I always find it strange that when non-Hindus (Christians in particular) holding a 100 candle vigil for peace gets regular coverage on just about every major news channel in India, but something like Hindus lighting over 10,000 lamps for world peace seem to be less worthy of mention and hardly gets a mention even in print media.

I’m referring to the recent article in The Hindu: Over 10,000 lamps lit for World Peace. This is held every year in Madurai. Similar rituals for world peace can be witnessed performed by Hindus all across in different regions of the country. It got only a very bare mention in only one newspaper (that too, only in the local edition).

Like how many times has one not seen a group of Christians holding a candle light vigil for peace? while 10,008 by Hindus gets only a blurb in the local paper? Hmm, this strikes me as a big bias.

This sort of repeated coverage sends the intended message about one culture being more humanitarian and superior than others. Is it a surprise that most non-Christian countries have a xenophobia about the increasing western stake/control in their country’s media? Control the media, you in time control/penetrate the culture (see Discreditation and Missionary Aggression).

Jesus Camp preacher to kids: “You’re not going to be the same person that you came on this camp. You’re going to be a different person, you’re going to be radical, you’re going to be on fire. How many of you want to be those who would give up there life for Jesus [audience of kids cheer and raise their hands]“? Well, I guess that says it all.

Jesus Camp preacher to kids: “We’re going to break something… here tonight [holding a porcelain cup with the words 'GOVERNMENT' written on it]. We’re going to break the power of the enemy in government. [then each kid proceeds to the podium and break one of several such cups with a hammer, with an expression of vindication]“ And you wonder why countries like China and India crack down on radical Christian missionaries?

Jesus Camp preacher to kids (upon catching the kids telling each other ghost stories): “God says to focus on those things that have beauty… Focus on the good things and things that have God.” First you’ve repeatedly rammed into their heads ideas of Devil, Evil, Sin, Death, War, Enemies, and a vindictive vengeful God full of wrath and punishment. Then, you tell them, oh by the way, Jesus said be good. It reminds me of HAL9000 (the computer of “2001: A Space Odyssey”), the fateful decision it took after being fed with conflicting directives.

Jesus Camp preacher to kids: “Take these prophecies and do what the apostle Paul said and make war with them! This means war! This means war! This means war! Are you a part of it or not?”. Sound familiar? Just substitute Paul with Mohammed. This is how it all starts, with the indoctrination of the unsuspecting, depriving them of proper knowledge and critical thinking.

The film ends with the following overlay/commentary: “The most religious nation in the world is India. The most irreligious nation is Sweden. We are a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes. As Christians, you are the leaders, you speak for God. We care about our country. .. .. .. Let the Church rise! [applause]“. I have no idea what they mean by “we [the USA] are a nation of Indians[?] ruled by Swedes[?]” (must be really off their rockers).

Related Posts

• Radical Christianity
• Missionary Aggression

After an exchange of e-mails with the association, Balasubramanian organized an energetic appeal, polling 20 of his immediate neighbors to see whether they objected to the kolam. Nobody did.

He gathered signatures and appeared before the association’s board, made up of volunteer residents, in September. The board listened but ruled against him….

Full article: Painting Tests Religious Freedom

It’s about religious expression and sensitivity to other’s religious expression. If people want to ban kolams, they might as well ban Christmas lights (which is far more ostentatious than a kolam). Now that could get pretty ugly, and we’d be left with “plastic”, lifeless, intolerant mono-culture (with the illusion of pluralism).

I’d doubt they’d have raised such a commotion if this was an African American celebrating with Kwanzaa decorations on their driveway or a Jew with big inflatable menorah in front of his house (as was the case with one Jewish resident in that same neighbourhood – a friend living there tells me). So why is there this blind-sight in granting this same freedom of religious expression to Hindus?

There is really no telling if this is a case of sheer intolerance (to new cultures), insensitivity, prejudice, or a bit of each. These folks should be sent to India for sensitivity training — where they’ll see a door-to-door display of real diversity with strikingly varied religious expressions and customs. Not just religious expression, but even the dazzling array of different languages, attires, traditions, and sub-cultures… ought to make any squabbles over a kolam seem really petty (and indeed backward). India is light-years ahead in regard to pluralism. America, a country where even wearing turban or bindi solicits resentment… has a long way to go. I’d like to see how they’d react to people wearing lungi’s or dhoti’s! So much for pluralism!

Heck, I even remember a comment once from an American about why many Indians wear moustaches (before I could rebut, a female colleague who happened to be Muslim defended me saying it’s part of my culture). My response would’ve rather been that, “on the other hand, I don’t ask why ‘you folks’ don’t wear moustaches do I?”

I think Americans really need get out more (I’m talking about outside the country). But then, except for a few who haven’t succumbed to the shock doctrine, most people are scared that terrorists outside the country are out to get them. If I were to use the same reasoning, I’d say one shouldn’t go to New York for fear of getting shot or mugged.

Here’s a sample of some of their gross violations: Sri Ramakrishna as a pedophile and homosexual. Kali as a symbol of eroticism and male transsexual fantasies. Ganesha as a symbol of a limp phallus, performs oral sex, portrayed as a eunich, and castration. Shiva as a womanizer who encourages rape and murder. Krishna as someone encouraging “murderous and self-destructive behavior”. The Bhagavad Gita as a “dishonest book”. Lingam worship as phallus worship. The Bengali word for “lap” translated as “genitals”, and so on. Notice the theme of violence and sex throughout — is this a reflection of their own prefixation with violence or sex to view everything through that lens? Is there really nothing else in Hinduism to write about, that they have to put in so much effort to manufacture distortions? Or does it just come natural for them? It is shock to find out what is happening in our top universities on Hinduism studies (almost exclusively run by non-Hindu’s). Some might argue that this is just unintentional and poorly researched scholarship. But coming from different sources, and all running the same theme, it’s hard to believe this is not a concerted effort to undermine Hindu culture and thus discredit and marginalize the Hindu’s voice on the world stage. That is, regardless of how successful Hindus are in their careers, keep the Hindu on a leash, as a beggar, constantly on the defense (like we are doing right here in this article). There are scores of books that represent Hinduism sincerely, but these books have almost zero mention in the centers of academic power that drive and influence the media, education, government policies, etc. If you want to know where the media, schools, or the entertainment industry gets their distorted views on Hinduism from, or what power is suppressing the visibility of the many great contributions made by todays Hindus and that of ancient Hindu culture (enriching philosophy, yoga, ayurveda, organic farming, mathematics, arts – classical dance forms, music, literature,…), then look no further than these “centers of excellence”.

Here are the names of a few of those who produce such denigrating work: Wendy Doniger, Jeffrey Kripal, Paul Courtright, Sarah Caldwell, Marin Marty, Romila Thapar, Stanley Wolpert, Mark Witzel. See RISA Lila – 1 Wendy’s Child Syndrome by Rajiv Malhotra – an exposition of the above authors and their writings on Hinduism. Very much worth reading just to get a view of what’s going on in Hinduism studies in the USA, and a lot of thanks to the author for taking the tremendous effort in exposing this scandal.

