Faith and Religion

It seems to have appeared again. I remember commenting on this article earlier??


Ok let's start again.

Generalization is good thing to understand similarity of things but not their complete understaiding.

It is degree that matters. Neither all religions were same in the begining nor they got equallly corrupted.

So it is a deception to hide behind this generalization to pretend that all religions are equally good or bad.

They aren't, some are more bad than others.

It is also deceptive to suggest that all religions have given similar good thoughts or bad thoughts. Some have given remarkably better ideas compared to others. Some have given remarkably bad ideas compared to others. Over the time they got influenced by each other, but the difference is still quite easy to see.

This arab slave again!!!!!!

2 NK,

U dont seem 2 know anything other than sucking a cow?


V

Re: # 3
I do know....
Anyhow, this is easiest way to express, what Pinku has written in the earlier post....same sh** to hide islamic barbarism in India....

Islam became dangerous after America revived jihad in Afghanistan. Prolly global Islamic movement got shot of boost when US wlly nilly gave rise to Khomeinism....

Now u got to see the village societies where ppl dont have political opinions. They all live without any trace of conflict (personal conflicts may be there).

Every religion is evil. Look at Christianity. They r responsible for millions of deaths. Islam is no different. Whereas Christian supremacists operate thru modern institutions. Islamic supemacists operate outta jungles & mountains.

Look at Hindu supremacists. They never existed b4 but they do now. Which part of Hindu supremacist topic u want to discuss?
V

As 4 pinku, jayp, laddu or guru, I dont read their posts. They dont have anything to 'argue' or reason. They just come & vomit/c&p.
V

" universally twisted by the Mullahs, Pandits, Padres, Rabbis and other professional priests"

It too presumptous to think that others' claim to the truth of their 'brands' of GODs is sullied by temporal considerations but the SAME claim made regarding the BRAND of God called Allah by individuals who are called "Prophets" is true....
By your logic Mohammad was equally a charlatan whose claim to revelation was sullied by his thirst for temporal power.

"I believe that all the founders of all religions were simple human beings who loved all humanity."


this is again make too many pre-sumptions. The notion of Masoomiyat is just another hog wash. Most of the so called founders were infact lustful, greedy people with full of anger and hatred towards those who ddid not follow them.


"........ by frequently distorting the words of the founders in their sacred scriptures "

Who decides whether the words were "distorted" or not? You? or the Ulemas?

"I also find no sanctity in the huge baggage of customs that all religions so venerate. Christmas and Easter were Roman Pagan customs that the Catholic priests made a part of Christian faith several centuries after the death of Jesus."

nonsense!!. Pagan "customs" were part of the pagan "religion" . It is only the Abrahmic cults that want to deride pagans and not give them a 'superior' status by deriding these pagan rituals as "customs".



"Eid and Ramzan were old Arab customs many centuries before The Prophet."

True. but they were NOT merely "Customs" . The 40 day fasting in Hira caves as the result of which Mohammad gained revelations was a Pagan ritual and part of their religion. It was NOT a "custom" without any spiritual basis.

"Diwali, Holi, Naoroz, Passover, etc., were honest celebrations of spring, autumn or seasonal harvests and the religious fairy tales associated with them were charming additions of later times."

Again, wrong. These seasons are part of "spiritual" religion of the pagans and signify the beginning and end of sacred time periods in an year.
The Navratris , for example, are sacred months when the Sushumana Nadi of humans is the most active and it can open up spiritual revelations with sadhana. That is why these spiritual months are celebrated. Diwali is NOT a "custom" for lightning Diyas. Murad , you only see the externalities like an ignorant Rakshasa. Diwali is a sacred time for various Sadhanas - especially for praying to the Lakshmi Devi. You have no idea about Hindu religion.

you bookish knowledge about hindu thought is just laughable!!

Re: # 6

V,

You want to remain ignorant like a frog in his well of ignorant Islamic thought.....

