Democracy, not terror, is the engine of political Islam

Re: # 252

"You say that Hinduism has monotheistic beliefs and name the supreme deity Brahma as a Hindu equivalent of God. If this is so simple, then why people still don’t accept it as monotheism when everyone knows that Hinduism is one of the oldest religions?"

That is because most of the people who believe in the semitic-abrahmic faith cannot accept the possibility monotheism co-existing with idolatory.

"If Vaishnavas don’t confront the outer evil and invade false systems, then the roots are to be found in the pagan belief itself which incites world-weariness in order to achieve spiritual elevation."

Vaishnavas certainly 'confront outer evil' but they do not go about killing those who do not believe in their 'truths'.
They certainly pray to the Lord Vishnu whenever there is invasion from people with evil Asuras or Rakshasa Prakriti (inclinations) who does send in his messenger (doot) or comes to the mortal world as Avatar in order to destroy those evil persons.
There is nothing "world - weariness" about achieving spiritual elevation as per idolator Hindu Shastras because apart from Sanyasa Dharma even through "Karma Yoga" and "Bhakti Yoga" one can live in the world and yet achieve the spiriual heights as a house holder (grihastha).

Re: # 253

Dear Raw Dust,

Would you please explain what you mean with this:

"This is the sacred Heart of Islam, if you will, in other words temporal-Nihilism in the cause of Eternal Goodness of Allah. Nazis had the same logic.

zahid-e-khushk is obligated to not make a moral judgment or else he will be committing Kuf'r/(unbelief in Allah)."

I've the impression that you've missed the previous exchanges between me and Laddu Sahib on this page. May I ask you to go through them?

laddu:
May I interject?
The "Will Of Allah" is insurmountable by human reason alone because Allah is the sole possessor of complete knowledge (Ilm-e-Ludni or some thing like that).

Therefore, it immediately follows that a cruel, immoral act is just one manifestation of Allah since Allah WILLS it. Due to human limitation of not having *cough* Ilm-e-Ludni *cough* and human beings being severely constrained on Time-Axis - human beings cannot causally see the overall GOODNESS in Allah's act. That only Allah CAN see because he has a 100% foresight, unlike humans.

This is the sacred Heart of Islam, if you will, in other words temporal-Nihilism in the cause of Eternal Goodness of Allah. Nazis had the same logic.

zahid-e-khushk is obligated to not make a moral judgment or else he will be committing Kuf'r/(unbelief in Allah). Unbelief in Allah is an unforgivable sin, he knows that. So, the more you drag this argument on the more you effectively drag him onto walk on Pul-e-Siraat (A hair-breadth wide rope stretched over the cauldron of Hell).

Re: # 250, 251

Dear Laddu Sahib,

The history of Aztec conquest by Christian conquistadors and the Aztec welcome of their own hangman based upon their scriptures substantiates that their faith was to be replaced by the Christian one. If that was not God’s plan then what?

World history is witness of Christian and Islamic expansion. They invaded countries and replaced the existing systems with theirs. The only substantial pagan expansion in the history was Hellenism which was but more about self-assertion and hardly about the spreading of the word of their gods. The question is unavoidable, why do the pagan systems lack an innate urge to spread and confront what a monotheist would call evil. The roots of that inactivity must lie in the perception of pagan beliefs.

An explanation could be the pervasiveness of truth in pagan beliefs. The pagan system is defocused because of the pervasive truth where Permatma/Brahma being everything or at least everything aspiring to be merging with him and one can not be in fight with oneself!

A detrimental blow to this focus is caused by a multitude of Brahma’s forms and of course the myriad power sharing gods who are literally worshipped by Hindus. These gods can not be compared with angels in monotheistic theologies where an angel is merely seen as God’s messenger and servant and certainly not as someone who shares power with God. And that’s why we don’t see angels’ idols in churches and mosques.

The monotheistic mind clearly differentiating between God and His creation with no way of any merger between them – leaving aside some Sufi schools of thought as has been explained by Daniel Berk in his article. The perception of one single truth contributes to the significance of that truth which needs to be spread if it is to be saved from the false systems which might engulf the monotheistic truth and that would be Satan’s victory. Whereas a Hindu or Buddhist may have some directions to make their daily lives better (kama, artha, and dharma) that all remains specific to the believer. The big picture misses here which is a fundamental part of the monotheistic beliefs and contributes immensely to the character building of the believer to confront evil. So, it’s not always the lust and greed that drives the monotheistic armies to invade but a completely different world view. That personal lust and greed of the believers give that merely a spurt.

If Vaishnavas don’t confront the outer evil and invade false systems, then the roots are to be found in the pagan belief itself which incites world-weariness in order to achieve spiritual elevation.

You say that Hinduism has monotheistic beliefs and name the supreme deity Brahma as a Hindu equivalent of God. If this is so simple, then why people still don’t accept it as monotheism when everyone knows that Hinduism is one of the oldest religions?