Also, these institutions are so entrenched in their positions of power, that when Hindus find objection to the material they engage in personal attacks instead of constructive dialogs (not at all worthy of their professional ranking). For example, this comment by Vishal Agarwal on Mark Witzel (Mark Witzel is a professor in Hinduism studies at Harvard (read as: controls Hinduism studies at Harvard)):

[Of the 79 pages it covers,] perhaps more than half the material consists of totally inappropriate and irrelevant remarks – personal attacks, sarcasms, abuses, taunts, bluffs, setting up straw-men, diversionary tactics, false accusations, calumny by association and what not. Such cheap behavior has become quite typical of Witzel in recent years, and many of his recent publications are full of such remarks – Vishal Agarwal

Additional Information

• Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America
• RISA Lila – 1 Wendy’s Child Syndrome by Rajiv Malhotra

There seems to be considerable bias in the media when it comes to Hindus, particularly in Western countries. The media is very sensitive when in it comes to their coverage of Christians, Muslims, or African-Americans. Perhaps because these groups will not meekly stand by and take any misrepresentation of their culture. They will mobilize in no time. Not to mention they have a strong network (ownership of media conglomerates, powerful lobbies, etc.). In comparison, the toleration of Hindus and their lack of such an equivalent network is beyond incredulous. I don’t blame them. At one point Africa-Americans were not also unified in their voice, now they have very powerful lobbies to represent them. A bunch of wakeup-call were needed. Maybe what Hindus are seeing today is their wakeup call.

Silence is equally powerful in downgrading a culture. For example, while other cultures are constantly showcased for their great contributions, nothing is mentioned of Hindus contribution in science, engineering, technology, mathematics, arts, music, literature, etc. Not just in the past, but also the enormous number of scientific and technological contributions of Hindus today. What’s worse is that not only does Western civilization continuously expropriate knowledge from indigenous civilizations, but they do whatever it takes to discredit them completely (let alone try to acknowledge them). In American school books for example  (if one were to take progressive states like California and Virginia as an example) not one word is mentioned of Hindu’s contribution in terms of yoga, mathematics, grammar, ayurveda, or its richness in culture, diversity, plurality, or its many schools of philosophy. Not one word is mentioned about Vivekananda for example who spent much of his life bringing Hinduism into the reach of the West.

For example: Yoga, which is practiced by 20 million Americans today is hardly ever mentioned in the media as coming from Hindus. In a Time magazine 3-page cover-story article “The Power of Yoga” [1], the word Hindu or Hinduism was not mentioned even once. Few people know that even something so common today as meditation, introduced as a formalized technique to the West by Hindu spiritual teachers in the 60’s (Swami Yogananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and Swami Vivekananda), was downplayed by the media and scientists as “mysticism” of the East all the way through the late 70’s. It became part of the mainstream only after being stripped and sterilized from its Hindu origins (more examples in Non-Attribution).

Why the Bias?

In the eyes of fundamentalist Christianity [and Islam], anything Hindu seems to be repugnant, vile, and to be despised (at the same time they cannot deny its qualities which postmodernists are trying to frantically expropriate and reinvent today). I feel this deep seated feeling arises out of an insecurity for two reasons: 1) Hinduism is based on pluralism and is also very knowledge-centric, both of which are seen as a threat to fundamentalist religions, 2) the fact that Hindu civilization was far more advanced and older than Greek civilization is a stab in the heart of their core power structure which is entirely built upon that image (all their great institutions of higher learning and self-assumed superiority over the human race). Most of the newer generation are far more multicultural and open, but still the baton of power carries over (i.e. to the default known as “white privileges”; note that white does not necessarily mean color, but a subscription to a particular culture).

This stigma is a carry-over from the colonial era (arising from a Christian or white superiority that was acutely eminent in those days). The disbelief and vexation that the British encountered when they first came to India, when these Hindus not only learned their “barbaric tongue” so easily, but mastered it and taught it right back to them (the first formal book on English grammar was written by the Madras Presidency College and was taken by an emissary of the British Empire to England and presented to the Queen). That was just the beginning, the more they learned the more revolting it was for them to digest – they had to face the fact that Hindu civilization was at least 4,000 years older than Greek civilization (during that time period Western civilization was just barely beginning to move from Stone Age to Bronze Age). That the Hindus were far ahead in:

• Language: the discovery of classical languages in Hindu culture (such as Sanskrit and Tamil) that were far more refined than English (in grammar, elegance, and ability to carry and express profound thoughts and nuances). A 5th century Tamil epic alludes to Greeks as those who “speak in a barbaric/unrefined tongue/language” on more than few occasions (indicates just how much importance was given to how refined the language and how far advanced Indian culture was).
• Literature: the discovery of the sheer richness of Hindu classical literature (in Sanskrit, Tamil, Bengali,…) that completely eclipsed Greek classics – in quality and quantity.
• Sciences: that the Hindus were far advanced in metallurgy, ship building, architecture, medicine, agriculture, textiles, astronomy, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, psychology, etc. Not to mention their encounter with sciences that have no parallel in Western civilization, such as yoga, ayurveda, samkhya/vedanta philosophy, etc.
• Mathematics: invention of the zero, the decimal system, algebra (eg: quadratic equations), trigonometry (eg: π, pythagoras theorem), calculus – all of which are widely acknowledged today as having origins in Hindu culture, transmitted by the Arabs to Europe.
• Art Forms: the sheer richness, uniqueness, and the deep spiritual undertones of their classical music, dance, poetry, temple art, and symbolism.

As a big cover up they have to hide all this by brand marketing: Act 1 (colonial): “India – the land of spices, exotic, mystical, snake-charmers, elephants, tigers, tea, and turbans”. Act 2 (post-colonial): “India – the land of caste system, cow-worship, dowry, sati, and poverty”. Act 3 (today): “India – the land of call centers, curry, chai, tandoori-chicken, and seven-elevens”. Act 4 (in the making): “India – the land of gurus, ashrams, yoga, and Bangalore”.

That is, if you were to take a poll of non-Indians (outside of India) and asked them to describe India, a vast majority are likely to use exactly those descriptions and nothing more, in each of those eras.

