Asif Naqshbandi July 19, 2007
#250 Posted by KaalChakra on July 24, 2007 1:23:00 pm
giani ji, there is only one philosopher, and he is not PM or I or anyone else. :)
philo
PM accepts the validity of religion WITHOUUT any recourse to reason, on the basis of faith alone.
PM, tahmed
Generally, religions do get condemned for things done in their name (not that Islam has to be - that's a different matter). So Christianity was blamed for papacy and what Popes did, Hinduism was and is blamed for caste inequities, and so forth.
More to the point, a number of posts seem to undercut the bigger argument that the Prophet ought to be treated as an ordinary person, and that his life and actions do not hold a significant message for all Muslims or for Islam (ustruly, sattar here).
tahemd ji, could you address those posts, please.
philo
PM accepts the validity of religion WITHOUUT any recourse to reason, on the basis of faith alone.
PM, tahmed
Generally, religions do get condemned for things done in their name (not that Islam has to be - that's a different matter). So Christianity was blamed for papacy and what Popes did, Hinduism was and is blamed for caste inequities, and so forth.
More to the point, a number of posts seem to undercut the bigger argument that the Prophet ought to be treated as an ordinary person, and that his life and actions do not hold a significant message for all Muslims or for Islam (ustruly, sattar here).
tahemd ji, could you address those posts, please.
#249 Posted by giani_240 on July 24, 2007 1:20:06 pm
Re: # 248
PM, seems like you are feeling like there is no room to maneuver. Instead of addressing the philosphical issues like a student of philosophy you seem to be degenerating into name calling !!!! What philosophy do you study?
PM, seems like you are feeling like there is no room to maneuver. Instead of addressing the philosphical issues like a student of philosophy you seem to be degenerating into name calling !!!! What philosophy do you study?
#248 Posted by philosopher on July 24, 2007 1:15:11 pm
Well guys......seriously...being a student of philosophy its kinda pain in the butt to see educated folks discussing (determining) the validity of a religion on the basis of such issue.
I won't surprise to see this kinda stupidity from hamid buffoon and the hindu fundos here but.......PM(patrick)?
I won't surprise to see this kinda stupidity from hamid buffoon and the hindu fundos here but.......PM(patrick)?
#247 Posted by tahmed32 on July 24, 2007 1:13:42 pm
#244 PM: So, you think the pope just happened to be christian when anabaptists were burnt at the stake in the middle ages (over 200,000 by one estimate)? or that brahmins just happen to be hindus when they piled insult over injury over insult over untouchables through the centuries? or that advani just happened to be hindu when he demonstrated his leadership qualities in tearing down the mosque? Could have fooled me!
#246 Posted by khurram on July 24, 2007 1:08:22 pm
Re: Kaniz (#240).
Fatima too young for Umar?
Doesn't this support the argument of those who say that Ayesha was actually much older at the time of her marriage?
Fatima too young for Umar?
Doesn't this support the argument of those who say that Ayesha was actually much older at the time of her marriage?
#245 Posted by TOLKININ on July 24, 2007 1:00:17 pm
Shiva
The non antrhropomorphic Lingam form of Shiva is what is held in reverence in temples all over the sub continent. The Lingam is a symbol. It is a symbol of that which is invisible yet omnipresent. It is hence a a visible symbol of the Ultimate Reality which is present in us (and in all objects of creation ).
The Shivalingam denotes the primeval energy of the Creator.It is believed that at the end of all creation, during the great deluge, all of the different aspects of God find a resting place in the Lingam; Bhrama is absorbed into the right, Vishnu to the left and Gayatri into the heart. The Shivalingam is also a representation of the infinite Cosmic Column of fire, whose origins, Vishnu and Bhrama were unable to trace. (see Lingodbhavar).
Legend has it that Parvati fashioned a Shivalingam with a fistful of sand at Kanchipuram and worshipped Shiva; this lingam is known as the Prithvilingam, denoting the primordial element earth. Shivalingams in several temples are swayambus, or that which appeared on their own, or that which is untouched by a chisel. On the other hand, there are temples where the Shivalingam is carved out of stone and installed. The highly polished Shivalingams of the Pallava period bear several stripes, as in the Kailasanatha temple at Kanchipuram.
The Shivalingam is generally mounted on a circular or quadrangular receptacle called the Avudaiyar. This pedestal is designed so as to drain off the water offered during ablution ceremonies. In temples such as Kanchipuram, abhishekam is offered only to the pedestal and not to the Shivalingam made of sand. The bottom of the pedestal represents Bhrama, the octogonal middle represents Vishnu and the upper circular portion represents Shiva. The upper portion of the Shivalingam may be of various shapes, cylindrical, elliptical, umbrella shaped. Images may also be (rarely) carved on a Shivalingam.
