They Changed My God
Anwar Iqbal March 7, 2001
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#264 Posted by JR on March 23, 2001 5:30:24 pm
PM #256:
I hear you! I agree with your viewpoints.
I am not a homophobe. I do not mind if you are gay or not. I dont mind accepting a gay person as my bosom friend either.
I do not think being gay is wrong. I believe that a person born with an abnormality is as much human as anybody else - because that is the part about being human that is beautiful - being an individual, not being the exact same as somebody else.
I hear you! I agree with your viewpoints.
I am not a homophobe. I do not mind if you are gay or not. I dont mind accepting a gay person as my bosom friend either.
I do not think being gay is wrong. I believe that a person born with an abnormality is as much human as anybody else - because that is the part about being human that is beautiful - being an individual, not being the exact same as somebody else.
#263 Posted by JR on March 23, 2001 5:30:24 pm
PM #256:
I hear you! I agree with your viewpoints.
I am not a homophobe. I do not mind if you are gay or not. I dont mind accepting a gay person as my bosom friend either.
I do not think being gay is wrong. I believe that a person born with an abnormality is as much human as anybody else - because that is the part about being human that is beautiful - being an individual, not being the exact same as somebody else.
I hear you! I agree with your viewpoints.
I am not a homophobe. I do not mind if you are gay or not. I dont mind accepting a gay person as my bosom friend either.
I do not think being gay is wrong. I believe that a person born with an abnormality is as much human as anybody else - because that is the part about being human that is beautiful - being an individual, not being the exact same as somebody else.
#262 Posted by JR on March 23, 2001 5:30:24 pm
Tahmed #257:
I think you did not understand my view on Hindu religious killings. I do not condone or minimize the evil that is Hindu religious violence.
In fact I despise and loathe the BJP, RSS, VHP, Shivsena and other fanatic groups who kill minorities under the pretext of championing the Hindu cause.
The point I was making is that these groups perpetrate enough religious violence without religious sanction, imagine what they would if they did have religious sanction, like in Islam.
Whether you agree or not, young Muslim minds are taught the exact verses I quoted you to go out and put bullets in people of other faiths. Is this not religious sanction?
You are the first Muslim I have met who has publicly answered in the affirmative to the questions that there are verses in the Quran that are time specific, confusing and contradictory.
I salute you for this, because it is the truth.
Let us not extrapolate the significance of this to mean that the Quran is not timeless and that Quran does not contain a beautiful message, but, let us take it to the next logical step - which is reform.
Reform may be - regorganizing the verses that are misleading and time specific and emphasizing the importance of context.
In conclusion, the message of Islam needs to be reformed to cater to today`s questioning, educated ,rational believer. The exclusivism and dogmatism must go.
I know there are more that you and I do not agree on. Let us agree to disagree.
My goal is to bring home the message that the Quran is a guide to man very much like other religious books and that there is more to being a good human being than there is to follow a particular faith.
I think you did not understand my view on Hindu religious killings. I do not condone or minimize the evil that is Hindu religious violence.
In fact I despise and loathe the BJP, RSS, VHP, Shivsena and other fanatic groups who kill minorities under the pretext of championing the Hindu cause.
The point I was making is that these groups perpetrate enough religious violence without religious sanction, imagine what they would if they did have religious sanction, like in Islam.
Whether you agree or not, young Muslim minds are taught the exact verses I quoted you to go out and put bullets in people of other faiths. Is this not religious sanction?
You are the first Muslim I have met who has publicly answered in the affirmative to the questions that there are verses in the Quran that are time specific, confusing and contradictory.
I salute you for this, because it is the truth.
Let us not extrapolate the significance of this to mean that the Quran is not timeless and that Quran does not contain a beautiful message, but, let us take it to the next logical step - which is reform.
Reform may be - regorganizing the verses that are misleading and time specific and emphasizing the importance of context.
In conclusion, the message of Islam needs to be reformed to cater to today`s questioning, educated ,rational believer. The exclusivism and dogmatism must go.
I know there are more that you and I do not agree on. Let us agree to disagree.
