Tenets of Sanathana Dharma figuring in unfair comparison with dogmas of other cults

This is a rebuttal of the post that I read on

http://animeshpathak.blogspot.com/2009/02/on-fundamental-similarity-and-nature.html#comments

by my friend Animesh Pathak. I tried posting this comment there but was not able to.

I am responding to your challenge: "For now, I would like the Hindus to explain the "if your brother is not follwing dharma, kill him" teaching of the Geeta."
You agree that you have taken this out of context etc etc, and like most apologists of the islamic cult, you have uttered the cliched question "what is the guarantee that you did not take the kafir phrase out of conext?"

Let me address both.

As someone who has read the quran extensively - (of course I have read the translations, and not the ORIGINAL ARABIC - and I hope that you will not insist - like most apologists of the terror cult - that the quran CAN NOT BE translated and that it has to be read IN ORIGINAL to understand its context) - I would like to submit that there can be no text so full of venom for the "kafirs / non-believers" as the quran stands.

One can not discuss Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics without having read a certain amount of books on the subject. One can not discuss any economic Theory without having some essential knowledge of economics. One can not, for that matter, comment on ANY SUBJECT without a certain minimum amount of the subject knowledge and this is true for the quran and the islamic cult also. So, if you wish to contradict me or prove me wrong on what I am saying in following paragraphs, you then have to spend a certain minimum time reading and understanding the origin of this cult, the history of the man who started this cult, the history of the followers of this cult ever since their origin, the book that they follow and all the works. I can claim with sufficient basis that I am qualified to comment on this subject by virtue of having spent at least SEVEN years reading all possible materials that I could get my hands on.
ISLAM IS VIOLENCE AND INJUSTICE EMBODIED - and all of this directed at non-muslims. PERIOD.

It is a differnt matter that there are millions of apologists who claim that it is "religion of peace" and that the extremists are "misinterpreting" islam etc. All this is simply hogwash and meant either to fool the reader or just to camaflouge the writer's ignorance or plain dishonesty, refusal to accept the truth - or a combination of these.

The matter is made even more complex because the quran, as one finds it today (1) was not written or compiled in ONE sitting by the prophet, (2) is not compiled in the same chronological order in which the verses were uttered and (3) have a lot of contradictory - contradictory at first reading - statements at various points in the text.

This complexity is to be overcome by (1) reading the quran together with what are known as Hadiths - which are notes on what the prophet had done and said in his real life - it is a sort of a biography, not a part of the quran itself and (2) by applying "the rule of abrogation" which is the rule that the latter verses "abrogate" or nullify the earlier verses, in the case of contradictory verses.

If one applied this rule, it becomes evident that all the so-called "peace-oriented" or "peace-loving" verses were uttered when the prophet was in his early years, still struggling in Mecca to find a foothold for his "new religion" and was in a position of weakness. On the other hand, all the violent verses, that explicitly call for the annihilation and destruction of the non-believers, were uttered when the prophet had established his domination in Medina and was on the upswing in terms of military and money power. Seen from this view, all the earlier "peace-loving" verses have been abrogated or nullified by the violent and outright unjust verses that were uttered in the later phase of his life and are therefore, of no use for any true "believing muslim".

On top of this, the muslims have a clearly outlined and clearly documented double-standards on what constitutes honesty - for muslims and non-muslims. It is perfectly game for a muslim to cheat on a non-muslim. It is perfectly game for a muslim to feign friendship with a non-muslim until the right time arrives when he can show his aggression against them (I am not saying all of this on my own - these are there for EVERYONE to see there in the quran - for anyone who cares to read the stuff). In fact, the quran very clearly states that a muslim is allowed to rape a non-muslim woman, even if she happens to be already married (to someone else) so long as she is not pregnant.

So, based on this strategy, it is perfectly in accordance with their code of ethics to mislead the non-believers by quoting the wrong verses and lulling the opponents to misbelieve that this is indeed a "peace-loving" religion.

So much for the cult that thrives on hatred and violence on people of other faiths. Let us turn to our own Sanathana Dharma.

It is a favourite gambit of Hindu-bashers to say that Hindu-tenets are as much violent as islam. There can be nothing farther from the truth than this piece of disinformation.
True, the Sanathana Dharma has very clear definition of what constitutes justice and what is injustice. It talks in terms of "dhaarmic" and "adhaarmic" deeds. But that is true of even secular laws - so if one wants to take issues with Sanathana Dharma only for this aspect, then one has to take issues with secular laws as well. This is just for starters.

The Bhagawath Geetha from which you have quoted - is NOT THE ONE AND ONLY book that the followers of the Sanathana Dharma follow. In fact, it is one of the later books, if one goes by the chronological order of when the Hindu books came into existence. Moreover, the Geetha is a book on when to wage war and for what purpose. It is not a piece of literature that was written to teach the basic elements of Sanathana Dharma - it is a practical guide on when to take up arms in defence of the Dharma - and it is addressed to that class of people whose duty it is to defend and protect the Dharma - that is the kshathriyas, the warrior community. Arjuna, as the representative of the Kshathriya, is being told on when to decide on action - meaning taking weapons into hand - and when not to.

Under the Hindu code of conduct, not every individual has been entrusted with the task of upholding and defending the Dharma - the Kshathriya is the one who has to do this and others have to simply follow the dhaarmic code and appeal for help from the Kshathriya in the event of being endangered by any "adhaarmic" act.

Also, the definition of what constitutes a "dhaarmic" act that attracts corporal punishment has been clearly elucidated - it DOES NOT include holding any opinion or any thought that is considered sinful. In this definition, even the atheists were perfectly within their rights to hold on to their atheistic views and even preach and propagate these openly. "Avaidic" traditions - that is, traditions that have repudiated the Vedas, have co-existed with the Vedic schools of thought for several millenia.

You can not see this kind of a co-existence happening in any of the other judea-christian religions - they all list blasphemy as a sin punishable with death. Blasphemy is a word unheard of in our Sanathana Dharma discourses. We imported this concept from the west.
In the Hindu Sanathana Dharma, one can talk ill of and abuse the Gods, the Vedas and just about anything under the sun. Though all these are considered bad and sinful, the punishment for such acts are not rendered by anyone on this earth - these are simply bad karma which the person committing these acts will have to account for, at some other point, either in this life or in some other future lifetime.

Thus, the "if your brother is not follwing dharma, kill him" teaching of the Geeta is NOT a universal message addressed to you and me and therefore, is entirely out of context and highly mischievous, while the "cutting the throat of the kafir is" VERY MUCH IN CONTEXT and NOT putting it out of context because it IS meant to be a universal rule that the "true believing" muslim has to live by.

The fact that not many muslims end up cutting the non-believers' throat in real life can be attributed to (1) ignorance on the part of most muslims regarding what their "holey text" really preaches, (2) where they live in a minority, fear of the secular law-enforcing agencies who will book them for murder, if they slit anyone's throat and (3) where they live in brute majority, the availability of other subtle and sophisticated means to keep the "non-believers" in place, so that slitting the throat is actually a very messy option.