Dost Mittar January 24, 2008
#305 Posted by okhla99 on February 4, 2008 6:32:11 pm
Dear Arjun,
Please stop Islam bashing. Let us all live in peace.
For the true nature of the beast please refer to links in #202.
Read all the juicy details.
Then come back to Chowk if you still dare....
Please stop Islam bashing. Let us all live in peace.
For the true nature of the beast please refer to links in #202.
Read all the juicy details.
Then come back to Chowk if you still dare....
#306 Posted by okhla99 on February 4, 2008 6:32:13 pm
Dear Arjun,
Please stop Islam bashing. Let us all live in peace.
For the true nature of the beast please refer to links in #202.
Read all the juicy details.
Then come back to Chowk if you still dare....
Please stop Islam bashing. Let us all live in peace.
For the true nature of the beast please refer to links in #202.
Read all the juicy details.
Then come back to Chowk if you still dare....
#307 Posted by nkg on February 4, 2008 6:33:53 pm
Re: # 302
This is definitely very ugly thinking. Gujrat situation is worsening. But, similar situation exists in Mumbai,UK, France etc. also.
I don't see similar problem between christians and indians (so called hindus).
This is definitely very ugly thinking. Gujrat situation is worsening. But, similar situation exists in Mumbai,UK, France etc. also.
I don't see similar problem between christians and indians (so called hindus).
#308 Posted by nkg on February 4, 2008 6:47:16 pm
Re: # 305
Please stop Islam bashing. Let us all live in peace.
Ans: Are you serious? Will Islam let people leave in peace?
Please stop Islam bashing. Let us all live in peace.
Ans: Are you serious? Will Islam let people leave in peace?
#309 Posted by slyder. on February 4, 2008 6:49:48 pm
Another Hingbooism question: How do you guys manage polyandry? Do you guys draw numbers or just go alphabetically? (Zeemax pai would be the last if he was a Hingboo)
#310 Posted by dost_mittar on February 4, 2008 7:24:57 pm
Urstruly:
Some corrections on your earlier post.
Hindus do not consider Brahma, Vishnu or Shiv to be avtars; they are eternal. Vishnu alone comes to earth in one form or another (not necessarily human)from time to time - he is supposed to have done so nine times - starting as fish and ending with Buddha - and the final avtar is yet to happen. When on earth, Vishnu is bound by the same rules that apply to the form he takes, whether as fish or as human.
As regards the Absolute, you have used a quranic benchmark to choose and accept from the Hindu literature what you think is valid. This is quite valid from an Islamic viewpoint; in my opinion, this is also valid from a Hindu viewpoint; the difference being that the Hindu viewpoint would also allow as valid someone who thinks that Ram is the human manifestation of God and worshipping him is the same as worshipping God. An individual Hindu can be quite certain about the absolute faith in his deity, it is the system (Religion, if you will) that denies that certitude.
Zee:
Thanks!
Some corrections on your earlier post.
Hindus do not consider Brahma, Vishnu or Shiv to be avtars; they are eternal. Vishnu alone comes to earth in one form or another (not necessarily human)from time to time - he is supposed to have done so nine times - starting as fish and ending with Buddha - and the final avtar is yet to happen. When on earth, Vishnu is bound by the same rules that apply to the form he takes, whether as fish or as human.
As regards the Absolute, you have used a quranic benchmark to choose and accept from the Hindu literature what you think is valid. This is quite valid from an Islamic viewpoint; in my opinion, this is also valid from a Hindu viewpoint; the difference being that the Hindu viewpoint would also allow as valid someone who thinks that Ram is the human manifestation of God and worshipping him is the same as worshipping God. An individual Hindu can be quite certain about the absolute faith in his deity, it is the system (Religion, if you will) that denies that certitude.
Zee:
Thanks!
#311 Posted by nkg on February 4, 2008 7:28:46 pm
Re: # 309
Polyandry is practised in some part of North Eastern region, China, Tibbet and Mongolia ( some part and within some tribes).
It should not be bad. At least it does not encourage barbarism. Ant, Bee etc. society is highly disciplined and organised. Where as polygamy (like Islam) encourages barbarism, destruction etc. Polygamy is root of large number of social evil.