Counter Points

Western media and academics routinely discredit Hindus by characterizing them in terms of the worst possible elements. The points below dominate descriptions of Hinduism in school textbooks in the USA. Let’s examine each of these characterizations:

1. Caste? Western media chooses to characterize Hinduism using caste system while it makes their culture exempt from being characterized by its own caste system.
   • For example, in the USA, politicians play the caste card with Hispanics, Blacks, the Christian right, Muslims, gays, the rich, the homeless, immigrants, privileged outer-city folks, marginalized inner-city folks.
   • And the biggest caste of all in the USA is that of endemic racism and discrimination. The so called white privilege which penetrates all ranks of American society – business, academics, politics, etc. Just because racism and discrimination is conveniently sugar coated by calling it a sect or community or not even talking about it (silently shoving it into the closet) doesn’t make it any different — it only goes to further show the existence of white privilege.
   • The caste system in the USA is thus hidden (not spoken of). Which makes it all the more dangerous. It is much easier to deal with the problem, when you know the problem exists versus when you are in denial. This is why India has probably the biggest and most outreaching affirmative action program in the world, and has done more for its minorities than any other country.
   • One need only observe how cities in the USA are segregated (and hardly get visibility on the radar when it comes to politics). For example: take Washington D.C. – the whole of South-East D.C. is almost exclusively black population (newscasters are careful to make the distinction – inner city versus outers city kids for example).
   • For most of its two-thousand year history, Western civilization can be characterized by things far more worse then the caste system: barbaric racism, slavery, imperialism, feudalism, serfdom. Marked by barbaric cruelty, torture, persecution, witch-hunts (trials, burnings, impalement of women), and genocides in the name of race and religion. They’ve become reasonably civilized only in the last 150 years or so. In comparison, Hindu culture in its over five-thousand years history has been very benign and extremely pluralistic. So, the West doesn’t really hold any higher moral ground at all to talk about the problems of other cultures.
   • Many Christians do not even allow a person from another Christian sect into their church or community. Churches in many countries have separate seating areas for the “lesser people” — not to mention they are discriminated against from becoming priests.
   • Muslims have been killing each other for well over a thousand years in the name of the communities they belong to (not just Shia vs Sunni Muslims, but even sects within them). In contrast, in Hindu culture one can see radically different communities, each with completely different sages, methods of worship, stories, visualization of God going to each others temple (followers of Vishnu and Siva for example). Thus creating a synergy between the two very different communities, such that each can co-exist co-temporily and in absolute sovereignty as well without any conflict). If Christians were open-minded as Hindus, a figure of Jesus Christ would be found in every Hindu temple along with all the other siddhas, and respected likewise for their contribution to spirituality.
2. Dowry deaths? The dowry system is still a problem in most parts of India, but it is rapidly declining (though progress is much slower in the lower middle class and below). Dowry and dowry related crimes are ever more monitored and severely dealt with by the legal system and the society today than ever before. But the point here is, by the same token one could characterize Christianity in terms of the number of spouses in the USA killed over insurance fraud – which is statistically comparable (if not probably greater), or the practice of honor killings, beheadings, and lapidations in Muslim countries – which not only go unpunished, but are sanctioned by the Islamic law in many countries.
3. Cow worship? Western media (and educational material used in schools) is quick to note that Hindus consider cows as sacred. It fails to note that Hinduism is rich in symbolism, and many things are considered sacred, ranging from all living things, to rivers, hills, space, time, language, mathematics, music, etc. It is the fault of the Western culture (a reflection of their level of maturity when it comes to spirituality?) that they chose to focus only on the cow. The cow is symbolic of abundance and non-violence – not too different from the way the American bald eagle is to the USA symbolic of commitment to freedom and strength.
4. Idol worship? in what way is “a dead man nailed to a cross worship” or “the cannibalistic partaking of the blood and flesh of Christ” (communion), any less an idol worship or ritualistic? The same can be said about Islam, Muslims are so obsessed about the Koran – that it has pretty much been idolized – “Koran worship”, so has the word “Allah” or “Mohammad” been idolized. You’ll see this form of idolization everywhere in a Muslims home, car, office, etc. Not to mention the Muslims desire to emulate Mohammad in all ways (a gross form of idolatory; call it Mohammadism if you will). Islam can be also depicted as “black stone worship”, referring to the Kaaba (aka, “The Abode of Allah”) – the thousands who throng there to kiss the stone, or even the fact that Muslims worship the black stone five times a day by facing that direction in their duty to prayer. The Christian/Muslim will protest that we don’t know what we are talking about, that we are maligning Jesus/Mohammad, that they are all “symbolic” and not idol worship. Precisely my point. It is interesting that Hindus have always been broadminded enough to understand the symbolism of other faiths, but for some reason other faiths don’t reciprocate that. Perhaps because they are so stuck up that their faith is the true faith that they refuse to even try to look at other faiths in a positive light? This the danger of fundamentalism – the more fundamentalist you are in your beliefs, the more it stifles your thought.
5. Sati? It shows a sort of desperation, when the West cherry picks something that occurs in a frequency of less than a dozen in a population of a billion (.00000001%) per year, to characterize Hinduism. Ironically the origin of sati started when Hindu women started immolating themselves in order to be spared from being molested or taken as sex slaves by marauding Muslims who had conquered their land (and killed their spouses). It’s only the name that was taken from the Hindu puranas, and not the practice itself. Again it’s a case of the Westerner transposing his cultural conditioning by making litaralist interpretations of Hindu texts, and from that deriving “religious injunctions” to be followed (like they do with the Bible or Koran). In some places in India, especially tribal populations, there was the practice that the wife should follow her husband upon his death (similar to the pre-historic ritual where the dead are buried with all the ameneties of life to accompany them on their journey to the after-life). Again, cherry picking some tribal customs from the ancient past to characterize over 99% of the rest of Hindu culture which don’t follow or approve of these practices is a glaring bias.
6. Mythology? First of all the stories in Hindu spiritual literature is not mythology, but known as itihasas (or “thus verily it came to be”). Whatever came to be, came into being, as we caused it to be (this is very deep/existential). Meaning, Hindus could care less of the historical origins of it (this is why for a man in North India the birth place of the avatar Rama is in his village there, and for another guy it is in his village in South India, and there is no conflict, as itihasas don’t care about these details, but in transmitting the profound knowledge they carry). Even so, supposing just for sake, we allow people to call the Hindu itihasas and puranas (like the Mahabharata and Ramayana) as Hindu “mythology”. Then by the same yard stick, why not call the Bible as Christian mythology or the Koran as Muslim mythology? there is absolutely no proof that the people and events in these books even existed! If they quote the accounts of them in their “mythology” itself as evidence, then well by the same token Hindus can show accounts of their saints and sages in their “mythology” as evidence (with far more numerous references, just based on sheer volumes of ancient literature). Not to mention the number of times the Bible has been edited after its inception, and the number of times the Koran was edited for many years before it was made unalterable.
7. Fundamentalists? The biggest oxymoron is the wording “Hindu fundamentalist”. Hindus are probably the most tolerant and pluralistic people you can imagine – boasting over a thousand faiths, practices, spiritual texts, and sub-cultures (20,000 by a UNESCO estimate) each including their own arts, music, dance, languages, etc. If at all they are fundamentalist over anything it would be in protecting their highly pluralistic society from being hijacked by the “my way or the highway” religions (Christianity and Islam – in particular the more evangelical and fundamentalist strains of these religions). Christian and Muslim missionaries engage in spiritual terrorism by spewing hate speech and abuse on Hindu culture, practices, literature, gurus, temples, and institutions. In contrast if a Hindu as much as even raises a finger in defense, the entire Christian controlled media starts howling about “intolerance” and “Hindu fundamentalists” trying to suppress their freedom [to abuse them] (the irony). Could they not instead describe the immense plurality of Hinduism where several thousand faiths intermingle in harmony (i.e. the complete freedom of expression of worshipping (approaching/addressing) God in whatever image, form, method, approach, book, sage, story, vision you like)?
8. Christianity/Islam – religions of peace? The only true religions of peace are those who are spiritual versus being obsessed by a book or a prophet (example of spirituality-centric faiths: all the thousands of faiths in Hindu culture, the hundreds of faiths of indigenous populations like that of the Native Americans, Aborigines, Wiccans, and religions like Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Sufism). Christian and Islamic civilizations for most of their entire history, have been running rampant to conquer and to convert, or to decimate or enslave (in the name of their prophets) – and still continues today (via radicalized Islam and Christianity). The native population of entire continents were decimated – the Native South American population (by the Spanish and Portuguese), the Native North American population (by the British, Spanish, and French), the Aboriginal population of Australia (by the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and British), the native Hindu population of Afghanistan (by Turks, Persians, Arabs, and Mongols), the Jews of Europe (by Germans [Christians]). Not to mention also the brutal colonization of South Africa, the Christian Inquisition, the persecution of the wiccans of Europe, the genocide of the pagans of Russia, black slavery (the Black Holocaust), the horrendous witch trials,…
9. Disgusting Rituals? Textbooks show how Hindus believe that bathing in the river Ganga, which is considered sacred by them, purifies them, and that they even drink the water which is dirty and filled with filth. That may be true, but do they have to accompany it by a photo of the most dirtiest portions of the Ganga? In other words, when they depict all other religions in the best possible light, shouldn’t they do the same for Hindus? Isn’t there anything else in the whole of India to show – like the hundreds beautiful temples, colorful puja, garlands of flowers – which in fact better represents a larger cross section of Hinduism than the Ganga? One has to be weary of Christianity to portray Hindus as ritualistic and superstitious while conveniently excluding themselves (so that they can come out looking more “civilized” and can preach upon others). For example, let’s take the Ganga theme, they could have said:
   • “Many Hindus believe in purifying themselves by bathing in the sacred river Ganga” — provided they also have under Christianity: “Many Christians believe in the practice of baptism (dipping a person in ‘holy water’) for purification of sins”.
   • They can also add: “Many Hindus believe that dying in the Ganga will give them liberation from the cycle of life and death” — provided they also have under Christianity: “Many Christians bury their dead because they believe they will be resurrected back to life on Judgment Day”.
