This Beloved Arab Colony

There are not many things in Hindu & Islamic scriptures that can be said to be fully logical or scientific. Muslims used to think that the Earth is flat (not spherical) and Hindus used to think that the Sun is nearer to the Earth than the Moon. No one can claim to have seen Heaven (Jannat or Swarag) or God. There are many things in the scriptures that might have been the imaginations of our primitive ancestors.

Fighting today over things created centuries back is insanity. What matters is we, the people of today and our thinking, which is more rational, scientific and even moral. We do not allow Sati system nor do we forcibly convert people to muslims. Basic human moral values are truly universal in nature. So all we need to do is respect others and move ahead collectively for the betterment of humankind.

Cheers!!

Re: # 187

What I have read in Quran is not racist but discriminatory anyway. Quran gives right to a man to beat up a woman in some cases. Such cruelty is not there in any religion.

From:Encyclopedic Dictionary of Yoga, G.Feuerstein, Paragon Publ,NY, 1990

Linga (Mark, Symbol)- Samkhya tradition refers linga as ``that which has
characteristics`` namely the human personality which includes Antahkarana
(its aspects - ego, subconscious, conscious thought and intellect,
5 cognitive senses (jnanedriyas), and 5 conative senses (karmendriyas).

Maitraayaniya Upanishad (VI.10) applies the term linga to `the entire
creation extending from the first principle (Mahat) to the particulars
(vishesha)` and contrasts it with linga `without origin` i.e God itself.

Mahabharat (XII.195.15) describes linga as the vehicle, or body of the
transmigrating psyche (that which passes from one birth to the next).

Metaphysically, linga stands for the unimaginable potency PRIOR to the
creation of universe.

Abhinav Gupta in his Tantra- Aaloka (V.54) explains Linga as ``linam-
gamyate - This whole (universe) is dissolved (linam) in that, and this
whole (universe) is perceived (gamyate) as residing within that``.

The `Amaraugh- Prabodh` offers following etymological definition: ``Where
the movable and immovable dissolves by force of `Laya` (natural
destruction), that is (known as) linga.

As the mystic law `As above so below`` -Brahmanda manifests in every Pinda
, the cosmic linga has its representation within human body also. Thus
Tantric and Hatha Yoga literature describe experience of radiant linga in
different psychic centers (chakras) of the body. Brahma Upanishad speaks
of 3 types of linga that should be made object of meditation: Adho linga
at the base of spine (Mulaadhaar chakra), Shikhin linga at the crown of
the head (Sahasraar chakra) and Jyotir (light) linga at the center of the
forehead (Aajnyaa or Guru chakra).

Siddha Siddhanta Paddhati (II.4) mentions a linga shaped flame in the
heart.

Thus ALL above scriptures talk about linga as NOT having sexual meanings. Above
dictionary, in contrast, refers to phallic interpretation merely in passing and
does not give ANY scriptural support indicating its possible non-Hindu origin.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

It is about time that sensible Pakistanis declare their independence of masjid-mullah-mania. Indian Hindus did that in 1947. Despite partitioning Nehru Zindabad!! The saviour of decency in India.

The tragedy is that if Pakistanis keep kow-towing to the rabid masjid-mullah-mania, India may have to fight harder to retain sanity.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#304, Inquirer;#308, nb; #309, urbashi:

First of all I am a proud Hindu man. I have higher expectations from educated Hindus - may be unjustifiably. I did mean that I was not singling urbashi. But urbashi`s response needs a clearer enunciation. As an example of the analysis, I will discuss four posts to show where, I think the problem lies. These are: #289, urbashi; #288, nb; and #286 and 287, Syed.

First: Syed in # 286 and # 287 shows that he has read some things about Hinduism. Evidently, his quotes are from obscure religious books which he takes for The Scriptures of Hinduism. Now, there is a real problem in the definition of scriptures in Hinduism, if you view it from a Muslim point of view. Islam has a central source of religious guidance and so a follower of Islam would be inclined to consider a central book in parallel with Quran. This would happen even if Syed was not the evil urbashi thinks he is.

Second: Syed is no scholar of Hinduism and he does have inherited antipathy towards Hinduism. This antipathy takes a particularly vrulent form in the context of woes in Pakistan and advancement in India. So he finds any derogatory quotation to show the strangeness of Hinduism to get even with his Indian Hindu adversaries.

Third: What Syed should do is pose the question to those who know more about Hinduism rather than blurt out undigested information. It must be said to his credit, however, that he is quoting chapter and verse and not just expressing opinions. It should be possible to verify his quotations.

Fourth: urbashi has not responded to the points Syed has raised instead she ascribes ``mulish mind`` etc. What she should have done is to point out that Syed`s quotations are not from the operative scriptures of Hinduism. She should have pointed out that for Hindus the governing document is Tulsi Das` Ramayan. Kaushalya, Kakeyi and Sumitra did not commit sati after passing of King Dasratha.. That would settle that issue without bickering and venom. The social and family question was also not helped by baselessly stating that apsaras are not available to the dead Hindu men. The whole cobweb of life after death is meaningless. NOBODY KNOWS, HENCE IT DOES NOT EXIST. YOU CAN DELUDE YOURSELF WITH ANY THING. JUST AS MUSLIM SUICIDERS DO WITH 72 HOURIS.

Appendix to both Hindus and Muslims EQUALLY!!!!!!!!!!

BOTH QURAN AND GITA ARE ATTEMPTS TO MAKE SENSE OF NATURE, SOCIETY, FAMILY REALTIONSHIPS, AND INTERSOCIETAL DYNAMICS. Neither is a hundred percent correct and relevant to the modern society. Human circustances have changed and there is NEED for ADAPTATIONS and rationalization (=making more rational) of ALL scriptures. MUSLIMS SHOULD STOP CONVERTING AND COERCING OTHERS AND DECLARE THAT AS OFFICIAL POLICY OF ISLAM AND HINDUS SHOULD CORRECT THEIR INNER HOUSE AND REMOVE THE IN-BUILT INJUSTICES.

I do not know about you but I am tired of my lecture, though relevant!!!!

re:#310 by Maharana
You are right about that story. But it is no use telling Syed all that. This guy is incorrigible.

BTW, that hill which formed, per the myth, was so big and lustrous that Brahma and vishnu both pleaded with Shiva to conform it to normal dimensions so ordinary mortals can view it and benefit from it.. So, the hill shrank in size to become what is today known as ``Arunachala Hills`` in Tiruvannamalai, South India. So goes the local legend there. This hill is considered the largest Agni linga. Ramana Maharishi spent all his life meditating near the hill and attained self-realisation there.
Sridhar

nb & Inquirer and others,

This thread is pretty much dead. But i read through Syed`s # 286 to find a factual error in his so called stories. This is leading me to doubt the veracity of his other posted stories from hindu scriptures. Since there are so many scriptures in Hinduism, any hindu will tell you its impossible to read all those books and keep first hand knowledge of the same. A weakness exploited well by Syed.
Here`s the story posted by syed-
``Here is another origin of the holy Linga: ``... He (Siva) agreed to this and laughed, for he was secretly amused, and he said to Brahma, `There is no good use for this linga except for the creation of progeny.` And as he said this he broke it off and threw it upon the surface of the earth. The linga broke through the earth down to the subterranean hell and went to the very sky. Visnu sought the end of it below, and Brahma flew upwards, but they did not find the end of it, for all their vital effort. Then a voice arose out of the sky as the two of them sat there, and it said, `If the linga of the god with braided hair is worshipped, it will certainly grant all desires that are longed for in the heart.` When Brahma and Visnu heard this, they and all the divinities worshipped the linga with devotion, with their hearts set upon Rudra (Siva).`` -- Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 49:23b-46, 74-86.``

To Mr. Syed`s misfortune I`ve read this story. And here`s the gist-

Both Brahmaa and Vishnu enter into a dispute about their respective strengths, each claiming to be mightier than the other. Their dispute starts getting heated up with no solution in end. Sudenly out of nowhere a giant pillar made of fire appears in front of them. It stretches from underneath the earth and extends skywards. Its ends being invisible to both Brahmaa and Vishnu. Brahma and Vishnu decide to settle their dispute by finding the end of this pillar/lingum of fire. Whoever finds the end first will be proclamied winner.
So, Vishnu takes the form of a Wild boar and Brahma that of a Swan. The swan flies upwards, while the boar digs underneath to find the end. After a long time Vishnu is exhausted and realizes that this Lingum is extending beyond his capacity to discover its end. But Brahma on the other end decides to lie about finding the end, fearing that Vishnu might have found it. So he asks ketaki flowers falling from heaven to be his witness and lie to vishnu about finding the end. Ketaki reluctantly does so. Vishnu accepts defeat, after Brahmaa`s claim and ketaki`s testimony. Then, the Lingum breaks open and Shiva appears. He tells Brahmaa that he has comitted the biggest sin of lying. And hence he declares there will be no more temples of Brahmaa. There were suppose to be only two temples of Brahmaa till then. And hence after that day, there have been no more temples of Brahmaa. The site which celebrates this legend is the Pushkar temple near Ajmer, Rajasathan. Its one of the two Brahmaa temples, with a Shiva Lingum somewhere undergoround.

