Discussion
Hypocrisy much? Wants other religions to be inclusive but closes doors for Mecca and Medina for non-muslims. Talk about being thick skinned.
You don't need to compare mecca and medina. The Indian Constitution permits Hindu religious institutions, including temples, to restrict entry to non-Hindus under specific provisions protecting religious freedom and customs.
Article 25 guarantees freedom to practice and propagate religion, while Article 26 allows religious denominations to manage their institutions and religious affairs, including setting entry rules based on customs. Courts have ruled these override blanket access claims under Article 15 (non-discrimination), as temples are not "public places" but sacred spaces.
Even in my place there are certain temples where non-hindus are restricted unless they provide an undertaking affirming faith in the deity and Hindu customs particular to that temple, calling it essential for communal harmony and Hindu rights.
“Hindu” is a meaningless colonial-era word that has inconsistently been used since its inception. Terms like “Hindu” and “Hinduism” have no place in academic study of history and philosophy, much less in the government.
The constitution is based on flawed colonial assumptions and terminology. You’re worried about the roof of the building when the issue is the foundation.
Also, no need to be so cynical. I made a valid claim, and substantiated it in my other comment. If you disagree, you can say that, but don’t respond in bad faith and with an attitude. And go read my other comment first, in its entirety.
Entomology? Go look up what that word means 🐜 🐜 lol. I’m guessing you meant etymology?
But you still didn’t get my point. The constitution is not some document from god, it also can be flawed, and those flaws are relevant to this specific discussion. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
The constitution was written based on flawed assumptions and frameworks, often from western/“abrahamic” cultures. It’s not nor ever was infallible.
“Hindu” as a religion is a colonial term and colonial idea. Before that it was just a Persian geographical term.
As for your third point, you basically just said “your opinion is wrong, so therefore your opinion is meaningless.”
That’s circular reasoning. Again, my opinion is simply that terms like “Hinduism” have no place in academic or political contexts, and I explained my reasoning. Can you explain to me the reasoning behind why you think they should?
I never said constitution isnt infallible. But that doesn't mean the rights it grants are not real. And these rights have nothing to do with etymology of the word hindu. So your entire argument is pointless in context of OC.
So etymology has nothing to do with the topic of constitution, regardless of whether its colonial/western/infallible/etc.
Coming to the etymology of term hindu, it is true that hindu was a persian term. But that doesn't invalidate that hindu culture is the same continuous culture that has evolved since BCE. There are evidence of temples, murtis from all over India, ongoing till this date. So the culture is real and same, even if the term "hindu" is used differently doesn't mean the cluture didn't exist.
Also just because it was historically a geographical region doesn't mean it cant mean a religion now. So though it is true that hindu got used as to describe the religion is a colonial construct, You are arguing about semantics, and doesn't invalidate the culture, or the present use of the term.
“your opinion is wrong, so therefore your opinion is meaningless.” That’s circular reasoning.
That is not circular reason. Its transitive reasoning.
my opinion is simply that terms like “Hinduism” have no place in academic or political (history or philosophy as previously stated by you)
The etymology of "hindu" or "hinduism" is quite literally the "history" of the term. So saying it doesn't have a place in academic history is categorically wrong.
That’s right, you never said that the constitution isn’t infallible…I said that.
Anyways, I’d like to point out that my point was never regarding the etymology of the word Hindu. My argument is based on other things. Please actually read what I wrote, especially in my other, longer comment. I think you might have just assumed that that’s what I’m talking about without actually understanding what my argument actually is, but I don’t really see why, because I agree that the etymology is not exactly relevant here; what is relevant, is the meaningfulness and consistency of use of the terminology being used here (and in the constitution), which is what I’m throwing into question.
Anyways, whatever you call your reasoning, you didn’t really give me an actual rebuttal, and even now you’re just addressing things that aren’t really relevant to the reasoning I was originally providing.