My goal is to bring home the message that the Quran is a guide to man very much like other religious books and that there is more to being a good human being than there is to follow a particular faith.
#261 Posted by PM on March 23, 2001 2:48:21 pm
re. TAhmed, JR and my wager:
Ok. I lost... I guess. But it was worth it drawing a response forom you coz now we get to discuss...
--------begin quote---------
[JR]: ``Do you think there are verses in the Quran that encourage violence to people of other faiths?``
[TAhmed]: ``Nope. Of course, we both disagree here, and no point in my trying to explain.``
--------end quote
Why would there be no point in try to reconcile your reply with verses such as ``take ye not Jews aor Christains as friends..``, or `` ... where ye find them, slay them ...``? are these matters of interpretation?
Situational? Maybe. But still no less ``encouraging of violence towards....``. What about the quranic dictates verses the weight of a non-Muslim witness`s testimony? Does that not encourage violence-- say, if the non-believers were to demand equal rights?
While I`m on the subject, here`s a little more cute sanitizing by those obviously gifted in the area of selective reading:
Zahra wrote:``Remember Haqooqul-Ibaad[Rights of Human Beings] was always given preference over Haqooq-Allah [Rights of God].``
Yeah, right. Now, is the penalty for apostacy the playing out of Haqooqul-Ibaad or Haqooq-Allah?
Ah yes, that penalty is not quaranically sanctioned. And Zahra`s quote is?
Urstruly Zinadabad! at least he`s under no delusions about the often stringent demands of Islam.
rgds,
PM
Ok. I lost... I guess. But it was worth it drawing a response forom you coz now we get to discuss...
--------begin quote---------
[JR]: ``Do you think there are verses in the Quran that encourage violence to people of other faiths?``
[TAhmed]: ``Nope. Of course, we both disagree here, and no point in my trying to explain.``
--------end quote
Why would there be no point in try to reconcile your reply with verses such as ``take ye not Jews aor Christains as friends..``, or `` ... where ye find them, slay them ...``? are these matters of interpretation?
Situational? Maybe. But still no less ``encouraging of violence towards....``. What about the quranic dictates verses the weight of a non-Muslim witness`s testimony? Does that not encourage violence-- say, if the non-believers were to demand equal rights?
While I`m on the subject, here`s a little more cute sanitizing by those obviously gifted in the area of selective reading:
Zahra wrote:``Remember Haqooqul-Ibaad[Rights of Human Beings] was always given preference over Haqooq-Allah [Rights of God].``
Yeah, right. Now, is the penalty for apostacy the playing out of Haqooqul-Ibaad or Haqooq-Allah?
Ah yes, that penalty is not quaranically sanctioned. And Zahra`s quote is?
Urstruly Zinadabad! at least he`s under no delusions about the often stringent demands of Islam.
rgds,
PM
#260 Posted by Urstruly on March 23, 2001 12:45:40 pm
Zahra:
The last thing I wanted from my post was to win an argument with you. No.
So you dont LIKE Jehad, fighting, or killing etc. That is perfectly fine with me. I dont LIKE to get up at 530 in the morning for prayers eiter. Nor do I LIKE to give my hard earned money as Zakat to bums and measely widows either. Nor do I LIKE to travel to go to Hajj, shouldnt I rather be in Aruba. And who LIKES to stay hungary and thirsty from dusk to dawn during Ramadan. What is there to like?
As for the ``development of negotiation skills`` is concerned what do you think you will negotiate with Hindustani Soormas who gang rape 12 and 13 year old Kashmiri women. Do you think our enemy has a moral spine to at least condemn these hieneous crimes against humanity? They dont. Didnt we give 55 years to negotiation already? Do Hindus show any mercy to these children; do they feel any compassion when they burn the whole villages down? Do they even give a damn about human rights right under the pinnocio nose of Secularism and Democracy? So when Kashmiri lions come roaring with vengeance and wrath of God and smite Hindus` necks off their torsos it is well deserved. Is there an alternative?