Well, did not want to bore anyone of you, but hope I`ve driven the point home.

Adios

304 by Inquirer on July 2, 2003 2:08pm PT
Yes,Inquirer,you are right about a number of points you make.However,I do notice that you pick on a Hindu when you express your disappointment with the situation.Hon_Syed has been expressing the type of vitriol that I thought only cariacatures of fanatical Muslims did.How come you don`t mention him as an example?He has been extremely offensive to Hinduism and its followers,and has used the colloquial Hindustani term for faeces in relation to Hinduism.Who has ben telling people what they believe?Certainly not me,nor sridhar nor urbashi nor maharana nor m_souza.Syed seemes to have taken it upon himself to tell Hindus what they believe.How strange that Syed`s version of Hinduism is so different from that which I was brought up in.When I was a little girl,I was always taught not to make fun of other people`s beliefs,but it seems his parents never taught him that-if they did he certainly wasn`t listening.He has told people he does not believe they are fair-skinned,or that they eat in a certain way.Can I ask you,is it all right to tell everyone who disagrees with him that they are liars,whether the other person is describing his own skin colour or his own religion?I do try to learn,but just as certain criminals are deemed irredeemable,some people can never see reason.I have pointed out several times that all religions can be proved and disproved.I am getting a little tired of the expectation that Muslims can say what they like without knowing anything,but Hindus cannot retaliate.I believe if you can`t take it,you shouldn`t give it. You say we should learn from the West and argue objectively. I would like to see how this conversation progressed with Raman Catholics or Jews. Of course,Syed would say it wouldn`t happen as they are people of the Book.(we shall of course not mention the carnage in the Middle East among all the happy people of the Book). Even Westerners do not just sit there taking abuse(as it appears Hindus are expected to do).Try it some time and see what happens.Unless we all live and let live,nothing will ever change.

In passing, Inquirer (# 304), I was wondering why you picked on me when you spoke of sarcasm and personal attacks. You added, of course, that you weren`t singling me out., although you obviously were. How come that I can`t respond to personal attacks, while others can make the attacks? Is it because it`s the Hindu`s obligation to take things lying down? I`m sure you don`t want to imply that, you`ve usually been fairly reasonable in your posts. Name one instance when I`ve spoken out against Muslims or their beliefs. And if you think people like the Hon. Syed are using this site to learn anything, or do anything except to hurl abuse, you`re being much more naive than is possible to believe. A suggestion - why don`t you read what others write before you comment on what I wrote? I know you can`t be responsible for Syed or others of his ilk, but surely you can avoid getting into the blame game, can`t you? One has to be objective, hasn`t one? and rational?

#305, urbashi: I can understand that your dissatisfaction with honorable_syed led to ``tit for tat`` policy. But you see you do not gain anything by falling in a trap like that. We, as a group, need to learn that nothing is achieved except may be blowing of steam and venom.

THAT IS WHY IT MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE DEVELOPING IN THE SYSTEM POSSIBILITY OF BLACKING OUT OF SOME PARTICIPANTS INDIVIDUALLY. THIS SUGGESTION HAS BEEN MADE IN ANA-DOBARAH`S ARTICLE. IF SUCH A SYSTEM CAN BE COMBINED WITH A CENTRAL COLLATION, ONE MAY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE HABITUAL OFFENDERS. THESE OFFENDERS MAY EVEN BE HELPED BY INFORMING THEM OF THEIR FAILURES.

#301 by urbashi on July 2, 2003 6:49am PT
Syed, I don`t know whether there is any point in trying to interact with you, because you have such a closed mind and simply won`t admit that you might ever be wrong. Anyway, this is a last attempt, and as likely to be futile as all the others.
-----------

urbashi..for this reason I gave up...
he is a hard nut to crack although he is a `nut` allright. he is the type ke kuch bhi bolo iske kaan me joo(lice) nahi rengtee...he keeps on ranting..`we invaders` `we invaders`

I think he gets dreams about his fauj invading India...with him sitting on a horse back(or camel back? dunnno)...energetic hordes...doing hohoho..here we come...you sati believers...you idolaters....wait till we come.....hohohoho

Inquirer, I agree with you, and it`s because I wanted to learn what the other side had to say that I joined chowk at all. And I`ve always asked people myself to be logical and calm when they write. But if you go through my earlier posts you`ll find that I`ve written like this now only because I feel, unfortunately enough, that Hon. Syed simply will not listen to or read what other people have to say, but seems to be fixated on the few topics I`ve mentioned, and goes out of his way to be abusive and offensive. It appeared to me that this is the only language that will penetrate to him. I have no quarrel with ali 87, he hasn`t been rude and insulting to me, and if he`s made a few undesirable comments about others` religions it`s obvious that those weren`t deliberately meant to be offensive - at least in the remarks I`ve read. Everyone has a right to his or her opinion, and nobody can change anybody`s mind for them. So why not just listen to what the other side has to say, and agree to disagree? Especially when you don`t know about the other religion/community at all from personal experience. I don`t think you can call people devious and liars without the least foundation, only because they happen to belong to a religion you despise. I`m afraid if someone attacks me personally I`m going to reply in just the same vein. Even the garbled stuff that Studebaker produces is quite innocuous in comparison.

I returned to this page and was somewhat surprised at the discussion between Sridhar, nb, m_souza, urbashi, mahrana on the Hindu side and ali 87, Honorable_Syed on Muslim side. Inspite of the bickering between the groups, it seems there is some communication going on. Earlier, I have seen only the hurling of abuses on both sides.
I would like to point out that better learning is done by asking questions about the beliefs of the other side rather than telling them what they believe. This is particularly important when people are talking about religion. Apparently, the conversation is more oftenly proceeding with the Hindus telling Muslims what Islam is and Muslim telling what Hindus what their scriptures tell them.
It is clear that there are elements of irrationality in both religions and there are people with vested interest in both groups professing these religions which believe in the unfair advantage they have vis a vis not only other relgion`s devotees but also the majority among their own religion`s adherents.
We need to learn from the westerners the technique of objective discussion. We should avoid sarcasm and personal attacks as are clear in urbashi`s statements, for example. I am not singling her. All of the participants are guilty of this. The style of Dost-Mittar and Aleph Null should be adopted by the exponents of both sides.

Inspite of all that has happened, the current conversation is an improvement on many earlier confrontations that I have witnessed.

Syed,first of all,you cannot say we Muslim invaders,because your ancestors were Indian.Since you can refuse to believe everything everyone else says(you know how fair everyone is and what they eat at home),so I can say you are a South Asian pretending to be an Arab(why I don`t know,they don`t have much except oil going for them).For your interest,Akbar(The Great) did outlaw sati.Since we desis aren`t as strict with laws as the white man,it didn`t do all that well.You will not think about anything anyone has to say-I don`t know why you are in a forum.You need a website all of your own to spout your rubbish unopposed-at least until your local intelligence services suddenly take an interest in you..We have a word here for persons like yourself,which I don`t think I want to use,but it rhymes with banker.Thank Allah for the Brits?I think not,the Iraqis would have a different point of view.They would have let sati continue,had it not been for Indians who wanted things changed.The British never upset local beliefs too much,there was too much money to be made from the natives to bother with their beliefs.

Alephnull#297
The essence of my post was that Islam is the faith of over a billion people. There is evidence everywhere that the believers are becoming more devout than ever. There is also a battle raging between the fundamentalists and moderates as to how some of the controversial verses of the quran are to be interpreted. For the sake of humanity, and not just those billion+ muslims, I would be happier if the moderates win this debate regardless of the true meaning of those verses.
And let`s not forget that Muslims have by no means a monopoly over irrationality. Have you watched the TV evangelists lately selling their snake oil and curing people of incurable diseases. Go to India and see the TV programs and pravachans (sermons) of hindu religious leaders or the astrologers on tv and the number of educated urbanites who watch them; or the disciples of sai baba who believe he is God (I must admit that I admire their sense of community service and also their good taste in devotional music). And there is no dearth of NRI hindus who prostate before any visiting mataji/guruji/santji many of whom are no more than charltans.
Islam is not going anywhere, nor is quran. If a `revised, improved` version of quran is not possible, then our only hope is the victory of those who can put a positive spin on it wherever possible.