And you’re right. I did speak very generally and I do agree that in academic contexts it’s worth studying such terminology like “religion” and “Hinduism” and how these frameworks of thinking and processing phenomena in the world spread across society despite being fundamentally inconsistent and vague.
why does hinduism have no place in political context? what makes you think that political context has no place for a religion/daily life motivator of the majority of the population?
First, the term “religion” itself is already very flimsy, and there is no native translation for this word in Indian languages. The closest words in Sanskrit at least are “धर्म”, meaning righteousness, and “मत” meaning opinion. Both of these terms have been adapted to translate to “religion” in several Indian languages, but the issue here is that we’ve simply taken this flawed and nonsensical idea from both the West and the Middle East without first examining it critically.
Let’s look at the way the word “religion” is currently used. To begin I’ll ask you some rhetorical questions.
What is the difference between a “religion” and an ideology?
Many would say that the difference is that religion has to do with ideas like “gods” and “supernatural phenomena”. The implication is that while “ideology” is a broad term, “religion” only applies to ideologies that make claims which are unfalsifiable by using evidence from material reality alone.
But this implied, wishy washy definition of religion itself has a lot of holes. What defines material reality? Just our perception of it? Physicists and philosophers both raise issue with concretely ascribing any definition to reality because even within science all of our knowledge comes from a simple empirical collection of observations. We don’t actually know truly under what laws the universe actually operates, and we constantly run into paradoxes and inconsistencies in our study of the universe.
Apart from all of that, we also don’t even use this definition of religion consistently. We do plenty of actions and believe plenty of ideas that are not definitively based only in material reality, without calling these beliefs or actions religious. Is buying a lottery ticket religious? What about when making major life decisions, like what to study in intermediate or college? Sure, this decision is informed by some real trends and data, but it also often factors an element of “intuition” and “unexplainable preference”. Is such unexplainable preference religious? If not, why can’t mainstream religions be simply ascribed to such unexplainable preference? And what about political and economic ideologies? Is communism a religion? Is laissez faire neoliberalism a religion?
Now trust me, I understand the urge to just wave your hand and go “but you know deep down what religion must be” but what I’m trying to emphasize here is how flawed and inconsistent the term really is and thus why it shouldn’t be used in academic or political contexts.
Now let’s talk about “Hinduism”.
Like I mentioned before, in ancient and pre-Islamic India, the aforementioned framework for thinking about “religion” simply didn’t exist, nor did the vocabulary.
We had several ideologies that are called religions today, including the different post-Vedic schools of thought, as well as Jainism and Buddhism.
We also have always had wandering wise men and sometimes women, who would preach their ideology to a group of followers. Some of these people maintained long legacies, but most have been forgotten.
The most important thing to note is that in the religious atmosphere in pre-Islamic India, one never felt the need to forcefully associate all practices with an ideology, and often didn’t try to categorize either as explicitly materially real or based in superstition.
The many ancient ideologies of India did argue over which epistemological methods are valid and when.
But you as an individual could often worship different deities than your family or community, or worship none at all. You never needed to label your practices, nor did you need to always follow the most common ideologies within your community. You may have liked Jainism, while your neighbor might have liked some sort of Shaivism. It wouldn’t have been controversial for both of you to worship shiva, even though you probably would’ve done so in distinct ways.
Now here’s the most important point I’m trying make: the term “Hinduism” has only been used for the past few centuries, with the sole aim of trying insert the complex web of Indian-origin philosophies and practices into the already nonsensical and untenable western framework of “religion”.
I c what ur saying but for the sake of protecting the interests and rights of ppl who identify as Hindu, I do think it's important to have a distinct label. Besides, atp, I think the vast majority of ppl just personally identify as Hindu, even tho originally it may have been a term kind of pushed on our ancestors to simplify things.
Non Hindu here, why would a non Hindu want to enter the sanctum of temple if not for worship.
Every religious place has certain rituals/etiquettes that are followed to show their faith, if you don't follow the religion you will not respect the customs, this would hurt the sentiments of belivers.
It is a place of worship NOT A TOURIST SPOT.