Please do that- just do not try to claim "supremacy" of your 'formless' Alter ego!!

"I have been to almost all the main temples, mosques and churches in India and greatly admire their art and architecture but do not find anything sacred about them......"

Again you contradict the very notion of a "sacred" space within Islam .
The notion of "sacred-spaces" as well as "sacred-times" is one of the cornerstone of religious revelations.
Mecca is a "sacred-space" , so is Badrinath, so is Haridwar ..... this is a different notion altogether ...Yes, the "sacredness" of a sacred-space can be eroded by time and evil people. That is why Mecca can become a place of hatred and Haridwar can become a place of shame.
You have no concept of sacredness of space and time.

" Magnificent art and architecture generated huge awe and admiration of religious themes so all religions were great patrons of many things of great beauty."

you need to read something on Rasa-Theory to understand that the higest rasa leads to Shanta-Rasa and spirituality.
That is why sacred places have to be the most beautiful aesthetically for all the senses. hindu Temples have to be the most beautiful for the spirtuality to flourish.
The Sadhaka has to be most clean in order to visit these sacred places. Do you think why muslims have to wear the best and wear perfume before going to Jumma Namaaz??

"But I do not believe that they were `houses of god' but places where priests could get rich from the offerings of gullible devotees."

nonnsense, every sacred house needs people who maintain it properly,

"Genghis Khan was right when he said at Bukhara… God is too great to be confined to any house."

Genghis Khan was a rascal. It does not take a bit of intelligence to see the depravity and stupidity of his thought. Only an ignorant can even think that others believe that God can be confined to some place or time.

"I also find no innate sanctity in any of the material things that the priests of all religions promote."

you do not find any sanctity is any human material form as well. You can blow the body parts of the entire humanity and clain it to contain no spirituality?? You are a nihilistic mad man.



" What is spiritual about Ayodhya, Ramasethu, Mecca, Jerusalem or any of the places of religious myth? "

For those who believe in the existence of spiritual spaces/places there is . I know of places where just upon entering one enters into a state of meditation. You have no idea about such places because you can never experience that state of meditation with your nihilistic nonsense.

"The founders of no religion demanded any temples, churches, mosques or places of worship. Even for The Prophet, Mecca was the focal centre but followers could pray wherever they wanted."

This is nonsense. Mecca was called the TEMPLE OF ABRAHAM. That was the reason why the idols were destroyed. Murad you are even ignorant of your own religion.

"Why should a cross, crescent, idol, talisman or other image be sacred? Those who believe that these have the power to miraculously protect the wearer are not religious but simply superstitious."

Again it presumes that belief in a "formless-deity" is NOT a superstition but any other belief in spiritual entities is a "superstition.
The notion of 'miracle' and Spiritual -deity's constant 'protection' to the sadhaka and believers is the cornerstone of a human-being's relation with the deity.

laddu,

Thanx but no thanx. I am an alert person.
V

Murad Baig:
I was on a brief visit to Toronto in Canada. I was surprised to see you making comments in an Asian TV reporting- on auto industry in India. You have broken into the rank of reputable international commentators.
Kamath
0948AM

The article doesn't make much sense. To ;engthy and incoherent and tries to create a confusion that all religions are equally good or bad. Hinduism in the first gear itself, by 600 BC has said many wonoderful things in Upanishads (much before Budhdhism). And after that much before the advent of Islam or Christianity, Hinduism and Budhdhism said all that can be said about God.


It is difficult to find a single good idea that Islam or Christianity brough to world that was not already there in Hinduism or Budhdhism and that has not been dealt much more comprehensively by them.

And as Dalai Lama says Budhdhism takes most from Hinduism only, it takes its ideas from Hinduism and same Brahmins from Hinduism created most of it after Budhdha, considering it to another way of life or sect in hinduism.



Murad ends his article with "Hang loose....", but he seems to be hanging tight even after claiming that he is non-practicing muslim.