Syed, I don`t know whether there is any point in trying to interact with you, because you have such a closed mind and simply won`t admit that you might ever be wrong. Anyway, this is a last attempt, and as likely to be futile as all the others.

Yes, there is every reason to check out the source of one`s information, because the internet is full of sites that offer you incorrect and selective information. I could very well have quoted from the numerous anti-Islam sites to say all kinds of things about your religion and your Prophet, insisting that they were true just because someone had put it up on some site. But I don`t. First of all because I have the decency not to deliberately offend people, and secondly because I haven`t read the Koran for myself. though I do have many Muslim friends, strange though it may seem to you. And may I inform you that you are full of strange tales which you insist form part of Hindu mythology but which I at least, and all my Hindu acquaintances and most people on this site, have never heard of. Still, since you say you`ve got them from somewhere I`m prepared to believe that you really have read them, they really exist somewhere and not simply in your imagination.

You should also remember that the myths don`t ``form the basis of hindu theological beliefs``. They are merely a means to explain the greater truths of life and existence to people who might not be capable of abstract reasoning and thinking. (So far you haven`t shown that capacity, but perhaps that`s another matter.)

I never said that the concept of sati was introduced by invaders. Try to read before you react. You can only think in terms of stereotypes like ``devious Hindus``, to which a Hindu could respond with other stereotypes about Muslims, probably just as false, such as treacherous, violent, cruel, etc. But I won`t. I said that it came into practice as a result of the rape, loot and slavery that women were vulnerable to as a consequence of the invasions. It was a matter of death before dishonour. Because Sati was the ideal wife, who died when her husband was insulted, this practice was called sati. Where on earth did you get the idea that sati was introduced to prevent wives from poisoning their husbands or preventing their husbands from being welcomed in heaven by apsaras? The apsaras aren`t part of heaven, nor are they the other-worldly rewards for good men. You definitely are thinking of the houris! Hindu men, traditionally, would be expected to be reborn, not become a courtier in Indra`s court! And none of your weird theories have been justified by any myths. You can quote from whatever site you want to, but that won`t change facts. And expect abuse of your religion and your Prophet quoted from other sites. Have you seen the Jewish sites, btw, which suggest that Muslims are subhuman? Just because they`re on the internet, does that mean that Muslims ARE subhuman? You say that you`ve been born and raised in the West. You seem to have learned nothing from the openness of Western society. Do you ever express these views in a Western newspaper/journal/talkback radio? But I forget, you`re a Syed and don`t need to learn anything. You were born perfect and fair-skinned and the Caucasians of the West wish they looked like you.

About the British banning sati, I would suggest that you read your history books properly. Read the books that weren`t written before the middle of the last century (which were inspired by the colonials, who wanted to have some moral justification for the enslavement of their colonies) but some more recent ones based on proper historical research - especially by postcolonial writers and subaltern historiographers. Of course, this would be difficult for someone who believes that the ``historical`` information of sites such as mughalistan is the last word in truth.

Now that you`ve thanked Allah for sending the Muslims and the British to improve the lot of Hindu women, how about praying to Him to do something for Muslim women too? But of course, being Muslims they don`t need anything. They`d be best off under the Taliban, wouldn`t they?

Urbashi:
It`s not a matter of where the information is coming from, as long as its true. Yes, it`s quite possible that this is mythological and not scripture, but the problem is these myths form the basis of hindu theological beliefs. As to your comment on the concept of sati being introduced by invaders, again this is just one of the theories promoted by hindu apologists like you, where in reality the stronger theory is that Sati was introduced to prevent wives from poisoning their wealthy husbands and marry their real lovers. Other theory says that Sati began with a jealous queen who heard that dead kings were welcomed in heaven by hundreds of beautiful women, called Apsaras. And therefore when her husband died, she demanded to be burnt on her dead husband`s pyre and so to arrive with him to heaven and this way to prevent the Apsaras from consorting with her husband. And whats sad is that these theories were justified by hindu mythology or scriptures whatever you want to call them.
Sridhar:
Yes its true that sati is banned in India, but do you know the history behind the banning of this practise, or you conveniently avoid mentioning it. Sati was first banned by the Muslims under the Mughal rule, although they met severe resistance, and since we Muslim invaders were more tolerant to hindu beliefs, but under the british it was totally outlawed in 1829, and thank Allah swt for the Muslims and the british this is banned in india, otherwsie who is to say this this could have still been practised.

re:#285 by Honorable_Syed
Sati was glorified in the past. Pundits may have found religious justification for it. Trust the brahmins to find a religious justificaition for anything! In some places, Sati became a cult, with women being forced into it for honor and chastity. Roop Kanwar`s case is the most recent one.
But none of this changes the fact that Indian Law does not permit it and this is unconstitutional. In a free India, Constitution is Supreme. Rest of the scriptures can take a hike. Quoting them, therefore may prove that it existed or some scriptures allowed it (Hindu scriptures is vast; it is not just one book like Qoran).
Let us talk about present times. Are you guys not killing innocent people by Suicide bombers? Islam is not only allowing this to happen but such vermins are even glorified as ``martyrs`` and promised 72 virgins (or is it 70; i am forgetting but it does not matter) in heaven. When, in the past, a hindu woman killed herself by sati, she may or may not have done it under her will but she did not take any innocent people with her. Besides, society has changed since those times and Sati is not glorifed anymore in Press or media. I hope your brain-washed mullah mind sees this basic difference.
Sridhar

re:#286 by Honorable_Syed
Linga is Shiva`s dick, man. Are you happy now? If one can worship the whole God, why not his dick?
Just kidding. But, i am happy that you are improving your knowledge of hindu mythology. See the essence. Forget the stories.
Sridhar

Dost-mittar #292, #290

Thank you for your reply.

You write:

{{However, what I believe is immaterial. To the believers, the quran is as valid today in Alaska -where one would have to observe a 24-hour roza during Ramzan- as it was in the sands of Arabia of the 7th century and this `validity`, in fact, `proves` that it was a revealed scripture.}}

This ‘validity to the believers’– as far as I can make out – ) is purely psychological. It cannot be established empirically. Nor can it be proved deductively, from a small ‘self-evident’ set of axioms (I discount the self-serving exercises in circular reasoning that pass for religious apologetics). I’d have far fewer issues with the claim to validity if it were to remain a private matter or be kept under wraps within a religious community whose members are at full liberty to defect at any time. In such circumstances it would be unkind and churlish to ridicule the shaky foundations of personal beliefs which, however irrational, may give someone else peace of mind.

But this is not the case with the Quran. It lays down detailed prescriptions for discriminatory treatment to be accorded to non-believers of various flavours, and to women. It is also quite consistent with the imperative to capture territory, political power and worldly influence for its believers. It therefore becomes essential for non-believers to examine whether belief in the Quran has any valid foundation at all, and to confront Muslims with their findings. So what you believe and think is certainly material.

{{But when someone raises some valid questions about the quran or the prophet, like you did in your post, he is more likely to be called a hatemonger or a bleshphemist (blessed are those who do not have this concept!) than get a proper answer.}}

The notions of blasphemy and apostasy, imbecilic though they are, are not central. They derive from the notion of revealed truth, on which the Quran crucially depends to establish its authenticity and assert its authority. The shakiness of the claim of revelation is the fundamental and devastating weakness in the foundations of the entire structure. This notion has become progressively more untenable with the passage of time, the development of logic, of the scientific method, and of a generally more sophisticated understanding of how we can know what we know. It is the untenability of the doctrine of revealed truth, and the skepticism with which this doctrine is usually regarded by those familiar with better-validated methods of acquiring knowledge, that should most terrify believers in Islam or any other revealed dogma.

Thanks Msouza & Rsridhar.

Ali 87,
# 282

``Well think again.. Have not the Arya Samaj movement abandoned Idol worhship? are they not Hindu?``

Forget Arya samaaj, look in Srimad Bhagvad Puraana and you`ll find a clear reference to idol worshipping. As Krishna states there that anybody who mistakes an idol for God should be considered a fool.
But the point is that an idol or image can be used at the same time to help a seeker meditate on an otherwise formless entity. An idol is usually a symbol for a worshipper to connect to the higher being or rather a representation of the same. If muslims turn to mecca five times a day to pray than its not called idol worship. If they consider it a pilgrimmage to go around kabba, why should a hindu or anyone else for that matter not make his/her own kabba for worshipping, or feeling sacred?
Look at arya samajis, do they go around killing other hindus/ buddhists or anybody else proclaiming they alone are correct?
You are not alone in this confusion. Jews and christians too get easily confused. Yours is a linear way of thinking dictated by a book, not by your heart or mind. You will find it difficult to understand that spiritualism is an expression of a soul yearning for union with truth, not blind obedience to a dictated credo. And hence each individual can walk and experience myriad ways of seeking the ultimate.
Ali, to better understand, ask yourself if you or any muslims would have required a symbol to turn to pray had kabba not existed? In light of that try understanding the significance of kabba.
Oh yes, arya samajis never abandoned idol worshipping. They were formed on the basis of worshipping fire as a symbol of God. That too is a symbol/idol.

``Why do you find a muslim not accepting the such public display of sexual acctivites and why do they not consider it scared and beautiful?? Perhaps for the same reason why I bet i will not find you doing this beautiful act of procreation on the street(or do you have other Ideas??).``

I never meant to say that sex is for public display or flaunting. Abrahamic tradidtions have held the issues of sexuality profane and devlish. Your logic is like bal thackeray, who sent his team of buffoons in front of Dilip kumar`s residence to protest. All these buffoons were dressed in underwears only. The protest was against dilip kumar`s decision to support a movie discussing lesbianism.
Forget espousing public display of sexuality, try freeing the females who live in veil in public, as if they would cause a a sexual riot. This has rendred the condition of women in India and Pakistan to a deplorable condition. Even the Hindu society has imbibed this aspect od purdah system from islam.

``Perhaps the gods are not the creator himself but representation of the undefinable by those who want to define some characterstis of the creator. So it would be better if the distinction between the creator and gods(of the Hindu Pantheon)be made and thus the god/creator that muslims refer to be seen in that light.``

That distinction is quite clearly made in numerous texts. But there is an esential difference between God/Allah of abrahamic faiths and the creator or Brahma(not brahmaa)/Purusha/paramatman/ishwar of subcontinental faiths. It is this differnence that has convinced the abrahamic faiths` that they alone are true paths.
Yahweh/God/Allah SPOKE to their respective prophets a set of rules/commandments to live by.
Brahma can only inspire an individual to ACT righteously according to the rigors of time. This makes the human more accountable for his actions/karma. This should tell you why the rules of living in a society are left to be made by humans, not to be fought about, as they do not have divine sanction. Caste system can be fought against, any other social evil can be fought, when the divine stamp on them is missing.
Try changing the justice system of saudi of chopping hands or heads every friday. Try telling the Taliban, that blowing off of Buddhaa does not serve any purpose to anyone`s personal faith to God. Try removing blasphemy law from pakistan.
You`ll know why I defend the liberty of spiritual expression as espoused in Hinduism.

Adios

Alephnull#287
I have said it before that I don`t believe in either prophets or avtars. I have also said that the single biggest problem with the Quran is that NOTHING in it can be questioned or challenged which makes Islam quite rigid and potentially brittle. However, what I believe is immaterial. To the believers, the quran is as valid today in Alaska -where one would have to observe a 24-hour roza during Ramzan- as it was in the sands of Arabia of the 7th century and this `validity`, in fact, `proves` that it was a revealed scripture.
However, if a billion plus people want to keep believing in a 7th century code of conduct, I would rather that they take as tolerant an interpretation of those intolerant passages as is possible.

#277 by dost-mittar on June 30, 2003 7:04am PT
ali87#266
I think I have said more on this topic than I had wanted to and will refrain from saying anything else.
------

But very well said, dost-mittar ji. I also wished to know more about Islam before criticising it just because the whole world is doing so these days. So your post added to my knowledge

#284 by rsridhar on June 30, 2003 8:59pm PT
re:#275 by Maharana
A very nice post on the concept of Shiva-linga.
A very nice description is given in the Url: www.exoticindiaart.com (recent article).
Sexuality is a recurring theme in Hindu mythology. As hindu mythology and religion are closely interwoven, the confusion is exagerrated (to the uninitiated). As you rightly said, Shiva-Shakti as represented by the Yoni-Linga is the creative principle that sustains the Cosmos. Now, if some people feel ashamed of it (even many Hindus are ashamed to explain the concept truthfully), so be it.
Sridhar
--------
And I feel most of the Hindus, when in the temples.. don`t even vaguely and remotely have sexual thoughts when they are worshipping shiv-linga. It is like worshipping the eternal power, the creator.. God.

Alephnull [further on #287]
I think that there is a lot of truth to what muslims say about hinduism and a lot of truth to what hindus say about islam. The difference is that while hindus accept most of the valid shortcomings about their religion, muslims prefer to stay in a state of denial. Take the example of those fantastic stories about Shiva posted by Honourable_Syed: I bet that most hindus have never heard of these, but even if his sources are authentic, most hindus would probably say that those puranas are full of many cock-and-bull stories which should not be taken literally. But when someone raises some valid questions about the quran or the prophet, like you did in your post, he is more likely to be called a hatemonger or a bleshphemist (blessed are those who do not have this concept!) than get a proper answer. If anyone today claimed what Mohammad did, he would not get the time of the day from any rational person (sai baba devotees not included:-)), especially muslims, and most of them would find the revelations all too self-serving as you did. And yet, these same individuals have no trouble accepting without questioning that all this happened 1400 years ago.
It`s not for nothing that Marx called religion the opium for the masses!

#39, Inquirer and #43, Tipu:
A correct step is taken by Peshawar High Court Election Tribunal in disqualifying Mufti Ibrar for MNA of MMA seat from Kohat. My congratulations to all Pakistanis. Fittingly, Dawn has reported that the validity of the elections of 65 parliamentarians of MMA is questionable.

Salute to Justice Tariq Pervez. Hopefully, this a turn of events that will lead to greater sanity in Pakistan. The first step would be overturning of the UGC position of establishing equivalence between secular and madari education.

As a matter of fact, Musharraf`s 2002 General Election Order has set an appropriate precedent for a sensible operation of democracy in the Indian sub-continent by mandating the requirement of graduation from a secular educational institution for all members of provincial and national parliaments.

Syed,
You answered your own question.Sati did not burn herself when her husband died,she committed suicide.In modern times,we would say it was a domestic dispute because as you rightly say,her father would not respect her husband and she did not want to choose between the two men she loved.Vishnu smriti is a smriti again,which is not binding,and in any case gives widows the option of remaining chaste(which in any case,I am sure you would expect all women to be-I think the `virtue` of female chastity is another chauvinist control device),not just sati.Don`t forget that this was and is an agricultural society and most land holdings could not take divisions and subdivsions.None of what you quoted proves that sati as you know it is sanctioned.Don`t just cut and paste,read what you post.
Again,there are many different myths for why the linga is worshipped.you yourself posted 2 different ones,one of which is entirely harmless,so what are you trying to say?That proves straightaway that this is mythology you are talking about,not scripture.
``These Hindus are devious``,Syed?You will never learn anything,will you?With such a closed mind,I wonder if you will ever learn anything new about other ways of thinking.But then of course,you need not,like the invader who burnt down libraries and said if they only contained what was in the Koran,they were useless and if they contained other things,they should not exist anyway.You must feel very smug, knowing that you never have to learn anything.
Ali87,
If you have the right to disrespect the religious traditions of others,ask yourself how you feel when others disrespect your religion.Other people have the same right and you cannot get upset when they call the Prophet the names that some people have.It is just much easier in a multicultural,multi religious society if we all agree to respect others religious practices.Why were so many people upset with the Satanic Verses then?I know the answer to that because I read it and Karen Armstrong`s ` Mohammad` almost at the same time.If you can say that that book(Rushdie`s ,not Armstrong`s!) did not upset you at all,only then should you expect Hindus to accept your disrespect of their traditions.Muslims not only in India but in the West do not like being told not to instal loudspeakers for the namaz-why does that upset them then,since Muslims can say what they like about other religious practices?
I don`t think I ever said I wanted to have sex in public,I am not a porn star!:)But again,I would like to add that if it doesn`t offend the onlookers,it is no one else`s business-even if I were a porn star,it would be no one else`s business.However,worship is personal,not public.Prayer is between you and your God,not you and the neighbour`s uncle`s mistress and her uncle.....Do you really want everyone to listen in on your prayers?I`m sure you`d be pretty embarrassed if they ever did.I am aware that Europeans used to accuse Arabs of promiscuity but it was more because they couldn`t get over the harems more than anything else.Personally,I think they were jealous-men,after all!
I still see nothing wrong with idol worship.Personally,I find my mind strays unless I have some thing to focus on.Most Muslim homes I have ever been to have a picture of the Kaaba or Ajmer Sharif or verses from the Koran.Even words are symbols,even more so when in Arabic script.These are all forms of idol worship,though you may not want to see it as that.When I was at school,teachers would ridicule idol worship but they would then cross themselves in front of the Virgin Mary(I have to admit I still do that too).No religion can do without symbols.Otherwise the Babri Masjid was just another old building,we break them down every day so that a developer can make a quick buck,what is the difference?
However,I still don`t understand why you cannot just leave Hindus and everyone else alone and pray for our souls instead,like the nuns did!