Re: # 249

"ou’re still mixing that innate urge to spread the Word of God with ‘criminal’ actions. "

You are not getting my point of view. What you call as "innate" is to me just a name calling/stereotyping and a "naturalistic fallacy" in order to justify what the victims idolators see as 'criminal' and genocidal actions perpeterated upon them in the name of Islam.

I reiterate that Hinduism have mono-theistic doctrines like in Vaishnaivism or Shaivism whenre the Vishnu or Shiva is like the Allah and rest of the deities are like the Angels subservient to Allah.

Vaishnaivism has the notion of a Baikuntha as well as Naraka ( Jannat and Jahannum) as well as an angel of death and angel (deva) who keeps the account of one's deeds.

But I am yet to see Vaishnavas killing and raping and looting in the present times if others do not accept the 'truths' of Vaishnaivism.

"A marked difference between Hinduism and Buddhism and monotheistic systems is that the former ones are preoccupied with self-abnegating world-weariness in order to achieve spiritual elevation and the latter ones perceive themselves as world-forming and that gives the believer a sense of responsibility toward spreading the Word of God."

Firstly, this notion of Hinduism being self-abnegating is FALSE- Hinduism is concerned with Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha in equal proportions and consider the fulfilment of these Chatus Purushartha as an important part of their divine duty.
A Hindu life is divided into 4 Ashramas or 4 . Just as study during Brahmacharya is important, the pursuit of Kama and Artha is equally important.
Remember that hindu idolators have specialized texts in Artha like the Artha Shastra or in Kama like the Kama Sutra. Hindu idolators are required to live their lives to the full within their professional calling enjoying the worldly pleasures.
It is only during the old age and during the Ashrama of sanyassa when people should withdraw and meditate on the formless Brahman in order to attain moksha or dissolution into that formless Brahman.
So, a normal hindu life is a life of 100 years (Shatam Sharada) which is divided into 4 parts and a human being is supposed to live his life to the full and then attain release in the later stages of life.

This impression about self-abnegation as the only defining part of hindu way of life is completely FALSE!!!

Re: # 245 and 246

Dear Laddu and KaalChakra Sahib,

The issue of predestination is present in both Christianity and Islam but Christianity’s believe that God works through history has shaped the Christian thought much more than the Islamic thought which stresses more upon the free will of man.

If we consider the conquest of Aztec kingdom (Mexico) by Spanish general Don Hernando Cortes then the unfolding of God’s plan and working of God through history as believed by Christianity and Islam becomes evident. The Aztec scriptures told them that someday white gods would come from the east across the water. Thus Cortes and his men entered the city, not only as guests, but also as gods coming home -- only to conquest it. So, the question arises what made those Aztec pagans maverick that they greeted their own hangman if not God’s plan?

You’re still mixing that innate urge to spread the Word of God with ‘criminal’ actions. Both Muslims and Christians subjugated the pagan systems, enrich themselves but not seeing in those campaigns that divine mission would be a folly. The theory tells us that one individual might fight in the way of God but still end up in the hell because of his malintentions. But that doesn’t make the self-sacrificing struggle in the name of God something inherently evil.

You’ve raised the issue of Occam’s Razor apparently only to make the Christian and Islamic thought look a ‘simple’ version of the truth which is probably to be found in the highly populous mythology of pagan systems with myriad characters communicating with each other making it a great puzzle to dig out the ‘truth’ from that cacophony. Now the principles of Occam and Fermat urge us to avoid redundancy which is totally contrary to the nature. Since God created this nature, it must be a reflection of how he thinks. As I said earlier, redundancy in a theory doesn’t increase its truth value.

You’ve talked about Kama, Krodha and Moha (greed, lust and anger) which you see in these monotheistic theologies and that according to your view have always been the driving force behind the spreading of the Word of God. But this view can only be maintained if one overlooks, for instance, the early history of Christianity which gives us a totally different picture with apostles travelling tirelessly and everywhere to bring the divine message to the people living with false beliefs – and without a sword! Christians were persecuted for their denial of the pagan beliefs but they remained resolute. Later when they gained power they also used it in order to spread the Word of God and confront the false systems. Muslims were undoubtedly more agile and confrontational in their earliest history than the Christians and that’s because of their concept of the holy war.

Monism and monotheism are quite different. A marked difference between Hinduism and Buddhism and monotheistic systems is that the former ones are preoccupied with self-abnegating world-weariness in order to achieve spiritual elevation and the latter ones perceive themselves as world-forming and that gives the believer a sense of responsibility toward spreading the Word of God.

Re: # 246

I do not think you are given the task of judging who is winning or losing in the arguments!

If you read carefully I am criticizing the justification provided to absolve criminal muslims for committing violence against my hindu pagan fore fathers by saying that "In this sense, those brutal invaders were also doing God’s work and the coming generations would profit from that work".

you do not understand it because you obviously are not a hindu idolator.

May be your most recent exchange with my friend zee (the evil Islamist) and hamidm bhai (the good man) might hint at why you (IMO) went wrong in abandoning ideas in favor of people.

laddu bhai

Zahid is speaking of basic religious ideas, and how they shape behavior. He fully understands that there will always be internal diversity, and that diversity is hardly relevant.