10. Dirty People? Books describe Hindus as dirty or poor people, as if they need to be “saved”. I’ll raise several points here:
    • Not only is it wrong, but it is arrogant to take advantage of poverty stricken areas and label them as “dirty people” (don’t they teach anything about compassion or tolerance in Christianity?).
    • It is true that there are many poor people living well below the poverty line (and in dire need of assistance), but it is an wrong to refer to the bulk of Hindus as “poor people” just because they don’t fit the lavish lifestyle of the Westerner. My driver in India may be living in a house the size of a typical apartment living room in the USA, but he’s one of the most contented and happy persons I’ve seen. And I don’t think he’d appreciate being reduced some category called “poor people” (unless meant in a purely economic/statistical sense).
    • Even those the West calls as “poor” people in India live with a certain dignity. That is, they don’t have feelings of envy or inferiority over the more affluent person. This is not the case in Christian societies, where the poor are “outcast” (talk about caste!) resulting in crime or psychological stigma of being poor.
    • Not to mention the poorest cities in India are those that had the largest presence and hence ravaged the most by British Imperialism (whose gruesome exploits lasted over 300 years; it was not uncommon for British to use racial epithets to refer to Hindus, like: beggars, brown niggers, heathens).
    • To add further to the irony one should note that the concept of taking bath every day was learned by the Europeans from India. Any basic reading of Christian history will reveal how the Church forbade daily bathing and about how the royal families took bath only a few times a year. In fact the word “shampoo” has roots in the Hindi word “champa” which refers to “head massage” (using a herbal mixture – which even today’s shampoos are migrating back towards). The average Hindu would rather forfeit a day without food than go without a bath.
    • Pollution of the environment has become an endemic problem in India – but this is not a reflection of Hinduism, nor one’s body cleanliness, nor one’s homes cleanliness. It a reflection of a society and its rapid acceleration towards modernity, without the proper civic services in place.
11. Bhagavad Gita as violent? Again I’ll raise a few points here:
    • The Christian/Muslim’s violent interpretations of the Gita actually gives an insight into the pathology of the radical Chrsitian/Muslim mind – obsessed with war, domination, violence. People see what they have been conditioned to think by virtue of the culture they subscribe to. The Hindus view the Bhagavad Gita as an internal struggle which goes on in every day decisions in the life of any person (between what is right or wrong, action or inaction, between the ego and the self, society over individualism, etc.). The first chapter of the Gita is dedicated to the metaphor of this internal struggle, the remaining 17 chapters is a grand exposition of techniques/yogas to overcome it). That’s because the interpretation of the Gita come from a higher and more evolved level of thinking.
    • That is why in India has spent the most part of her long and ancient history not in conquering or subjugating nations, but in assimilating many different faiths and cultures (even those that were persecuted by others found refuge in India). It is no coincidence that the concept of ahimsa (non-violence) as a political movement for transferring power arose in India, as opposed to violent reforms or revolutions. In contrast Christianity and Islam have the most violent history of conquering and decimating indigenous cultures on just about every continent in the name of religion.
    • Even if one were to insist on making literalist mis-interpretations of the Gita, then in all fairness one should examine Christian and Islamic literature which is riddled with violence (in fact, so abundant that you won’t have to even search hard to find it). Such as the sanctioning or legitimizing rape, murder, genocide, torture, crucification, witch trials, slavery (of “heretics”, non-believers, kaffirs, heathens, and the women and children of those who have been conquered). Riddled with religious justification for war, slavery, killing animals for food, etc. Such religious justification is even used today: radical Christians in the USA called the invasion of Iraq as a “just war”, and radical Islam in its goal to establish dar-ul-islam (a global hegemony of Islam) by any means, including threatening the destruction or take over of nations that do not submit. Granted these are by radicals, but these radicals dominate their religions.
12. Animal Sacrifices?
    • Again do they have to cherry pick some tribal practices of animal sacrifice which is prevalent among ignorant masses, while the majority (99%) of Hindus offer platters of flowers, fruits, rice, coconuts, incense etc, for their religious offerings to their gods (i.e. to whatever their favorite expression of God is)? Could they not have shown a picture of that? If you go to any photo website – you’ll find plenty of such beautiful photos.
    • Even more so, what does that have to say of how much more barbaric and inhumane Islams practice of halal is – i.e. cutting the throat of a goat while it is still alive (you should see some videos of it) as it is required by their religion, or Christianity in the billions of animals they kill and consume, as they claim is justified by their religion.
13. Lack Compassion? Christians are shown as great humanitarians where as Hindus are not. This is not true. Hindu ashrams continually do immeasurable humanitarian work – with zero expectations (including never proselytizing), in many areas: education, health care, disaster relief, housing, orphanages, pensions for poor women, hospices,…. But this gets zero visibility on the media (because of this media bias which this article is pointing out). In fact I’d even say Hindu organizations are much efficient in the use of the money that is donated (as a large portion of the money of Christian organizations go to administration and evangelizing). For example: the bias is so blind that Mother Teresa has always shown as serving Kolkata’s poor, while right next door to her is one of the oldest Hindu ashrams compassionately serving millions of people – and is totally ignored! It may be true that Christianity has a larger network and tremendously more funding. But this has to be put in context:
    • Christianity has over a 300 year headstart (during which Hindus were incapacitated under British Rule).
    • The Church has about 1,400 years of accumulation of conquered wealth, that are now reinvested generating a continuous stream of revenue.
    • Christianity derives much of its billions of dollars in revenue from much of the conquered land in the world from colonial era. For example, little do people know that over 70% of the non-governmental land in India is owned by Christians (who represent less than 5% of the population) [need to validate this].
    • There is a sense of arrogance in how Christianity destroys civilizations as marauders of wealth and human resources, and comes back to “save you” (and this time destroying the culture). Take any of the wars even in the last century (of non-Christian countries attacked and devastated by Christian countries) and count the tremendous spurt in missionary activities “reaping the harvest” immediately afterwards. The conversations have done more harm than their humanitarian work by tremendously destabilizing each country – pitting the native non-Christian populations against Christians (known as Christian aggression, because the newly converted folks are even more zealous in evangelizing and aggressively targeting not just the native people, but the very fabric of their culture).
14. Oppression of women? First of all oppression of women is everywhere. The kind of oppression in the USA and in India might be different, but in both cases it is a big issue. My point being it is unfair to make it seem as if it is only in India. Then again, who cares. In the long wrong we’ll be the better for it. The common mistake is to view Hinduism as a “religion” based on “religious injunctions”, based on some “holy book” (like Christianity or Islam). It is not. Hinduism has scores books constantly feeding into it (the only part of Hindu spiritual literature that remains static are the Upanishads – which reveal fundamental operating principles of the Universe – which if they were to be rediscovered independently will be in all likelihood be the same). Not to mention, if Hindus were to use the same yard stick, they could pull copious amounts of quotes from Biblical or Islamic texts that not only oppresses or subjugates women, but are in fact barbaric (such as legitimizing the beating, killing, and rape of women). Here are some examples of status of women in Hindu society (in past and present) – bear in mind these are points for compare and contrast (again, Hindu society like any other has tremendous inequities when it comes to women; and at the same time women empowerment in India is progressing at a rate more than in developed nations):
    • India has had a number of Hindu women sages, leaders, and scholars. Christianity and Islam has had a very long barbaric record denying equal status to women. For example, while men claiming spiritual experiences were given the benefit of the doubt, women were branded as heretics or witches, subject to torture – exorcism, burnt alive, impaled, crucified. In stark contrast, in India, women – whether she be a “courtesan/prostitute” (Manimékhalai, 171 CE) or a “crazy half-naked poet” (Kāraikal Ammaiyār, 6 CE) have been recognized for their enlightenment and earned the status of great saints. Such has been unthinkable in Christian or Muslim culture even today. Often in Christianity women are elevated to sainthood only posthumously and if they have a few magnitudes more proof than their male counterparts.
    • India has had more women heads of state and members of parliament than any other country. India had her first stateswomen back in the 2nd century (Avvaiyār), and her works of state governance is another perenial wisdom that is still relevant and quoted today.
    • Female priests are making a comeback, particularly in the state of Kerala (and the trend is catching on in the Tamil Nadu as well). The fact that they can do it, and that at its growth rate, it will exceed the number of women priests in the Church and Mosques.
    • While it is not true that education automatically makes you liberated, it does open up the possibility of pursuing an independent career. The number of Hindu working woman with advanced degrees/skills – women engineers, scientists, businesswomen, politicians, etc. far exceeds that of any Christian or Muslim country. American women tend to not pursue advanced degrees because the conditionings in their society has not been conducive to such aspirations. Some are given only false/limited sense of being “liberated” – as they are confined to only a few choices like: marketing, administrative, secretarial, modeling, acting, nurse. Personal note: when I did my undergraduate (engineering) in India about 50% of the class were women, but in the USA I observed women were a significant minority (like less than 10%!) in most of the advanced science and engineering classes. I found that most of the women in the USA were in arts or soft sciences (like humanities, literature,  music, history).
    • How many business women, women doctors, or women scientists have penetrated the “glass ceiling” in the USA? If you don’t know, just ask any women in the USA what all she had to put up with to try to make it up the ladder.
    • While I’d like to point out that Goddess worship (God with female attributes) is very prevalent in India also as a supporting point… I won’t. As it really has very little to do with the liberation of women. Seriously, how many women are “liberated” by worshipping a Goddess (and how many men support that). I could understand it if Goddess worship was more genuine like in some of the non-patriarchal cultures (not much of which is left today), like those of Native Americans tribes, the Aborigines of Australia, most of the pagan and wiccan cultures of Eastern Europe and Russia, the Odiyathis and Aghorinis of Kerala, etc — where goddess worship did reflect empowerment and the liberated spirit of the women in those cultures. Having said that, at least Hindu culture allows for Goddess worship and hence is completely open to gender equality — both of which are almost blasphemous in Christianity and Islam (which have history of persecuting those who subscribe to such thoughts as heretics).

See Also

• Hindu Holocaust.
• The Missionary Aggression
• Non-Attribution
• [1] The Power of Yoga
• [2] 10,008 Lamps for World Peace
• India Today – Economy
• Caste System

As much as one would like to believe that the Christian/Islamic onslaught is a relic of the past (Hindu Holocaust), it is by no means so. One might say it has come back in the form of radical Christianity/Islam, whose goals are singular and straightforward: hegemony – to establish their faith as the dominant faith, as only such a goal will sustain their business model. Again, to any Christians/Muslims reading this, I emphasize “radical”. If you think there are no radical Christians/Muslims, then you don’t know the half of what is going on in the rest of the world.

It is important to make the distinction, that these aren’t your average Christians/Muslims. What’s being addressed here the are radical Christians/Muslims – who have a very different power structure and ideology: they are both a multi-billion dollar industry with enormous sophistication, in a rat-race with each other, and whose unintended side-effect is the establishment of a global hegemony in the name of their religion. The former is funded by missionary dollars (accrued from 1400 years of the conquests of the wealth of nations and missionary activities), and the later is funded by primarily by Saudi oil money (see Wahhabism). These radicals, not surprisingly, have tremendous influence on power and politics compared with the moderates.

Radical Christianity and Radical Islam have been very problematic issues for open-minded cultures that embrace pluralism (Hindus, Buddhists, and modern Christians). People don’t realize that there are more Christians in Hindu majority India, than there are in Hindus in Christian majority USA (by a factor of about 9x) and there are more Muslims in India than in any other country. Often times the distinction is blurred between radical and non-radicals. A good solution would be if the respective religions look into the radicalization of their religion and the impact it is having on the society at large, alleviating the need for third-party intervention or interference.