Hon. Syed, You have such a closed and mulish mind, it`s unbelievable. Not only do you not know how to interact logically and politely with people, you refuse to think, and keep on repeating yourself ad nauseam. And your so-called knowledge is just taken from the Internet, not from any personal study on your part. Not that I`d expect you to study anything about Hinduism, but surely you should know what you`re talking about when you write something.

Once again, you confuse myth with scripture. Look up the meaning of these words. I`m sure you`re educated enough to do that on your own. The smritis and the puranas are not scripture, and have never been regarded as such, as has been pointed out so many times by so many people.

Neither Shiva nor Shakti/Sati/Parvati were ``Hindus`` at all, but mythical beings who symbolized certain aspects of God. These stories about them were meant to explain certain things about the process of creation and destruction to people who did not have the time or the understanding to do it for themselves. The term ``sati`` is derived from ``sat``, which might be very loosely translated as truth, virtue, chastity, etc. And a woman`s virtue in a patriarchal society traditionally lay in her absolute fidelity to her husband. So Sati as the consort of Shiva, at once the creator and destroyer, is not merely a symbol of the divine principle, as the perfect woman she is the perfect wife who must die for the sake of her husband`s honour. There are of course as many interpretations of this myth as you might want, but this is one of the more common ones.

Historically, however, the practice of Sati - the burning of widows on their husbands` funeral pyres - began only with the invasions of India in the medieval period, when women imitated Sati`s suicide to prevent themselves from being dishonoured in other ways by the marauding hordes. As I`ve pointed out, this soon became a potent tool in the hands of men who thought it would be a marvellous way of getting rid of inconvenient women, by persuading them that they would only be following Sati`s example if they killed themselves when their husbands died.

No Hindu wife thinks of her husband enjoying the attention of apsaras in heaven - that`s a pleasure meant not for mortals but for Indra and his court! and again that`s the stuff of myth, not of religion. BTW, aren`t you confusing this with the Muslim notion of the houris in paradise?

Dost-mittar #265, #277 etc.

You have bent backwards, almost double, perhaps out of a misplaced sense of deference to various ‘religious traditions.’ Your initial assessment of the Sword Verse (9:5) is perfectly good.

Simple explanations for the Sword Verse and for the rest of the stuff in the Quran can be found if you read it with the normal skepticism you would apply to such an item today. Regard the Quran not as ‘uncreated’ and ‘eternally existing’ but as a tribal cultural artefact, which bears the stamp of its manufacture at a particular place and period in history.

Consider the facts of the case: a middle-aged merchant in a credulous tribal society who reports experiencing visual and auditory hallucinations – alleged ‘revelations’ from a ‘divine’ source. Oddly enough, these ‘divine communications’ apparently do not contain elegant proofs of astonishing mathematical theorems – stunning in their depth and complexity; or the General Theory of Relativity (‘revealed’ to Einstein); or the Periodic Table of the Elements (‘revealed’ to Mendeleyev); or tables of spectral lines; or detailed architectural plans and diagrams of the innards of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh – subsequently confirmed to be accurate down to the last detail; or the map of the human genome; or any of a myriad of possibilities which might provide some tangible evidence to skeptical minds that the Perfect Man had authentic access to special ‘truth’.

What one has instead – through two decades of this man’s subsequent career as exile, caravan raider, military leader and politician, etc. – are ‘revelations’ that are stupefyingly sordid and mundane in their concerns. There is first of all the centrality of this alleged being named Allah, and, oh so conveniently, of Muhammad as his messenger. This and much of the rest is exactly what you’d expect from an ambitious tribal politician/shaman trying to carve out a domain for himself and a growing band of followers, to administer it, and to make his own commanding position in it unassailable through ‘divine sanction’. The fixation with People of the Book – and especially the bitter hatred directed at the Jews - is a predictable reaction to the influence and prestige they enjoyed in Arabia, which would lead a would-be Prophet to pine for their seal of approbation and fiercely resent their derision. The convenient ‘divine revelation’ that allowed the Prophet to marry a woman, already married to his adopted son, who took his fancy, requires no explanation. There is precious little that cannot be explained through a common-sense and cynical understanding of normal (and normally abnormal) human behaviour, pursuit of worldly self-interest, will to power, typical politics, etc. The Prophet Muhammad comes across as human, all too human, with typically human traits, thoroughly a man of his time, a sagacious politician, apparently an effective rhetorician, with a febrile and obsessive but utterly commonplace imagination. It is of little consequence whether he was a sly impostor or a sincerely deluded wannabe-Nabi.

The one thing one should not do to understand the Quran is enlist the services of a ‘knowledgeable interlocutor’. This is merely designed to brainwash and bludgeon weak and susceptible minds into a willing suspension of disbelief and to reinforce the Faith of the True Believers in the Majesty of the Revealed Truth. For people with a functioning intellect it is a waste of time.

It is funny how devious these hindus are, esp when it comes to the question of LINGA. Here is what the hindu scriptures say:
Lord Siva seduces the Pine Forest sages` wives and is cursed for this immoral behavior. Origin of the holy Linga which is commonly worshipped in Hindu temples:

``When the sages saw Siva naked and excited they beat him and they said, `Tear out your linga.` The great yogi said to them, `I will do it, if you hate my linga`, and he tore it out and vanished.`` -- Kurma Purana 2:38:39-41; cf. Haracaritacintamani 10:74; Yagisvaramahatmya 26a. 14. In another version, the sages in the forest quote the legal texts regarding the penalty for seducing a guru`s wife when they punish Siva:``You false ascetic, let your (Siva`s) linga fall to earth here. A shameless and evil man who has seduced another man`s wife should be castrated; there is no other punishment ever. A man who has seduced his guru`s wife should cut off the linga and testicles himself and hold them in his hands and walk until he dies.`` -- Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 10:187-90; cf. B. K. Sarkar, pp.234-5.
Here is another origin of the holy Linga: ``... He (Siva) agreed to this and laughed, for he was secretly amused, and he said to Brahma, `There is no good use for this linga except for the creation of progeny.` And as he said this he broke it off and threw it upon the surface of the earth. The linga broke through the earth down to the subterranean hell and went to the very sky. Visnu sought the end of it below, and Brahma flew upwards, but they did not find the end of it, for all their vital effort. Then a voice arose out of the sky as the two of them sat there, and it said, `If the linga of the god with braided hair is worshipped, it will certainly grant all desires that are longed for in the heart.` When Brahma and Visnu heard this, they and all the divinities worshipped the linga with devotion, with their hearts set upon Rudra (Siva).`` -- Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 49:23b-46, 74-86.

It is absolutely false to claim that Sati is not sanctioned by hinduism or that no known hindu personality had performed sati. These are a few examples of important hindu godesses who performed sati:
The first woman known as Sati was the consort of Lord Shiva. She burnt herself in fire as protest against her father who did not give her consort Shiva the respect she thought he deserved, while burning herself she prayed to reborn again as the new consort of Shiva, which she became and her name in the new incarnation was Parvati.

Here are some quotes from hindu scriptures:
``A king died childless, and his wife wept bitterly and embraced his corpse until a bird told her that she would have seven sons if she mounted her husband`s funeral pyre. She obeyed, and as she entered the fire the king arose and flew into the sky with her, by his power of yoga. When the queen entered her fertile period, the king felt it his duty not to neglect her. He made love to her in the air, and his seed fell down from the sky. Then he went with her to the world of Brahma to dwell eternally. But the wives of the Seven Sages saw the cloud-like seed falling from the sky into a flower, and they thought it was Soma. Wishing to be young forever, they bathed ritually, honoured their own husbands, and drank the king`s seed. The moment that they drank it [having thus unconsciously violated their chastity] they lost their holy lustre, and all their husbands abandoned them immediately as sinners. They gave birth to the seven Maruts (Storm Gods).`` -- Vamana Purana 46:4-22.
The Vaisnava Dharmasastra gives the widow two choices:``(Now the duties of a woman are as follows): After the death of her husband, to preserve her chastity, or to ascend the pile (funeral pyre) after him.`` -- Visnusmrti 25:14.
It is believed that sati originated because the Hindu needed his companions in the next world/Hindu heaven. This concept is illustrated in the Valmiki Ramayana; after Lord Rama murdered the relatively innocent Vali from ambush, Vali`s wife Tara requests if he can kill her as well so she can join her husband:

``[Tara:] `(Pray) actually kill me with that very arrow with which my darling has surely been killed (by you). When killed (by you) I shall reach his presence. Vali may not feel happy without me. Even on coming in contact with celestial nymphs and gazing on them with curiosity he would certainly not love those nymphs though adorned with a chaplet of red flowers of every description and clad in a many-coloured costume, unless he sees me (there), O prince…` `` -- Ramayana 4:24.

Also, because there are many apsarases (celestial nymphs) in the Hindu heaven, sometimes the wife thought it would be best to get there quickly so that her place isn`t taken entirely.

re:#275 by Maharana
A very nice post on the concept of Shiva-linga.
A very nice description is given in the Url: www.exoticindiaart.com (recent article).
Sexuality is a recurring theme in Hindu mythology. As hindu mythology and religion are closely interwoven, the confusion is exagerrated (to the uninitiated). As you rightly said, Shiva-Shakti as represented by the Yoni-Linga is the creative principle that sustains the Cosmos. Now, if some people feel ashamed of it (even many Hindus are ashamed to explain the concept truthfully), so be it.
Sridhar

#ali 282

I understand you have problems with accepting the role of symbols and symbolism in religious matters. This would explain your apparent inability to understand the points made by some Hindu chowkies. But try to bear in mind that:

1. There is a vast difference between traditional social practices - many of which society has, or should have, outgrown - and religious beliefs. Sati, etc., are not a part of what Hinduism sanctions. Sati in particular is the product of a patriarchal society in which a ``dishonoured`` woman thought it better to die rather than face moral outrage in the wake of successive invasions, which left many young widows at the mercy of rapists, plunderers and slave traders. Thereafter it became a very convenient way of disposing off further claims on patrilinear property - get rid of the widow and you wouldn`t have to bother about giving her the rightful share of the family property, not to speak of having to look after her. The caste system evolved out of a division of labour, with each caste supposed to perform certain social duties, and each caste being equally necessary to social well-being, and deserving of respect. In the beginning it wasn`t hereditary at all, and even as late as the epic period (e.g., the Mahabharata), when social evils were very much entrenched, you do have people referring to caste as a label to describe personality traits or as a class to which you belonged because of your occupation. Of course things didn`t remain long in this situation. Society has always seen a continuing battle between the powerful and the powerless, and it was very much in the personal interests of certain better-off classes to retain their power by pretending to give it a religious veneer. It suited the powerful to make the powerless feel there was no way in which they could change things. This is particularly obvious when you think of the way women have been treated in male-dominated society anywhere in the world. Think of the Christian/Jewish myth of Adam and Eve, for example. It`s always been a case of cherchez la femme - blame the woman.


I have no intentions at all about defending the indefensible, which is social abuse of whatever kind. But the point is that social practices should be differentiated from religous faith. And don`t say that the Hindus can be judged only by what they practise, because they don`t have a single Book, pontiff, whatever. This gives rise to so many never-ending and frequently vicious arguments about your-practices-being-worse-than-mine, you`re-so- much-worse-than-me, etc, etc.

2. Everyone has the right to be disrespectful about anything, including other people`s religious beliefs. But when they pass comments about another`s beliefs and convictions they should be prepared to have others slamming them, and much more viciously. So don`t you think that instead of attacking each other`s religions Hindus and Muslims in particular should point out the social evils in each society instead? The problem is of course that Hindu society isn`t homogeneous. But that gives others all the more leeway to point out the flaws!

3. The Arya Samajists, the Brahmos, etc., don`t believe in idol worship, certainly. And remember that both proclaim a return to the pristine roots of the Hindu religous traditions. But Hinduism is large enough to include all kinds of worship, including animism, and even an atheist or agnostic is accepted as Hindu. The Arya Samajists also engage in conversions, which is very much against the traditions of Hinduism. That doesn`t stop them from being Hindu. The Middle Ages also saw many conflicts between the Vaishnavas and the Shaivas, but that didn`t stop them either from being regarded as Hindus. Basically, as Ramakrishna Paramhansa, the late-19th-century/early-20th-century Bengali sage pointed out, all are different ways of reaching to God. BTW, Ramakrishna for some time was a a fervent believer in Islam and in Christianity, but remained a great Hindu throughout. Again, this kind of looseness is very difficult for the Semitic mind to accept. Why don`t you just take it as a sign of the incurable Otherness of the Hindu and leave it at that!

4. No, I`m afraid the worship of the Shivlingam won`t dwindle and go away, for it is ultimately a symbol of the force of creation. Similarly with worship of the Mother Goddess, Vishnu, etc., etc. It`s much easier for the mind to focus on a symbol rather than contemplate the indefinable. Go to all the religious traditions, and you`ll see the truth of this. I don`t want to offend, so won`t go into specific examples from all religions. Traditionally the Hindus have tended to anthropomorphomize various aspects of God in order to make it easier for the average (and especially ignorant/illiterate/unthinking) mind to relate to the divine force. Swami Vivekananda called this tendency an integral part of trying to understand the relation of the jiva to the atma. But the more philosophically inclined minds also attempted to contemplate the indefinable, the Ishwar, whom Muslims, as you point out, call Allah. So what is the quarrel all about?

#278 by pmishra2 on June 30, 2003 8:55am PT

Dont you consider it Ironic that you feel free to say ``forget about the absurd idea of a final prophet``
and consider yourself respectful while accuse me of disrespect if I consider the idea of worhsip of sexual organs absurd?

I dont need to respect the religous practices of the Hindu for that would be hypocritical of me but I can certainly be respectful of the right of the hindus to follow their religous practices. I can see the difference between the two apparently you cant.
By your argument the muslim would have had to show respect to the traditon of Sati a hundred years back and of the caste system too. That the hindus have abanonded both does it not stirke to you that this is a silly expectation. It is wholly right to expect the right to follow own religous practices and not to respect the practice itself. YOu call for the latter.
Intrestingly you forget this ``disrespect`` was shown by hindus themselves in the frequent conflict between Shiavites and Vishnuvites.
What is your opinion about the Araya Samaj movement which rejects the Idol Worship? Are they similarly disrespectful of the Hindu religon? and you yourself say that there is little doctirnial rule among hindus so would then a theoritical person who rejects all Idol worship and worships in the Manner of Islam and calls himself as Hindu be accepted by the hindus as a true and genuine Hindu??!!

#276 by nb on June 30, 2003 1:02am PT
#275 by Maharana on June 29, 2003 5:50pm PT


Well think again.. Have not the Arya Samaj movement abandoned Idol worhship? are they not Hindu?

Dont mistake Islamic/muslim references to sex as if there is a inherrent revulsion of sex by muslims. There is not. Islam recongnise Sex as a very basic need of humans and propogates in enjoyment but within the confines of home and within marriage. In fact medival europeans found Mulsims at fault and accused them of licentousness because sex was considered a basic human need as well as the marriage a social contract which can be dissolved. Now of course enlightned(?) europeans have swung the other way and accuse Muslims of Prudery!! I am amused that you keep borrowing from the west its accusations and its point of view to accuse muslims.

Why do you find a muslim not accepting the such public display of sexual acctivites and why do they not consider it scared and beautiful?? Perhaps for the same reason why I bet i will not find you doing this beautiful act of procreation on the street(or do you have other Ideas??).

Is it not mentioned in the Rig veda that the creator is one who cant be defined and neither begetts nor is begot(or something to similar effect?)who is eternal? Obviusly the gods that are worshipped are not the creator but as claimed by many only symbols of god hood(creator) or as many tell symbols which help foccus devotion or a partiuclar trait. Now how one who cant be defined is given characterstics of concrete nature? I know the various extensive arguments on this my intention is not to get into those but to just remind you that withinn hindu thought it self the nature of creator(whom muslims call god/allah)itself is called undefineable.
That muslims prefer to keep that thought in the way is their choice which you can suerly find easy to understand(?) Perhaps the gods are not the creator himself but representation of the undefinable by those who want to define some characterstis of the creator. So it would be better if the distinction between the creator and gods(of the Hindu Pantheon)be made and thus the god/creator that muslims refer to be seen in that light.

