Democracy, not terror, is the engine of political Islam

zahid and laddu sahibs

Great discussion you have going here. A pleasure to see an actual consideration of different ideas.

Re: # 238

Dear Laddu Sahib,

The redundancy in a theory doesn’t have a bearing effect on the veracity of the theory as also implied by Occam’s Razor. Even if we assume for a moment that both monotheistic and pagan systems convey the same truth whereby merely differing in the form but they still differ in the perception of truth – and of course redundancy. The concept of the oneness of God in monotheism leads to the unshakable and unwavering belief in the oneness of the truth whereas pagan depiction of one divine Parmatma taking different forms leads to an unnecessary redundancy and unavoidable confusion regarding truth. That multiplicity of gods and goddesses or Parmatma’s forms makes his system of thought defocused making it certainly awfully difficult to decide which god, goddess or Parmatma’s form -- quite often at loggerheads -- is conveying the right message.

Fermat told us long ago that light always takes the shortest path between two points. God is perceived in monotheistic theologies as light so why should that light take a detour -- with God revealing himself to His creation through a multitude of gods or goddesses -- reaching the acceptor of that light, the believer? You say, “the 'nirvikalpa' sadhana or praying to formless god is the most difficult sadaana and is only reserved for advanced yogis or older people who have reached the sanyasa asharama stage.” So a monotheistic believer’s worship of an invisible God is to be compared with this advanced stage of pagan worship of Parmatma? Monotheistic theology bridges the gap between God and believer while keeping God invisible whereas the pagan belief despite Parmatma’s symbolic and physical presence as idols in the temples and houses always keeps Parmatma hidden and unreachable requiring spiritual elevation to be able to worship Parmatma directly.

The question still remains why a pagan mind requires the symbolic presence of Parmatma in his temples? And why multitude of gods and goddesses? You seem to be confusing angels with myriad gods and goddesses in the pagan belief which is not true. No monotheist in his right state of mind would start worshipping an angel which is a creation of the same God who created man.

You’ve touched upon the issue of obligatory prayers which might ward off God’s wrath from the believer. I think this system of prayers brings the believer a step closer to his God and gives his life an orientation and discipline. The notion that God is a bookkeeper of the prayers of a believer is rather childish though quite prevalent. But a more mature believer doesn’t restrict his relationship with God to the bare carrying out of some physical prayers. On the contrary he strives to make his whole life a continuous prayer always thinking about what’d be according to God’s will and what’d bring him away from Him.

An important point is the limitation of the pagan beliefs to some regions and cultures. Why do such beliefs lack a universal message which is exactly the cause of the innate urge of the monotheistic beliefs to spread their all-encompassing system and subdue the false systems.

Re: # 237

"With Occam’s Razor, are you implying that the monotheistic thought is merely simpler than the ‘complexer’ pagan philosophies and hence better understandable and acceptable by the common people who don’t have the capacity to understand a much more complex theory of paganism with myriad gods and goddesses frolicking around fulfilling their human-like low wishes transgressing all ethical lines?"

You have hit the nail on the head. Quranic message is supposed to be the simplest of all the messages. It is supposed to be understandable to the unlettered. Mohammad used the occam's razor like Abrahim did- quite literally. But the simplicity of the message does NOT prove its 'truth'. It still remains a matter of faith and its theology of Allah with 8 heavens , countless Angels, djinns, houries, animal and human souls is still a moot point. A pagan's deities and divine entities are as 'true' or 'false' as those of Islam. So, as an idolator I cannot accept that Islamic theology is 'more' true than my own traditional theology.

"The question remains, why, if the pagans believe in some one deity, do they need some idol before them to pray? Why do they need this proximity with their god? That proximity might’ve been a reason for the small radius of thought of paganism which remains a cultural philosophy. A monotheist feels his God with him but the invisible God remains aloof from him and that spiritual search for God in the infinite vast of the universe enhances the radius of his thought at least zillion times and makes his thought and look a universal one contrary to the thought and look of a pagan who remains bound to his cultural limits."

Pagan believes in the manifestations of one divine Parmatma in various forms- the most popular concept of it is in the philosophy of Bheda-abheda or diversity-in-unity.
Regarding 'praying' the God. Pagans do not consider God to be some sort of an evil dictator who needs to be pleased through sycophancy other wise he would torture you.
Pujan is like loving the God and for that the image and murtis of God are used to enhance the emotion of love towards God's various forms. During pujan of idols pagans lovingly call the spiritual mana of deities and express their love like they would do towards a real guest.
There is also a mental part of the visualization called MANAS PUJA through which the deities are prayed and lovingly offered through visualization only.
The entire experience is far fulfilling compared to that of visualizing a formless God.
The 'nirvikalpa' sadhana or praying to formless god is the most difficult sadaana and is only reserved for advanced yogis or older people who have reached the sanyasa asharama stage.

