hand, once, a photographer named Phadke wanted to photograph Swami Samarth and came to Akkalkot. Phadke was asked by Swami Samarth to come at five that evening. He came at five as promised but Swami Samarth, instead of sitting for the photograph gave his Hukka to him to hold and continued smoking till seven o’clock when it was quite dark. Then Swami asked Phadke to take a photo. Phadke told him it was too dark and photo could not come well without light. Swami Samarth laughed and asked him to still go ahead and take the picture. Surprisingly the photo came out beautiful.)

More original Swami Samarth's photographs by the Kodak Company’s photographer:
Dr. Annie Beasant of the Theosophical Society had sent Col. S. H. Olcott to India in 1879 to study & understand the sages & spiritual Gurus of India, so as to share the information with the world. During his six months stay in Akkalkot he penned down a book `Seven Stages of Man’. This book contains the original photographs of ‘Shri Swami Samarth’ taken by the Kodak Company’s photographer.

More Photos of Shree Swami Samarth:

The Golden Rule, Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions

Oneness : Great Principles Shared by All Religions

By Jeffrey Moses

The Golden Rule Sayings from the Religions Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this is the law and the prophets. Christianity Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31 What is hurtful to yourself do not to your fellow man. That is the whole of The Torah and the remainder is but commentary. Judaism Shabbath (also Rabbi Hillel) Do unto all men as you would they should unto you, and reject for others what you would reject for yourself. Islam Mishkat-el-Masabih Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. Buddhism Udanavarga 5.8 Tzu Kung asked: "Is there any one principle upon which one’s whole life may proceed?" Confucius replied: "Is not Reciprocity such a principle?- what you do not yourself desire, do not put before others." Confucianism Analects 15.23 This is the sum of all true righteousness - Treat others, as thou wouldst thyself be treated. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which hereafter Thou wouldst not have thy neighbor do to thee. Hinduism Mahabharata (Ganguli, Book 13 CXIII) Treat others as thou wouldst be treated thyself. Sikhism Guru Angad (Macauliffe vol 2, p.29) A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. Jainism Sutrakritanga Sutra 1.11.33 Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain; and regard your neighbor’s loss as your own loss, even as though you were in their place. Taoism Tai-Shang Kan-Ying Pien Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee. Bahá'í Bahá'ulláh Commentary The Golden Rule is the cornerstone of religious understanding. It is the most complete expression of the Oneness of all people, serving as the foundation for peace and universal goodwill on earth. The Golden Rule is expressed almost word for word in every religion. So fundamental is it to all religious thought that the founders and enlightened teachers of every religion have commented on it directly. Jesus referred to The Golden Rule as "the law and the prophets." Mohammed described it as "the noblest expression of religion." Rabbi Hillel stated in the Jewish Talmud that The Golden Rule is "the whole of the Torah and the remainder is but commentary." Vyasa, the enlightened Hindu sage, called it "the sum of all true righteousness." Similarly, Buddha referred to it as "the sum total of all righteousness." And Confucius, the great Chinese master, deemed it "the one principle upon which one’s whole life may proceed." Many people are taught from childhood that living The Golden Rule is an ideal, but the practical benefits are not emphasized. When people look upon others as extensions of themselves, all obstacles to fulfillment are removed-both for individuals and society. When the goals of every individual are supported by the activities of every other person, the world has the possibility to flourish with peace and prosperity. For this reason, The Golden Rule should not be thought of as a vague ideal. It is a practical principle that embodies the deepest aspirations of humanity. It serves as the basis for all that is positive and lasting in human life.

©2002  Jeffrey Moses