#274 by rsridhar on June 29, 2003 5:50pm PT
#273 by rsridhar on June 29, 2003 5:50pm PT

Next time you critize me why on my critisizm of hindus please find the many times I have mentioned that the most of the hindus I meet here are quite differnt to those who who I normally encounter in real life :)

While you say that majority of hindus are ashamed of what happened in Gujrat while Modi comes back to power(on what minority vote?) suppourted by the national leadership including the NDA and congress and other parties refusing to take Modi/Tagodia on this issue(who survies on minority vote?)

At the same time you keep telling that muslims(? or allude indirectly) approve of 9/11 or of killing of innocents some times you accuse that the muslims Scholars of not having the guts to stand up to traditonal or dominant thinking. Perhaps you have not heard of Ali Shiriati a leadign Iranian clerik who was only recently reeased after nearly a decade in jail for opposing the the from or the whole context of the concept of newly formulated ``Fiq e vilayati`` on basis of which the theorcratic govt of Islam came to power and retains its present involement in Iranian politic.
You havent heard of the proseqution of various clerics as well as their different stand on many issues from Al-Azahar.

You did not read of the many times given statements of various muslim and Islamic leaders in India who decry that when they want to give statements in respect to incidents and happening in India the press is not intrested in attending the called press conferences and if some do attend they do not publish those statements. Instead they choose to potray the Sahi Imam of Delhi as the spokesman of Muslims or else to to Shabana Azami or her likes who while going against even the basic tents of Islam regardign prayer, fast, HaJ, Zakat. even dress code is potrayed as repesentative of what a progressive muslim should be. I recall you in another post claming on some topic that you find it retrogade that muslim leaders have not given statement on a particular issue of concern. Did you bother to findout wether any statement was given or wether it was given and not reported or highlighted by the press?

On the other hand you yourself admit that gujrat was shameful and you give yourself credit in saying that most hindus were ashamed of it and the various roits including the sikh roits. However going by the self admitted failure to prosequte the preprators (wether they are politicians or not, was dara singh a politican?) But what If one intrepets the facts on the ground as they appear to a distant observer that nobody has been prosequted for the roits. No prosection is expected for the killings of the Dalits in the recent harayan case of cowskins and Indeed the VHP as well as the other parivar orginasation including those leaders of BJP holdign dual membeship of these organisations have none on record to say that they have no regret of the incident and have said that it will happen again if needed. and what has the govt done? nothing.

What have the political parties in power done about the incident and the subsequent statement? noting? what are the people who on whose suppourt these parties come to power and stay in power going to do? Do you want to guess if the BJP will come to power next election?? What about the press statements? nice.. very nice.. that is talk. what about results? or is it just a result of the press prefering to publicise those statements?

You have your answers to what a distant observer(as you are to the muslims going by the knowledge displayed by you) should think about Hindus. Will you still continue to make judgments(such as those you have made) about muslims in this light? If you are honest (as I hope you are)you will not.

You yourself make statements pointing out to Tahamed etc and depict the diversity of thought among muslims and then in the same time say that muslims dont have courage to stand up to traditions. so which is it? diverse opinons or no courage to stand up to a monolith traditional interpration?

I think you have succintly pointed out the essential difference is the practiced religon between Islam and Hinduism. Ie while one finds its high point(or is relevant mainly?) in company of Sages the other is for all and includes the mundane activity apart from the spritual.

Perhaps this is why the various practices now abondned(perhaps not agreed to by some sages)were Prevalant and while Islam choses to instruct in day to day life and was able to probhit those and preach the brotherhood of man, the importance of providing justice to all and the avoidance of Unnessary (captial U there for not all rituals)rituals etc.

The comparison with Martin Luther is not relevant here as when around the time of Martin Luther christian europe was seeking to incoprorate the rationalism and the structre of Muslim socitey so that their own socitey could become more tolerant(it is another story that the muslims have gone back on thier own acheviments since then) Moreever the christian socitey riddled with hate towards others and centuries long internal conflict as well as conflict with sicence and technology as well as rationalism in daily matters is quite different from the present day muslim situation where the muslim only needs to abondan his ignorance of the sprit of justice, mercy, tolerance of Islam.


While I dont want to quibble with you on the number of communal Hindus I agree(perhaps for the nth time here) that there are hindus who are tolerant and I will go a step further, there are those who are communal some times but not always, and then there are even those who suffer remorse on their voilent acts (or suppourt of voilent acts). Further I belive even those perprators of voilence are capable of realising their deeds(thus are not Evil )and understandign how they were wrong.
You will no doubt reflect on the fact that a person with a muslim name has just to explain the concept of Jihad in different light(or even not agree that Jihad is evil and a grave mistake on part of Islam/Muslim)than as understood by hindus to be called voilent, Pakistani, Intolerant. For that matter a person to with a muslim name has to disagree or offer a different point on any muslim issue or Islamic issue or even an Hindu Issue to be called a hindu hater and a pakistani lover(not that there is any thing wrong in that).

Here many on this board talk about the bias of media in US leadign to misreadign by general public regardign affairs of other countries even regardign India and of course about the pakistani media about India and thus its influence on the pubic of Pakistan, and in the same breath hold the opinon that there is no media bias regardign Pakistan in India and all that we here in the press or from our leaders or those pakistanis which the media chooses to highlight as gospel. While pontificating to those pakistanis who misunderstand India becuase they do not live here to see the reality there are people (you too?) think that you know all about Islam in general and Muslims in partiucalr and particulary are experts with deep personal knowledge of what is actually the ground reality inside pakistan. I hope you will reflect on this. This not to defend pakistan or pakistanis but I hold my judge. While it is ok to form a basic opinon about people and countries it is foolish to depend on this in critical matters.

My intention with Interacting with you at various times is not to prove that you are wrong or right but to highlight to you the bias in your own thinking and thus its contribution to your conclusions. I dont belive I myself am unbiased therefore while I do from opinons I remain aware that they may be based on incomplete information as well as inherrent difficult to remove biases. Too often people think themselves as being part of the solution while unwittilling being part of the problem.

Finally to people who want to learn about Islam or Muslims I would advice you to do so on a personal basis and with interaction with muslims from whom you can take comprehensive information over a period of time. This is not the place to do so. While the aim of the board is to get people to read think and write and perhaps where the hindu/muslim Indian/Pakistani sides can attempt to critizie each other and attempt to explain each other I think some people have been on this board long enough to go beyond that. From the stage of make accusations and getting explanations at least some can go on to thenext stage ie of finding common ground an looking at other problems that confornt the peoples of South Asia.
I have made this appeal many times and even once no one has bothered to comment on it.
While we find it easy to blame the politicians but the question to put to yourself is what has one achived that the politicians havent? Except in the negative sense in not creating more problems. If there cannot come even a couple of people in this board who can give direction and purpose to these discussions do you really expect the heaven and earth out of the politicians who work on even more complex issues? I have been observing discussion boards for the last few years and have noticed that even few people with the right values can give a direction such that the tone and content of a particular fourm are substantially different from others. In this light should we not blame the politician for his failures when we ourselves cant see such capability being expressed in even such a limited forum as this?
Im not saying that one should not disucss the hindu/muslim India/Paksitan issue and sweep the issues under the carpet. But is that all that we should do to the exclusion of anything else? Will a group of people on this board be able to show some leadership that they feel the politican is so lacking in the real world??

ali87#279
Thank you for your response. As I said earlier, I have already said more on this explosive topic than I intended to and will refrain from saying anything further.

#277 by dost-mittar on June 30, 2003 7:04am PT

after my last post I was feeling that I might have been a bit harsh on you and was wondering if you would get irritated. I must put on record my appreciation of you on not getting inflamed time and again(even thought you I think said elsewere that are not particular about religon muslim or hindu).

My knowldge of the history as well of Quran is sketchy at the best. I have heard of Maulana Maudoodi but dont know who he is or what are his works in details and certainly not much about his personality so I reserve my opinion about him.

9.07 seems to be a fair enough insturction If you remember the extreeme proseqution of the prophet for years and later on the allegience/conversion of convience by some groups who would change sides when they felt it was to their advantage.

As I said that I have not studied in detail the context of the verses mentioned. However the general opinon about them and thus my knowledge is as follows.
(Please bear in mind im not referenceing anything right now, even the link you have given.)

The first discourse,
This is the change that came about. The context of change is that earlier the instruction was to do nothing in face of proseqution. The prophet and muslims were exhorted to be patient and bear the porseqution. Now the instruction comes that one need not tolerate the prosequtors and remain true to those who are true to you. I find it very reasonable. It is some thing which will be accepted in any situation by anybody even in present times.