Also, the phrase "non practising muslim" suggests that he is a muslim, but he also impresses upon reader that he doesn't care about organized religions, as if he nomore belong to religions. This is trivial difference (not muslim or non-practising muslim), but this confusion is what get reflected in all his applogetic attempts to dilute the differences of religions.

All can be left and good ideas can be used/imbibed, but saying that all were same is as good as lying. This is an established fact that Indic religions are more universal and tolerant and those derived from Judaism are more violent/intolerant. Further philosophy of thought remained integral part of Hinduism/Buddhism created by their priests in the name of religion itself, while Christianity/Islam found it so hard to deviate from their books for so long and the later Sufi thoughts are mostly taken from Hinduism or Indic religion (and are still less comprehensive compared to the original thoughts in Hinduism).

Those who need references can check tons of philosophers or writers or historians who reflect the same ideas that I said above...like Mark Twain, Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Max Muller etc...

Baig Saheb:

You have described yourself well, and from this description, you come across as a man of liberal views with a Muslim identity. One needs not have a faith to have a faith identity; Jinnah was an Islamist without being a practising Muslim; Savarkar was a Hindu nationalist without being a practising Hindu; such is the nature of identity. For example, you say: "The accounts of the horrible atrocities attributed to Mahmud Ghazni or Aurangzeb came from no contemporary Jain, Buddhist or Hindu source but from the flowery pens of Persian flatterers to praise their piety and their alleged violent destruction of Hindu temple", but no Indian with a non-muslim identity would use the qualifier "attributed" and "alleged" in referring to those atrocities. These were not necessarily flowery pens, Baig saheb, but the chroniclers of a time when morals were different and they did not know that their subjects would one day be answerable to a different set of moral code.

"but I hate the way the thoughts of the founders have been universally twisted by the Mullahs, Pandits, Padres, Rabbis and other professional priests who claim to be the `sole selling agents’ of their brands of GOD"

The above sentence makes no sense in the context of Hindus, since they do not have any founder or founders. As for as hindus are concerned, there are thousands of "dhai eent ki 'masjids'" and all of them are equally valid.

"I am also very suspicious of most of the `gurus’ and `babas’ because many, despite their huge followings, are often surprisingly narrow minded in their views and ignorant about history and culture."

Some of us may say the same things about other prophets and founders who also started out as a cult and grew large enough to be called a religion. I firmly believe that a religion is a large cult and a cult is a small religion. Let us compare one of these better known babas, Satya Sai Baba with the Prophet most of us, including you would never criticise. Satya Sai Baba has persuaded a lot more people - among them the most highly educated, rational thinkers and scientists about his being a God - than did the Prophet of his prophethood in his lifetime, and has done so without lifting a single sword or killing a single person; instead, he is known for sponsoring humanitarian causes, such as opening schools and medical facilities for the poor. Now, I happen to believe that he is a charlatan but that is neither here or there. The point is should we disrespect these babas while respecting dead prophets and founders simply because they are dead and were able to convince a far more gullible and less skeptical audience than is the case today?

Re #14 Posted by dost_mittar on

Murad Baig doesn't understand that hindus or jains were getting killed and they were neither in position to write against invaders or to protect anything.

I doubt anybody with average intelligence will call those things as alleged when those who committed it have already written them in their effort to acclaim priase in this world and prize in the other.

#14 Posted by dost_mittar


[[
"but I hate the way the thoughts of the founders have been universally twisted by the Mullahs, Pandits, Padres, Rabbis and other professional priests who claim to be the `sole selling agents’ of their brands of GOD"

The above sentence makes no sense in the context of Hindus, since they do not have any founder or founders. As for as hindus are concerned, there are thousands of "dhai eent ki 'masjids'" and all of them are equally valid.
]]


right, but it shows how liberal Murad Baig is and how "loose" he is hanging when he has to make biased statements to paint all of them alike.