Search results

You not only failed to understand the entire judgement but have done selective reading of the same. Well you deserve it. You should have done your homework before posting useless rants here, did you ever search for the 1995 Judgement? But why will you do that, you are here to troll Hindus...

One thing I have understood about you, you are posting for the sake of posting, you have no job except creating useless disputes. The SC used the term religion so that it can understood by the people who are used to use that term, the term religion has also been used in many Acts, but what...

Actually he is talking about me, as I pointed out some days back that Shankaracharya of a peeth came to my city about a year ago and he didn't let non-Brahmins to touch his feet and blessed from a distance, and so I do not take him as a religious head of my religion. However I was not talking...

That appears to be the real case.

Such links have already been posted on various threads on this forum, but you were lazy enough to search them. I didn't give you the link of the 1966 judgment and you didn't read the link I gave you carefully lol! The reason I was not posting on this thread is that it's a long topic and I didn't...

I think you are illiterate in googling, or unable to do common internet tasks over the Internet, but at the same time you can do endless blabbering against a particular community's beliefs on the Internet itself. SInce you are so maliciously lazy in your debates I am providing you one of the...

And a prime example of that is the 1971 Bangladesh war, where educated Islamic forces of 20th century (Pakistan) raped 3,00,000 (3 Lakh) women. This incident is a hard and tight slap on the faces of those who argue that Islam was peacefully propagated.

The SC cases are all over the internet, you could have googled it but you want to involve me in this useless fruitless debate regarding Hindu apostate, and that is why I am not going to feed you through my hands. If something hurts you then it's not my problem. Do you realize that it was a...

TM, What the SC says becomes a law itself, it does not need to have an Act or a definition for the same, nature of the Hinduism and the definition of a Hindu are different things.

Kindly go and ask the same to the judges of the constitutional bench, I am not willing to do your homework in one of the most idiotic threads of this forum. Were we debating on the govt. system? what should I do with the nature of the theocracy ? you have lost your argument. Off course...

The main theme of your thread is "apostate" by eating a beef, the term 'apostate' itself is a sign of 'narrowness' of a religion, kindly enlighten yourself for that judgement it has been discussed in this forum for many times. Please show me any Hindu religious text which says that a person wont...

Well I am not interested in doing your homework, but I can tell you the summery, the H'ble SC said that "Hinduism can not be defined in the "narrow" definition of religion, it's a way of life". Thanks to our forefathers for keeping Hinduism unorganized, otherwise no Buddhism/Islam could have...

You are free to disagree with the H'ble SC, no problems, whatever Hinduism may be but still there is no apostate which you already have accepted. I am not ruling out the possibility of past expulsion from the caste on the grounds of beef eating, but expulsion from the caste and from the religion...

Yes, but actually as per the SC Hinduism is not a religion in the popular definition, so there can be no apostate. However, I have not witnessed any Hindu who has been expelled from the Hindu community after eating beef, can't comment how many have been expelled in the past. But I can say that...

The question is wrong itself. There is no apostate in Hinduism and that's a pro.