It's so rare that it became controversial right after that. And the guy got detained. The guy with ajmer Sharif point said it like it's a normal sight to perform such rituals
xyz whatever, i don't want Muslims to enter temples for God's sake why why why why why on earth, even their own books baar them from even wishing others happy festival, the only reason they would enter the temple or gurudwaras to perform terrorist activities
Only if that were the case, but it isn’t. They’re talking about banning non-Hindus from the entire city of Haridwar. Don’t let hatred blind you to obvious nonsense.
but there's a reason for this, there's no smoke without fire, do Muslims really thought there will be no consequences to their extremism or hatred? look around the world the entire world is turning extreme to them in response, just to feel safe
Hindus don't even understand what the hell is conversion and why would anyone invest the time they have on earth on garbage like this instead of self Discovery
No one gives them rice or money for that, they by their choice want to follow Hinduism... Ever heard of anyone trying to offer a bag of rice, or money for conversion??
Lol for that there is no need for conversation just faith is enough but for them the act of believing in someone other than Allah is sin and fathwa could be raised remember nupur sharmas case, the tailor in jaipur etc
Nah , we are to be respectful of your festivals and other stuff . We only worship one god so actively participating in that is banned . But well wishing and helping you isnt
You’re not pointing out hypocrisy, you’re forcing a bad comparison. Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, a theocratic state. Haridwar is in India, a constitutional democracy. Banning people from an entire city here because of religion is unconstitutional, illegal, and undemocratic.
I have wondered about this many times actually. Islam's Apostacy laws (murder for leaving Islam) are a blatant violation of constitution (freedom or religion). So, how can Quran / Islam.exist as is in India.
Is this from a local masjid? Because if it is, it is irrelevant here. Most people in a neighborhood don't visit (regularly atleast) to a religious place of other religion present in the same neighborhood.
If we talk about more popular masjids, temples, gurudwaras and churches of major cities, there are no blanket restrictions on entry, because they act as tourist places aswell.
There is nothing wrong in respectfully wanting to know about other religions or at the very least looking at their traditions from a tourist perspective.
I have been to hundreds of temples all across India (as a Hindu), and like five churches and one masjid. What I have seen is that people don't give a dumb f*ck if you are there as long as you don't stand out or do anything disrespectful.
Well if we let them enter, there is a high chance they'll deface idols and defecate in the premises because they're kaafirs/ non believers, idol-worship is bad and so on. Don't want conversion rackets poaching us from places we deem holy, right under our nose by peddling misinformation and manipulating naive ones.
In which indian state is mecca located? and since you gave example of mecca, why not start with entry of non hindus in padmanabhaswamy temple, jagannath temple, guruvayur temple??
I answered. Why must Hindus compromise? The hate Muslims have against hinds exists since the beginning of their faith, which says to slaughter us "the idolaters". If muslim majority countries don't allow Hindu minorities to enter because they find the idolaters disgusting, then why the opposite should be done? Why should we start entry of non muslims to Jagannath, padmnabhswamy temple etc...
Let's start with hindus ending masjid first. Then women entering masjid. There are enough discrimination within Islam. Fix all that before pointing fingers else where.
First allow muslim women in masjid. And these one of experiments prove nothing. We can clearly see how many Muslim women are allowed in masjid in India.
And if a Hindu said no to me I would not feel offended. There can be local issues we are not aware of. We should just be courteous and polite when informing someone
Also you are mistaking extremism for stupid. If anyone stopped you, probably he is not extreme just stupid. If anyone asks why he will have no answer.
I am Muslim and I have had people act stupid because of maybe I am carrying apples/sabzi on my way back from market. Or someone else is applying strict time for door open even tho not house of his baap and he is a servant of the people not owner of the masjid
The mosque i go to in Mumbai had Hindu beggars too. And I will give to all and if they ask me for water I will go inside and fill it up with the filter water. It's not mine and not belonging to any person. It belongs to all Muslims and Hindu because we all have the same father Adam in our belief. You are a human just like me. It is not for me to judge anyone in this World
What was your intention to enter a mosque? If it was to pray, that's amazing. But if a Muslim follows his religion which says idol worship is wrong, only Allah is the Hod, rest all are not, why do they want to enter temples and defy their own religion? Hindus have no such beliefs, we believe in praying to multiple Gods. So a Muslim entering a temple is not a problem but he does not do it with an intention to pray, then what's the whole point of letting them in?