Radicals

When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.
– Jomo Kenyatta, in Absurdities in the Name of Religion

A common mistake is to consider all Christians/Muslims as sharing the same ideologies as that of radical Christians/Muslims. Not only would that be wrong, but it allows radical Christianity/Islam to hide under the cloak of post-modern Christians/Muslims. Note the following distinctions:

• It is important to distinguish between Christian/Muslims and their radical counterpart, and recognize that these radicals dominate their religions – their voice, power, and influence has far more outreach and is far more dangerous as its targets and exploits the many poor and underprivileged people in the world, grooming their consciousnesses into a radical ideology. Example: the 1040 Project of Christianity targeting India, and the massive Islamization of African countries. For example, the Christian missionaries in India are a most virulent breed of Christianity. The unrelenting aggressiveness and methods used by these radicals, make the Southern Baptists of the USA seem very mellow and tolerant.
• In the modern world, radical Christianity/Islam grows by taking full advantage of nations with very liberal democracies, and by hiding being the cloak of post-modern Christians/Muslims (who if anyone have the better chances of weeding out these radicals, but are often silent). This can be seen in India, and also the increasing wake of radical Islam in European nations.
• One must understand that radical Christians/Muslims in any nation, are not minorities (however small their population may be). They are the extensions of a multi-billion dollar global empire/conglomerate, representing their own interests, and not the interests of the nation. For example, if you had just one or two WalMart’s in India, would you give them your support (government subsidies, tax exemptions, sympathy) just because they are “minorities“, and ignore the thousands of indigenous/native retail stores in India? The sophistication of a multibillion dollar corporation like WalMart cannot be underestimated. Same goes for radical Christianity/Islam. A big mistake would be to look at them as “helpless minorities” that need your support and sympathy.
• Christian/Islamic radicals use sophisticated methods reminiscent of imperialism: demonize the native culture, create internal conflicts (divide-and-conquer), keep the natives behaved or on a leash (reward-and-punishment), take over the power centers, reap the harvest (land, media, taxes). Radical Christianity has almost two millennia of experience in honing their skills (in planning, marketing, strategy, and cash flow). In other words, when they come, they come fully equipped, sharpened by centuries of experience, on a target population that is naive, making for an easy unsuspecting kill. Radical Islam also has a method they’ve successfully used for almost a millennium – that of terrorism, i.e. acts of violence against anyone who threatens their ideology or authority.
• As a final note: one should realize that radical Christianity and Islam are in a global rat-race with each other, and that native culture (and even the people themselves) are mere collateral damage.

The Damage

The business of religion is a business of ideologies. It is a rat-race of ideologies competing for winner-take-all, using a business model. It pits one culture against another. The fundamentalist nature of radical Christianity/Islam destabilizes a nation by causing extreme polarizations (and more often than not, exploiting and further fueling/igniting existing differences instead of removing them). This has been seen in almost every nation that radical Christianity/Islam has touched. The ones I know off the top of my head are: Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea, Sudan, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia, and number of South American countries. As an illustration, in this excellent seven minute video lecture, Prof. Valentine Daniel of Columbia University, shows how the Sri Lankan crisis between Ceylonese Buddhists and Tamil Hindus is a result of a divisiveness that was never there before. The division between them was created as a result of Christian missionaries who introduced the idea of identity based on ethnicity and religion. The missionaries left, but the division they left behind remained.

Nations have been left in eternal ethnic conflicts and turmoil – between the native population and the encroaching fundamentalist culture (whose allegiance is to a foreign entity, and which seeks to oppress, subjugate, or supplant the native culture – either with intent or as an indirect consequence). Any culture touched by radical Christianity/Islam has been contaminated by their trademark alpha-male pathology – the desire for power, control, domination – i.e. the “my way or the highway” ideology.

The diversity of India is built on a singular construct, that of freedom: its diversity of thousands of faiths, and the dazzling expressions of these faiths in culture, arts, music, dance, philosophy, literature, schools of thought, etc. You destroy that freedom of expression, you destroy Hindu culture (and the freedom of expression and plurality that comes with it). Though I doubt it (see concluding section), they can cause considerable strife and damage.

While many countries move forward, such as by adopting and demonstrating plurality as if it is their great achievement, India, which has been long ahead in pluralism a good 2-3 thousand years before Western civilization even heard of the concept, will regress back in time with increasing culture clashes with radical Christianity/Islam which seek to supplant that plurality. These radical Christian/Muslim missionaries that have been shunned and rooted out like weeds in developed countries are now finding root in India.

Understanding Power – in a Nutshell

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
– Noam Chomsky

To control a nation is to control its power centers, and using those power centers to subjugate the people (while giving them the illusion of freedom):

• Control of Media. Media is power. It is used to sway power in the favor of those who control it, and demonize those who don’t. As Noam Chomsky put it, “propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state”. In the past they kept you under control using a bludgeon (literally). Today’s bludgeon is the media. There is not a soul these days that is not plugged into the media. You control the media, you control the people.
• Control of Academics. Western history has shown, that if you want to control a land and its people, you suppress anything related to their culture that would make them feel proud of themselves. This includes distortions of Hindu’s practices, customs, and principles, and suppression of  events in history that make the conquerors look bad (like their 800 years of onslaught on India). There has been a rampant step up in the production of such material in academic institutions. Many studies in religion, sociology, history, anthropology, culture, and literature of many of the leading universities receive a generous amount of funding from foreign agencies, which in turn have links to Christian/Islamic organizations. (see Defamation of Hindus and Demonization of Hinduism). Unfortunately Hinduism does not have such a network.
• Ownership of Land Resources. A major portion of the Vatican’s wealth comes from [the assets created from] the wealth conquered from continents over 1,500 years and from land taken up during the colonial the era (it still has strings attached to sovereign nations, through a couple of levels of indirection by handled very efficiently). A little known statistic: over 80% [need to confirm this] of non-governmental land in India is owned by external interests – the multi-billion dollar global extensions of radical Christianity.
• Ownership of Energy Resources. A major portion of the radical Islam’s funding comes from Saudi Arabia.

Imperialism 2.0

Here are just few examples of post-imperialism in action:

• The media went into over drive on the news by the Indian government to pass a legislation that would make it illegal for practitioners of alternative medicine (like Ayurveda) to make claims of healing or cures. But there is a proud silence by the media when it comes to criticizing Christian faith healers and their televangelism of curing almost any ailment in the name of Jesus.
• There is a proud silence in the media when radical Christian/Muslims routinely disparages Hindus, but if a Hindu dares publicly speak out in defense, the Indian media hounds him as being a “Hindu Fundamentalist” (why not applying the same measure to Christians/Muslims spewing vitriolic hate speech)?
• Increasingly Hindu temples are being deprived of funding (even for basic structural maintenance), by Christian/Muslim “minorities” because of their powerful foreign-funded lobbies. On top of that millions of dollars worth of donations to Hindu temples are taken by the government — while churches/mosques are exempt (they get to keep their donations). Can you imagine this lopsidedness happening in the USA (i.e. the government takes all church donations, while Hindu temples and mosques are exempt)?
• When Hindus destroyed one mosque – the Babri Masjid (probably in all of history, compared with the thousands of temples destroyed by Muslims), the media worldwide was in full swing. I don’t condone any sort of radical behavior, but to point out the glaring media bias against Hindus, I would propose two questions:
  • Where is the media when dozens of Hindu temples are being routinely destroyed by the Malaysian Muslim government, despite all public outcry. You’ll find plenty of tragic videos on this online. Where is the media when the dozens of Hindu temples in Kerala are encroached upon and destroyed by Christians and Muslims. In both cases the media is proudly silent.
  • In India, we even have mosques towering over the holiest of Hindu places, like Haridwar. Would Christians tolerate a Hindu temple or a mosque being built on the holiest of their places – the Vatican (or even in the vicinity of it)? Would Muslims tolerate a large Hindu temple in Mecca? Why doesn’t the media show this as example of the Hindu’s unparalleled tolerance
• In India, a Hindu majority country, books that Muslims consider offensive are banned. My opinion is, if you don’t like the book, don’t buy it, don’t impose your belief on others. For example, Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses is banned in India. Not to mention if Muslims, are in denial, if they don’t read books like The Trouble with Islam Today (written by a Muslim), how will one undergo a renaissance (at the very least to keep up with modernity).
• In Chennai, police officers barged into an exhibition and confiscated (without a court issued warrant) paintings that were on display depicting the atrocities of the Moghal Emperor, Arungazeb, because it was offensive to Muslims. This action is beyond just censorship. It is a sort of thing you’d expect if you were living under the Taliban, not in India.
• See also 10008 Lamps. Christians holding 100 candle vigils frequently gets news coverage (not only in print media, but on news channels), but Hindus lighting 10,008 lamps for world peace hardly gets much mention. No TV coverage, and gets basic mention only in the local edition of one national newspaper (The Hindu). So what sort of signal does this send? that only Christian culture cares about world peace, and other cultures don’t?

Civil War

It is well understood in biological evolution that change occurs sharply at intervals separated by long periods of apparent stagnation, leading to the concept of punctuated equilibrium.
- Daniel Dennett

As stated earlier, missionary aggression has caused internal conflicts in many nations between the missionary/transplanted fundamentalist mono-culture and the more tolerant and diverse native culture.

Increasingly, one might view these conflicts and tensions as a civil war. Almost every nation across the globe has had some sort of civil war or the other to resolve their differences. Civil wars arise to resolve stigmas arising from striking differences in ideologies, and can happen even in well established democracies. In India’s case it is about “freedom of expression” (Hindus) versus “my way or the highway” (radical Christianity/Islam).

India has not had a civil war to resolve differences in conflicting ideologies, at least not a civil war in the typical sense of the word. The difference is that in India, this is happening in punctuated intervals, over time, and with a great deal of tolerance.

In contrast, it might be interesting to compare this to the American Civil War – a full blown civil war that was fought primarily over principles, moral and constitutional, at the end of which 13 secessionist states surrendered to fall under a common national code. It pays to remember that the American Civil War was fought in 300 battles, over 4 years, with close to 600,000 lives lost.

Compared with that, India’s evolution by punctuated equilibrium, is a far better choice (if it was a choice). All of humankind is still evolving. But while most societies have gone through civil wars and revolutions in the name of progress, India chooses to take the higher path, the slow and punctuated path of evolution.

As fraught with tension and flareups as it may be, I believe it will start to exponentially go down as India’s education and economic prosperity go up. The former enlightens (and makes people question things), and the later has no room for instability.

Why Target Hindus?

Hindus are a very spiritual people. Their belief in God (in whatever form) is not through a religion. It is not by any religious injunction that they pray or meditate, but because of a direct affinity for God that permeates their daily lives. To Hindus, no God is more or less just because of their name or physical attributes. This can be easily exploited by missionaries. If someone tells a Hindu some stories of miracles performed by their prophet, the Hindu will accept it without any suspicion of any ulterior motives. They will not be aware that the other person is part of a multi-billion dollar missionary industry.

Christianity and Islam are missionary/evangelical religions. Any religion that is not based on genuine spirituality, critical thinking, and diversity of expression [of one's love for God] is bound to die if it is not aggressively propagated. That is why they evangelize.

Christianity and Islam are sharpened by over 1,000 years of marketing experience, having also had almost the entire population of the globe to practice on. Radical Christians and Muslims automatically inherit this. They learn various strategies ranging from how to select their targets (the innocent, the poor, the needy) and different ways of appealing to them, including different ways trying to induce FUD in targets belief, as well as spiritual extortion.

As an example of extortion exploiting innocence: a group of Christians might come and pray for a Hindu who has been afflicted with a disease, with the condition that if the disease is cured, he/she should convert to Christianity (not to mention to convert only to that particular evangelical breed of Christianity). Makes you wonder what sort of God (or religion) it is, that uses extortion (of one persons health) as a means of converting people. It’s like a mafia, saying, I will heal you only if you convert. If there is only one God, then it shouldn’t matter in what form you choose to worship God, so why convert?

To put this in better perspective, why don’t Christians in India try do the same with Muslims? Because in the first place, Islam is not that open-minded or pluralistic enough to look at other faiths transparently (as if one of their own). If Christians went and prayed for the well being of Muslim, and if the Muslim gets well, he won’t go to Christianity. Instead he’ll go and pray to Allah, thanking him for sending these Christians to pray for him. Similarly, the Christian will pray to Mother Mary, thanking her for sending these Muslims to pray for him. The more fundamentalist and fanatical a religion is, the harder it is to sway them and convert them. The more open-minded, and pluralistic a religion is, the more easier it is to convert them.

Is it Really a Threat?

If the question is whether Missionary Aggression will destroy Hinduism, I believe it is a clear and solid “no”. No more different than that I doubt whether democracy or freedom of speech can be destroyed in the USA. A the very worst it will be pulled in different directions by various interest groups and lobbies, and has the potential to take stranglehold on democratic ideals by abusing it.

This can be seen by the interference of Christian Right in the USA in regards to Creationism over Darwin, or the censoring of the Big Bang Theory, or the protest of introducing the science of yoga in schools, or objection of homosexuals as equal citizens (and not long ago womens suffrage and abolition of slavery were also very opposed by radical Christianity).

I like what China did, they simply booted about a hundred missionaries out of the country in one fell swoop. But, eh, the price of freedom and democracy, we can’t do that – unless the majority wakes up and calls for that (not necessarily boot out, but to enforce stringent laws against missionary activity).

It is important to bear in mind, that one should not ban conversions all together. If a person wants to convert for whatever reason (say due to any sense of discrimination or disenfranchisement in his current faith, or even for monetary benefits promised by the other faith), then nothing should prevent them from doing so. It is only conversions from or as result of missionary activity by inherently radicalised religions that should be banned. Radical religions are a threat to any nation and most of the missionary activities are by radicalised religions, which are fundamentalist, not pluralistic, and intolerant of expressions of love for God in any other way other than their way.

See Also

• Radical Christianity
• Radical Islam
• Discreditation

So he comes back with this book showing that the Koran does have science in it. He placed the book on my desk, said he bought it just for me, and insisted that I read it. I was puzzled, about why he was so bent on convincing me, but I’m open to this sort of interaction… and I read it.

The book is “A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam” (I’ll just refer to it as the book), by I. A. Ibrahim (Second Edition, Darussalam publications). I believe it is also online, at www.islam-guide.com.

