Swara Bhaskar's insensitive remarks on Jauhar scene from Padmavat- Page 12

Padmavat is a movie based on a poem, the depiction in movie was padmavati fighting to protect her husband, she went to Khilji's palace and brought her husband back, she did all she could, her last act of Jauhar was shown in that way because MEN fought for HER, Khilji wanted HER, MEN could have easily handed her to Khilji and avoided war but they died for HER

The climax of movie is according to narrative of movie

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

...Yes, indeed that's my interpretation of your writings. What I've seen and felt reading your posts is that u handle malpractices in Islam with velvet gloves while go all guns blazing when it comes to Hinduism. You even go to such extent as defending practices like halala calling them "originally elevating spiritual philosophy". I'm sure other are noticing this pattern in your posts too.

As for attacking a member i only reciprocate if the other one starts. I don't remember attacking you for your posts either but i do question them. If you think it's an attack then it's your perspective.

Why do you think that the attacking was meant for you??? Don't wear the cap if it doesn't fit. You should know that I didn't point at you.

Bold part: Do you want to interpret my writing this way? If that is the case, I can do nothing against. The fact, that you write that I "go all guns blazing when it comes to Hinduism" (a religion which has an extraordinary philosophical and spiritual background) lets me know how wrong your interpretation is (for whatever reason). And honestly, where did I d e f e n d practices I despise???

What others do/did to me, is much more than "questioning"... it ranges from insulting to utterly lying about me, making a fiction of me that pleases them. They don't have the honesty to say "my interpretation", for them, their assumptions are their gospel truth.

As English isn't my native language, it may happen that my formulations not always get understand the way I would wish, but when I state known facts, then it doesn't forcibly mean to be a support or a reject... t h a t I try to transport when giving my own opinion about the (historical) facts... and nowhere I called halala an "originally elevating spiritual philosophy" because it is just n o t my opinion.

The fake "Beginner" may have reposted big parts of my previous posts but that only showed me a shortage of understanding my texts.

Originally posted by: Clochette

Why do you think that the attacking was meant for you??? Don't wear the cap if it doesn't fit. You should know that I didn't point at you.

Bold part: Do you want to interpret my writing this way? If that is the case, I can do nothing against. The fact, that you write that I "go all guns blazing when it comes to Hinduism" (a religion which has an extraordinary philosophical and spiritual background) lets me know how wrong your interpretation is (for whatever reason). And honestly, where did I d e f e n d practices I despise???

What others do/did to me, is much more than "questioning"... it ranges from insulting to utterly lying about me, making a fiction of me that pleases them. They don't have the honesty to say "my interpretation", for them, their assumptions are their gospel truth.

As English isn't my native language, it may happen that my formulations not always get understand the way I would wish, but when I state known facts, then it doesn't forcibly mean to be a support or a reject... t h a t I try to transport when giving my own opinion about the (historical) facts... and nowhere I called halala an "originally elevating spiritual philosophy" because it is just n o t my opinion.

The fake "Beginner" may have reposted big parts of my previous posts but that only showed me a shortage of understanding my texts.

If attacking part was not meant for me then why tell me that. You should talk to the concerned person directly or report to the mods, like u usually do. What can i do in that case? I have no power over how they reply to you or attack you.

@bold - such a blatant lie.. Let me quote the post where u said exactly that.

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/168038549

Edit - so Halala didn't happen under Mohammad. The husband was forced to permanently let her wife go after divorcing her a third time.

Intent: To punish the husband for rashly divorcing his wife a third time, forcing him to let her go permanently.

So the wife had to be permanently let go. But why this injustice with the wife when the fault was of husband?

Why couldn't the husband be punished by public lashing or financial penalty for divorcing third time and allowing remarriage after that punishment instead of permanent barring from remarrying that wife. Why punish the wife by doing so? 🤔

Is this also spiritually elevating somehow? 🤔

I appreciate that you honestly try to solve issues... but I didn't lie... the Islam ( and as I wrote like "many... belief systems") ORIGINALLY was meant as an "elevating spiritual philosophy"... subversion happened later - like I wrote it, too.

