What is Hinduism? A Personal View

Zee:

Please note that echo's answer to my question (just like kaal's) was: NO.

#289 Posted by GT,

Oh I see.

Both Echoboom and Kaal are right. The answer is a clear and unmitigated NO!

Re: # 288 GT

My answer is "yes", given that the "common socio-political" system is that of constitutional parity. This is possible despite historical, colonial, and post-colonial baggage.

The usual guess of a common reader would be that it would be possible under a secular socio-poitical order, of European nature, but the fact of the matter is that an European sesular system would drive a wedge between the communities because secularism by nature does not give religious freedoms but it takes them away from public sphere. This is not possible where society has serious religious leanings. In other words secularism imposes the religion of atheists upon all using state power.

On the other hand Islam proposes a true secular state where religious freedoms are guranteed through constitutional parities by providing autonomous legislature, judiciary, and other institutions that are needed by humans in public sphere.

Before everyone's jaws drop with awe, I must tell everyone reading this that I am not talking about a idealist religious utopia; I am actually talking about a real system that has been in practice until 80 years ago in Ottoman Turkey. The system was called the "Millet system" which provided jews and christians autonomous judiciary and the penal and civil law. The constitution of today's India is almost there with a provision for Mulsim Civil and Inheritence Laws. An autonoumous legislative body would have made it a true Islamic state with a Hindu majority- whatdoya know.

Re: # 241 Urstruly wrote: ["... This concept has evolved into about 30 million gods that are currently being worshipped in Hinduism. ..."]

while we have only one absolute God

And that is as it should be. You see, there is a fundamental difference between our cosmic thology and that of those lungi clad, smelly folk across the Radcliff Line.

Theirs is a parliamentary cosmic theology while ours is a presidential one.

Their Big Boy is the prime minister in a parliament full of petty gods. Our Big Daddy, on the other hand, is an absolute and powerful President.

Our God President dissolved parliament and declared martial law 1,400 years ago. He is also the wielder of the Big Fire Stick. His word is absolute law.

Instead of working with and through his parliamentarians and cabinet minister gods as does that PM of gods, the Hindi Big Boy (or is it Girl?), our Big Daddy has His bidding carried out by an army of sycophantic Angel secretaries, whose powers are every bit as much as those of the petty gods of Hing. Four secretary generals head our bureaucracy of angels: Gabriel, Mikhail, Israfeel and Izraeel.

Don't insist on the superiority of one system over the other. Both systems of faith can deliver added value for a certain proportion of the population.

For the remaining, who live in their private enclaves, at either end of the spectrum, this whole theo-cosmological politics is uninterresting and irrelevent.

...SR

Re: # 292

"For the remaining, who live in their private enclaves, at either end of the spectrum, this whole theo-cosmological politics is uninterresting and irrelevent."

Why do every atheist or so called agnostic have to write this disclaimer at the end of their attempt at humor. Lets admit it that you atheists are as adamant and dedicated to promote your religious un-beliefs as the rest of us.

#277 Eklavya {"salim bhai, many of my Lucknowi Shia friends have refused to make the change. :)"}

Kaal Bhayya,
Neither have I. :) There is nothing wrong with the words "Allah" and "Hafiz" I used them both a lot and quite separately. But "Khuda Hafiz" was working fine and I just don't like dictators changing our language just to please their foreign masters.

So, I bid you "Khuda Hafiz" my brother. :)

Urstruly:

Thanks for your thoughts. You write:

"This is not possible where society has serious religious leanings."

It has taken me quite sometime to understand this, especially when one (like me) puts a higher priority on democracy vis-a-vis "secularism" as it is today understood or mis-understood.

You see, our religions bring along with it a culture and history. Some of it is good and some bad for what we perceive to be "development". In the 50s and 60s, Mao deceided that most of it was bad for China and so he unleashed the "cultural revolution". Perhaps what we see in China today would not have been possible without this "revolution".

While "development" is important, participation in the process of development and having a say in the process is perhaps equally, if not more, important. Otherwise, there is little to differentiate between humans and machines (or should I say animals). Since South Asians are "religious" per se, people are bound to bring in religious guidance in choosing the path/process of development. In a democracy, such phenomena should not be checked.

However, and here I agree with Kaal, Echo and Zeemax that, the three dominant religions - Hinduism, Islam and Liberalism - in the sub-continent do not intersect to propose a common set of guidance to the process or definition of "development". So what should be done?

Since, the problem is more stark in India let me narrow down my proposal to India. We need empowerment at the local levels - panchayats and municipalities. I had proposed that they should be able to implement their own "social laws" and even have their own enforcement structure - i.e. police force. As pointed out by others, this may not be fully feasible. I agree. But it could at least be used to start the debate.

What are your thoughts?

Regards.