Re: #219, #221

Dear Laddu and Bubba Sahib,

You’ve raised the question, if a forward looking Muslim would “disavow any one of the five pillars of Islam?” A bigger question, however, is why should he do that? Does he feel that the system of prayers which brings him a step closer to his God and gives his life an orientation and a sense of responsibility before his Creator a burden? Does that system of prayers limits his thought in anyway? While he looks for new ways contrary to the backward looking believer who always insists upon reliving history, his will is not to turn his back to his God but to be a vehicle of bringing God’s message to newer times and situations thus spreading God’s message in a more dynamic way leaving the question of how people followed God’s word in the earlier centuries to his backward looking companion.

“Can he de-Arabize Islam?” This is exactly what a forward looking Muslim would do as has been stated by me in my earlier posts. There is a great difference between the timeless and universal Islamic message and its Arabic visage.

There is no point in facing away from Mecca while praying. The reason is certainly not that God lives in Mecca but the symbolism that unifies Muslims of all nations and times in accordance with the spiritual lines ensuring the continuity of history and tradition.

There is no harm in reading the Koran in any other language but the Arabic text ensures authenticity and serves as the reference.

A forward looking Muslim asks whether certain punishments were not more suitable for that specific culture in 7th century and is fundamentally willing to analyze the penal system bringing in the context of modern times and methods to encounter crimes thereby differentiating between crime and sin.

With Occam’s Razor, are you implying that the monotheistic thought is merely simpler than the ‘complexer’ pagan philosophies and hence better understandable and acceptable by the common people who don’t have the capacity to understand a much more complex theory of paganism with myriad gods and goddesses frolicking around fulfilling their human-like low wishes transgressing all ethical lines?

The question remains, why, if the pagans believe in some one deity, do they need some idol before them to pray? Why do they need this proximity with their god? That proximity might’ve been a reason for the small radius of thought of paganism which remains a cultural philosophy. A monotheist feels his God with him but the invisible God remains aloof from him and that spiritual search for God in the infinite vast of the universe enhances the radius of his thought at least zillion times and makes his thought and look a universal one contrary to the thought and look of a pagan who remains bound to his cultural limits.

Re: # 235

tahmed saheb,

The question that criminals amongst Hindus exist is not the moot point.
Criminals exist amongst ALL groups and religions and we all acknowledge that.
If violence against idolators is to be condemned then as a golden rule should be any violence against any other religious group in the name of religion- whosoever 'true' that religion claims itself to be.
There is no doubt about it in the modern world.
But we have to acknowledge the the problem is with these books and religions that need to be reformed. Islam cannot be reformed unless it's hate verses are specifically acknowledged and condemned by the Muslim themselves.
Unless people like you ostracize those Muslims who publicly agree that idolators like me need to be killed and made to pay jizya I cannot see any hope for the Muslims to turn towards moderation.

laddu #232 If you were only condemning Islamic terrorists who attack innocent people in marketplaces, airlines, buses etc., I would be with you. But when you paint all muslims with the same brush that is correctly applied only to terrorists, then you are operating at the same level as those "muslims" who paint all hindus with the same brush.

If you make this distinction between innocent people and criminals in any society, and if you acknowledge that you have criminal among hindus as you do among muslims - then you are not only being fair, you are also winning a lot more people to your side.

Re: # 233

naqshabandi,

you mean to say that muslims prefer to kill than to reform???

you mean that reforms would finish Islam?

I am sorry I cannot see any spirituality in sunnah or your Islam.

laddu

that manifesto by the reformislam group is just your wet dream which will never be fulfilled until every single muslim on this planet is killed. why? because to accept it would be the death of islam itself as it is an attack on the very foundationa principles of islam found in the koran and sunnah.

Re: # 231

tahmed saheb,

there is only a hmmmmmm from you on the pronouncements of violence towards idolators by wolfs like Naqshabandi, Zee and Echo.

See it from an idolator's point of view and as an outsider who has suffered the violence of Islamic Jihadis and Ghazis- not as an insider who thinks that Nashabandi's Islam is more subtle compared to that of Zee's.

For an outsider like me - both are heinous.

hmmmm....hindus whining about muslims, muslims whining about the west. in other words, another usual day on chowk...

http://www.reformislam.org/

OUR GOALS

* to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed
* to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists)
* to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic Terror



OUR MANIFESTO
Acknowledging mistakes
The majority of the terrorist acts of the last three decades, including the 9/11 attacks, were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists in the name of Islam. We, as Muslims, find it abhorrent that Islam is used to murder millions of innocent people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Inconsistencies in the Koran
Unfortunately, Islamic religious texts, including the Koran and the Hadith contain many passages, which call for Islamic domination and incite violence against non-Muslims. It is time to change that. Muslim fundamentalists believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah. But could Allah, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate, command mass slaughter of people whose only fault is being non-Muslim?

The Koran & the Bible
Many Bible figures from Adam to Jesus (Isa) are considered to be prophets and are respected by Islam. Islamic scholars however believe that both the Old and the New Testament came from God, but that they were corrupted by the Jews and Christians over time. While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does. Could it be possible that the Koran itself was corrupted by Muslims over the last thirteen centuries?