So, sometimes it's just a case of understanding what r e a l l y got written

Btw, if someone really is interested in which way Islam still inhabits a positive philosophy - if one strips it of all the corrosion, degradations, changes done through the times because of agendas - there are ways to educate oneself.... and bingo! one may even find the positive similarities in the different religions...

Originally posted by: Clochette

I appreciate that you honestly try to solve issues... but I didn't lie... the Islam ( and as I wrote like "many... belief systems") ORIGINALLY was meant as an "elevating spiritual philosophy"... subversion happened later - like I wrote it, too.

So, sometimes it's just a case of understanding what r e a l l y got written

Btw, if someone really is interested in which way Islam still inhabits a positive philosophy - if one strips it of all the corrosion, degradations, changes done through the times because of agendas - there are ways to educate oneself.... and bingo! one may even find the positive similarities in the different religions...

So islam was meant as an elevating spiritual philosophy?

A philosophy that allowed loot & plunder and even God was given a share in the loot? Very spiritual indeed

A philosophy that hates me as being worst of creatures for being idol worshiper and being a polytheist.

No thanks 🙏

I know enough about Islam and its followers by their actions that i dont want to know anything more about it.

I'm very happy in My Hindu beliefs. It gives me everything i need for my spiritual development🙏

Bravo Nathu (you truly are a good conversational partner )...

You are quoting actual verses from the Quran, and you are entirely right to confront me with them. War booty and calling polytheists the 'worst of creatures' are real historical texts sanctioned under Muhammad. As a Hindu, it is completely valid that you view these verses as deeply exclusionary and harmful.

To -again - be absolutely clear about my own position: I am a staunch opponent of any religion or ideology that acts against humanity and human rights.

There is a big difference between analyzing how a system functions and agreeing with it. I do not defend these verses. In fact, as I previously stated in this forum, Islam was designed from its very inception as a socio-political concept and a state-building project, not just a private spiritual path.

When I previously used the phrase 'elevating spiritual philosophy,' I was referring strictly to the abstract metaphysical claims of monotheism that early believers felt drew them in. But as a political project in 7th-century Arabia, the reality was brutal:

In that era, tribal warfare was the economic norm. Before Islam, victorious warlords kept all the plunder. As part of its socio-political design, the Quran introduced a state tax system where 'one-fifth belongs to Allah and the Messenger' to fund social welfare (orphans and the poor). While it was historically an attempt to regulate tribal brutality and enforce social security, from a modern human rights perspective, it remains the institutionalization of warfare and plunder.

The verse about the "worst of creatures" is part of a fierce theological and political wartime polemic against the polytheist tribes of Mecca who were locked in a war of survival against the early Muslim state. Because monotheistic political concepts inherently rely on absolute exclusivity, anyone outside that system (like polytheists) was branded as a threat and dehumanized in the text.

Your point actually reinforces my stance against these systems. It proves exactly what I always claimed: When a socio-political concept wraps itself in the absolute authority of religion, it inevitably results in the violation of universal human rights.

This is precisely why I personally - in thinking and feeling - oppose any religious dogma that tramples on human dignity.

Originally posted by: Clochette

Bravo Nathu (you truly are a good conversational partner )...

You are quoting actual verses from the Quran, and you are entirely right to confront me with them. War booty and calling polytheists the 'worst of creatures' are real historical texts sanctioned under Muhammad. As a Hindu, it is completely valid that you view these verses as deeply exclusionary and harmful.

To -again - be absolutely clear about my own position: I am a staunch opponent of any religion or ideology that acts against humanity and human rights.

There is a big difference between analyzing how a system functions and agreeing with it. I do not defend these verses. In fact, as I previously stated in this forum, Islam was designed from its very inception as a socio-political concept and a state-building project, not just a private spiritual path.