Re: # 241 Urstruly wrote: ["... So if one part of the religious text ... (says "X") ... and the other ... in the same breath, ...(says "Y")... then obviously either the text has been corrupted or it has never been Divine.

Divine ... has to be simple and non-contrdictory so that the mere mortals, for whom it is meant, could understand it. ..."]

Very well said. Exactly my sentiments also.

Now let's take a look at some samples from a critical source:

surely it is biased as all criticism is, by definition... but let us do some private study and contemplate if there is any merit in these claims about the contradictions in Quran.)

[Quote]
The Qur'an makes the following statements regarding the food that unbelievers will have in hell:

No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari S. 88:6 Y. Ali

Nor hath he any food except the foul pus from the washing of wounds, S. 69:36 Y. Ali

In a footnote, Yusuf Ali gives the following explanation for Dhari:

It is a plant, bitter and thorny, loathsome in smell and appearance, which will neither give fattening nourishment to the body nor in any way satisfy the burning pangs of hunger. ...

Other translators render the term as "bitter thorn-fruit" (Pickthall) "dry, bitter and thorny herbage" (Sher Ali), "cactus thorn" (Arberry), "the foul thorn" (Palmer).

Obviously, both kinds of ‘food’ are chosen to evoke a feeling of horror when thinking about Hell. However, the contradiction is in the double claim that this or that will be the only food, i.e.

No food except Dhari (88:6).
No food except foul pus (69:36).
There is yet another passage that is relevant to this discussion:

Is that the better entertainment or the Tree of Zaqqum?
For We have truly made it (as) a trial for the wrong-doers.
For it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hell-Fire:
The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils:
Truly they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith.
Then on top of that they will be given a mixture made of boiling water.
Then shall their return be to the (Blazing) Fire. S. 37:62-68 Y. Ali; cf. 56:52

Thus, regarding this one topic alone, the Qur'an contains three contradictions:

"Eating of the tree of Zaqqum" (37:66) contradicts "eating only Dhari" (88:6).
"Eating of the tree of Zaqqum" (37:66) contradicts "eating only foul pus" (69:36).
"Eating only Dhari" (88:6) contradicts "eating only foul pus" (69:36).

[END QUOTE]
Taken from this cursed source:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/#internal

See many more ... some are a bit frivilous

...SR

PS: Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones at others.

Addendum to # 296

Re: # 241 Urstruly wrote: ["... So if one part of the religious text ... (says "X") ... and the other ... in the same breath, ...(says "Y")... then obviously either the text has been corrupted or it has never been Divine.

Divine ... has to be simple and non-contrdictory so that the mere mortals, for whom it is meant, could understand it. ..."]

This is another good one:

[QUOTE]
On the one hand, the Quran commands all Muslims to show kindness to their parents, even if they are disbelievers [17:23-24, 31:14-15, 29:8, etc.]. On the other hand, it demands not to show any love or friendship to those who oppose Muhammad, even if they are their parents [9:23, 58:22].
[END QUOTE]

#297 Posted by SR:

SR sahib,

Since you are having fun, let me join in. I assert that I can be kind to you without loving you ar being your friend. I do not see any contradiction :)

Urstruly (#293),

It is like the ummah continuously humoring us about “last prophet”. This is what you believe … and I get it. Now can I have the #*%king passport?

(I hope you see the irnoy ...)

Re: #295 GT, ".... the three dominant religions - Hinduism, Islam and Liberalism..."

Why not have the 3 dominant religious communities (and others) make their own laws as much as possible. Let the State act as a 'community of communities' and restrict itself to spheres where communities have to act together.

I think this problem is best discussed through concrete examples. So, please share some specific examples that you may have in mind.

"I had proposed that they should be able to implement their own "social laws" and even have their own enforcement structure - i.e. police force."

GT, so long as Hindus can create protected but practically autonomous Hindu enclaves within a Muslim dominated state (such as Pakistan), or Muslims can create protected but practically autonomous Muslim enclaves within a Hindu dominated state, separation between Hindus and Muslims as groups, along the lines recommended by Chowdhry Rahmat Ali has been achieved. That should work.

Not what I would recommend for India, but given changing demographics in many parts of India, we may be there pretty soon, whether Hindus and Muslims like it or not. So that's an idea that India and Pakistan might want to pursue.

(Of course, the last sentence is a joke. When it came to understanding and protecting their communal interests Iqbal/Mr. Jinnah were miles ahead of Gandhi/Nehru. Hats off to the former for their clarity of thought on this issue.)

khurram bhai, that's the situation in India, already. This would seem absurd to many but Urstruly is right.

Indian 'secularism' (with Gujrat and such delights) has been possible by the majority Hindus agreeing to craft an almost perfectly Islamic state.

But that is not enough. Over time, Chowdhary Rahmat Ali Plan as suggested by GT may be something that Hindus and Muslims might need to look into.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts