Lets Destroy The Bamiyan Buddhas!

Statues, sacred books, holy cows, impure animals, vested interests, ideals . . . most evrything was destroyed during the Gujarat earthquake too.

What remained was food, sex and shelter.

Did I hear somebody mention the Church and the Mayas? Oh no, those were the discoverers, right?

So, what is wrong with history then?

Re:Reply #: 129

Layman,

Thanks for summing up the essence of hinduism so nicely. My reference to a ``zillion gods`` was only metaphorical. I really understood image worship only after reading the spiritual classic ``The autobiography of a Yogi`` by Swami Yogananda. Since meditation is an essential aspect of worship in hinduism, one needs an image (in which one believes in)to meditate. You cannot meditate in vaccum. Those who have attained God (here i will mention Ramakrishna Paramahamsa`s name) started out with image worship and later on attained the stage where they perceived the formless absolute who we call ``God``. The same god who is really without form can assume any form and that is how hindus worship Him,in many forms.

sridhar

Re: ``hinduism``

``WHat you said is true and amazing for those who are used to the 3 big relegions of the world to understand that how come RAVAN is hero and worshiped in south and RAM in North and still both are hindus``.

Firstslip,

I pondered over what you said in the above paragraph and here is what i think. I would not go to the extent of saying Ravana is worshipped in the South though this is a common perception in the North. Ravana is better understood in South and certainly not hated as much as he is in the north. It would interest you to know (i know i am digressing here)that as per the legend, Ravana was a cousin of Kubera and was a brahmin. He was a very learned person having mastered the Vedas. Also,he was a very devout worshipper of Shiva and legend has it that he won many boons from Shiva after propitiating him. His failing was that he became very proud and thought he was invincible. In Srilanka,he is a big hero to this day.

Ms Farzana Versey,

Thanks for your post,

``Not only that, but movements like the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj, and militant groups like the Bajrang Dal (Hanuman’s Army) have arisen primarily because there was an inherent dissatisfaction with this ‘way of life’ disparateness. Perhaps, some like you, do have a broader outlook and can accept it, but for the majority of Indian Hindus this is not possible``.

I agree with you when you say Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj arose due to the fact that some social reformers felt the need to reform the society and get rid of some social evils that had crept into the hindu society. In that respect, these were more of social reform movements and less of religious movements. In fact, Buddha preached social reform in his lifetime and told simple rules of ``how to conduct yourself``. His simple teachings appealed to so many people (since pundits of the time had a stranglehold on everything religious and made things very complicated) that Buddhism spread to every nook and corner of India. Buddhism really started as a social reform movement and later became a seperate religious movement with a big following.

``Bajrang Dal`` is not a reform movement but political buffonery at its best. Nobody except some in the cow belt takes them seriously. You will find that those who do not have a big political base (another eg Shiv Sena) are usually most vociferous and do not lose any opportunity at political gimmicry.

I agree with you that the different castes are a curse on the hindu society as long as they seek to exploit the less previleged. Please remember that the intensions of early settlers in dividing the society was different. People could move from one caste to the other (except the ``shudras`` who comprised,in those days,of prisoners of war). Valmiki,the author of `Ramayana` and Vyasa,the author of `Mahabharatha` both belonged originally to the so called ``low caste`` but were accepted as brahmins due to their scholarly nature (brahmins in those days were pious,scholarly people spending most of their time in studies and worship of god;alas,no more so). Caste structure became rigid much later and ended up exploiting the less previleged. That is where it stands today. I feel that while caste will never be removed from India (in India,people,regardless of which caste they belong to,are proud of it and flaunt it at every opportunity)it can be made irrelevant by legislation and empowerment of the underprevileged.Something like this is already happening in many parts,though this will take a long time to bear fruits.

``But even the five Shankaracharyas cannot come to an understanding over a simple temple construction issue. Just when a solution is round the corner, some sadhu comes up with a new version. To many of us this is the disappointing aspect. We feel let down after having been made to believe that Hinduism is dynamic and not theocratic``.