In Sanskrit, there was no symbols representing numbers. After the advent of Devnagari/Brahmi, symbols representing number has evolved.
Is there any punishment in Islam for bluffing/telling lie? Or it is treated as common human nature. I see Islam full of bluff/lies, starting with Mo...
Polyandry is practised in some part of North Eastern region, China, Tibbet and Mongolia ( some part and within some tribes).
It should not be bad. At least it does not encourage barbarism. Ant, Bee etc. society is highly disciplined and organised. Where as polygamy (like Islam) encourages barbarism, destruction etc. Polygamy is root of large number of social evil.
In Sanskrit, there was no symbols representing numbers. After the advent of Devnagari/Brahmi, symbols representing number has evolved.
Is there any punishment in Islam for bluffing/telling lie? Or it is treated as common human nature. I see Islam full of bluff/lies, starting with Mo...
#312 Posted by dost_mittar on February 4, 2008 7:44:00 pm
GT:
I will try to answer the question you posed.
I do not see any problem of Hindus and Muslims living together under an Islamic rule. Hindus lived and prospered quite well under many centuries of Muslim rule in India. One could even say that Hindus would make for perfect dhimmies because they were allowed to do even those things that were quite abhorrent to a Muslim as long as they were willing to accept a subservient position. And this, to me, is the key. It is a myth to say that all religions are treated as equal under an Islamic rule; the supremacy of Islam is paramount, especially when it comes to relations between Muslims and Non-Muslims. If someone has any doubts, they should see what is happening in the most liberal Islamic state, Malaysia.
I am less certain of what happens if Muslims are not the rulers. In India, Muslims have made a compromise, they are willing to accept a non-sharia criminal law as long as they are allowed to govern their personal lives according to sharia. This compromise seems to have come under severe pressure because more and more Hindus seem to be uncomfortable with this compromise and would want the constitutional provisions of equality of all individuals to override the Muslims' rights to govern their personal lives according to sharia. While the jury is still out on this, I am pessimistic.
And GT, can one be truly liberal and also accept that individual rights should take a second place to group rights? To me, this is the common element in both Islamic laws and Indian constitution.
I will try to answer the question you posed.
I do not see any problem of Hindus and Muslims living together under an Islamic rule. Hindus lived and prospered quite well under many centuries of Muslim rule in India. One could even say that Hindus would make for perfect dhimmies because they were allowed to do even those things that were quite abhorrent to a Muslim as long as they were willing to accept a subservient position. And this, to me, is the key. It is a myth to say that all religions are treated as equal under an Islamic rule; the supremacy of Islam is paramount, especially when it comes to relations between Muslims and Non-Muslims. If someone has any doubts, they should see what is happening in the most liberal Islamic state, Malaysia.
I am less certain of what happens if Muslims are not the rulers. In India, Muslims have made a compromise, they are willing to accept a non-sharia criminal law as long as they are allowed to govern their personal lives according to sharia. This compromise seems to have come under severe pressure because more and more Hindus seem to be uncomfortable with this compromise and would want the constitutional provisions of equality of all individuals to override the Muslims' rights to govern their personal lives according to sharia. While the jury is still out on this, I am pessimistic.
And GT, can one be truly liberal and also accept that individual rights should take a second place to group rights? To me, this is the common element in both Islamic laws and Indian constitution.
#313 Posted by zeemax on February 4, 2008 7:57:22 pm
#309 Posted by slyder,
LoL, Ali Pai, with the competition being these bhindidicks, the alphabetical disadvantage has never been a problem for your humble servant!
LoL, Ali Pai, with the competition being these bhindidicks, the alphabetical disadvantage has never been a problem for your humble servant!
#314 Posted by laddu on February 4, 2008 9:57:27 pm
Re: # 255
"Being "formless" is just one of the attributes of God. So one may ask question as if God is Absolute, then how can He be so helpless to have form; conversely if God is formless then he cannot be Absolute, since being formless means that God should be constrained by devoid of having form."
'Formlessness' as "attribute" - this is like saying that "Truly Saheb does not exist" means "non-existence" is an attribute. The statement that "God is formless" seen as a subject and predicate statement is wrong. It means that no predicate is good enough to attribute to god- but Mohammad took this concept of God and is infinite attributes to reify HIS OWN personal ego to the level of that Allah.
Now , whatever Mohammad did became the attribute of God. Mohammad was a split personality and created Allah as his alter ego to justify all those murders and rapes ans loots.
He created Allah as Hitchcock's "Psycho" created that stuffed mother in order to justify his own abominations.
Every psychopath amongst muslims uses that dummy Allah to justify his own abominations and criminal actions and intents.
That is the reality of Mohammad's Allah - it is not a 'spiritual' God but a spin of a criminal who created that cult of murder and loot.
Coming to your argument - if God is absolute then what stops him from having a form!!! If he CANNOT take a form then he is not absolute!!! QED
"See the point is that while interacting with humans God must "speak the language" that humans understand."
Such a statement makes us appear as if God is some Alien. God has already implanted the faculties of language and intelligence. These are hard coded and wired in our brains - if God wants to "communicate" then he could implant his directions in the brains and we would bow down to him like robots.
" God is free of human constraints - He never sleeps; He never eats or drinks; He never gets tired; He has no children; He is begotten by none because "He is Absolute". "
Again to imagine the Absolute in the Anthropomorhic representations and experiences of "sleeps", "anger" , "wrath" , "jelous" , "speak" , "wills" is completely wrong. How can an "Absolute" God and that also a "formless" have these anthropomorphic emotions and attribute. Actually, it was Mohammad's reified ego that speaks like the absolute God.
"Absolute" or "Formless" God cannot be even IMAGINED. It cannot be even prayed. It cannot be even thought. Trying to write treatises regarding absolute God is all nonsensical act of an inflated human ego.
It can only be experienced in Samadhi. (what sufis calls as Fanaa).
"Being "formless" is just one of the attributes of God. So one may ask question as if God is Absolute, then how can He be so helpless to have form; conversely if God is formless then he cannot be Absolute, since being formless means that God should be constrained by devoid of having form."
'Formlessness' as "attribute" - this is like saying that "Truly Saheb does not exist" means "non-existence" is an attribute. The statement that "God is formless" seen as a subject and predicate statement is wrong. It means that no predicate is good enough to attribute to god- but Mohammad took this concept of God and is infinite attributes to reify HIS OWN personal ego to the level of that Allah.
Now , whatever Mohammad did became the attribute of God. Mohammad was a split personality and created Allah as his alter ego to justify all those murders and rapes ans loots.
He created Allah as Hitchcock's "Psycho" created that stuffed mother in order to justify his own abominations.
Every psychopath amongst muslims uses that dummy Allah to justify his own abominations and criminal actions and intents.
That is the reality of Mohammad's Allah - it is not a 'spiritual' God but a spin of a criminal who created that cult of murder and loot.
Coming to your argument - if God is absolute then what stops him from having a form!!! If he CANNOT take a form then he is not absolute!!! QED
"See the point is that while interacting with humans God must "speak the language" that humans understand."
Such a statement makes us appear as if God is some Alien. God has already implanted the faculties of language and intelligence. These are hard coded and wired in our brains - if God wants to "communicate" then he could implant his directions in the brains and we would bow down to him like robots.
" God is free of human constraints - He never sleeps; He never eats or drinks; He never gets tired; He has no children; He is begotten by none because "He is Absolute". "
Again to imagine the Absolute in the Anthropomorhic representations and experiences of "sleeps", "anger" , "wrath" , "jelous" , "speak" , "wills" is completely wrong. How can an "Absolute" God and that also a "formless" have these anthropomorphic emotions and attribute. Actually, it was Mohammad's reified ego that speaks like the absolute God.
"Absolute" or "Formless" God cannot be even IMAGINED. It cannot be even prayed. It cannot be even thought. Trying to write treatises regarding absolute God is all nonsensical act of an inflated human ego.
It can only be experienced in Samadhi. (what sufis calls as Fanaa).