When I previously used the phrase 'elevating spiritual philosophy,' I was referring strictly to the abstract metaphysical claims of monotheism that early believers felt drew them in. But as a political project in 7th-century Arabia, the reality was brutal:

In that era, tribal warfare was the economic norm. Before Islam, victorious warlords kept all the plunder. As part of its socio-political design, the Quran introduced a state tax system where 'one-fifth belongs to Allah and the Messenger' to fund social welfare (orphans and the poor). While it was historically an attempt to regulate tribal brutality and enforce social security, from a modern human rights perspective, it remains the institutionalization of warfare and plunder.

The verse about the "worst of creatures" is part of a fierce theological and political wartime polemic against the polytheist tribes of Mecca who were locked in a war of survival against the early Muslim state. Because monotheistic political concepts inherently rely on absolute exclusivity, anyone outside that system (like polytheists) was branded as a threat and dehumanized in the text.

Your point actually reinforces my stance against these systems. It proves exactly what I always claimed: When a socio-political concept wraps itself in the absolute authority of religion, it inevitably results in the violation of universal human rights.

This is precisely why I personally - in thinking and feeling - oppose any religious dogma that tramples on human dignity.

This is why i could be no more happier than being in any other religion than Hinduism. The Sanatan dharma or Hinduism gives me the freedom to be monotheist, polytheist or even atheist and I'll still be a Hindu. I can choose external forms of worship (idol worship) or completely internal forms of worship (like meditation and mantra jap) and still be a Hindu. My religion is not averse to changing with times and allows reforms and changes in dharma as the time changes. Rules which applied in satyug may not necessarily be applied in Kalyug. Hinduism evolves and encourages growth rather than being stuck in a particular timeframe and relying on specific rules and punishments established in some remote time. Hinduism is inclusive. There's no us (momins) vs them (kafirs) here. We welcome each religion as the path to reach the same God. Unfortunately this feeling is not reciprocated by other abrahmic religions towards us who still engage in our proselytization and conversion.

So... No! All religions are not the same, IMO.

Daily I thank God for giving me birth in a Hindu household.

*double post.

Originally posted by: Clochette

Bravo Nathu (you truly are a good conversational partner )...

You are quoting actual verses from the Quran, and you are entirely right to confront me with them. War booty and calling polytheists the 'worst of creatures' are real historical texts sanctioned under Muhammad. As a Hindu, it is completely valid that you view these verses as deeply exclusionary and harmful.

To -again - be absolutely clear about my own position: I am a staunch opponent of any religion or ideology that acts against humanity and human rights.

There is a big difference between analyzing how a system functions and agreeing with it. I do not defend these verses. In fact, as I previously stated in this forum, Islam was designed from its very inception as a socio-political concept and a state-building project, not just a private spiritual path.

When I previously used the phrase 'elevating spiritual philosophy,' I was referring strictly to the abstract metaphysical claims of monotheism that early believers felt drew them in. But as a political project in 7th-century Arabia, the reality was brutal:

In that era, tribal warfare was the economic norm. Before Islam, victorious warlords kept all the plunder. As part of its socio-political design, the Quran introduced a state tax system where 'one-fifth belongs to Allah and the Messenger' to fund social welfare (orphans and the poor). While it was historically an attempt to regulate tribal brutality and enforce social security, from a modern human rights perspective, it remains the institutionalization of warfare and plunder.

The verse about the "worst of creatures" is part of a fierce theological and political wartime polemic against the polytheist tribes of Mecca who were locked in a war of survival against the early Muslim state. Because monotheistic political concepts inherently rely on absolute exclusivity, anyone outside that system (like polytheists) was branded as a threat and dehumanized in the text.

Your point actually reinforces my stance against these systems. It proves exactly what I always claimed: When a socio-political concept wraps itself in the absolute authority of religion, it inevitably results in the violation of universal human rights.

This is precisely why I personally - in thinking and feeling - oppose any religious dogma that tramples on human dignity.

I want to double check on this essay by you. Are you implying Quran is therefore not word of god as no god would create such laws for humanity or that allah is no God or both ?

Do you concur it has led to practices that should be number 1 priority for humanity to eliminate that you declare yourself in strong support of ?