Hidden Hindus

In response to shankar (Reply # 206)
Dear Shankar:

Thanks for your input. It is very hard to say if the ``separate yet together`` thesis applies essentially to the previous generations. Your experience of Bombay is another proof of my thesis (by implication only) regarding the ``change of context.``

While I was writing my previous post, I was thinking about the ``Bombay`` movie, where the outlook of the hero changed perhaps as a result of his exposure to a cosmopolitanism culture. I must, however, concede to the view that cosmopolitanism exists even in a lot of smaller towns and villages of India.

I agree with your view that the South Asian Muslim cusine is one of the best in terms taste.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Jay #204

............. and who cares what Asma Jehangir has to say .... I have been told by many many people in Pakistan that ``that woman`` is a ..... and please excuse me for my Urdu here, I am quoting ``respectable`` people here ...... that woman is a gashti, a woman of loose character, of questionable lineage and quite possibly a CIA agent ......... i believe her days are numbered and, inshallah, we will be rid of this nasoor soon.... she who pits daughter against father, wife against husband and concubine against master, cannot and will not be permitted to carry out her Satanic mission ...... we all know how the Angrez took care of his problem in Salem - and so shall we ....

............. by the way Jay, i hope you are not offended by my comparing you to Abu-Jahal ..... as an adversary par excellence you should consider it quite an honor ......

Umairr,

...... you seem be a clever fellow. but I do think that you, like many of us, have a hard time reconciling reason, logic and pure horse sense with religion, superstition, tradition and pure unadulterated fear....

``I don`t think Islam is inherently intolerant`` ............ so you think the treatment meted out to the civilian population after the Battle of Khandaq was an example of religious tolerance ? oh I know - it was a different time and circumstance ..... I am just glad that Gen. Ajit Singh Arora abided by the Geneva Conventions and did not use A.Alamgir`s Doctrine ..... see ? that`s the problem I have with apologists for religion - one the one hand they say it is good for all times, for eternity and after , and then they turn around and say , but that was then - it was a different time and different circumstances ................ make up your mind, because you can`t have it both ways ....

``I think it is way too abstract, and open to interpretation to be considered one or the other.``..... for God`s sake - I thought it was God`s word and therefore clear, concise and true for all time - did Gabriel falter as an interpreter or is it a Fatherly jest to trick His people into tripping over their Arabic ?

``Two people can read the same verse of the Quran, and abstract completely different meanings from it.`` ...... whoa! and I thought the Word was infallible and designed to help us lead our miserable lives....what do we have to be to get the true meaning - Einstein ?

``I think Islam, due to its sophistication and wide spectrum of influence over a person`s everyday life, requires a very educated society to be interpreted in an enlightened.`` ..... and it was revealed to a bedouin society which was about as sophisticated as Jay and his clan .... ( sorry, Jay - somehow your name conjures up Abu-Jahal - the guy most Muslims love to hate )!

``Islam, unlike Christianity, does not divide religious and state leadership amongst two different groups`` ...... thank the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost for that ..... mankind would be in deeper trouble if we still had the Holy Roman Emperor ruling out of Washington D.C.....

``The Caliphs were brilliant statesman`` ............. and they left us with a tradition of nepotism and a violent transfer of power that plagues us to this day ......

..................... I just caught a little bit of Yusuf Islam on some show on TV - the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens - another pathetic apologist for Islam who hemmed and hawed and stammered and stuttered when asked if he supported Khomeni`s Death Fatwa against Rushdie .......... it is hard to be human when you have made a pact with God. Right, Temporal ?...... but then Cat is okay because once he was human and said beautiful things like .......

i ain`t looking to fight no wars

no more talking trash

i`m not seeking any more pain

cause i`ve had enough of that

but don`t you worry it`s alright

if you should come around

any night or any day

i won`t ever let you down

................. but that was before he got religion

Kant Patel

Please read Urstruly`s post 219. Maybe you need to first read whats going on and then speak.

Ab khush ho bizt ho kar????

Yasser Hamdani

RE: sb# 215

Please read between the lines:

The understanding of the relationship of word “belief” and “truth” is quite mind-boggling. If you look for their meaning in The American Heritage Dictionary, the two explanations of the word ``belief`` are as follows:

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing.

2. Mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of something.

I took the liberty of changing the words in the definition slightly (and not the definition itself). I think we are head to head with another paradox:

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing (mis)trust or (non)confidence in a person or thing.

2. Mental acceptance or conviction in the (un)truth or (fallacy) of something.

If we apply the simple logic of deduction and inference here we get hit by a sledgehammer, right across our chests i.e. all ideas are basically religious in nature-even those that are allegedly secular?

RE: YLH

Dear Yasser,

I was just kidding with you and making sure that the pain of reading 10 mile long posts is shared. Just a prank. I didnt even read the posts and still havent. It is just that the scrolling so much page is a pain and the message I wanted to deliver to you was: plz be concise so that we understand your message.

Could you please let me know what gave you an idea that I hate minorities. Though I found this allegation quite disgusting but dont you think I must be shown the contents of the charge sheet. If you are refering to the thread on ``Protest in NY`` then I urge you to read my post titled ``THE SUMMATION``. If it doesnt convince you then call me whatever you like. Lets just say that I take up cases for the absentee party or those who are cornered and are scared to come forward. I will continue to do so because I am

Yours ``Truly``.

The following URLs lead to articles dealing with minority affairs in Pakistan :

http://www.jamaat.org/Isharat/ish072000.html

http://www.columban.org.au/bridges_Mar99_3.htm

-arun

Fuzair: #192: I agree with the second part of your post.

I don`t think Islam is inherently intolerant or tolerant. I think it is way too abstract, and open to interpretation to be considered one or the other. In another words, its level of tolerance is in the eye of the interpreter. Two people can read the same verse of the Quran, and abstract completely different meanings from it. An example is in the translations that I quoted in my reply to hamidm. This to me is the beauty of the Quran.

The problem arises when people are convinced their interpretations are the only correct ones. You have highlighted this point quite convincingly. I have met very few, if any, Muslims who do not believe that the Quran is not God`s word. I have met a whole bunch that thinks it is not being interpreted correctly. That is why I stated that there are as many interpretations of the Quran, as there are human beings. Each person who reads it will interpret it based on his or her own social system, education level, and upbringing.

I think Islam, due to its sophistication and wide spectrum of influence over a person`s everyday life, requires a very educated society to be interpreted in an enlightened. Hence the emphasis on education in Islam. In an educated society, Islam will flourish. In an uneducated society, Islam may become a source of conflict. Currently Muslims are by far the most illiterate religious group in the world. As an international community, they are far more illiterate than Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Parsis, Athiests, etc. etc. Because of this, they will always lean towards the, ``unenlightened`` interpretation of the Quran.

To the best of my knowledge, it is only in the 20th century that some countries have been able to achieve universal education. None of these countries are Muslim countries. Due to this, there has never been a Muslim society, which has achieved universal education. So once the initial group of the original Islamic leaders passed away, the interpretation of the Quran was up for grabs. Whomever had the most influence or the will to die for his/her cause ended up getting his/her ideas declared official. This is the situation we currently find ourselves in. I think it is a bit unfair to blame religion for this.

I think it also somewhat unfair to put all the blame on the mullahs. They genuinely believe they are interpreting Islam correctly. They are willing to put their lives on the line for it. If the, ``enlightened`` interpreters were to show the same amount of conviction for their interpretations, the Muslim society would be a better place. I think that is where the problem lies.

Islam, unlike Christianity, does not divide religious and state leadership amongst two different groups. The leader of the state is supposed to be the religious leader, as well. Or vice-versa. Muhammad was not a priest. He was a statesman, politician, general, etc. The Caliphs were brilliant statesman. Usman was a very successful businessman. Khalid-bin-Waleed (a colleague of Muhammad and the Caliphs) was a world class general. Umar was a great executive manager, etc. etc. Non-Muslim historians recognize these facts, also.