No one likes war. But let me tell you this, a Muslim can be anything but a quadruped to be pushed around. No Ma`m. All we want is a right to live with dignity and respect.
US is the biggest defence spender in the world even after the Cold War. What are they gathering and developing those weapons for; for small timers like Osama Bin Laden? What about Indians-they have one of the largest armies in the world-for what? to give releif to earthquake victims?
Divine word is ``Khuzoo wa KHizra kum`` i.e. ``Be prepared (with your weapons)``. What should we do take word of these hulking monsters ready to devouver us, over our God`s, just because the sensibilities of some worthless godforsaken Pacifists are hurt?
The last thing I wanted from my post was to win an argument with you. No.
So you dont LIKE Jehad, fighting, or killing etc. That is perfectly fine with me. I dont LIKE to get up at 530 in the morning for prayers eiter. Nor do I LIKE to give my hard earned money as Zakat to bums and measely widows either. Nor do I LIKE to travel to go to Hajj, shouldnt I rather be in Aruba. And who LIKES to stay hungary and thirsty from dusk to dawn during Ramadan. What is there to like?
As for the ``development of negotiation skills`` is concerned what do you think you will negotiate with Hindustani Soormas who gang rape 12 and 13 year old Kashmiri women. Do you think our enemy has a moral spine to at least condemn these hieneous crimes against humanity? They dont. Didnt we give 55 years to negotiation already? Do Hindus show any mercy to these children; do they feel any compassion when they burn the whole villages down? Do they even give a damn about human rights right under the pinnocio nose of Secularism and Democracy? So when Kashmiri lions come roaring with vengeance and wrath of God and smite Hindus` necks off their torsos it is well deserved. Is there an alternative?
No one likes war. But let me tell you this, a Muslim can be anything but a quadruped to be pushed around. No Ma`m. All we want is a right to live with dignity and respect.
US is the biggest defence spender in the world even after the Cold War. What are they gathering and developing those weapons for; for small timers like Osama Bin Laden? What about Indians-they have one of the largest armies in the world-for what? to give releif to earthquake victims?
Divine word is ``Khuzoo wa KHizra kum`` i.e. ``Be prepared (with your weapons)``. What should we do take word of these hulking monsters ready to devouver us, over our God`s, just because the sensibilities of some worthless godforsaken Pacifists are hurt?
#259 Posted by tahmed321 on March 23, 2001 10:10:50 am
Rsaxena: One more thing. I am aware of how the Church hounded Galileo, as you mention. You may be interested to know that while scientists in the Islamic countries in past centuries (people who contributed undoubtedly to the world in medicine, algebra and so forth) were also similarly hounded by the fundamentalists of their times. I have it on good authority (my younger brother, who reads such stuff between professional activities) that Ibn Sina (Avicenna, who inspired the rise of modern medicine in Europe) had to run for his life more than once, with the the spears of the Islamists following closely behind his behind. Our own Sir Syed was the target of mullah anger for daring to promote ``secular`` education.
I think the tension is not between religion vs. secularism. It is the tension of rationality vs. irrationality, science vs. superstition, understanding vs. ignorance, the brain cortex vs. the underlying reptilian brain that served our ancestors well until a hundred thousand years ago or so but is now more useless and a far bigger nuisance then some other atavisms we all inherit. Religion, when viewed from the irrational, supertitious, ignorant, reptilian aspect simply serves to provide a cover to these underlying driving forces. When viewed from a rational persepective, it can lift us to a step ahead of the frontiers of science.
That is what I think.
I think the tension is not between religion vs. secularism. It is the tension of rationality vs. irrationality, science vs. superstition, understanding vs. ignorance, the brain cortex vs. the underlying reptilian brain that served our ancestors well until a hundred thousand years ago or so but is now more useless and a far bigger nuisance then some other atavisms we all inherit. Religion, when viewed from the irrational, supertitious, ignorant, reptilian aspect simply serves to provide a cover to these underlying driving forces. When viewed from a rational persepective, it can lift us to a step ahead of the frontiers of science.
That is what I think.
#258 Posted by rsaxena on March 23, 2001 10:10:50 am
Re: TAhmed
``On the other hand, religion can provide us a firm anchor for promoting certain values in society ``
It ``CAN`` and ``SHOULD`` have provided that anchor but it has failed. Miserably. Isn`t time to look for some other anchors? How about education? If in place of every religious building in the world, a free school were to be built, imagine how much more good can come of it?
``On the other hand, religion can provide us a firm anchor for promoting certain values in society ``
It ``CAN`` and ``SHOULD`` have provided that anchor but it has failed. Miserably. Isn`t time to look for some other anchors? How about education? If in place of every religious building in the world, a free school were to be built, imagine how much more good can come of it?
#257 Posted by rsaxena on March 23, 2001 10:10:50 am
Re: Pankaj
``Most often, religion is used as a guise for meeting ulterior motives by the interested parties.``
Why give them that guise? The fewer, the better. Right?
``Most often, religion is used as a guise for meeting ulterior motives by the interested parties.``
Why give them that guise? The fewer, the better. Right?
#256 Posted by tahmed321 on March 23, 2001 3:02:59 am
Rsaxena #250 I agree that animals get a bad rap when we refer to some humans as animals. A deer never shot a hunter. While people seek to gain power and wealth and even kill in the name of religion, the motivating force is not religion. The motivating force is the same as that of people who seek to gain power and wealth and even kill for the heck of it (driven, I am sure, by deep psychological insecurities and so forth, but that is their problem and should not be made society`s problem). On the other hand, religion can provide us a firm anchor for promoting certain values in society - as I mentioned before, some non-religious folks in Pakistan (and India too, as shown by tehelka.com) have raped the country. The religious groups (the lashkars) are no replacement and are too stupid and weak to ever take power in Pakistan (my opinion). But all this goes to show the backwardness of our people. Religion is good or bad only if we make it so.
#255 Posted by tahmed321 on March 23, 2001 3:02:59 am
JR #246 Tahmed #240:
``But, where have I in my post condoned Hindu religious violence?``
Post #231 where you counter my example of the killing of the Australian missionary and his two sons by saying the there is a difference between killings sanctioned by religion (by which you mean Islam, incorrectly of course as I have pointed out but you seem quite determined to stick to this view) and killings motivated by religion. BS, I am sorry to say. Killing is killing, and to start drawing fine distinctions indicates the same line of thinking that got those killers to do the killing in the first place.
``Also, you say I insulted Islam. Please sir be real, if questioning something is insulting then are you asking me to leave my brains behind when I come in to pray?``
??
``I knew you would never cross that line and admit that there are many not so noble verses in the Quran.``
How can you be so sure? You dont know me other than through a couple of posts exchanges. This is the same presumptuousness that led PM to bet $20 that I would not respond to your post, which I am doing right now.
``Also, sir you are very good with convoluted explanations - your most recent is Accountancy?``
OK. No more of those since you have no use for them.
``Final - Simple questions- Do you think that there are verses in the Quran that are demeaning to women and followers of other faiths?``
No.
``Yes or No answer please - no DNA and accountancy, okay!``
No.
PS: I will not bother explaining my view since your mind is already made up, and you have been ignoring or downplaying every explanation I have tried to make on other points. So, have fun with your views on what Islam.
``Do you think there are verses in the quran that are confusing and contradictory?``
Yup.
``Do you think there are verses in the Quran that are time specific?``
Yup. (I said so in a previous post to you as well, but obviously you write better than you read).
``Do you think there are verses in the Quran that encourage violence to people of other faiths?``
Nope. Of course, we both disagree here, and no point in my trying to explain.
``Prediction - I bet you will not answer, because it takes courage to say something is not right, even though for 1400 years people have said everything in it is right and timeless.``
You seem to know how lacking in courage I am without knowing who I am. You must be God.
``Also, you can accuse me all you want, but I am not insulting you or Islam. I am just asking some questions as a person who has read the Quran, the bible, the Torahs, Mahabharatha, Ramayana and the Gita. ``
More power to you.
``Also, please do not assume that I follow a particular faith. I dont. I believe in God and trust all religions lead there, but I disagree with fanatics who say their religion is the true faith. ``
Interesting definition of a fanatic. Incidentally, I never said this, and on this thread alone I must have repeated God (and you) knows how many times that there is nothing special about being a muslim (per the Quran, and per my belief). Again, your writing is very nice, but reading (and listening) seem to require some attention.
``Remember the anecdore about God (mill owner) and the cotton pickers. In the final analysis, God does not ask the cotton pickers which road they took to get to the mill, but asked them what was the quality of the cotton they each have.
So sir, are you about the quality of the cotton or about which road you took to get the cotton to the mill?``
The former (end product, these being deeds in case of humans). I dont recall saying anything in my earlier posts to give any impression other than this. Incidentally, I thought you did not like anecdotes and liked straight questions and answers.
PS: Dont forget to collect $20 from PM. I wont predict that he wont now ask for your mailing address so he may send you a check, since I am sure he means everything he says.
``But, where have I in my post condoned Hindu religious violence?``
Post #231 where you counter my example of the killing of the Australian missionary and his two sons by saying the there is a difference between killings sanctioned by religion (by which you mean Islam, incorrectly of course as I have pointed out but you seem quite determined to stick to this view) and killings motivated by religion. BS, I am sorry to say. Killing is killing, and to start drawing fine distinctions indicates the same line of thinking that got those killers to do the killing in the first place.
``Also, you say I insulted Islam. Please sir be real, if questioning something is insulting then are you asking me to leave my brains behind when I come in to pray?``
??
``I knew you would never cross that line and admit that there are many not so noble verses in the Quran.``
How can you be so sure? You dont know me other than through a couple of posts exchanges. This is the same presumptuousness that led PM to bet $20 that I would not respond to your post, which I am doing right now.
``Also, sir you are very good with convoluted explanations - your most recent is Accountancy?``
OK. No more of those since you have no use for them.
``Final - Simple questions- Do you think that there are verses in the Quran that are demeaning to women and followers of other faiths?``
No.
``Yes or No answer please - no DNA and accountancy, okay!``
No.
PS: I will not bother explaining my view since your mind is already made up, and you have been ignoring or downplaying every explanation I have tried to make on other points. So, have fun with your views on what Islam.
``Do you think there are verses in the quran that are confusing and contradictory?``
Yup.
``Do you think there are verses in the Quran that are time specific?``
Yup. (I said so in a previous post to you as well, but obviously you write better than you read).
``Do you think there are verses in the Quran that encourage violence to people of other faiths?``
Nope. Of course, we both disagree here, and no point in my trying to explain.
``Prediction - I bet you will not answer, because it takes courage to say something is not right, even though for 1400 years people have said everything in it is right and timeless.``
You seem to know how lacking in courage I am without knowing who I am. You must be God.
``Also, you can accuse me all you want, but I am not insulting you or Islam. I am just asking some questions as a person who has read the Quran, the bible, the Torahs, Mahabharatha, Ramayana and the Gita. ``
More power to you.
``Also, please do not assume that I follow a particular faith. I dont. I believe in God and trust all religions lead there, but I disagree with fanatics who say their religion is the true faith. ``
Interesting definition of a fanatic. Incidentally, I never said this, and on this thread alone I must have repeated God (and you) knows how many times that there is nothing special about being a muslim (per the Quran, and per my belief). Again, your writing is very nice, but reading (and listening) seem to require some attention.
``Remember the anecdore about God (mill owner) and the cotton pickers. In the final analysis, God does not ask the cotton pickers which road they took to get to the mill, but asked them what was the quality of the cotton they each have.
So sir, are you about the quality of the cotton or about which road you took to get the cotton to the mill?``
The former (end product, these being deeds in case of humans). I dont recall saying anything in my earlier posts to give any impression other than this. Incidentally, I thought you did not like anecdotes and liked straight questions and answers.
PS: Dont forget to collect $20 from PM. I wont predict that he wont now ask for your mailing address so he may send you a check, since I am sure he means everything he says.
#254 Posted by PM on March 23, 2001 3:02:59 am
JR, #252:
(sigh!) A man close to my own er.. mind! (would`ve said heart, but rumour has it that I`m gay-- and I know how homophobic your average desi male is :) )
JR, I hear you-- loud and clear! I remember the terror I felt when I started questioning my religious beliefs at the ripe old age of 18-- just after deciding that perhaps non-Catholics (even those evil Protestants!) might actually have a shot at salvation and land of milk and honey and streets of gold (ummm... no one mentioned houris in OUR sexually repressive version of Paradise)
But through all the excorciating (sp?) pain that attended this questioning, one idea that never failed to revive the courage was that quip by Hazrat Essa that ``the truth will set you free``. Bam! I cannot fully express the imaginal and intellectual power of that idea to sustain this quest!
Yeah... why the heck should anyone/anybody be afraid of the TRUTH? And what should be my/our supreme value anyway? Faith, or Truth? Couldn`t we have faith in the truth being ultimately `good` -- no matter what it might reveal along the way.
I have the idea that Islam encourages it`s adherents -- explicitly anyway -- to question and take the rational approach to religion a lot more than traditional Christianity has-- at least this is waht I understand from some sayings of the Prophet himeslf about seeking knowledge.
However I guess Islam (or the Prophet) never foresaw those liberal/libeating dictums posing a threat to it`s own rather conservative, dogmatic `theological` foundations.
Sidebar thought: Islam wasn`t suppoed to have any theology in the conventional sense, but then, I guess man -- or religion -- cannot do without it. So we have the curious situation of many Muslims suggesting that reason is completely consisitent with religion, but exercising little of it beyond a certain point.
And that, dear JR (woulda said `sweet` but someone`s already cornered that market:) )was the point in my asking about your motivation. It would seem to me that reason can only go so far until it hits that wall called Dogamtic Faith -- beyond which lies the scary land of `kufr`.
Being reasonable is sometimes not so much a reasonable decision as it is a moral one.
Sheesh... now I`m beginning to sound like the priest I was supposed to be...
rgds,
PM
(sigh!) A man close to my own er.. mind! (would`ve said heart, but rumour has it that I`m gay-- and I know how homophobic your average desi male is :) )
JR, I hear you-- loud and clear! I remember the terror I felt when I started questioning my religious beliefs at the ripe old age of 18-- just after deciding that perhaps non-Catholics (even those evil Protestants!) might actually have a shot at salvation and land of milk and honey and streets of gold (ummm... no one mentioned houris in OUR sexually repressive version of Paradise)
But through all the excorciating (sp?) pain that attended this questioning, one idea that never failed to revive the courage was that quip by Hazrat Essa that ``the truth will set you free``. Bam! I cannot fully express the imaginal and intellectual power of that idea to sustain this quest!
Yeah... why the heck should anyone/anybody be afraid of the TRUTH? And what should be my/our supreme value anyway? Faith, or Truth? Couldn`t we have faith in the truth being ultimately `good` -- no matter what it might reveal along the way.
I have the idea that Islam encourages it`s adherents -- explicitly anyway -- to question and take the rational approach to religion a lot more than traditional Christianity has-- at least this is waht I understand from some sayings of the Prophet himeslf about seeking knowledge.
However I guess Islam (or the Prophet) never foresaw those liberal/libeating dictums posing a threat to it`s own rather conservative, dogmatic `theological` foundations.
Sidebar thought: Islam wasn`t suppoed to have any theology in the conventional sense, but then, I guess man -- or religion -- cannot do without it. So we have the curious situation of many Muslims suggesting that reason is completely consisitent with religion, but exercising little of it beyond a certain point.
And that, dear JR (woulda said `sweet` but someone`s already cornered that market:) )was the point in my asking about your motivation. It would seem to me that reason can only go so far until it hits that wall called Dogamtic Faith -- beyond which lies the scary land of `kufr`.
Being reasonable is sometimes not so much a reasonable decision as it is a moral one.
Sheesh... now I`m beginning to sound like the priest I was supposed to be...
rgds,
PM
#253 Posted by Zahra on March 22, 2001 9:47:37 pm
URS:
You wanted to make me feel bad for using the word, ``rubbish`` by giving all the details :-)
Clever Move! Thanks for the informative note, but my intent was different!
I know what you are saying, but I am not very positive on the intricacies of Pillars vs Components.[The way you have differentiated]. It has been a while since I have read the component- breakdown the way you have stated. I guess we learn that in our childhood so we take it for granted. Though I do remember it is mentioned in a long dua Eeeman-Something??? Sorry, do not remember.
I have used the word, Jehad in the context of wars/larayaan. I completely agree with your list, but that`s something I did not imply in anway or shape. You are also saying that there are Ayaats re-enforcing the purpose of Jehad. Yes, there are and I am not denying that. But Jehad is not the top priority or the main element of Islam. You mentioned 6th. There is a difference between 1st and 6th; similarly 2nd and 6th are not the same either. What`s number 1? What`s number 2? 3? 4? 5?......Then comes 6th.
At the time of your death, what`s the first question? Namaz or Jehad? Please clarify. Please read my question very carefully. I am asking what is asked? I am not saying what you will like to tell :-) There`s a difference :-)!
URS: Thanks for the informative correction. In early days of Islam, people were not that educated, lacked the negotiations skills and did not know how to resolve matters. So the end result was ``taking over by force``; or the opponent offered more resistance than cooperation so the result was... In current day and age, things do not have to go to those extremes as you have a lot of steps that can be covered in between before jumping to the last resort. Now if you do not want to indulge in a peace effort, or in a negotiation deal then obviously you will promote the Jehad by sword. I am against that. I hate fights. I hate killings. Last but not least, I hate the fact that Islam is being recognized by the last element ``Jehad - by sword`` than by its true spirit. Unfortunately, these killings are also not taking us anywhere, because they are defensive measures than an oppressive action.
What happened to the fact or the innocent myths or the very sweet implications or the reality...that if you offer your prayers[the ones that one should 5 times] then you will have the fear of God within you and you will not indulge in bad practices/killings/vulgar acts/fornication and etc etc etc...
``Amur-bil-Maroof-Wa-Nahi-Anil-Munkar``
What happened to if you fast then you will be more charitable/thankful to God for all the blessings/have self-control/strengthen your connection with God/sense of doing something for Allah Taala only...?
What happened to if you give charities then it will ward off all the bad things and bring prosperity/burkat/inculcate generosity/sharing/giving your stuff away/helping and etc...?
What happened to the main belief in God? Should not many things stem from there? Fear of God?
These were some random thoughts and I am just throwing them on the table as food for thought!
Later...
You wanted to make me feel bad for using the word, ``rubbish`` by giving all the details :-)
Clever Move! Thanks for the informative note, but my intent was different!
I know what you are saying, but I am not very positive on the intricacies of Pillars vs Components.[The way you have differentiated]. It has been a while since I have read the component- breakdown the way you have stated. I guess we learn that in our childhood so we take it for granted. Though I do remember it is mentioned in a long dua Eeeman-Something??? Sorry, do not remember.
I have used the word, Jehad in the context of wars/larayaan. I completely agree with your list, but that`s something I did not imply in anway or shape. You are also saying that there are Ayaats re-enforcing the purpose of Jehad. Yes, there are and I am not denying that. But Jehad is not the top priority or the main element of Islam. You mentioned 6th. There is a difference between 1st and 6th; similarly 2nd and 6th are not the same either. What`s number 1? What`s number 2? 3? 4? 5?......Then comes 6th.
At the time of your death, what`s the first question? Namaz or Jehad? Please clarify. Please read my question very carefully. I am asking what is asked? I am not saying what you will like to tell :-) There`s a difference :-)!
URS: Thanks for the informative correction. In early days of Islam, people were not that educated, lacked the negotiations skills and did not know how to resolve matters. So the end result was ``taking over by force``; or the opponent offered more resistance than cooperation so the result was... In current day and age, things do not have to go to those extremes as you have a lot of steps that can be covered in between before jumping to the last resort. Now if you do not want to indulge in a peace effort, or in a negotiation deal then obviously you will promote the Jehad by sword. I am against that. I hate fights. I hate killings. Last but not least, I hate the fact that Islam is being recognized by the last element ``Jehad - by sword`` than by its true spirit. Unfortunately, these killings are also not taking us anywhere, because they are defensive measures than an oppressive action.
What happened to the fact or the innocent myths or the very sweet implications or the reality...that if you offer your prayers[the ones that one should 5 times] then you will have the fear of God within you and you will not indulge in bad practices/killings/vulgar acts/fornication and etc etc etc...
``Amur-bil-Maroof-Wa-Nahi-Anil-Munkar``
What happened to if you fast then you will be more charitable/thankful to God for all the blessings/have self-control/strengthen your connection with God/sense of doing something for Allah Taala only...?
What happened to if you give charities then it will ward off all the bad things and bring prosperity/burkat/inculcate generosity/sharing/giving your stuff away/helping and etc...?
What happened to the main belief in God? Should not many things stem from there? Fear of God?
These were some random thoughts and I am just throwing them on the table as food for thought!
Later...
#252 Posted by Pankaj on March 22, 2001 7:42:43 pm
RSaxena
``Humans specialize in that and are helped along by religion.
``
The root of all the violence in the world is clash of group interests and inability of humans to resolve it peacefully. Even if the whole world follows one religion, the violemce will not stop. Most often, religion is used as a guise for meeting ulterior motives by the interested parties. So may be in this way the presence of a binding ideology like religion, prone to abuse helps interested groups in inciting violence. But the clash of interests would be there till we exist. Till the realisation occurs that peaceful means of conflict resolution are the only way to optimise collective good, the violence will continue, religion or no religion.
Sincerely
``Humans specialize in that and are helped along by religion.
``
The root of all the violence in the world is clash of group interests and inability of humans to resolve it peacefully. Even if the whole world follows one religion, the violemce will not stop. Most often, religion is used as a guise for meeting ulterior motives by the interested parties. So may be in this way the presence of a binding ideology like religion, prone to abuse helps interested groups in inciting violence. But the clash of interests would be there till we exist. Till the realisation occurs that peaceful means of conflict resolution are the only way to optimise collective good, the violence will continue, religion or no religion.
Sincerely
#251 Posted by Pankaj on March 22, 2001 7:42:43 pm
RSaxena
``Humans specialize in that and are helped along by religion.
``
The root of all the violence in the world is clash of group interests and inability of humans to resolve it peacefully. Even if the whole world follows one religion, the violemce will not stop. Most often, religion is used as a guise for meeting ulterior motives by the interested parties. So may be in this way the presence of a binding ideology like religion, prone to abuse helps interested groups in inciting violence. But the clash of interests would be there till we exist. Till the realisation occurs that peaceful means of conflict resolution are the only way to optimise collective good, the violence will continue, religion or no religion.
Sincerely
``Humans specialize in that and are helped along by religion.
``
The root of all the violence in the world is clash of group interests and inability of humans to resolve it peacefully. Even if the whole world follows one religion, the violemce will not stop. Most often, religion is used as a guise for meeting ulterior motives by the interested parties. So may be in this way the presence of a binding ideology like religion, prone to abuse helps interested groups in inciting violence. But the clash of interests would be there till we exist. Till the realisation occurs that peaceful means of conflict resolution are the only way to optimise collective good, the violence will continue, religion or no religion.
Sincerely
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- guru: Ahmed, We had come to... Dhokha and Being a
- sattar2: tahir bhai (re #408),... Of Medical Students, Passports
- guru: Re: # 283 "After... Dhokha and Being a
- mohar11: looks like Guru kicked... Dhokha and Being a
- guru: Ahmed, Mind also this the... Dhokha and Being a
- delhiwala: Dear DM sahib: It is... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- guru: Ahmed, About paper coming to... Dhokha and Being a
- Leadenwinter: The patriarchy is catagorically... Feminist Mumbo-Jumbo!