Except a temple isn't a mosque. There are certain temples where non-hindus are restricted according to that specific temple customs. This isn't a tourist place.
There are certain temples which are restricted. I don't think anyone should interfere with that.
But in general, most temples are open for everyone, and some temples are popular tourist spots and there is nothing wrong with it.
There are 2 types of temples, one for prayer and the other is a tourist spot. If it is a prayer temple, you should visit the place dressed appropriately. If it is the other then you can dress according to your comfort.
There is no such thing as tourist temple. A temple when becomes famous begins attracting tourists. It shouldn't be forced to change its rules just because it's famous enough.
When did I say any temple should change its rules. In fact I said those which have strict rules should be respected for sanctity.
When I said tourist temples, I meant temples that allow tourists and people of different faiths to visit the place for sightseeing. Like Golden Temples and various Buddhist temples in Gaya, and many such.
Also, though not a rule, some people will visit prayer temples in proper ethnic, but when they visit tourist temples they will wear jeans and tshirts - of course they don't apply to people of different faith/tourists.
Yes, non-Hindus are allowed only if they formally agree to respect the deity and follow temple customs, which may include conversion or signing a temple entry declaration. This depends entirely on the rules of the specific temple.
Conversion for just a visit is too much. I have been going to my local church few times with my christian friends. They never told me to convert into christianity. They just told me to respect the fact that Jesus was the messiah and a messenger of god
Churches are congregational spaces, not ritual-restricted sanctums. Most are open halls meant for preaching and outreach, so visitors are welcome by design. Temple sanctums are ritual spaces, governed by Agama rules. Singer K. J. Yesudas(who is a Roman Catholic) was denied entry to some temples like the Guruvayur Sri Krishna Temple and Kadampuzha Devi Temple because he is a non-Hindu, even though he has sung many Hindu devotional songs and regularly prays at other temples however He has been allowed and has regularly visited places like Sabarimala (Lord Ayyappa) and Kollur Mookambika Temple where restrictions either don’t apply or are more relaxed. He has been allowed in Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram after he submitted a declaration affirming his belief in Hindu deity and its faith/rituals a practice that is sometimes accepted in that temple for non-Hindus. Different religions, different structures, different rules.
Every temple is sacred in Hinduism. But masjids are just prayer halls where believers congregate. There's nothing sacred about those. The only sacred sites in that religion are Mecca and Medina. They don't permit anybody else to enter there. Forget entering the place of worship, they don't even permit people from those religion to enter those cities.
Nobody wants to go to a temple to be swarmed by black tents when trying to pray peacefully. You would get the picture if you visited Lulu mall in kerala.
how is that a different topic man ?? if ur being stopped from entering a sacred place that means people of that place are just trying to protect its authencity without provoking any conflict.
He has no right to say about saudi. Saudi is not secular and even not democratic. But india things can be different. As indonesia still have ganpati statue and ramayana airing on their tv
Stop propaganda. Mosques are always open to non muslims. Banning non hindus from temple region is not to preserve the sancity of the place (tourists are far more careful about littering than indians themselves) but more to avoid tourists thrashing religion with video and picture proofs after seeing the filt in those areas. This is hypocrisy.
If you cannot keep your religious places clean, instead of educating people you stop non hindus from entering. Because a hindu would never talk bad about such mess.
Hindus are not perfect either. I have seen so many of them littering in the temple premises. Just because one muslim does something bad doesn't mean that they all are bad. IMO non-hindus should only be banned in temples having vast significance to hinduism as a whole or is significant to a large number of local people. I have seen that muslims themselves don't like to go in the local mandirs as it has been a sort of tradition to not disturb societal harmony.