Ms Versey,

It would be best if the Shankaracharyas stayed out of this. BJP and some other political parties have tried to rope them in to make their case more popular and acceptable. This is unfortunate. As far as i can remember, Shankaracharyas had scrupulously stayed away from politics in the past and therein lies the strength of this religion. Babri Masjid,which was a non-issue,was made into a politico-religious issue by Advani to counteract V.P. Singh`s attempts at dividing hindu votes through Mandal commission. All this only for votes. The matter is with the court. This problem though has been given a religious twist (to garner hindu votes,which are otherwise divided on caste lines)is really a political problem and needs to be solved either by negotiations betweeen the 2 communities or by a supreme court decision. In this regare, it is heartening to know that the muslim community has said that it will abide by the court decision.

Sorry for the long post.What the heck, it is a weekend.

sridhar

rajajanjua,

actually if you read my last post carefully you would find that I do NOT believe that anyone who doesn`t follow my ``narrow definition`` of islam is a kafir,rather I wrote:

``The Muslims can be divided into Ahle Sunnah and the rest (which are Ahle BiddaH). ALL these are Muslims unless they believe something which is outside the Zaruriyat e Deen. ``

So what is YOUR definition of a kaafir? Pray tell.

sigalph---I don`t agree with Mullah Omar on many points BUT he sure is infinitely better than Thomas Jefferson! At least he reads the kalimah.

And if kaafirs can go to jannat why did our beloved nabi spend their life opposing their belief systems and fighting them until Islam was made victorious?

Siagalph235 #150

I would disagree with your logic.

Love it or leave it.

While in Pakistan, I have been vocal in wrongs in society. Does that make me eligible for an exile from Pakistan.

There are lot of wrongs in America, if you look carefully and is pointed out by American themselves inspite of their holier than thou media. (Recall the public debate on Iraq by Madeline Albright).

The point Asfand was making was falling in the category of holier than thou. That he is waiting for an Islamic State to be established so that he can migrate to that state.

Forming the notions of life on wrong premises lead only to the life of duplicity.

Harish3 #153

In America there is a saying ``Money talks, bull sh--it walks``.

That is very true.

American elections are very much influenced by money. (And who knows better than Americans who manipulate elections in other countries).

Republican Party in its current stage is a party of rich class, and they don`t hesitate to admit it. Therefore the problem of money is not their problem. As is well evidenced in this election.

Democrats with their bases in minorities and working class, money is a big problem.

That is why Compaign finance reform is a demand of Democrats mainly. Because once the influence of money is gone, democrats will find it easy to win the election because of their position on social issues, minorities, workers right, enviornment etc which appeals to majority of people.

As far as your contention, that middle class is now owning a substantial portion of corporate shares. In my opinion this is going to be a temporary phenomenon. And the next cycle of depression will shift the money to where it belongs.

There are already signs of it with massive sell out of shares. Dropping in the prices of shares. Big mergers. And small businesses going out of business.

A perspective:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49468-2001Mar9.html

re asif# 161

This is the re-re-re rendition of the overture of the symphony orchestra of seventh century medievalism.

You guys are against all decency, all tolerance and all good things made by the Good Lord.

``sab hasiin hain zaahidon ko na pasand

ab koi huur ayegi in ke liye``

On one theme I agree with you: the world will indeed soon be divided in two camps but not in the categories so see. Either we will stand for liberty or stand against it. This will be monumental philosophical struggle between Thomas Jefferson and Mullah Omar. May the best man win.

``Please tell me about the origin of the word Kaafir. Was it used in the pre-Islamic period or was it coined/revealed during a particular historical moment to address a particular political situation?``

Kufr in arabic is to deny. Kafir, the person who denies. In particular those who deny the existence of ``one God`` (polythiests). Muslims and Jews are very strict on Tauheed. Jews have suffered for insisting on it (Shama y Israel Adonai Eloheynu Adonai echaad - Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one - kind of simmilar to la illaha il Allah). In one of his poems Faiz uses the word in its literal meaning:

jin ka deen pervi-i-kizb-o-reyan hai un ko

himat-i-kufr milay, jurat-i-tahqeeq milay

For people like Naqshbandi, anyone who doesnt follow their narrow definition of a mussalman is a Kafir and nothing except plenty of chittars on their asses will result in reconsidering their bigoted viewpoint.