These leaders, along with their human faults and virtues, had a deep understanding of religion also. So they were professionals who understood and participated in religion. Not religious leaders who participated in professions. This is what is lacking in the current Islamic societies. There is a large vacuum of professionals who understand religion. If one were to extrapolate backwards towards the initial Islamic leaders, what would the ideal profile for the current Islamic leader? Would it be someone who is a religious scholar but has no professional experience. Or would it be a successful businessman (perhaps a .com entrepreneur) like Usman, who happens to have an in-depth understanding of religion. I think Islam (or at least, early Islamic history) dictates the later, and not the former.

The problem is that there are very few of the later breed around. The professionals do not have enough religious knowledge, or conviction. This has created a religious vacuum, which has been filled by the uneducated mullah, who is willing to put in a lot more effort to get his interpretation (incorrect, though it maybe) of religion declared the final word.

I think the enlightened interpretation of Islam will become the norm, not when the mullah becomes educated, nor will it occur if the mullah is shipped out to sea. The enlightenment will occur if the professional and, ``worldly enlightened`` Muslim (who always complains about the mullah) starts become a religious scholar also, and develops enough courage, knowledge and discipline to take on the mullah, in the mullah`s own backyard.

Urstruly #190: One must also understand that when there is a fact vs. beleif argument, the beleif always ``wins``- even if the beleif is a non-religious one.

Please elucidate.

Fuzair #192: For those of you who don`t know what I`m talking about, forget it. It will take too long to explain.

:-) You are a bit optimistic.

fairdinkum #195:

Problems arise because people defeat the reason for the existence of a religion - because they ignore that the religion (any religion) exists because people at the time of its birth exercised their brains (and questioned existing customs)

EST Reply #: 192

Fuzair

You wrote:

``

All three of the revealed religions are inherently intolerant. I don`t know as much about Hinduism, etc. so I will exclude them from my sweeping condemnation

``

--Another problem I see with all the revealed religons (except Judaism ?) is their intense desire to preach and propogate their version of the ``Truth``.

That is one thing that has always been the cause of all wars based on religon. If converting people was the not aim of these religons, then followers would not try to convince /impose their views of others. And this would prevent people taking arms to convince/impose thier ideas or to defend their way of life.

Just a thought...

AD

EST Reply #: 192

Fuzair

You wrote:

``

All three of the revealed religions are inherently intolerant. I don`t know as much about Hinduism, etc. so I will exclude them from my sweeping condemnation

``

--Another problem I see with all the revealed religons (except Judaism ?) is their intense desire to preach and propogate their version of the ``Truth``.

That is one thing that has always been the cause of all wars based on religon. If converting people was the not aim of these religons, then followers would not try to convince /impose their views of others.

Just a thought...

AD

Urstruly #191 re YLH,



How true! Now read his post #143 and then #144.

some contradictions, nay!

Kant....

Urstruly

Please sir comment on how the two posts are contradictory.

Thankyou

Yasser Hamdani

Urstruly

I believe both those posts are by

Ardeshir Cowasjee... I dont know what is so contradictory to you.

Please sir, I have meaning to ask you, what do you have against Minorities anyway? Is it Islamic of you to hate them?

I believe that I have read them quite thoroughly.

Ardeshir Cowasjee, with whom I have sincere difference on Bhutto, is a real patriot ... a patriot of Higher substance than any half baked imams and maulanas leading the JI can ever be.

Pakistan Zindabad

Ardeshir Cowasjee the parsi for

President!!!!!!!!!!

Re Fuzair

There is nothing inherently wrong in religion. The problem lies in its interpretation. While I do not know much about the 3 religions of the book, the Hinduism I grew up on was tolerant. But at the same time, you also have nuts who believe that religion tells them that their belief is the correct interpretation of Hinduism. Go figure.

The problem is with the interlopers of religion. If Christ were alive today, he wouldn`t recognize what passes off for the R.C. version a la Rome or the Southern baptist version as well. I suppose that the same would apply to the Buddha, Mohammad or any other founder/prophet of a religion.

As Shakespeare put it so eloquently in the Merchant of Venice to the effect: even the devil can cite the scriptures to make his cause.

sigalph #180:

Its good to see a committed Jinnahite and a fervent supporter of the Muslim League and Parition, stand up for Indian secularism.

Kudos to you, Sir.

Thank you.

Satyavadi

PS: YLH and Maulana Krashid, would you try to read Sigalph`s post?