Why are Hindus fanatical?

[Milind2469]

Here is what P.N.Oak said after a lot of research.

The True Story of the Taj Mahal

(I am not on his side.)

Doing research and proposing theories is healthy archaeology.
It's not fanatism.
Shutting doors on studies, thinking, freedom, choice, IS.

 

[Madhuri]

Makes me ashamed to be a Hindu.

That is a really odd thing to say.
A person who is a Hindu or Christian or atheist etc. might say they are ashamed to be associated with certain people, but they would not say they are ashamed to be what they are.
If you are ashamed to be a Hindu, then it is the religion/philosophy itself that you find to be shameful. So either you meant to say something else and used the wrong wording, or some of the others members here are right in their suspicion that you are not Hindu.

 

[Mahatma Gandhi]

That is a really odd thing to say.
A person who is a Hindu or Christian or atheist etc. might say they are ashamed to be associated with certain people, but they would not say they are ashamed to be what they are.
If you are ashamed to be a Hindu, then it is the religion/philosophy itself that you find to be shameful. So either you meant to say something else and used the wrong wording, or some of the others members here are right in their suspicion that you are not Hindu.

Just out of curiosity: do you have OCD? I have OCD and tend to analyze things a bit too much. I guess you do too, which is what makes me wonder.

 

[Madhuri]

Just out of curiosity: do you have OCD? I have OCD and tend to analyze things a bit too much. I guess you do too, which is what makes me wonder.

Nope. I do not.

 

[nameless]

So ideas don't qualify, only actions? Even so, actions are born of ideas.

Anyway, take a look at this. These are some of the comments made by 'Hindu' members in response to a level-headed suggestion made by one of their more peaceful Hindu members:
Hindu Dharma Forums

thanks,
now its your turn to prove they are wrong ....

 

[Milind2469]

thanks,
now its your turn to prove they are wrong ....

Ohh...please..do not insist...
This guy's religion has a unique way of handling opposition which is not safe for us.

 

[Mahatma Gandhi]

thanks,
now its your turn to prove they are wrong ....

Prove 'what' wrong?

 

[Riverwolf]

Makes me ashamed to be a Hindu.

Then why are you one!?

EDIT: Nevermind. I read through.

Anywho, ideas are where fanaticism is rooted, yes, but fanatical ideas will pretty much inevitably lead to some kind of violence.

 

[nameless]

Prove 'what' wrong?

You claimed they are 'fanatics', so you should justify your point proving they are wrong(it was not a hindu temple).

 

[Mahatma Gandhi]

You claimed they are 'fanatics', so you should justify your point proving they are wrong(it was not a hindu temple).

The burden of proof is on those making the assertion; one doesn't have to prove a negative. It's like someone asking you to prove that Tirupati temple was not previously a mosque.

 

[Vinayaka]

This debate over the history of theTaj Mahal has been going on for a long time. Opinions are expressed from both sides. Anyone can say "It's a fact that... " Politicians use the term 'fact' all the time. I don't see how a simple suggestion that means "i think that..." can be turned into such a wide debate or interpreted as a negative nasty criticism. It shows a blatant disrespect for other peoples' rights to hold an opinion.

The term 'fanatical' in this thread is meant to stir up trouble. It should be pretty clear by now that Mr. MG is a Muslim. I don't see why moderators haven't banned him at least from this thread. Isn't this a Hinduism questioning thread? When you go around posing such questions, what do you expect. Suppose i went and said, "Why do ________ (insert any religion) eat their babies? What do you think the response would be?

 

[nameless]

The burden of proof is on those making the assertion; one doesn't have to prove a negative. It's like someone asking you to prove that Tirupati temple was not previously a mosque.

Unfortunate that you did not noticed the links to the proof posted in very first post. From the source you quoted here ...

Here is a copy of a page of the Badshahnama, the history of Shah Jahan, the so-called builder of the Taj Mahal. This is from the Government of India's National Archives, and available from the instituional libraries dealing with the medieval history of India.

This is supposed to have been written by the emperor's chronicler, the Mullah Abdul Hamid Lahori. It describes the site of the Taj Mahal as being full of majestic and lush gardens just south of the city (Agra). It goes on to say that the palace of Raja Mansingh, which was owned by his grandson Raja Jaisingh, was selected as the place for the burial of the queen Mumtaz. This means, of course, that Shah Jahan never built the Taj Mahal but only acquired it from the previous owner, who was Jaisingh.

stephen-knapp.com - badshahnama

is this translation wrong? let us know the correct translation .....

nb- i dont hold any views on this to make a conclusion or to rate some people to be fanatics or non-fanatics ..

 

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Unfortunate that you did not noticed the links to the proof posted in very first post. From the source you quoted here ...


stephen-knapp.com - badshahnama

is this translation wrong? let us know the correct translation .....

nb- i dont hold any views on this to make a conclusion or to rate some people to be fanatics or non-fanatics ..

If you think this is anything close to evidence, all I can say is :areyoucra

 

[nameless]

If you think this is anything close to evidence, all I can say is :areyoucra

thanks :bow:, i dont expect any less than this from you, continue the same and be proud for that ... !!

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Makes me ashamed to be a Hindu.

I would say that you should convert.

 

[Madhuri]

The burden of proof is on those making the assertion

Which is exactly what you did by claiming that those people are fanatical. In order to prove this, you have to go all the way back to showing that their assertions are wrong and thus their attitude is irrational and fanatical. If you cannot do this, then you cannot expect anybody to just agree with you and it instead makes you look a little fanatical.

 

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Which is exactly what you did by claiming that those people are fanatical. In order to prove this, you have to go all the way back to showing that their assertions are wrong and thus their attitude is irrational and fanatical. If you cannot do this, then you cannot expect anybody to just agree with you and it instead makes you look a little fanatical.

I just proved it by providing the links. What else do you need - a signed confession?

 

[Madhuri]

I just proved it by providing the links. What else do you need - a signed confession?

Those links didn't prove anything, that's the point. In order for those links to bring conclusions, you have to prove that what those people said is not true. Because if their comments have basis, then they are not fanatical.
Does that make sense?

 

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Those links didn't prove anything, that's the point. In order for those links to bring conclusions, you have to prove that what those people said is not true. Because if their comments have basis, then they are not fanatical.
Does that make sense?

See the bolded portion; one doesn't have to prove a negative. Therefore, the onus is on them to substantiate their views with facts, which they haven't done. No mainstream historian even recognizes this, they laugh at these 'theories'.

 

[Madhuri]

See the bolded portion; one doesn't have to prove a negative. Therefore, the onus is on them to substantiate their views with facts, which they haven't done. No mainstream historian even recognizes this, they laugh at these 'theories'.

Were they asked to prove it in the thread?