You were speaking of basic religious ideas too, until the fag end of # 245, when you suddenly switched to talking about 'criminal Islamists' and 'criminal Muslims' who are supposedly using the 'mask of Islam'.

I may be wrong but, IMHO, at this point, you have totally lost the debate.

Zahid Saheb,

Islam's Occam razor has been literally USED by muslims in order to let their basic animal instincts of greed, lust and anger ( Kama, Krodha and Moha) take control over themselves and justify their loot, rape and plunders.

There is a huge spiritual literature on Monotheism as well s Absolute Monism within tradition of Vedas (called Upanishads) as well as the folk literature like Kabir , Naath panthis and various ascetic Sadhu Sects within hindu tradition.

I am yet to see them use their monism and monotheism to justify their actions arising out of kaama , krodha and moha. Does that imply that they should also start killing and raping asking every one else to convert to their monotheistic faith?
Can we allow all those Sadhu sects to justify their depravities in the name of "tendencies of MONOTHEISM"??
Can we allow Vedantins to kill , rape and plunder because the rest of the world does not believe in their form of monotheism??
The answer is in negative.

Finally, to say that "In this sense, those brutal invaders were also doing God’s work and the coming generations would profit from that work" is based upon the the false theory of pre-destination that tries to blame God for every criminal act arising out of human depravity

This is evil form of Satanic Fatalism that is used as a mask by criminal Islamists to hide their evil intentions!!

It is time criminal muslims stop using the mask of Islam to hide and absolve themselves of their evil actions.

Re: # 242

Dear Laddu Sahib,

Your protest regarding the brutal conquest of the pagan India by Muslims is understandable. No honest enquirer would determine that the only trouble that these invaders had with the pagan India was India’s paganism and the denial of one God but personal and vested interests to enrich themselves. Certainly they were not in all cases driven solely by some divine call to end the denial of God by Hindus. That personal interest gave spurt to those campaigns. A look at the conquest of the Americas by Christian conquistadors lets us determine the same pattern. So, it substantiates the innate urge of these monotheistic beliefs to spread and subdue the false systems as these religions – driven by their unshakable belief in the oneness of the absolute truth, which is a direct consequence of the belief in the oneness of God -- inherently look disparagingly upon the pagan beliefs which are considered by them as a direct consequence of Satan’s incited waywardness. It wouldn’t be unwise to see in such brutal conquests besides grave sins the unfolding of God’s plan. Through such actions people could get to know the Word of God and eventually accept it. In this sense, those brutal invaders were also doing God’s work and the coming generations would profit from that work as we see that so many people in India and the Americas converted to the monotheistic belief.

You say , “Hindu idolator belief does NOT consider almighty to reveal ONCE to a special person that you call as prophet and then goes to sleep“.

This is the belief of Deism that God made the world like a clockmaker and then left it to run by itself. But this is for the monotheists a mere speculation. A fundamental belief of Monotheism is the belief in the Ruling God! God is not sleeping. He is awake and gives the history a direction which could, however, only be discerned on a greater time scale.

zahid: Monotheism has an innate urge to spread itself and subdue false systems.

laddu: Monotheism has no such innate urge.

What could be behind this dramatic difference? Could we be using the label of "monotheism" for two radically different (may be opposite?!) things?

If you have time and inclination, it might be useful to know what precisely monotheism is - not generally, but very specifically in relation to the rest of your two sesparate religious systems?

This seems like good work.

Re: # 239

"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."

There is no 'lack of universal message' in pagan thoughts, the concept of following the golden rule is very much the basis of pagan moral values- no pagan considers stealing as acceptable or killing another pagan as alright or even committing adultery as alright- it is only an old Islamist propaganda that pagans were morally 'inferior' in order to justify their violence against them.
Ther is NOTHING INNATE in a montheistic religions desire!! IT is just a way to justify the fascistic tendencies within Islam that tries to absolve the depravity and criminality of muslims and transfers their culpability to MONTHEISTIC TENDENCIES!! IT is plain nonsense. Muslims commit crime and call it as a result of MONOTHEISM. That is why nirvikalpa and Brahman Sadhana is only prescribed for Sanyasins in hindu idolator thought because immature and greedy Bedouin minds can never undertake the Sadhana of a formless god.

"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."

There is no confusion. If the entire man kind is a manifestation of one adam and one eve then its million of progrnies as as 'true' as Adam and Eve themselves.
Hindu idolator scripture consider reality in its ultimate form as ONE. The concept of one Brahman as the 'Sat' is enshrined in Hindu idolator thought and is very prominent in the Aranyakas and Upanishad portions of the Vedas. These portion are supposed to be meditated upon by older people and sanyasis or renunciants. Upasana of formless Brahman is the most difficult of all the sadhanas and can easily lead to negationism and destructive tendencies if not done with a sense of 'tyaga' and 'vairagya'.


"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."

There is no confusion regarding 'message' which is contained in Vedas and Upanishads. These are straight forward message regarding manner of praying to the forces of nature (Surya, Varun, Agni, Prithivi etc.), psychological forces (Rta, Swaha, Swadha etc.) and other metaphysical Deities that control the different realms of metaphysical worlds (Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesha and their female Shaktis).

Hindu idolator belief does NOT consider almighty to reveal ONCE to a special person that you call as prophet and then goes to sleep, rather considers the possibility of direct communication with the divine to be possible for EVERY ONE with sufficient sadhana and faith. Infact, even Lord Shiva could be revealed to Ravana through his sadhana.
Infact , lord krishna revealed to a lot of muslim devotees like Ras Khan. This is very personal form of revelation that makes hindu idolator thought as a very personal, emotional spiritual practice to experience the divine almighty contrary to the set of Islamic propositions that were transcribed in cold logic and precision a thousand of years ago.

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.

Per the book converting from islam to another religion is death, the final proof of teh islamic belief that there is only one god, the islamic god.

Mosques in India does not allow non-muslims to come into mosque during prayers. Churches/Temples do allow other religion people as long as they follow christian way during that period. So those who are talking about restricting people based on caste etc., have to think about what Islam is doing differently. Untouchability is universal in ALL religion. No Religion does actually allow for discrimination. Its the people who interpret/incite these.

Re: # 221

Even the Jews, Christians, Hindu-Advaitin, Hindu-Vaishnava, Hindu-Dvaitin, Hindu-Shaiva, Hindu-Shakta, Animists and Greek Pagans have this concept of ONE Deity that is considered as the cause of the world. Occam's Razor DOES not imply or prove 'reality' of the one entity that is left after applying it . Infact, this obsession with occam's razor is what causes muslims to behead the idolators and is the root of violence in Islam. An idolator's metaphysical entities are as real or false as Islam's one God and his countless djinns and angels.

The fact remains that the metaphysics of One God essentially carries a hierarachy of other un-provable and false entities like Satan, Jinns, Houries, Angels, 8 heavens , many hells , Angels from hell and countless of the souls.
They are NO more 'real' than the deities like hindu Yama-raj that control and supervise the activities of the metaphysical worlds and its entities inhibiting the nether worlds that are also present in most of the theologies - whether Hindu, Jewish, Chinese or Christian.

To think that the Islamic metaphysical entities are MORE real than the Hindu or Christian nether worlds is plain nonsense and at best a propaganda. To call other's metaphysics as MYTH and Islamic metaphysics as REAL - is plain intellectual hypocrisy that abounds in muslim psyche.

Re: # 206

"Forward looking Muslims don’t disavow God but continue to believe in the oneness of God with all fundamental tenets of Islam. The theological system remains the same."

This is plain rot.

Can you de-Arabinize Islam?
Can you stop reading Quran in Arabic?
Can you stop praying fcing towards mecca and do it towards the statute of liberty?
Can you reject Shariah which is essentially bedoiun culture ?
Can you let women go out without veil and make men wear those shuttlecocks?

This thing about "forward looking muslim" is just a myth- it is at best a taquiyya- it is the rsult of confused thinking of those brought up on a peace loving Mohammad when the reality was completely converse to that!!

I totally disagree that its only Islam that is about oneness of god. It has been inherent in Hindu relegion that there is only ONE god. Since there is only one supreme power, the so called Satan is UNDER this God's control. With that in mind think about the existense of Satan and the intent of God.

Re: # 206

Agreed that forward looking pagans have nothing in common with forward looking muslims or with backward looking muslims.

Refer to post #201: For a rational thinking muslims (an oxymoron?!) using the faculty of his mind can he disavow any one of the five pillars of Islam?

Tahmed #217 {"...I must be writing something true ..."}

Just like the old rooster who continues to crow with all his might because he is convinced that he makes the sun rise. LOL.

echoboom/salimchauhan#211 you are entitled to make up facts. you are also entitled to express them in your own filthy ways.

with jay thakeray (who comes to demonize muslims on chowk), echoboom (who comes to prove he is something on chowk), and salimchauhan( who comes to ridicule whoever he thinks he can get away with - senile old men, females) all fired up...I must be writing something true. Because truth hurts, not lies.

Echo Bhai #215,
The arrogance of Pakistani hypocrites, working against the very interests of Pakistan, is more pernicious than any malicious act by our enemas.

salim:214
What you consider peeing on them, they enjoy it as golden-showers....the damn Perverts!

#213 Echo Bhai,
Without a doubt, I agree with your position regarding the purple paint on the putrid posteriors of the pusillanimous pretenders playing their perfidy against Pakistan.

Salim:211

Thee should never be any let-up or respite in exposing the laal laal orange orange posteriors of the two ChootarRooooons* of CHOWK.

*in their gora-maaster lingo they are called assholes which they always take as a compliment..here it is NOT a compliment..in case the ChootarRooooons start getting ideas.

harish_hyd #203 {"This is what I find most irritating about you. ..at every other place and especially pertaining to Indians and Hindus and even Muslims, you jump in quickly to label them. Perhaps Salim bhai is right about you. "}

Dear Harry,
Believe me, my friend, it was not easy to recognize, identify, and take on this Paki pretender as a genuine, equal opportunity racist bigot. His lack of compassion, his blatant hypocrisy, and his thinly-disguised bias all work in unison to expose him to BOTH Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus and Muslims. The man is the work of the devil - nothing less.

jayp #205 {"Other than calling people names, tahmed has not contributed anything to discussions on chowk. The man has no views on anything, other than condemning people. All his posts are personal attacks on some one or the other."}

Jayp,
Please allow me to disagree with you slightly. This hypocrite has contributed to the further dismantling of Pakistan by fanning the flames of racial bigotry, provincialism, and displaying a thoroughly anti-Mohajir stance. He alone personifies the callous rejection of repatriation for the hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis "stranded" in Bangladesh.

For all his efforts AGAINST the true interests of Pakistan, this senile old hate-monger deserves to have his posterior painted orange.

zahid, thanks! That is a good explanation. Let me see if I can summarize it without distorting it.

Conservative (with its extreme of regressive) vs progressive (with its extreme of lunatic/delusional) may be one of the fundamental operative divides of (wo)mankind.

Since both Muslim conservatives (and regressives) and Muslim progressives (and lunatic/delusional) remain unquestionably Muslim (knowingly or not), the divide enters the otherwise well-knit world of Islam too.

If that is a fair representation, we may consider a tiny wrinkle to build on this view. Given that Islam provides a powerful, all-encompassing worldview toward the creation of an exalted society, the progressive (lunatic/delusional) - conservative (regressive) divide may be unfolding somewhat differently within the world of Islam than in the pagan world. That is, there may be an interactive effect between religious views and group dynamics. (to speculate even further - we may find a little sharpening of the edges).

Paki cricket captain said how he had support of ALL muslims and he expressed regret to ALL muslim that he lost the final... :)...

Even at the highest level, pakis can't think beyond their bedouin-ness... unbelievable...

#205 Jayp - I do once in a while call people "names", typically "liar". But then I substantiate this "name" by pointing to what some lie that he wrote.

As for contributions to chowk, I have contributed a few articles to chowk (all positive in nature), and when exchanging posts with posters interested in issues rather than personal insults, I refrain from that. Those articles are still there for any objective person to readily see, and my thousands of poss are there as well.

So, once again I have caught you lying. Once again I offer you the chance to disprove this, or else remain exposed as a shameless liar.

And talking of having contributed nothing to chowk other than personal insults - show me one article you have contributed to chowk. And tell me honestly if 95% of your posts over the past 10 years on chowk have been anything other than hate-mail about muslims and/or Pakistanis.

harish_hyd: The "countless" threads I have written against stereotyping have to do with Indians painting muslims/Pakistanis as terrorists. Including this one to "bubba" that you find irritating (ignoring the crap writen about muslims by him).

Get your basic facts right, then come talk to me.

Re: # 201

Dear Babbu Sahib,

Contrary to your assimilation between forward looking pagans and Muslims the bridge not only between them and their corresponding backward looking brethren but also between them remains insurmountable. Forward looking Muslims don’t disavow God but continue to believe in the oneness of God with all fundamental tenets of Islam. The theological system remains the same. What differs is their unwillingness to carry with them through the centuries the cultural aspects of Islam’s earliest history which is undoubtedly Arabic and their assertive and critical view of religious thought bringing in the changed realities on the ground which were then unknown to the people and this is in contrast with the backward looking Muslims who remain stuck in a time warp of Islamic earliest history and will not settle unless they’ve restored the circumstances of that phase of humanity in their lives.

Despite these differences, the forward looking Muslims unlike forward looking pagans keep believing in the oneness of God and hence remain alien to each other.

Other than calling people names, tahmed has not contributed anything to discussions on chowk. The man has no views on anything, other than condemning people. All his posts are personal attacks on some one or the other.

Re: # 196

"of course these are the only kind of 'muslims' which are acceptable to our friends like laddu sahib."

Naqshabandi ji,

you are a wolf in sheep's clothing- that is now clear to me. If you had shown even a bit of guts and said "La illahi.." then perhaps I would have thought that your sufism has some depth.
But , you are no different from the Moududi crap followers. and are certainly exposed from your willingness to accept violence towards idolators and payment of Gunda Tax called Jizya by them.
I do not care if Salman Khan or any muslim prays to Lord Ganesha or not - if he does good for him- his vighnas would certainly subside if he has the correct faith.
I am only worried about the the violence that faithfuls like you clearly INTEND to commit against me because I am an idolator who has rejected the message of hate arising out of Quran.
The approval of violence against idolator hindus from so -called sufi followers is even more disturbing because of the false propaganda of 'peace loving' sufism that is eing spread when the reality is completely different.
Sufis like you do not form part of the Gnostic tradition that Martin Ling talks about - you are a slur in the name of Gnostic tradition!!

#202 by tahmed32

This is what I find most irritating about you. On countless other threads, especially anything that pertains to the US and Americans, you wax eloquently about how we should avoid generalizing and stereotyping. Yet at every other place and especially pertaining to Indians and Hindus and even Muslims, you jump in quickly to label them. Perhaps Salim bhai is right about you.

Sri "Bubba" Clinton #201 Alas, if only we muslims were rational and logical like hindus. :-( I understand that the perfectly rational Sri Spock of Star Trekpura fame was a hindu too.

Re: # 200

Good theory, but does not apply to most muslims' thoughts. Rational thoughts have no place in Islamic theology. When it comes to beliefs there is no place for mind, or mind keepers, whether forward looking or backward looking. If you place importance to mind being the sole executioner of Islamic faith then there could be no difference between practicing muslims or the pagans, who are being persecuted.

It appears that those pagans who have forward looking minds would be similar in their beliefs to muslims who have forward looking minds. If this is true, then there is no difference between these two groups of people. Is there?

If the forward looking Islamic mind rejects the five pillars of Islam, does he still remain a muslim?

Re: # 193

Dear KaalChakra,

You’ve raised an important question regarding the discord among Muslims with firm believe in the oneness of God, which not only induces as you’ve also said brotherhood among the believers but requires it. In this discordant picture, however, the overwhelming set of similarities can not be overlooked by an honest enquirer. You’ll hardly find discord about the oneness of God, the tradition of prophethood and its completion by Prophet Muhammed, Quran being the word of God, the responsibility before God, the system of prayers – though here you might find some minor differences in the rituals.

But I think you’ve raised this question in a socio-political context. The notion that Muslims ‘can’t take care of their business’ would have to be reconsidered when applied to earlier Muslim states very progressing in literary and political terms like Spain. Coming back to the present time, it must be accepted, however, that Muslims are in a state of disarray and disorientation with regard to the developments in the world.

In my opinion, we’ll have to distinguish between two mindsets: backward and forward looking who are involved in a tug of war. Whereas the earlier look toward the time when the Prophet lived for their understanding of the problems of the present time thus denying the existence of a clear direction given to the history by God -- which is certainly in the forward direction – and blocking the flow of ideas which results in and caused by an anti-progress state of mind, the latter don’t want to deny the existence and significance of the knowledge that the mankind has accumulated since the passing of the Prophet and see the God-given forward direction to the history and accept it. The backward looking mind in its urge to follow the prophet in order to achieve salvation wants to relive history believing that a step not in line with that of the Prophet would take the believer away from the right path and so would cost him heaven. The forward looking sees the same things but doesn’t forget the context and is able and willing to differentiate between history and the core message of religion which is and must be timeless and cultureless but able to unfold itself in any culture following certain lines. The backward looking mind feels insecure when the historical picture is no more to be seen and strives to create the same and well-acquainted situation where the believer could be certain about the ‘right’ path without the need to fathom out this way in a new situation which increases the odds of ending up in the fangs of Satan who casts doubts. Here you’ll see at least great reservations and in the extreme case an outright rejection of democracy, which is rooted in a negative image of man who could very easily be incited by Satan into erring thus overstepping his role as the slave of God by overwriting God’s will by his own which is to be seen as an affront to God.

The forward looking though no less God-loving and earnest in his search for the ‘right’ path rejects the reliving of the history and relies more on his God-given faculties to find his way in a new situation in a post-Prophet era thereby taking the risk of being abducted by Satan but his trust in God along with the conviction in the forward direction of history helps him overcome his fear. Such a mind believes that everyone possesses partial truth and no one possesses absolute truth. You’ll find here less fear of ideas and more elements of modernity like democracy. This faith in democracy is not only the result of a more positive image of man but also of fear of becoming the slave of some human being playing the vicegerent of God though without possessing the absolute truth.

I hope other friends could add a lot to this.

Re: # 198

Easy - Naqshbandi just needs to strap his suicide belt and blow up the apostate... allah will be very pleased and wil have a special batch of gilmans for him...

Freking bedouins and their stupidity - it never ends... :)

#195 Posted by Naqshbandi on September 24, 2007 2:34:25 pm


clearly said that salman apostated from his religion


apostasy? Doesn't that require you to behead him?

Lets see if you have the guts to carry that out in India..

#195
Do bareilvi see any film which is allowed by the faith.If so which movie does not have a apostate if you mean any non muslim.
Forget about laddui who listen to that lunatic bizerk fools advise

of course these are the only kind of 'muslims' which are acceptable to our friends like laddu sahib.

btw, talking of islam, the noble scholars of bareilly sharif, UP, have issued a fatwa of kufr against salman khan the actor for doing pooja at a ganesha temple and for taking an idol of the elephant-nosed idol home and doing ganpati or whatever. astaghfirullah. rightly, the scholar--and remember bareilly sharif is the headquarters of the sufi-orientated traditional islam of indo-pak--clearly said that salman apostated from his religion and if he wishes to be a muslim he must repent and read the kalimah again.

i am not going to watch that apostate's films again.

#190 SalimChauhan: My conscience is clear. I dont go running around chowk labelling people hypocrites and wishing death upon them because I dont agree with their views on any issue.

Zahid, you are most welcome. Patently, you will add significantly to our store of knowledge. As part of welcome, allow me to place before you a query that came to mind reading # 189. It's not a 'trick question' but something that non-Muslims might ask you.

Muslims, undoubtedly, have a clear universal message and an innate sense of brotherhood. Pagans, as you correctly identified, have to struggle against a patchwork of beliefs, a full rolodex of gods, and no message of any specificed brotherhood.

Yet, Muslims seem to disagree more among themselves (even in such a trivially small world as that of chowk), not only theologically but also about what they should be doing with their own societies, or with those of others.

Liberal and sufi-loving Hindus and even many muslims offer (as you must have found on chowk already) very uncharitable explanations, implying that Muslims (the people, the leaders, or both) inherently can't take care of their business, allowing internal conflict and confusion and external manipulation. This strikes me as possibly wrongheaded.

I will check back tomorrow, and would love to know your views. Thanks.

Hamidumdum2 Sahib,
Sir,
Why have you selected the perpetual role of Mullah Ji Do pyaza for yourself? It's so demoralizing to see you be the straight man for all the Beerbal wannabee horrible hindoos on Chowk, who display their wit easily against you to the detriment of the Oomaa.
Have you ever tried emulating Noor Jahan? :)

Re: # 189

Thanks KaalChakra!

Tahmed #59 {"
You also call me a hypocrite and wish death upon me. And for this you mention the one issue ("Stranded Pakistanis") which you have been using for years on chowk to abuse me without burdening yourself with what my views are on this issue and the reasons for those views.

There is nothing I can do to stop you from this kind of behavior on chowk. But rest assured that I am not intimidated by such bullying. "}

Tahmed Saheb,
Most decent people start off by admitting their mistake and apologizing for their offensive rhetoric. I am not bullying you any more than your own esteemed conscience should be doing. Peace. :)

Zahid # 184 was a particualarly good exposition of a part of Islamic view on monotheism. Zahid, welcome to chowk.

Islam's followers are not insecure as has been unfoundedly suggested here but their religion gives them the greatest innate urge to confront the evil and subdue it.

Though sometimes, a momentary lapse of reason on the part of some juvenile followers results in some unruly behavior inconsistent with the Islamic ethical code but even then that behavior often falls short of the mosques-destroying pogroms of the pagans with no exalted socio-ethical system.

cult: small unpopular religion
religion: large popular cult

islam: cult with the most insecure followers who threaten to behead anyone who says anything about the cult leader..that is, mo..

You are bothered by a nuance in Islamic theology regarding life after death, and not the usual degrading of people of other faith almost always done by muslims, especially the jews.

Pakis choke again!!!!

Go India!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Laddu Sahib and Ranjit Babu,

That attitude which is perceived by many as absolutistic is a natural outcome of the unshakable belief in the oneness of God. Many gods represent prima facie a more ‘democratic’ and ‘open-minded’ picture but a closer look demystifies it as a confusing cacophony. The rest is done by the lack of a big spiritual picture mainly because the frolicking gods and goddesses look more focussed on the fulfilment of their human-like drives rather than educating the human being which could only explain the missing universal message and an exalted socio-ethical system in the pagan beliefs. As I said earlier there is not much room for theological distraction in monotheistic religions in particular about the oneness of God. You make a compromise here and the whole system of thought collapses. So, you can not be a monotheist and puzzled about and wavering in your God’s image at the same time.

#174 Ranjit
"I do not believe in such nonsense. No hindu has lived beyond normal life spans. Anyone who says otherwise is a charlatan".

That is not the point. You and I could dismiss it all we want, as do many other people I am sure. But the fact remains that lots of Hindus believe it; and not only does it not weaken their faith, I am certain that it strengthens it. The phenomenon of abnormal longevity, whether real or imagined, does not adversely affect the faith of a believer.

So you original question is answered; The prolonging of life span, by whatever means, is not going to lead to weaking of faith for muslims.

ranjit
[...its emphasis on equality and egalitarianism of all men...]

Not true. Not for ALL MEN, only Muslim Men... women in islam are not equal... even the "eqaulity" of men itself is subject on a scale of piety...

Islam is nothing but a tribalistic cult system... sure, there are some redeeming features, but it has nothing to do with equality human beings in general...

Re: #180
Dear Laddu Sahib and Ranjit Babu,

You’ve left many parts of my description unmentioned and’ve chosen to focus merely on the Arabic outfit of Islam. Why is this so should be answered by some Tableeghi.
You question the concept of an all-encompassing world view of monotheistic religions and give the predominant Arabic part of Islam as an example. I myself have great reservations about this confusing of the timeless and universal Islamic message with the Arabic culture of a certain time. The unfortunate fact is that not many Muslims share this view and interpret Islam in the context of the events that unfolded themselves in Arabic world. And that’s why I found the article of Daniel Berk very fascinating. I’d urge you to go through his article where he’s explained the evolution of the Islamic thought and has touched the issue that you’ve raised. It’d be a nice idea if Daniel Berk could join us here.

"This makes the fundamental difference between the pagan beliefs which’re no more than cultural philosophies and the monotheistic beliefs with an all-encompassing world view and an innate urge to spread the word of God and subdue the false beliefs."

Dear Zahid Saheb,

How is Islamic monotheism NOT ARABIC CULTURAL IMPERIALISM???
The call for turning every muslim into an arab speaking , mecca facing worshipped is the worst form of cultural imperialism that goes against the propaganda of Islam being some sort of a "universal" spiritual order!!
How is it encompassing 'world view' when it cannot accept any modern thought, modern cultural practice, modern technological innovation or modern political forms?

Why do these guys have to believe in every propaganda that they read about Islam in their Pak studies or those chavanni chaap tafseers.

Re: #176, 177

Dear Sahib and Ranjit Babu,

Unfortunately you're still differentiating between the absolute belief and the oneness of God as the basis of these monotheistic religions. This unshakable belief in the God who is not only The Only One but the Almighty God whose work of ingeniousness is this universe we live in. This is in complete contrast with the patchwork concept of the pagans regarding the creation of this universe. This absoluteness is a direct consequence of the belief in one God and not a personal attitude.

Pagans are usually 'open minded'. The Romans were fed up of their gods and showed intense interest in the exotic religions of the East like the way ungodly people in the West are showing an intense interest in yet another eastern philosophy, Buddhism. But the monotheists with one God at the center of their system of thought have not much room for theological distraction like the pagans who remain mostly in a confused theological state. Their belief centered around the infighting of myriad gods, pretty goddesses and demigods places them before a number of inconsistent views which is quite often interpreted by them as openness. A hallmark of the pagan beliefs is the scope of the world view that limits itself mostly to the personal, cultural and regional level. They miss the universal message and call that ensues from the oneness of the ruling God.

Pundits holding pagan epics whirling around the earth to spread the word of their gods have never been detected but the world history is full of people spreading the word of God through the Bible and the Koran. This makes the fundamental difference between the pagan beliefs which’re no more than cultural philosophies and the monotheistic beliefs with an all-encompassing world view and an innate urge to spread the word of God and subdue the false beliefs.

Re:bubba
"So if violence is taken away from today's muslims, then theologically, in your opinion, Islam has nothing to stand on?"

No, I am not saying that. Islam is a great religion with some superb attributes, especially in its emphasis on equality and egalitarianism of all men. It emphasizes on self-discipline and virtuous living. The fasting at Ramzan is a perfect example at an attempt to moderate people's natural desire to live a hedonistic life. At a social level, it has a exceptionally strong emphasis on social justice. I respect and admire those aspects of Islam.

What I find objectionable is its focus on absoluteness, especially with respect to the afterlife. In my opinion, that fosters intolerance and severe bigotry against other religions. Maybe that was necessary in the early years of Islam in order to ensure the survival of the faith. However, that mindset is anachronistic in the modern age. The day muslims shift away from that absoluteness, we will all see a very positive side of that faith.

Re: # 171

"The exclusion of rationality in the search of God may mislead the searcher to the awkward pagan beliefs where man prefers to fall down before handmade idols -- no matter whether taken as a symbol of some wrathful, benign, or mighty god or demigod -- and beseech."

Dear Muslim Friends,

I find the world of 5 times bowing cult the most "awkward" of all the beliefs.
I find the school master like formless God who is jealous, angry, frightful and always claiming to be the most merciful the most "illogical" of all the laughable beliefs. I consider the Mickey mouse to be a more believable character than the Allah of Islam.
Further , it is only a Rakshasa or a vulgar satanic view that idolators believe that God=idols and hence bow down to idols.
This is a misrepresentation of idolator's religious beliefs that has not been corrected so far by Abrahmic religions and especially Islam.
In fact, Islam insists upon stereotyping and caricatures so that it can motivate it's young ones into brainwashing so that they can embark upon the agenda of hate, extermination of idolators, looting of their lands, rape of their women and enslaving of them as slaves to these faithfuls.
Real Islam is nothing but fascism in disguise of spirituality.

Re:zahid
"Being on the right side of the dividing line does give the believer a sense of strength and conviction. The false beliefs look like weed and Satan's work and hence need to be taken care of. It explains the innate urge and call in these religions to spread and struggle to subdue the false systems representing Satan-incited waywardness."

Again this is the absoluteness in your faith that is speaking. You are so convinced that your religion and ideology is the absolute truth, that you are not willing to concede even for a moment that perhaps afterlife might be completely different from what you imagine it is. Perhaps it may not even exist.

This is why muslims are having such a hard time all over the world. Their absoluteness, almost a deterministic mindset is clashing with that of other people who have a stochastic view of the afterlife. This used to be the strength of muslims in the medieval times when things were settled with swords and spears. In the modern world with nation states and nukes, its a massive weakness. In today's world, it is ideas and thoughts that dominate. That requires people to be sceptical and open minded about everything. Its not because people hate muslims - you are free to believe whatever you wish. Its because people no longer blindly submit to any boolean ideology of true/false statements just because someone said so centuries back. The modern world is all about reasoning.