The need for reform
Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy. Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam (Islamic World) and Dar al-Harb (non-Islamic World), or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past. We, as Muslims who desire to live in harmony with people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists choose the latter option. We can no longer allow Islamic extremists to use our religion as a weapon. We must protect future generations of Muslims from being brainwashed by the Islamic radicals. If we do not stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies.

Accepting responsibilities
To start the healing process, we must acknowledge evils done by Muslims in the name of Islam and accept responsibility for those evils. We must remove evil passages from Islamic religious texts, so that future generations of Muslims will not be confused by conflicting messages. Our religious message should be loud and clear: Islam is peace; Islam is love; Islam is light. War, murder, violence, divisiveness & discrimination are not Islamic values.

Religious privacy
Religion is the private matter of every individual. Any person should be able to freely practice any religion as long as the practice does not interfere with the local laws, and no person must be forced to practice any religion. Just as people are created equal, there is no one religion that is superior to another. Any set of beliefs that is spread by force is fundamentally immoral; it is no longer a religion, but a political ideology.

Equality
Islam is one of the many of the world's religions. There will be no Peace and Harmony in the World if Muslims and non-Muslims do not have equal rights. Islamic supremacy doctrine is just as repulsive as Aryan supremacy doctrine. History clearly shows what happens to the society whose members consider themselves above other peoples. All moderate Muslims must repudiate the mere notion of Islamic supremacy.

Sharia
Sharia Law must be abolished, because it is incompatible with norms of modern society.

Outdated practices
Any practices that might have been acceptable in the Seventh Century; i.e., stoning, cutting off body parts, marrying and/or having sex with children or animals, must be condemned by every Muslim.

Outdated verses
The following verses promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination. They must be either removed from the Koran or declared outdated and invalid, and marked as such.

Outdated words & phrases
Use of the following words and phrases or their variations must be prohibited during religious services:
• Infidel/Unbeliever: these terms have negative connotation and promote divisiveness and animosity; Islam is not the only religion
• Jihad: this word is often interpreted as Holy War against non-Muslims
• Mujaheed/Holy Warrior: no more wars in the name of Islam
• American (Christian/Crusader/Israeli/Zionist) occupation: these terms promote bigotry; at this point in time, Muslims living in non-Muslim lands have more freedoms than Muslims living in Muslim lands

Islam vs. violence
Islam has no place for violence. Any person calling for an act of violence in the name of Islam must be promptly excommunicated. Any grievances must be addressed by lawful authorities. It is the religious and civic duty of every Muslim to unconditionally condemn any act of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam. Any Muslim group that has ties to terrorism in any way, shape, or form, must be universally condemned by both religious and secular Muslims.

Portrayal of Prophets
While portrayal of Prophets is not an acceptable practice in Islam could be personally offensive to some Muslims, other religions do not have such restrictions. Therefore, the portrayal of the Prophets must be treated as a manifestation of free expression.

The Crusades vs. The Inquisition
While the Inquisition was a repulsive practice by Christian Fundamentalists, the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands controlled by Muslims.

#223 Posted by maffrejal on September 26, 2007 2:08:45 am


Churches/Temples do allow other religion people as long as they follow christian way during that period.


you don't have to follow the "christian way" to attend church...there are a bunch of churches in bombay where you can attend services without any declaration of faith. A lot of hindus go to the mahim church just for the sermons.

My opinion is US/UK has always lived out of developing/poor countries. US/UK cheat developing/poor countries by denying the revenues due to them. This leads to revolt in long term. This behaviour is not unique to any religion or rather its a human trait. When revolt becomes War, people involved in War are blind. So they steriotype and generalise opinions and act on them. Only time can change them.

One can see that developed countries are no different from poor countries when US/UK started puting visa restrictions on Asian immigrants after they realised Asians are making honest (unlike them) money and geting prosperous. This is their way of jihad. The only difference is that they cheat. US/UK have always claimed they are honourable while consistently their behaviour is the opposite.

When Asian countries do the same, this ends up in US/UK starting a war on us. This is a vicious cycle.

"Why kill people if they are of same/different religion?"

It is a matter of DAWAH which is done through the sword- every dispute in Islam is resolved with whosoever wins in bloody war- it is the jungle raj - that is why evey momeen challenges an idolator to make their idols save their lives.

Islam's claim has always depended upon its terror and violence and not any goddam 'truth'.
That is why the threats of Osama are the appreciated by all muslims as the right way to push Islam.

There is one basic element that every religion (including Islam?) agrees. Love of life, Love of nature irrespective of who/what they/it are/is.."Love" is God. Does Islam agree with this? If so, why kill people if they leave Islam? Why kill people if they are of same/different religion?

Re: # 224

if that is true, God of Islam is a monopolist. I guess he is above MRTP Act.