Dear Bilal sahib,

Just a quick reply for now but the Qur`an and hadith clearly state who is a kaafir and Muslims of Sunni Islam have been agreed on this matter since the time of Our Beloved Prophet sal allahu alayhi wa sallam. To be concise, the world is split into Muslims and kaafirs. All those who do not accept Islam are kaafirs (i.e. non-believers). i.e. anyone who does not accept There is No God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) and all this statement implies (i.e. iman e mufassil). Then the kaafirs can be divided into two groups: kaafirs with a divinely revealed book (i.e. Jews and Christians) and those without. All are unbelievers. Munafiqs (i.e. those who say they are Muslims but actually dont believe are kaafirs too.) The Muslims can be divided into Ahle Sunnah and the rest (which are Ahle BiddaH). All these are Muslims unless they believe something which is outside the Zaruriyat e Deen. In this day and age those who are Ahle Sunnah are the followers of Imam Ashari and Imam Maturidi in aqeedah i.e. those who follow one of the 4 orthodox mazhabs (Maliki, Shafi, Hanbali and Hanafi)....

This has been the orthodox opinion since the formulation of the madhhabs and the ummah is agreed upon this.

wallahu aalam.

I`m sorry but the examples you have given are typical of the apologists mindset. If someone doesn`t like being called a kaafir, we cannot help that. It is a part of the deen to call a kaafir a kaafir and a muslim a muslim.

I would not be offended if a orthodox christian called me a heathen nor if a hindu called me `maleech` (?) nor if someone calls me a fanatic. I am what I am and you either accept me for what i am or you dont. I will not apologise for my aqeedah. Why should I ? (I am not forcing you to accept my views but i am not going to shy away from telling anyone what they are).

please read Belief and Islam. You can read it online at www.hizmetbooks.org--it explains this much better than i have.

yours

Asif

Mr. Khan, I would invite you to try to hold the bull by its horns. For the moment, forget the Taliban and the West. Tell me what you think about basic human values, that as Bilal Ahmad Sahib will tell you, were also nurtured in Muslim societies by scholars such as Ibn Khuldun, and numerous mathematicians, and scientists. These were the people who paved the way for the emergence of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. I am talking about values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to equal citizenship regardless of ethnic origin, religion, colour. Do they matter? Should we become nauseated when Bush and Blair selectively chant some of these words in pursuit of their bloody objectives? Should we get so carried away that we lump all these values with the ``West`` and forget about their content?

The ``West`` that you rail against is a stereotype, and like all stereotypes, it does not exist. Your categorization does not enable us to distinguish between the Zapatistas and the U.S. Republicans, Bush and Nader, Samuel Huntington and Noam Chomsky. All of them belong to the West. You seem to forget that in some ways, you are Western too. The reputation of Islam in the ``west`` does matter to you. That obviously accounts for the outburst against the Taliban at the end of your piece.

Lets admit it, Michael Fay, the brat, got what he deserved for malicious vandalism. If anything, Singaporean friends of mine were outraged that the sentence was reduced. BTW, many `average` Americans here think he got what he deserved as well. The only ones who were `outraged` were the professional whiners and apologists in the social-worker/asinine-psychologist category, the same people who have turned the US into a dysfunctional society where nothing is your fault any more: its a fair cop, but society`s to blame, eh?

Regards.

PS: In defense of Feroz, he belongs to the rapidly disappearing Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, the one that is uncomfortable opening the Bible every 30 seconds to ask WWJD or speaks to Him every night to tell him what is wrong with the US.

In response to Asif Naqshbandi (Reply # 154)
Dear Asif:

Your statement: “I did not say we should hurt the feelings of non-Muslims intentionally nor did Our Beloved Prophet.”

My reply: How about the unintended consequences of our thoughts and actions? Let me give you an example. Muslims use the word Kaafir or Kuffar. Do you believe that these words are not misused or overused by the Muslims? Do you believe that the Hindus, for example, are Kaafirs? If yes, then I would argue that you have no clue about Hinduism. If no, then why many, if not most, Hindus believe that the Muslims call them Kafir? For your information, even Jinnah was called “Kaafir-e-Azam”? Do you think, they were justified in such name calling? Now, let me add another dimension to it. I have also been called a Kaafir by an apparently highly educated Pakistani, who (I understand) currently teaches journalism in Punjab University, Lahore. This was a person, I actually provided all kinds of courtesy and help when he initially came to the US, and I never asked him for any favor.
What is so great about any religion or its believers to pass such kind of judgements on other believers or non-believers, and make them feel bad?

Your statement: “. . . what I am saying is that Huzoor Paak alayhisalatosalam told us to stick to Islam no matter WHAT THE KAAFIRS may think of us. . . .”

My reply: Please tell me about the origin of the word Kaafir. Was it used in the pre-Islamic period or was it coined/revealed during a particular historical moment to address a particular political situation? If revealed, what makes it so universal that we can use it indiscriminately over all times, places, and all kinds of people?

Your statement: “What I am saying is that if you think that the unbelievers will ever truly like you, as long as you remain a Muslim, you are mistaken.”

My reply: Are you saying that human beings can never act/interact as humans only? How did Islam spread over such a large part of the world in a reasonably short time-period? By developing “othernesses”only? Or, with the use of the Sword? Or, what? What is so great about the Muslims (or the political Islamists to be more precise) that they are currently under attack from so many different directions?

Your statement: “ That does not mean that you be nasty to anyone or hurt there feelings. By your logic, many of the kuffaar find it offensive that Muslims slaughter sheep and cows on Eid ul Adha--should we stop doing Qurbani just because Brigitte Bardot and co. think it is barbaric?!

My reply: I am myself a meat-eating (and loving) person. But, I do have a contradiction in my life. I was able to slaughter animals in the past, now I cannot even see an animal being slaughtered. I still eat meat and consider myself a Pacifist. Nonetheless, if I live in a community where some people symbolically (or otherwise) treat the cow as their mother, it would be wise on my part to stop eating the beef. Moreover, I don’t consider it necessary to slaughter an animal on Eid ul Azha (pardon my spelling). I would prefer to spend the same amount of money for the education of a poor child.

Asif, religion should basically be a person`s relationship with his/her God. Difficulties arise when we start imposing our own ideas upon others.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: 149 cheraym

[``Tell me, what did Taleban gain by wasting ammunitions, man-hours, and all the show of rocket-launchers, missiles to destroy some speechless statues?``]

cheraym, I think you are the biggest hypocrite on this forum.

You pretend to care so much about extremism and fanaticism in Pakistan and other muslim countries that one might get the (false) impression that you are against ALL extremism and fanaticism and not just its muslim variety.

Lets see you do (or at least say) something about hindoo fanaticism for a change?

So tell me, what did the BJP gain by destroying the 400 year old babri mosque?

Answer: It apealed to the not-so-latent intolerance of hindoos and gained BJP the government of India!

In response to Harpreet (Reply # 152)
Dear Harpreet:

Thank you for an excellent response. I tend to agree with your arguments. In my rebuttal, however, I had said: “somewhat romantic in a modern [political] sense.” My comment needs to be read in light of the tone of the editorial which, I reckon, is grounded in a particular regional cum global geopolitical discourse.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Asif Naqshbandi #142

“If Muslims in their own lands thought about what the Western reaction to anything would be before they did it they`d get nothing done!”

Asif, what exactly have Muslims in their own lands gotten done? Correct me if i’m wrong, but Muslims in their own lands have not gotten much of anything done in the last few hundred years. Muslims in lands including the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Pakistan, northern Africa, and Southeast Asia generally have low prosperity, low standards of living, and oppressive governments. The western world has surpassed them in thought and prosperity. Now, Muslims in other people’s lands, that’s a different story.