Swamy G (post 103, 105):
a. From the Elst quoteblock just below (reprise):
1. Shaiva literature says the Jainas were impaled. But apparently Jaina literature does not mention it.
2. Shaiva literature says the Jainas started the aggression. (Don't know if Jaina lit mentions this.)
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the contrary:Â Interestingly, the persecution of Jains in the Pandya country finds mention only in Shaiva literature, and is not corroborated by Jain literature of the same or subsequent period. 47
On the other hand, the historicity of the Jain-Shaiva conflict in general is confirmed by Shaiva references to more cases of Jain aggression, none of which is mentioned by Romila Thapar. Dr. Usha Sivapriya, before duly quoting classical Tamil sources, argues that the literatures posterior to Manikkavasaghar (an ancient Tamil sage, author of Thiruvasagham) had plenty of reference to the nature, torture and terrorism of Jaina missionaries and rulers in Tamil kingdom .48 It all started with the invasion by Kharavela, king of Kalinga, at the turn of the Christian era: Kharavela defeated the Tamil kings headed by Pandiyans and captured Madhurai. The Kalinga or Vadugha king enforced Jaina rule in Tamil kingdom. People were forcibly converted at knifepoint, temples were demolished or locked down, devotees were tortured and killed. 49<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
b. From the link you gave
*Shaiva* paintings depict the event and these paintings are from a later time (both paintings mentioned here seem to be separated from the timing of the event by several centuries at the least):
http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/No..._Wall.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The debate is between the Jaina school of thought and Hindu belief, a historic phase attributed to 7th century CE,
This theme is painted, <b>one thousand years after the incident</b>, on the north western wall, on the first tier, <b>at Tiruppudaimaruduur</b>. This is preceded in mural painting form in the Big Temple of Tanjaavuur, <b>centuries before Tiruppudaimaruduur</b>. In Tirucchenduur, a shrine for Murugan, the incident is sculpted. It is most likely that it is found in a few other places and times as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->If the Shaiva text mentioning the narrative is taken as fact - and the paintings that are made later are obviously only referencing those, since Elst says Jaina texts are silent on it - then the paintings are not 'extra' evidence. They are merely working with the original source (text/tradition) as reference point.
So you're *still* left with only 1 data point: the Shaiva text/Shaiva traditions regarding this. (And if that is taken as true, then the other bit can be taken as equally true: that the Digambara Jainas initiated the strife.)
c. The Shaiva king who tormented the 8,000 Jainas used to previously torment Shaivas when he was still a Jaina. So it doesn't seem to depend on which tradition he adhered to, he seems to have behaved the same way in both cases, regardless of what religious tradition he was following. (Perhaps it's just a reflection of his character rather than anything else?) After all, if testimony against his post-conversion self can be used, then testimony against his pre-conversion character is just as admissable:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm (another repeat)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Shaivite saint Jnana Sambandar is attributed with having converted the <b>Pandya ruler from Jainism to Shaivism, whereupon it is said that 8,000Jainas were impaled by the king.</b> 43 To this, Sita Ram Goel points out that she omits crucial details: that <b>this king, Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman, is also described as having first persecuted Shaivas, when he himself was a Jain;</b> that Sambandar vanquished the Jainas not in battle but in debate, which was the occasion for the king to convert from Jainism to Shaivism (wagers in which the second or a third party promises to convert if you win the debate are not uncommon in India s religious literature); and that Sambandar had escaped Jain attempts to kill him.44 This Shaiva-Jaina conflict was clearly not a one-way affair, and as per the very tradition invoked by Prof. Thapar, Jains themselves had been the aggressors.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
d. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Goel's argument that it was not because of Shaivism but because of national conflicts, might be true. But I have seen several arguments (in yahoo groups) that take similar stances on the atrocities committed by Islamic hordes. Like it is war and looting onlee - which all the Indic kings did too.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Surely it can't be hard to definitively argue how the islamaniacs (or pseculars/cryptos) defending islamania are wrong? After all, all facts, observation and reason support that the situation among Dharmics is entirely different from the islamic case:
1. Do the Gods or sacred Hindu literature tell the Hindus to convert-or-kill the Jainas or take their property/invade their space? Do the teachings of the Tirtankaras tell the Jainas to convert-or-kill the Hindus or take their property/invade their space? No.