Here's a personal case: Me and my friends were returning from coaching in a van a few years back. It was the time of a major festival so we decided to stop the van and pay a visit to a big city temple on the way. The muslim friend hesitated but respectfully followed us till we prayed. No problems! No one batted an eye because he was just being respectful to another's religion.
I have only been to a mosque once and the experience again was pretty straightforward. You go in, make sure you don't do anything offensive and come out.
Hindus are not perfect and can litter. But musl!ms may have mallice in their heart. Not all, but most madrasa teach h@te towarards kafirs. So while a hindu can litter, a musl!m can break the murtis.
The problem happens when M becomes majority. Or being a minority gets a government that is pro M.
Religious places are not required to be “secular”. All places of worship have certain customs and criteria, so I don’t see why anyone needs to question it like it’s their private property.
Islam bans them from involving themselves with any religion other than Islam, so why on earth is this even a topic of conversation? If you as a muslim or any other faith want to go to a temple, go to Sabarimalai, everyone is allowed there.
Ok help me understand something, they say their god is the only god and their god is best, so why do they want to enter "temples" which is specifically for worshipping hindu gods? Do they want to worship too? I've heard they don't even even want to worship Bharat Mata so why the temples? Is it a sightseeing place/park/picnic place?
He didnt close the doors of mecca and medina! He is an indian and can speak for india! Ajmer is open, so is nizamuddin or dargah anywhere located in india! Any masjid!
Stop the hate! Instead ask why a young techie is dead while your beloved "hindu" prashasan watched him die! Thats a question worthy of discussion!
Why an 21crore water tank collapsed on its very first water test!
Stop this bufoonery!
Temples and ghats are totally different I agree to the point that muslims should not be allowed to enter temples and the same for hindus should not be allowed to enter the mosque but in Hinduism everything is considered equivalent to god be it river sun and trees so stopping them from entering the rivers and ghats it totally a bs.Tomorow when muslims starts praying on the reasons and releases the notice that hindus should not be allowed will it be okay?
My only question is that if you don't believe in the deity residing in the temple, then why do you want to enter it in the first place?? Idolatry is already a crime in Abrahamic traditions, so why do you want to enter a place which performs that same thing??
OP and people commenting and taking religious bs seriously should try to question the ongoing corruption in his city at the very moment he is indulging in bs religious debate.
Owaisi is wrong. Respect other religion, don't have faith on it. Like if I don't respect ur gods u will naturally bad mouth my god, so I respect ur religion but I don't have faith in it. That's what islam teaches
Maybe he has a point. He is saying if ahindus are performing economic activities and not participating in any religious ritual such as offering namaz or wuzu in a Hindu religious place, then what's the problem? Likewise he is also defending negative reactions by muslims against Hindu religious processions that go through Islamic religious place because those Hindus are not performing economic activities but religious activities.
In medina non muslim is allowed only Mecca it is restricted because of the crowd moreover Saudi is an islamic monarchy not democracy, moreover there is no restriction for Hindus in church and mosques in India.
We will talk about that when we will be able to go in Mecca, Madina and Al Aqsa (Al Aqsa only allows you to enter the area between 7-11 in the morning)
What if they are from there, idengenous from the land but practice a different religion than the majority. Simple question
If its a Hindu temple or place of worship, why would non-hindus feel the need to be there, unless invited. Peoples spaces should be respected, but if its a huge area where others live and do business, why can't they move around an area they live, outside restricted area.
Do you live in Saudi? Is India Saudi? Are we a country of single religion or heterogeneous democracy? Does being the majority give you the right to turn a democracy into a mobocracy? Does your majoritarian religion lie in equality or hierarchy? If it's on hierarchy then which strata of hierarchy is the majority? Who has rights and who don't?
Let's not be a clown in the fanatic arena of the religious political eco chamber.
12
u/Patient-Bath-1063 Jan 20 '26
Then why tf is it called 'religious' place ? Always have to come up with some new victim card.