#315 Posted by nature_lover on February 4, 2008 10:14:19 pm
Re # 314:
Laddu..., it is so obvious that You are projecting your own hatred, your own doubts about existence of God and darkness of your own soul on the prophet of Islam...
Not a single person in this world follow you but 1.5 billion love and follow prophet of Islam... why..?? think about it..
Laddu..., it is so obvious that You are projecting your own hatred, your own doubts about existence of God and darkness of your own soul on the prophet of Islam...
Not a single person in this world follow you but 1.5 billion love and follow prophet of Islam... why..?? think about it..
#316 Posted by viqarm on February 4, 2008 10:21:36 pm
Re: # 262
" have asked this one question probably a dozen times, at least, without EVER getting an answer. WHAT political settlement would have been simultaneously satsifactory to both Muslims and Hindus in 1947?".
Kaal Sahib,
I think this question is improperly framed, for the obvious
answer to it is "NONE". Had there been such a settlement, and had it been acceptable to both, it would have been implemented. Is that not self-evident?
A more realistic question to ask is whether there were political settlement(s) possible that could have avoided the partitioning of India? And the answer to that is empatically, "yes there were". The only problem is that the solution acceptable to the Muslims was not acceptable to the Hindus, and vice-versa.
" have asked this one question probably a dozen times, at least, without EVER getting an answer. WHAT political settlement would have been simultaneously satsifactory to both Muslims and Hindus in 1947?".
Kaal Sahib,
I think this question is improperly framed, for the obvious
answer to it is "NONE". Had there been such a settlement, and had it been acceptable to both, it would have been implemented. Is that not self-evident?
A more realistic question to ask is whether there were political settlement(s) possible that could have avoided the partitioning of India? And the answer to that is empatically, "yes there were". The only problem is that the solution acceptable to the Muslims was not acceptable to the Hindus, and vice-versa.
#317 Posted by viqarm on February 4, 2008 10:24:38 pm
Re: # 267 Urstruly,
The Christians in Middle East use "Allah" to refer to God.
The Christians in Middle East use "Allah" to refer to God.
#318 Posted by nkg on February 4, 2008 10:40:41 pm
Re: # 315
Not a single person in this world follow you but 1.5 billion love and follow prophet of Islam... why..?? think about it..
Ans: Only couple of thousands of people were honoured with Noble, but billions of people smoke tobaco.
So tobaco smoking is reasonable and winning Noble prize is crap!!!!
See the effect of Islam on humanity (similar to tobaco smoking on human health) (Pakistan, Afghanisthan, India, Bangladesh, Sudan...).
Not a single person in this world follow you but 1.5 billion love and follow prophet of Islam... why..?? think about it..
Ans: Only couple of thousands of people were honoured with Noble, but billions of people smoke tobaco.
So tobaco smoking is reasonable and winning Noble prize is crap!!!!
See the effect of Islam on humanity (similar to tobaco smoking on human health) (Pakistan, Afghanisthan, India, Bangladesh, Sudan...).
#319 Posted by Humsab on February 5, 2008 12:32:10 am
laddu ji Maharaj
Pranaam
Great logic in #314. It seems since nature lover does not have any logical arguement, he is now on this trip of diverting the issue.
Keep it up.
regards
Pranaam
Great logic in #314. It seems since nature lover does not have any logical arguement, he is now on this trip of diverting the issue.
Keep it up.
regards
#320 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2008 2:13:28 am
Wow ... I have never seen cockroaches so worked up.
Swarm around cockroaches. Then head for the drains.
Swarm around cockroaches. Then head for the drains.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- CheGuevara: hehe lubricants... Politics of PPP and
- chaltahai: Lets take Neembu for... G-8: RIP?
- KaalChakra: chalta, who? Start with... G-8: RIP?
- chaltahai: Kaal, who would be... G-8: RIP?
- KaalChakra: Bubba yaar, Urdu is... G-8: RIP?
- KaalChakra: chalta, IMO, there will... G-8: RIP?
- khurram: Re #113, majumdar, Who is... G-8: RIP?
- bubba: Re: # 117 Posted... G-8: RIP?








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