2. Did Hindus uniformly persecute the Jaina subcommunity throughout India in the past? Did Jainas uniformly persecute Hindus throughout India in the past? No.
3. Where are Jainas forcibly converting or otherwise persecuting Hindus today? Where are Hindus forcibly converting or otherwise persecuting Jainas today? Nowhere.
Whereas:
1. The fictitious islamic gawd jeebusjehovallah and its puppeteer/puppet Mohammed and his Koran command the faithful to convert-or-kill all unbelievers and invade their lands, take their property or enslave them. (For evidence, check out Ali Sina's site "Faithfreedom.org" and Ibn Warraq's archived secularislam )
2. Islamania uniformly persecuted all unbelievers wherever it went in the past - not just in Bharatam, but Persia, Turkestan, Byzantine, ....
Again, secularislam has some examples and historyofjihad has a longer listing by population/country victimised by islamism
3. Islam is still uniformly terrorising non-islamic populations throughout the world: Thai Buddhists, Dharmics in Bharatam, TSP and BD, Phillipinos, Hindus of Bali, Serbs, Russians via Chechnya... Check the news, or somewhere on IF for examples of all of these.
And finally, I post this bit again where Elst quoted Sita Ram Goel since it expresses the points better than I can:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]
Not much is left of the allegation of Hindu persecution of Jains , and in that light, Goel s conclusion must be considered relatively modest: It is nobody s case that there was never any conflict between the sects and sub-sects of Sanatana Dharma. Some instances of persecution were indeed there. Our plea is that they should be seen in a proper perspective, and not exaggerated in order to whitewash or counterbalance the record of Islamic intolerance. Firstly, the instances are few and far between when compared to those listed in Muslim annals. Secondly, those instances are spread over several millennia ( ) <b>Thirdly, none of those instances were inspired by a theology</b> ( ) Fourthly, Jains were not always the victims of persecution; they were persecutors as well once in a while. Lastly, no king or commander or saint who showed intolerance has been a Hindu hero, while Islam has hailed as heroes only those characters who excelled in intolerance. 63<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One more thing to add to the above - and yes, it does matter. The islamic genocide/enslavement of 'infidels' in any area that the mania terrorised has been either TOTAL or had a toll of incredibly high figures. (And it was always due to islamania driving the tyrants.) Some examples:
From historian Will Durant's Story of Civilization:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Sultanate of Delhi)
The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-d Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of
his kind--fanatical, ferocious and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan
historian tells us, "were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his
<b>slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands</b>."
[...]
Firoz Shah, invaded Bengal, offered a reward for every Hindu
head, paid for <b>180,000 of them,</b> raided Hindu villages for slaves, and
died at the ripe age of eighty. Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for three days
whenever the number of defenseless <b>Hindus slain in his territories in one
day reached twenty thousand</b>
[...]
(Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak) laid (the country) to waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to
the jungle. <b>He killed so many Hindus that</b>, in the words of a Moslem
historian, "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil
Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers
and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the victims
"and putting them to death in crowds."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->secularislam site again
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->At the battle of Somnath, the site of another celebrated Hindu temple, 50000 were killed as Mahmud assuaged his lust for booty.
[...]
At Delhi under the pretext that the <b>hundred thousand Hindu prisoners</b> presented a grave risk to his army, Tamerlane ordered their <b>execution in cold blood.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Travels of Ibn Batutah (travelogue of the historical "14th century muslim traveller") - Edited by Tim Mackintosh
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Another reason for our halt was fear of the snow. For upon this road there is a mountain called <b>Hindukush, which means 'the slayer of the Indians 'because the slave</b> boys and girls who are brought f<b>rom the land of India die there in large numbers</b> as a result of the extreme cold and the great quantity of snow ".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There can be no comparison. Situations of aggression among Dharmics in Bharatam or between Natural Traditionalists elsewhere cannot in any way be compared to the devastating ideologically-inspired/instigated terrorism inflicted by christoislamism on the "unsaved infidels".
a. From the Elst quoteblock just below (reprise):
1. Shaiva literature says the Jainas were impaled. But apparently Jaina literature does not mention it.
2. Shaiva literature says the Jainas started the aggression. (Don't know if Jaina lit mentions this.)
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the contrary:Â Interestingly, the persecution of Jains in the Pandya country finds mention only in Shaiva literature, and is not corroborated by Jain literature of the same or subsequent period. 47
On the other hand, the historicity of the Jain-Shaiva conflict in general is confirmed by Shaiva references to more cases of Jain aggression, none of which is mentioned by Romila Thapar. Dr. Usha Sivapriya, before duly quoting classical Tamil sources, argues that the literatures posterior to Manikkavasaghar (an ancient Tamil sage, author of Thiruvasagham) had plenty of reference to the nature, torture and terrorism of Jaina missionaries and rulers in Tamil kingdom .48 It all started with the invasion by Kharavela, king of Kalinga, at the turn of the Christian era: Kharavela defeated the Tamil kings headed by Pandiyans and captured Madhurai. The Kalinga or Vadugha king enforced Jaina rule in Tamil kingdom. People were forcibly converted at knifepoint, temples were demolished or locked down, devotees were tortured and killed. 49<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
b. From the link you gave
*Shaiva* paintings depict the event and these paintings are from a later time (both paintings mentioned here seem to be separated from the timing of the event by several centuries at the least):
http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/No..._Wall.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The debate is between the Jaina school of thought and Hindu belief, a historic phase attributed to 7th century CE,
This theme is painted, <b>one thousand years after the incident</b>, on the north western wall, on the first tier, <b>at Tiruppudaimaruduur</b>. This is preceded in mural painting form in the Big Temple of Tanjaavuur, <b>centuries before Tiruppudaimaruduur</b>. In Tirucchenduur, a shrine for Murugan, the incident is sculpted. It is most likely that it is found in a few other places and times as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->If the Shaiva text mentioning the narrative is taken as fact - and the paintings that are made later are obviously only referencing those, since Elst says Jaina texts are silent on it - then the paintings are not 'extra' evidence. They are merely working with the original source (text/tradition) as reference point.
So you're *still* left with only 1 data point: the Shaiva text/Shaiva traditions regarding this. (And if that is taken as true, then the other bit can be taken as equally true: that the Digambara Jainas initiated the strife.)
c. The Shaiva king who tormented the 8,000 Jainas used to previously torment Shaivas when he was still a Jaina. So it doesn't seem to depend on which tradition he adhered to, he seems to have behaved the same way in both cases, regardless of what religious tradition he was following. (Perhaps it's just a reflection of his character rather than anything else?) After all, if testimony against his post-conversion self can be used, then testimony against his pre-conversion character is just as admissable:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm (another repeat)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Shaivite saint Jnana Sambandar is attributed with having converted the <b>Pandya ruler from Jainism to Shaivism, whereupon it is said that 8,000Jainas were impaled by the king.</b> 43 To this, Sita Ram Goel points out that she omits crucial details: that <b>this king, Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman, is also described as having first persecuted Shaivas, when he himself was a Jain;</b> that Sambandar vanquished the Jainas not in battle but in debate, which was the occasion for the king to convert from Jainism to Shaivism (wagers in which the second or a third party promises to convert if you win the debate are not uncommon in India s religious literature); and that Sambandar had escaped Jain attempts to kill him.44 This Shaiva-Jaina conflict was clearly not a one-way affair, and as per the very tradition invoked by Prof. Thapar, Jains themselves had been the aggressors.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
d. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Goel's argument that it was not because of Shaivism but because of national conflicts, might be true. But I have seen several arguments (in yahoo groups) that take similar stances on the atrocities committed by Islamic hordes. Like it is war and looting onlee - which all the Indic kings did too.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Surely it can't be hard to definitively argue how the islamaniacs (or pseculars/cryptos) defending islamania are wrong? After all, all facts, observation and reason support that the situation among Dharmics is entirely different from the islamic case:
1. Do the Gods or sacred Hindu literature tell the Hindus to convert-or-kill the Jainas or take their property/invade their space? Do the teachings of the Tirtankaras tell the Jainas to convert-or-kill the Hindus or take their property/invade their space? No.
