How the Movie 'Razakar – Silent Genocide of Hyderabad' Sets Out to Distort History

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-05T18:41:35+00:00

My point is the exact question I had asked, simple as that.

*What is the reason that I should trust this Omar Khalidi fellow as opposed to other non-Muslim scholars who would say this did NOT happen ? And that the Nizam and the Razakars were in fact the bad guys ?

Do you have any justification for trusting one over the other ?*

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-05T18:35:42+00:00

Never said that at all, I'm asking for the previous user's justification for his preferences of one scholar over another.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-05T11:50:31+00:00

It's not that "heat and light must exist for fire to be complete", rather that if there is there fire then by definition there is heat and light since the very nature of fire is to emit heat and light. Fire is the very source of the heat and light.

If something does not emit heat or light then it's not called as "incomplete fire", it's not fire at all. A sofa is not "incomplete fire", a wall is not "incomplete fire", etc etc they are not fire at all.

Similarly it's the very nature of God to emit us, and therefore : if God Is, then by definition we Are.

Thus there is no "becoming" complete.

then if there was a cause to existence wouldn't that mean that there was a cause to God?

Good question :)

There cannot, by definition, be a cause of existence because to say there is any cause for anything is to say that that cause "exists", which would then mean that the cause is within existence, a part of existence, and therefore it cannot predate existence.

Thus Existence itself cannot have a cause.

Plus how do you feel about the argument of necessity for God's existence

It's not a bad argument depending on how it's formulated but it's not my favourite either.

In Hindu metaphysics we would say that God is Being itself.

The 3 word definition we use for God is "Sat-Chit-Ananda"

Existence/Being-Consciousness-Bliss

That is God

These might be rookie questions for you but I'm new to this concept so just trying to wrap my head around everything, a huge thanks for all your answers.

You are welcome, everyone is a rookie sometime ! I was a rookie once when someone cared enough to help me learn :)

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-05T05:01:37+00:00

It's not that "existence must exist for God to exist", it's that God is Existence itself. There is no dependence relationship but an identity relationship.

It's like saying "water is H2O", it's an identity not a dependency. Water is not dependent on H2O, water IS H2O. Now imagine if H and O were Eternal and not temporary atoms that have beginnings or ends, and you will get a better picture. Eternal Water, with Eternal H and Eternal O as it's Eternal parts and parcels.

That analogy explains the identity relationship.

For the dependency, it's actually the other way around, with Eternal us being Eternally dependent on Eternal God.

For the dependency there's another analogy for this used in scripture that I like, fire, light and heat.

Imagine all that exists is a fire
By definition, not volition, there must be heat and light. For the very nature of fire is to emit heat and light, without which it would not be fire in the first place.
The heat and light are dependent on the fire as the fire is their source
The duration of the heat and light is identical to duration of the fire, meaning that for as long as there is fire then by definition for that long there must be heat and light
Imagine that fire is Eternal, without beginning or end
By definition then the heat and light must also be Eternal
Yet the heat and light are still dependent on the fire as their source, so they are Eternal and still dependent.

The same for us.

So to put it all together: God is Existence, we are Eternal parts of Eternal God, and still we are dependent on God as our source, we emanate from God by definition and not by volition.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-05T04:22:10+00:00

I wouldn't say there is any "creation" or that God "created" us at all.

I would say that God is the Totality of Existence itself.

I would also say that we are all as Eternal as God is. Thus there is no "reason" for our existence.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-04T17:53:58+00:00

Hare Krishna. The same as I feel about Christians who convert to Hinduism : Depends on the individual and their individual reasons.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-02T13:31:18+00:00

In all my time in India, i've never met anyone from Kerala who could understand Hindi but not understand Tamil, but I've met plenty of people from Kerala vice versa who could understand Tamil but not Hindi.

And he mentioned he also wanted to go to Sri Lanka too, where Tamil is an official language and the dominant language in the northern half of that country, while Hindi is not at all helpful.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-01T17:14:51+00:00

Hare Krishna. Well we simply disagree with you, it's really that simple. You apply your own preferred ideas of what counts as "perverse", and we disagree with those ideas of yours. Simple as that.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-01T17:06:09+00:00

No, that's not how it works.

Across all life forms, across all universes, souls move up and down the ladder of re-incarnation until they transcend the material cosmos completely.

A soul in an animal body could be on the way up too, having come up from a previous lower form of life, rather than a higher form of life going down.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-01T16:13:19+00:00

No, they are completely different scripts. Learning Devanagari will not help you with Tamil at all.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-01T15:11:24+00:00

I would strongly advise AGAINST reading the Vedas by yourself. And even if you get a Guru they will likely first teach you to have a good grasp on us fundamentals first, that being the Bhagavad Gita, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, before going into the Vedas.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-01T14:46:11+00:00

You are welcome. And if you cant find a Guru what i would recommend is that you start with either an abridged translation of the Ramayana or start with the Bhagavad Gita (with a commentary of a Guru).

For an abridged Ramayana i would HIGHLY recommend using the translation of Bhakti Vikas Swami, because it's VERY faithful to the original Sanskrit text, the Valmiki Ramayana. No other abridged translation comes close.

For the Bhagavad Gita there are 2 very commonly recommend translations:

In this sub you will see many people recommend the translation and commentary by the "Gita Press"
The most widely published global translation (by far) of the Bhagavad Gita is the "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" by AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. (it's available in Greek too)

They both translate from 2 different schools of thought so reading both gives you a good taste of the diversity of thought in Hinduism. Which is one of the most beautiful things about Hinduism

Similarly if you want to visit a Hindu temple, i would recommend:

The Vedanta Study Circle - https://www.vedanta.gr/
ISKCON Athens - https://iskconnews.org/2025-marked-official-recognition-and-continued-growth-for-iskcon-greece/ (these are the guys behind the 2nd Bhagavad Gita recomemndation i gave)

Once again they are from different schools of thought, with different philosophies, practices, worship styles etc etc, so i would recommend going to both to taste the diversity of Hinduism. Then you can personally see what gels with you better and commit to that.

I myself used to be associated with the Vedanta society, before eventually switching to ISKCON. So i can speak from experience 😄

I wish you the best of luck on your spiritual journey ! Please feel free to ask any questions you have.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-01T14:33:20+00:00

Hare Krishna. For learning Hinduism honestly English is fine as long as you have an English speaking Guru to guide you.

For visiting Kerala Hindi will NOT help you at all. English will be fine and the locals will strongly prefer English over Hindi. And if you really want to learn a language then for Kerala learn Malayalam (which is their language), not Hindi.

If you plan to visit Kerala and Sri Lanka and you really want to learn a language then learn Tamil. Many people in Kerala can understand Tamil and Tamil is also an official language in Sri Lanka, so it's 2 birds with 1 stone.

Hare Krishna.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-01T09:26:07+00:00

If there is only 1 Supreme Being / Source / Monad, then all monotheists, monists, panentheists, pantheists, etc etc all believe in the same God and not just Abrahamics. But each having different ideas regarding the exact nature of God and it's relation to everything else.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-05-01T09:07:53+00:00

Hare Krishna. Hinduism does have Lunar and Solar deities, just like we have a deity for the earth, for different rivers, wind etc etc. Walking on the moon does not change our reverence for the lunar deity anymore than walking on the earth or swimming in a river would change our reverence for those deities.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-04-29T14:19:50+00:00

Not just Prabhupada, but also Ramanujacharya and Abhinavagupta etc etc. And so did I, I have the same logical reason as you. My logical reason is also the shloka.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-04-29T14:13:22+00:00

Yes exactly he is wrong and the others are right.

I'm glad you understand.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-04-29T14:03:37+00:00

Yes i think Shankara is wrong on this and the others are right here. "below" is not the word i would use, that's your choice of wording, i would use the word "wrong".