I found it to be one of the most ridiculous books I’ve come across. You have to be stupendously ignorant (or absolutely gullible, illiterate, or desperate) to buy into it. Unfortunately there are plenty of such people in this world (both in developed and underdeveloped countries), and it is these people that radical Muslims prey upon and prance around in jubilation for every person they succeed in converting. I can clearly see how young children and the illiterate masses in the world can be so easily brainwashed by such propaganda material, thus believing that the Koran is everything and that there is nothing greater than the Koran. After reading this book, I felt perhaps this guy was one of them. Yes, even in the workplace, in the USA, in a high profile company, you find such people. Now that’s scary.

One note before you read on… I’ve heard of some people being called a racist for criticizing someone’s religion. Well, I’ve got news for anyone who shares this view: criticizing religion is not racism. Everyone has the right to, and should criticize religion – any religion, until all the dogma is stripped and flushed away — leaving the golden kernel of spirituality (which has no one founder, prophet, holy book, etc.). True spirituality sharpens one mind to ask critical questions. Anything which suppresses free thinking is not spirituality, not even a religion, but a cult.

Here are the quotes from the Koran that were used in the book to illustrate science in the Koran:

Proof of the science of plate tectonics

“Have we not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?” (Qur’an, 78:6-7)

“And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you…” (Qur’an, 16:15)

After quoting that, the book takes pages of material from a modern science text book to describe the science of plate tectonics and formation of mountains. Question: if you compare the Koran verses to the pages it cited from the modern science text book, ask yourself, which one is science? which is fanciful poetry?

Proof of the science of cosmology

“Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke…” (Qur’an, 41:11)

“Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?…” (Qur’an, 21:30)

After quoting that, the book takes pages of material again from a modern science text book to describing the origins of the universe, with a brief reference to “interstellar dust” (so as to lend credibility to the “smoke”). Question: if you compare the Koran verses to the pages it cited from the modern science text book, ask yourself, which one is science? which is fanciful poetry?

In contrast for example, in Hinduism we don’t have to resort to modern science, we have plenty of material dating over 5000 year old on cosmology dealing in mind-bogglingly abstract levels (see a summary in Hindu Cosmology article). In fact, the concept of zero originated from the Hindu text Brahmasphuta-siddhanta (The Opening of the Universe). The zero (and the decimal notation) was invented in order to represent calculations on scales that rival that of todays modern cosmology.

Proof of the science of the workings of the brain

“No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the naseyah (front of the head), a lying sinful naseyah (front of the head)!” (Qur’an, 96:15-16)

After quoting that, the book, takes pages of material again from a modern science text book to illustrate the mapping of the brain, with the prefrontal lobe circled (to lend credibility to the act of hitting a person on the forehead, that they knew about the prefrontal lobe). Question: if you compare the Koran verses to the pages it cited from the modern science text book, ask yourself, which one is science? which is fanciful poetry?

Cavemen smacked themselves on the front of the head if they did anything stupid, heck even Homer Simpson does that, doh! Does that mean they were aware of the science of the brain?

Proof of the science of meteorology

“Have you not seen how God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a stack, and then you see the rain comes out of it…” (Qur’an, 24:43)

After quoting that, the book takes pages of material again from a modern science text book to illustrate the various types of clouds and how they carry and form rain. Question: if you compare the Koran verses to the pages it cited from the modern science text book, ask yourself, which one is science? which is fanciful poetry?

Well I’ve got news for them. Many indigenous cultures had a very good understanding of meteorology not only also before modern science, but long before Mohammed as well (various Hindu subcultures, the Native Americans, aboriginals of various continents (Australia, Polynesia,…)).

Proof of the science of pregnancy

Sayings of Mohammad (not in Koran):

“In every one of you, all components of your creation are collected together in your mother’s womb by forty days…”

“If forty-two nights have passed over the embryo, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it and creates its hearing, vision, skin, flesh, and bones…”

After quoting that, the book takes pages of material again from a modern science text book to illustrate the various stages of pregnancy. Question: if you compare the Koran verses to the details it pages from the modern science text book, ask yourself, which one is science? which is fanciful poetry?

Umm… not to mention, “God sends an angel to it, who shapes it and creates its hearing, vision, skin, flesh, and bones,…” — they call that science? Symbolism is great, but this verse does not say anything. It simply says God or an angel created you in the womb. Had it described the stages (like that described in a modern science text book), then there would be some merit.

In contrast for example, Hinduism had very deep knowledge of the stages of pregnancy, including not just at the embryo level but also descriptions of fetal development in the metaphysical plane (various layers of consciousness), at least 4,000 years before Mohammed was even born. Not to mention concepts of in-vitro fertilization has also been described. There are several indigenous cultures (Tibetan Buddhists, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines) that also possessed very good knowledge about stages of pregnancy far more than the 1-2 weak quotes mentioned above from the Koran.

Bottom line is, there is nothing spectacular or worthy of science in the Koran worth writing a book about (well at least, that’s what the book has just proven).

Secondly, who owns Jesus? Christian missionaries use Jesus as if it is their trademark, and they’ve copyright’ed him. The irony is Christianity was created by Rome, the very people who persecuted the followers of Jesus! Just like any company’s philosophy: if you can’t beat them, buy them.

Here is an excellent article: The Christ of India.

Here are over a dozen books about Jesus in India. As people are now more open to daring to question the “lost years of Jesus” (without fear of crucification or being branded as heretics – well maybe still the later :)), the evidence is piling up now more than ever:

• The Lost Years of Jesus: Documentary Evidence of Jesus’ 17-Year Journey to the East
• The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ
• Saving the Savior: Did Christ Survive the Crucifixion?
• Jesus of India
• Jesus in India
• The mystery of Israel’s ten lost tribes and the legend of Jesus in India
• Jesus In India: An Account Of Jesus’ Escape From Death On The Cross And His Journey To India
• Jesus’ Tomb in India: The Debate on His Death and Resurrection
• Jesus and Moses Are Buried in India, Birthplace of Abraham and the Hebrews
• Jesus Lived in India
• Jesus in Heaven on Earth: Journey of Jesus to Kashmir, His Preaching to the Lost Tribes of Israel, and Death and Burial in Srinagar
• A Search for the Historical Jesus
• Jesus Lived in India: His Unknown Life Before and After the Crucifixion

Bedazzled

Naturally people were mesmerized by this person who appeared out of nowhere in the Middle-East, like a diamond shining in a place of darkness. A huge fan following grew. Why not? considering that even in todays modern society people can be bedazzled by gurus and preachers, imagine that much more back then in a bleak and dark time of strife and turmoil. Added to that, people were desperate, for a savior.

In contrast, because enlightenment was taken up as a science (see yoga) in India, India had so many hundreds of enlightened sages. Thus Hindus never felt the need to fall head over heals over a single “savior”, or go into a frenzy destroying, killing, and plundering in the name of their “savior” as the “only savior”.

Hindus are fine with accepting Jesus as one of many enlightened sages. Christians for some reason find that idea revolting.

Another alternative?

Is their an even more fundamental origin of Jesus, probably he’s not even a person?! See this interesting video: Zeitgeist.