2. Did Hindus uniformly persecute the Jaina subcommunity throughout India in the past? Did Jainas uniformly persecute Hindus throughout India in the past? No.
3. Where are Jainas forcibly converting or otherwise persecuting Hindus today? Where are Hindus forcibly converting or otherwise persecuting Jainas today? Nowhere.
Whereas:
1. The fictitious islamic gawd jeebusjehovallah and its puppeteer/puppet Mohammed and his Koran command the faithful to convert-or-kill all unbelievers and invade their lands, take their property or enslave them. (For evidence, check out Ali Sina's site "Faithfreedom.org" and Ibn Warraq's archived secularislam )
2. Islamania uniformly persecuted all unbelievers wherever it went in the past - not just in Bharatam, but Persia, Turkestan, Byzantine, ....
Again, secularislam has some examples and historyofjihad has a longer listing by population/country victimised by islamism
3. Islam is still uniformly terrorising non-islamic populations throughout the world: Thai Buddhists, Dharmics in Bharatam, TSP and BD, Phillipinos, Hindus of Bali, Serbs, Russians via Chechnya... Check the news, or somewhere on IF for examples of all of these.
And finally, I post this bit again where Elst quoted Sita Ram Goel since it expresses the points better than I can:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]
Not much is left of the allegation of Hindu persecution of Jains , and in that light, Goel s conclusion must be considered relatively modest: It is nobody s case that there was never any conflict between the sects and sub-sects of Sanatana Dharma. Some instances of persecution were indeed there. Our plea is that they should be seen in a proper perspective, and not exaggerated in order to whitewash or counterbalance the record of Islamic intolerance. Firstly, the instances are few and far between when compared to those listed in Muslim annals. Secondly, those instances are spread over several millennia ( ) <b>Thirdly, none of those instances were inspired by a theology</b> ( ) Fourthly, Jains were not always the victims of persecution; they were persecutors as well once in a while. Lastly, no king or commander or saint who showed intolerance has been a Hindu hero, while Islam has hailed as heroes only those characters who excelled in intolerance. 63<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One more thing to add to the above - and yes, it does matter. The islamic genocide/enslavement of 'infidels' in any area that the mania terrorised has been either TOTAL or had a toll of incredibly high figures. (And it was always due to islamania driving the tyrants.) Some examples:
From historian Will Durant's Story of Civilization:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Sultanate of Delhi)
The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-d Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of
his kind--fanatical, ferocious and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan
historian tells us, "were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his
<b>slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands</b>."
[...]
Firoz Shah, invaded Bengal, offered a reward for every Hindu
head, paid for <b>180,000 of them,</b> raided Hindu villages for slaves, and
died at the ripe age of eighty. Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for three days
whenever the number of defenseless <b>Hindus slain in his territories in one
day reached twenty thousand</b>
[...]
(Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak) laid (the country) to waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to
the jungle. <b>He killed so many Hindus that</b>, in the words of a Moslem
historian, "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil
Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers
and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the victims
"and putting them to death in crowds."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->secularislam site again
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->At the battle of Somnath, the site of another celebrated Hindu temple, 50000 were killed as Mahmud assuaged his lust for booty.
[...]
At Delhi under the pretext that the <b>hundred thousand Hindu prisoners</b> presented a grave risk to his army, Tamerlane ordered their <b>execution in cold blood.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Travels of Ibn Batutah (travelogue of the historical "14th century muslim traveller") - Edited by Tim Mackintosh
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Another reason for our halt was fear of the snow. For upon this road there is a mountain called <b>Hindukush, which means 'the slayer of the Indians 'because the slave</b> boys and girls who are brought f<b>rom the land of India die there in large numbers</b> as a result of the extreme cold and the great quantity of snow ".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There can be no comparison. Situations of aggression among Dharmics in Bharatam or between Natural Traditionalists elsewhere cannot in any way be compared to the devastating ideologically-inspired/instigated terrorism inflicted by christoislamism on the "unsaved infidels".
Death to traitors.