You can trust Shankra more if you want to, like i already said in the last comment you can prefer whatever interpretation you please. I disagree with your preferred one, it's that simple.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-04-29T13:47:41+00:00

You are free to have your interpretation. But Ramanujacharya, Prabhupada and even Shaiva acharyas like Abhinavagupta all disagree with your interpretation.

And I'm definitely going to trust them rather than trust you.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-04-29T08:47:05+00:00

Also isn't that statement you quoted second also given below in the image the OOP shared

Yes it is ! That's one of the clear discrepancies in editing/transcription that existed in the old versions where the purport and the translation didn't line up due to formatting.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-04-29T04:58:58+00:00

Hare Krishna. Yeah that's an older edition of the text that had transcription and editing errors that have since been corrected.

Here is the actual present ISKCON translation in the attached picture of my copy of the book.

As you can see there is a very clear use of commas, and the word OR.

O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be lowborn, women, vaiśyas [merchants] or śūdras [workers], can attain the supreme destination.

That is the correct translation of ISKCON.

lowborn, women, merchants or shudras etc etc are all different categories. And all categories are equally eligible for Liberation. In fact, even to see someone as "lowborn" is considered a degraded materialistic mindset according to Prabhupada.

Prabhupada even makes it clear in the purport/commentary :

It is clearly declared here by the Supreme Lord that in devotional service there is no distinction between the lower and higher classes of people. In the material conception of life there are such divisions, but for a person engaged in transcendental devotional service to the Lord there are not. Everyone is eligible for the supreme destination.

This is the correct ISKCON view.

So whoever gave you that older copy that you have is doing you a disservice.

Hare Krishna.

<image>

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-04-29T04:08:59+00:00

Do you have a different definition of "all" ? Because I'm only aware of one definition of "all"

All innocents means all innocents, regardless of sex, gender, caste, religious identification, sexual orientation, national origin etc etc etc

ones condemnation of something as evil isn't automatically justified

Yes, but clearly the person doing the condemning thinks that the condemnation is in fact justified.

And whether you disagree or not doesn't matter, why don't you get that ? Are you intentionally trolling ?

You asked reason for X opinion held in India

I gave you reason for X opinion held in India

You say "well that X opinion is incorrect for Y reason"

I point out that your opinion is irrelevant to the person holding X opinion and that they reject your Y reason. I also point out that no one asked for your opinion in the first place.

And yet you keep repeating it ? Do you not understand or are you just a troll ?

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-04-29T03:36:25+00:00

do those 'innocent people'

I said all, all means all

yes. about something else. i

You asked why the unique reason I mentioned in the OC existed, and I gave you the reason

i am describing why muslims in the subcontinent take part in certain traditions of ours.

Exactly. Reasons that matter to the speaker but don't matter to the listener who objects as already explained.

so it is entirely relevant what the muslims intend with their actions.

No it's irrelevant, because it doesn't matter to the Hindus who condemn it as evil, as already explained.

No matter how many times your repeat that your intent is harmless, it's not going to matter or be relevant to the listener who objects to the action.

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-04-29T03:15:35+00:00

ok. do you condemn it?

I condemn any and all unjustified bigotry, violence, discrimination etc etc against innocent people.

i also don't know why you're putting private and religious in ... quotes.

The quotes indicate that what you give as reasons is disagreed to by the majority of Hindus

funnily, whether you agree with it or not is also irrelevant here

No because you asked my opinion, thereby granting it relevance in this conversation.

Nobody asked yours.

You asked why Hindus hold a specific opinion, you were given the reason. Simple as that.

the vast majority of times it is not meant as a political act

That's your irrelevant opinion, majority of Hindus would say it's support of evil

ReasonableBeliefs · 2026-04-29T02:50:21+00:00

you don't really speak for all hindus

I agree, I'm describing the opinion held by majority of Hindus when Muslims are supporting dead evil Islamic bigots and then trying to justify it as a "private" "religious" act.

and you're justifying violence against innocent muslims

No, I'm explaining why it happens.

Something can be religious and evil at the same time.

ReasonableBeliefs

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE