Hinduism is not a religion

Re - Redefining Hinduism

While defining religion is a theological exercise, many a times the tribunals and judges are pontificating on the nature of Hindusim on the basis of common sense and their own perceptions of it. Many of these perceptions are dictated by the contemporary politics, which wants to present Hinduism in a different light. It was a great surprise that a recent Income Tax Tribunal held that Hinduism is not a religion and stated that Shiva, Hanuman or Goddess Durga are "superpowers of the universe" and do not represent a particular religion. (March 2013) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur, in a recent order, said the expenses on worshipping Hindu deities and maintenance of temple could not be considered as religious activity. They went on to declare that "Technically, Hinduism is neither a religion nor Hindus form a religious community.” Shiv Mandir Devsthan Panch Committee Sanstan' had argued that the temple run by it was open to everyone, irrespective of caste and creed and so "the temple does not belong to a particular religion and that installing idols is not a religious activity". This is fairly hilarious. Idol worship is a major part of Hinduism, while religions like Islam and Christianity don’t resort to worship of idols. It is a Hindu religious activity, that’s how the whole Ram Temple issue could be built up and Babri mosque was demolished on the pretext of fulfilling a religious obligation of restoring Ram Temple, where the idols of Ram Lalla could be installed. Then, what is this new definition of ‘*superpowers*’ in the form of Shiva, Hanuman and Durga? Contemporary times mired in the world of politics regards the United States of America as the global superpower. In tribunal’s verdict we are being told about the Universal superpowers, Durga, Hanuman and Shiva amongst others. The learned tribunal needed to know that in Hinduism the concept of supernatural power goes through different stages. It begins with polytheism with Gods and Goddesses looking after one faction of the power. So you have Gods and Goddesses taking care of rains (Indra), air (Marut), power (Durga), knowledge (Sarswati), and even sex (Kam Devata) and wine (Som Devata). From here one goes to trithiesm where one God creates (Brahma), one maintains (Vishnu) and one destroys (Shiva). From here, one goes to the concept of monotheism (Ishwar). As such Hanuman is a mythological character, servant of Lord Ram and also referred to as God. All this is a part of Hindu religion, to think that this is universal, applicable to all religious beliefs is a travesty of truth. Different sects of Hinduism worship different of these Gods. Some of these Gods are a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu like Ram and Krishna. In Greek mythology one does see a parallel to polytheism. In Christian tradition tri-thiesm of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is very much there. These are religion specific beliefs and don’t apply to other religions. In contrast to the verdict of the tribunal one knows that some religions like Jainism and Budhhidm don’t have faith in supernatural power. Some traditions, which developed in this part of the globe like Charvak also did not have faith in supernatural power. Coming to the conclusion of the tribunal that Hinduism is not a religion because there are diverse trends, this can be rejected right away. True, Hinduism has diverse trends but that is because this religion is not based on the teachings of a single Prophet. It has evolved-been constructed over a period of time. So the diversity is very much there, still all this does fit into the criterion laid down for understanding a religion. Defining Hinduism in such is a difficult task for sure. The reasons for this are multiple. One, Hinduism is not a prophet based religion, it has no single founder and two, religions developing in this part of the world have been lumped together as Hinduism and three; there are so many diversities in the practices of Hinduism that all streams cannot be painted with a single brush. To this one may add the the practices and beliefs originating at different times continue to exist side by side. Lord Satyanarayn and Santoshi Maa do exist along with the concept of Ishwar (God) and a Nirankar Nirguna Ishwar (God beyond the attributes of qualities and form at the same time. The major point of departure for Hinduism is the imprint of caste system on the major aspects of Hinduism, the religious sanctity for social inequality, caste system being the soul of its scriptures and practices. The conditions under which the terms came into being also tell a lot about the real meaning of those terms. Aryans who came in a series of migrations were pastorals and were polytheists. During the early period we see the coming into being of Vedas, which give the glimpse of value system of that period and also the number of gods with diverse portfolios, the prevalence of polytheism. Laws of Manu were the guiding principles of society. This Vedic phase merged into Brahminic phase. During this phase elite of the society remained insulated from the all and sundry. At this point of time caste system provided a perfect mechanism for this insulation of elite. Buddhism’s challenge to caste system forced Brahmanism to come up with a phase, which can be called Hinduism. During this the cultic practices were broadened and public ceremonies and rituals were devised to influence the broad masses to wean them away from Buddhism. It is interesting to note that till 8th century the so called Hindu texts do not have the word Hindu itself. This word came into being with the Arabs and Middle East Muslims coming to this side. They called the people living on this side of Sindhu as Hindus. The word Hindu began as a geographical category. It was later that religions developing in this part started being called as Hindu religions. Due to caste system there was no question of prosetylization. On the contrary the victims of caste system made all the efforts to convert to other religions, Buddhism, Islam and partly Christianity and later to Sikhism. Within Hindu religion two streams ran parallel, Brahmanism and Shramanism. Shramans defied the brahminical control and rejected caste system. While Brahminism remained dominant, other streams of Hinduism also prevailed, Tantra, Bhakti, Shaiva, Siddhanta etc. Shramans did not conform to the Vedic norms and values. Brahminism categorized religious practices by caste while Shramanism rejected caste distinctions. Brahminical Hinduism was the most dominant tendency as it was associated with rulers. Sidetracking the Hindu traditions of lower castes, Brahminism came to be recognised as Hinduism in due course of time. This phenomenon began with Magadh-Mauryan Empire after subjugating Budhhism and Jainism in particular. Later with coming of British who were trying to understand Indian society, Hindu identity, based on Brahminical norms was constructed for all non Muslims and non Christians. Vedas and other Brahminical texts were projected as the Hindu texts. Thus the diversity of Hinduism was put under the carpet and Brahminism came to be recognised as Hinduism. So Hinduism as understood as a religion is based on Brahminical rituals, texts and authority of Brahmins. Hinduism as prevails today is a religion in all sense of the sociological characteristics. It is dominated by Brahminism is another matter. To say that Hindus are not a religious community is a wrong formulation to say the least.

Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

Summary Answer:
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

Hinduism is a violent faith

**********************

There’s a chapter in Subhash Gatade’s below-the-belt book Godse’s Children (Pharos Media). It is: “Shastrpujas: what’s religious about worshipping weapons?” Contrary to the general perception of Hinduism being an irenic (peace-loving!) faith, it’s a religion that has violence embedded in its fabric and bloodshed in its spirit. Because of its inherent violence and obscurantism, two philosophies alienated themselves from its wider canvas and came to be known as Buddhism and Jainism (History and doctrine of Buddhism by Edward Upham, 1829).

If Hindus consider a few Quranic verses, quoted out of context, as violent and potentially dangerous, one finds Hinduism’s all ancient scriptures advocating the use of weapons and justifying bloodshed. Nationalist Indian historians are happy to heap blame for the destruction of Hindu temples on the waves of Muslim iconoclasts who wreaked havoc on their country from the time of Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim onwards. He came to Sindh in 712 AD. They’ve less to say about the destructive role of Brahmin zealots in the overthrow of Buddhist viharas and the absorption of Buddhist beliefs and iconography into reformed Hinduism - just as they remain largely silent about the impact on the rest of Asia of what was India’s greatest export: the civilising influence of Buddhism.

In these same circles, the pioneering work of orientalists such as William Jones, James Princep and Cunningham is often portrayed as part of an anti-Brahmin, pro-Buddhist conspiracy of “Britishers” against Mother India. Adi Shankar was so paranoid to “save” his great Hinduism that he wrote a treatise in Sanskrit justifying the weapons and even “ritualistic sacrifice” to the deities. To him, Shankar’s Trishul (Trident) and Durga’s so many weapons in as many hands were exhortations to the devotees to emulate their deities in every respect, especially in terms of violence. That’s why he’d lay down the conditions that in philosophical discourses with Buddhist monks and scholars, whoever would lose, would have to resort to self-immolation. Many Buddhists monks immolated themselves having been defeated by the redoubtable, but extremely cunning Adi Shankar. Orientalist David Gardley opined that “Since deities are often the mental manifestations and imaginary projections of a race, community or a homogeneous group, it superimposes its own thoughts, views and ethos on the deities”.

The very mentality of the followers of Hinduism has been violent, blatantly violent at that. There’re instances recorded by the great historian and professor of history at Dhaka University Professor Ramesh Chandra Majumdar when Hindus, especially Hindu-Brahmins of the Eastern India, massacred non-Brahmin Hindus when Muslim invaders passed through their villages! Such desecrated Hindus had no right to live, believed the Brahmins and quoted from their antiquated scriptures, why gods wanted to annihilate such defiled Hindus (Oxford University Essays on Hinduism, 1965). It’s but obvious that its deities also became like that to suit this violent streak. Hinduism, “the existing paganism” (Edmund Blunden’s phrase) always approved of violence, justifying it as a measure to thwart challenges from outside and within.

History will bail me out that the Deccan plateau was red with blood of the Shaivites and Lingaites. Shaivites claimed that it was Lord Shiva’s divine order to kill the followers of the opponent sect. And that’s why he brandished his trident. Krishna, if at all he existed (though chances of his existence are very very bleak), was the main cause of Kurukshetra that witnessed unprecedented bloodshed. That’s the reason, scriptures of Jainism consign him to Raurav, the seventh and the lowest hell. When a religion believes so much in sanguinary myths and violent ways through its deities, how can it claim to be non-violent and peace-loving? Peace’s at loggerheads with such blood-thirsty faith. Brutally speaking, Hinduism institutionalised violence.

However hard the Hindu apologists may try to explain away why their gods and goddesses are shown brandishing weapons and oozing blood from mouth as in the case of Kali and other demi-gods, they can’t convince any sane mind. Even a child will refuse to be convinced by their imbecile logic and insane arguments. The bottomline is, Hinduism like many other faiths is violent and opportunistic.

 —