Nandi, the bull is depicted facing the sanctum in all Saivite temples, symbolizing the human soul Jeevatma yearning for realizing its oneness with Paramatma, the ultimate reality.
Typically, the processional bronze images of Shiva are those of Somaskanda, Chandrasekhara, Bhikshatana and Nataraja. Although in most Shiva temples, the central shrine enshrining the Shivalingam is of the greatest importance, the Nataraja shrine is of greater importance at Chidambaram, the Somaskandar - Tyagarajar shrine is of greater significance at Tiruvar
The non antrhropomorphic Lingam form of Shiva is what is held in reverence in temples all over the sub continent. The Lingam is a symbol. It is a symbol of that which is invisible yet omnipresent. It is hence a a visible symbol of the Ultimate Reality which is present in us (and in all objects of creation ).
The Shivalingam denotes the primeval energy of the Creator.It is believed that at the end of all creation, during the great deluge, all of the different aspects of God find a resting place in the Lingam; Bhrama is absorbed into the right, Vishnu to the left and Gayatri into the heart. The Shivalingam is also a representation of the infinite Cosmic Column of fire, whose origins, Vishnu and Bhrama were unable to trace. (see Lingodbhavar).
Legend has it that Parvati fashioned a Shivalingam with a fistful of sand at Kanchipuram and worshipped Shiva; this lingam is known as the Prithvilingam, denoting the primordial element earth. Shivalingams in several temples are swayambus, or that which appeared on their own, or that which is untouched by a chisel. On the other hand, there are temples where the Shivalingam is carved out of stone and installed. The highly polished Shivalingams of the Pallava period bear several stripes, as in the Kailasanatha temple at Kanchipuram.
The Shivalingam is generally mounted on a circular or quadrangular receptacle called the Avudaiyar. This pedestal is designed so as to drain off the water offered during ablution ceremonies. In temples such as Kanchipuram, abhishekam is offered only to the pedestal and not to the Shivalingam made of sand. The bottom of the pedestal represents Bhrama, the octogonal middle represents Vishnu and the upper circular portion represents Shiva. The upper portion of the Shivalingam may be of various shapes, cylindrical, elliptical, umbrella shaped. Images may also be (rarely) carved on a Shivalingam.
Nandi, the bull is depicted facing the sanctum in all Saivite temples, symbolizing the human soul Jeevatma yearning for realizing its oneness with Paramatma, the ultimate reality.
Typically, the processional bronze images of Shiva are those of Somaskanda, Chandrasekhara, Bhikshatana and Nataraja. Although in most Shiva temples, the central shrine enshrining the Shivalingam is of the greatest importance, the Nataraja shrine is of greater importance at Chidambaram, the Somaskandar - Tyagarajar shrine is of greater significance at Tiruvar
#244 Posted by PM on July 24, 2007 12:57:04 pm
re. TAhmed #234:
"In any case, my point is that you dont condemn an entire religion due to something done in its name. Otherwise (as I have painstakingly tried to demonstrate by giving examples of Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism) every religion stands condemned. Every ideology (including Democracy, Capitalism, Communism) stands condemned."
I have to think you're being deliberately dense here. As others have already pointed out, there is a difference in killing in the name of religion (and providing justifications- flawed or otherwise-- for the killing), and killings by those who just happened to belong to a certain ideology. If you negate causative factors in such events, you may as well claim that ALL men are evil, since, from all evidence, all of those you mention were men.
But don't worry, you'd be in the company of some good feminists if you did argue that way! :0)
"In any case, my point is that you dont condemn an entire religion due to something done in its name. Otherwise (as I have painstakingly tried to demonstrate by giving examples of Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism) every religion stands condemned. Every ideology (including Democracy, Capitalism, Communism) stands condemned."
I have to think you're being deliberately dense here. As others have already pointed out, there is a difference in killing in the name of religion (and providing justifications- flawed or otherwise-- for the killing), and killings by those who just happened to belong to a certain ideology. If you negate causative factors in such events, you may as well claim that ALL men are evil, since, from all evidence, all of those you mention were men.
But don't worry, you'd be in the company of some good feminists if you did argue that way! :0)
#243 Posted by shishapa on July 24, 2007 12:52:03 pm
And Pakistani's in one stroke decided some Pakistanis who
were Hindus could not be head of state just because they
are Hindus.
Pakistanis do not talk, they just do it.
#242 Posted by sattar2 on July 24, 2007 12:50:53 pm
cliftonbridge #228,
Technically you are right about prayers, which is why I stayed away from it. And that’s why I referred to the Quran itself … which commands believers to send salutations to the Prophet (pbuh). Heck, Quran even warns believers not to marry Prophet’s widows after he (pbuh) passes away.
+++
hamidm,
I think tahmed sahib is either in denial, or is reading from a different Quran … one with several missing verses. Perhaps there is something to the goat story after all.
But the latest from Sahib is that … Quran is for Arabs only … and the rest of us should not worry about its commandments prohibiting alcohol and pork. So you were right all along in enjoying the good things our Lord has made for us. Takbeer.
+++
Kaniz (#240),
I was just about to point out the same. Thanks for the clarification; now it all makes sense ...
#241 Posted by giani_240 on July 24, 2007 12:42:58 pm
@235
(correction)
No, Pakistan was created because Muslims were afraid that Hindus being in majority would get power and treat them (muslims) as the latter had treated the hindus when they were were in power. They did not like what they saw when they looked back at their own behavior
(correction)
No, Pakistan was created because Muslims were afraid that Hindus being in majority would get power and treat them (muslims) as the latter had treated the hindus when they were were in power. They did not like what they saw when they looked back at their own behavior
#240 Posted by Kaniz-e-Fatima on July 24, 2007 12:42:18 pm
Correction, Asif Naqshbandi: Caliph Umar was not married to Um Kulthom Binte Ali (she married Aun Bin Jafer and was his widow in 680 A.D). It is impossible for Caliph Umar to have married her because, Caliph Umer wanted to marry Sayeda Fatima (Um Kulthom's mother) and the Prophet deemed even her to be too young for him. Caliph Umar was married to a very pious lady, Um Kulthom Binte Abu Bakr, who very likely could have been of similar age to her sister, lady Ayesha.
Also, minor detail, lady Ayesha cannot be addressed as "Syeda" because she is not an offspring of the Prophet, this title is reserved for Fatima Binte Muhammad Mustafa.
Also, minor detail, lady Ayesha cannot be addressed as "Syeda" because she is not an offspring of the Prophet, this title is reserved for Fatima Binte Muhammad Mustafa.
#239 Posted by giani_240 on July 24, 2007 12:41:31 pm
Re: # 235
No, Pakistan was created because Muslims were afraid that Hindus being in majority would get power and treat them (muslims) as the latter had treated the hindus when they were treated. They did not like what they saw when they looked back
No, Pakistan was created because Muslims were afraid that Hindus being in majority would get power and treat them (muslims) as the latter had treated the hindus when they were treated. They did not like what they saw when they looked back
#238 Posted by giani_240 on July 24, 2007 12:31:49 pm
Re: # 233
tahmed32 mian,
You should read what you wrote. You just confirmed what you say you do not do
tahmed32 mian,
You should read what you wrote. You just confirmed what you say you do not do
#237 Posted by Urstruly on July 24, 2007 12:22:54 pm
Re: # 232 PM
Here is one article that was published in Europe's Journal of Psychology. This article provides an anthropological and genetic explanation for the sexual affinity that older males feel towards younger females.
http://www.ejop.org/archives/2006/11/evolutionary_ps.html
Here is one article that was published in Europe's Journal of Psychology. This article provides an anthropological and genetic explanation for the sexual affinity that older males feel towards younger females.
http://www.ejop.org/archives/2006/11/evolutionary_ps.html
#236 Posted by tahmed32 on July 24, 2007 12:21:03 pm
hamidm: more bad news. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves. Does that negate his message that all men are created equal? Only in the minds of the masadis of the world. Do you want to be like Masadi then?? Cant see the forest for the trees?
#235 Posted by shishapa on July 24, 2007 12:19:29 pm
Was not Pakistan created because Hindus were deemed
tyrants just because they were in numerical majority and
could not be trusted and kicked out of Pakistan
and Pakistan has not regretted that?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MaheshG: Re: # 86 Besharam. Is... Pleas For Sanity as
- Eklavya: "One thing India can... Pleas For Sanity as
- MaheshG: What more is needed... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- ahmedmadani: Fortunately Indian chest beatingwill... Pleas For Sanity as
- bubba: Re: # 74 Posted... Pleas For Sanity as
- CoolAL: Ok, so jews have... An Indian Muslim
- Simon_Templar: The long continuing indian-sponsored... Mumbai Wounded
- Simon_Templar: Who is responsible ?. Indian... Karachi Riots! Who is








reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content