The second discourse,
This of course is logical in any leadership situation. Unless you are doubting the Validity of Jihad(which takes us to a different topic)I see nothing special in it(for a non-muslim to be worried about)


The third discourse,
again this is of not much significance it is a standard practice to know about hypocrites among yourself, to rebuke the lazy among you who enjoy the benifits of being part of the community but refuse to put in their bit. Im sure this is a standard trait of any group.

1. to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam
This is usually seen in light of the frequent alliences of conviences and because of the various tirbes who after signing treaties of suppourt, attacked along with enemies or made easy the attack or enemies. Thus because of this constant yo-yo ing it was realised that the only sloution is to have stronger control over whole of Arabia(which was necesary in opinon of most muslim for this nacent group who was prosequted freqeuqenty and betrayed when in relative power.)

2. to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
This is the avowed aim of Islam, and considering the exteme proseqution of people belonging to other faiths in those regions during prophets time and later on and the relifs offered to the minorities as well as other groups within conqured lands and often migration of minorites to muslim lands in search of protection. This is a fact that is recognised by the west and history. So much so that those entire centuries are now called dark ages because of the condtion of those regions including europe, what was then Bayzantne.(I wouldnt go in for the individual actions of muslim rulers later on in the centuries following the prophet, but treat this as a more general caseand certainly specifically true of the region bordering arabia.)

3. to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
I think I have covered this in 1 & 2

4. to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.
Islam gives to itself the unrestricted right to propogate Islam(not to coerce) as seen by the extreeme proseqution of the muslims for years in Arabia in the early years and of the minorities such as jews and other denomational christians and other people including ethnic majorites and minorities, Also the refulsal of the kingdoms in and around the small(initial) sphere within arabia to allow other faiths to propogate freely or even survive within their areas. This is seen in this light.

The refernces to christian, jew, and mushric arabs are not meant to be general but are read as those described as betrayers of treaties and those who suppourted enemies against Muslims and those who obstructed the conveying the message of Islam and those who prosequted their faiths other than their own within their countires or rules.

The whole non-muslim world, refered to here is indeed the reality of preseqution (refered to as dark ages by modern historians in light of the experience of the europeans in europe)of people for their faith. The Roman and Persian empires were Indeed mentioned not because they were just non-muslim but becasue they did not allow the word of Islam to be spread within their countries as thier policies were not to tolerate any other faith, or culture(even non religous culture)within their regions. The relif felt by the oppressed minorities as well as common people of those countries(of course this is realative)and the saftey that some notable communities like Jews and other denomination christians felt within Islamic lands is an indicator that the notion that generally the kingdoms around early Islamic arabia were indeed very vicious in their prosecution of all those who did not form the core rulign group and the reality of relif that these populaitons found under Islamic rule and the treatment and relif from proseqution the jews and christians found within islamic lands. It is important to understand the conditon of the countries around early Islamic (and if you read the history of presuction of jews and other denomination christian within Europe for more than a thouand years within Christan europe even after advent of Islam you will note the degree of problems people faced.)(These verses/explanations etc should be seen in context of the various times and locations, For instance the muslim raiders within india did not really have such a extreeme case to justify..of course people justify now because of the caste issue.. I wonder if this was the justification given then by those raiders what was the reality of India and perhaps other asian places was not so of those regions bordering arabia so these should be seen in that light.)

***********************

All that above is just an possible discourse and attempt at questions and answers.

To conclude going beyond the topic itself there are a few points to be noted which can be gleaned from this interact.

You had the question(for your own understanding or to check my understanding?.. anyway)wether muslims take the verses in the Quran literaly or do they look(there actually a need to?) into the context of the verse and also in some cases the history in which it was revealed.
Second was my contention that a large number of verses explain/qualifiy each other (was it met with speticisim? by others too?) often they were revealed at different times at different situations.
You have also discovered that the verses belonging to different suras were revealed in different times and at times not in a serial order and even had verses which are in different suras were revealed interspered with each other(relative to time or relevation.)

The last conclusion (perhaps you will consider this subjective..)I would like to make is that the terms Jihad, Non-muslim, to attack Jews, christians, Mushriks and to levy Jaziya are not absolute but are to seen in actions of those mentioned people in the relevant context(this I can assure you if you do a study have been accepted by muslims in that way) of the time and also place.

A final intresting hypothesis.. Is it possible for a non-muslim country to be non-muslim accept freedom of choice(propagation of message of Islam.. not conversion perse) and not have any need to pay Jaziya(which people belive muslims understand as compulsary on all countries without any exclusion) and remain out of the fold of Islam as well as have good realtion with an Islamic(say a historical entity say a thousand years back....thus derive relevant lessons for today?) where each treats other with respect and honor?.... Well do some research on your own and find out... YOu will be surprised at what you find.

As you can see I had outlined the method to study and understand Islam and Islamic principles from the quran is to do a personal study, then have an Knowledeable Introlocutor who can answer questions(a netural frame of mind is also necessary) only then it is possible to say with any definiteve claim to have studied at least the basic principles of Islam and their application as you can see with this exchange this kind of fourm is not feasible for such a exercise.

``Follow the Messenger who is gentle and compassionate and your greatest well-wisher, and trust in Allah, the Lord of the Universe``. 128 - 12

Apparently those in pakistan during the time of partion failed to take into acccount of this advice. The responsibility of the Islamic or even a muslim state(as well as others) is to protect the lives and property and honor of its citizens no matter who they are. We can see that Pakistan ie. its rulers(perhaps its citizens too?)have repeatedly failed in this wether it is in the immediate aftermath of Partion or the 1971 bangladesh war or the various other incidents not in the least the bombing of homes of civillians(muslims or otherwise) in Karghil or other places.
I can appereciate your patience and goodwill considering the personal experiences that you went through.

#275 Maharana

Thanks for your comment. In my view, each religous tradition has some strong points and weak points. I am a strong critic of the weak points of ``hindu`` traditions. Use of varna and jati to deny education and employment is one major example. I am also a strong critic of the weak points of the islamic tradition. Hostility towards other faith traditions, religously justified violence towards kafirs is one major example.

Each tradition has been understood carefully and within the context in which it grew. Our friend Ali is all too willing to extend this care to his own tradition. Notice how much scholarship and analysis he has extended to the blood-thirsty passages from the Koran.

But he is unwilling to extend this courtesy to ``hindu`` traditions. He has no awareness that hindus have few doctrinal ``rules``; they have no prophets (forget about the absurd idea of a final prophet) at all. The behavior of hindu ``avatars`` is far from blameless and nor is it meant to be !!! I can still recall my grandmother explaining to me that Krishna`s behavior in the Mahabharata was not always correct. And that he was killed in a certain brutal way was one dharmic consequence.

This two-faced behavior makes Ali a propagandist and a hypocrite. PERIOD. Unfortunately, we have all too many hindus, christians. muslims who behave like Ali and make all kinds of silly and hurtful statements about other traditions.

My catholic friends tell me that at ``mass`` they eat a cracker symbolizing the body of christ. Does that mean that they are actually secret cannibals? Or that they have some other deviant purpose? Only a Togadia or a Bukhari would make such an argument.

But this is the kind of argument our friend Ali is makiing about Shiv Linga. Again, no respect for the context of the tradition. No respect for what the worshippers actually believe in. Only crude derision and disrespect. But his own traditions? Oh, those are sooo special, they deserve care and respect and should not be treated ``childishly`` !!!

Who is behaving like a child here and who is not? Let the reader decide...

ali87#266
I wish I were as certain about the meaning of these verses as you are and I hope it`s not entirely due to my preconceived notions and prejudices. I do not deny that I could have these prejudices. Who wouldn`t, given all that the world has been witnessing these past years and in my case, I also happen to be carrying the additional baggage of the personal victimhood of partition. So, if you want to ignore the rest of this post or take it with a grain of salt, I wont blame you.

In my opinion, all of the verses of the Al Tauba do not appear to be in the context of the treaty of Hudbaiya. Some of the verses relate to christians and jews who were not part of the quraishis. To me, the following verse (9.07) clearly defines the pagans who were to be spared:
“How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).”

I am no fan of Maudoodi but he was no detractor of Islam and is acknowledged to be quite a scholar of quran. According to him, this sura was revealed in three stages and chronically, the first third came last. He has described the context of the verses in detail which can be accessed at: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau9.html. Here are some excerpts:
--------
The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa`adah A. H. 9 or thereabout. As the importance of the subject of the discourse required its declaration on the occasion of Haj the Holy Prophet despatched Hadrat Ali to follow Hadrat Abu Bakr, who had already left for Makkah as leader of the Pilgrims to the Ka`abah. He instructed Hadrat Ali to deliver the discourse before the representatives of the different clans of Arabia so as to inform them of the new policy towards the mushriks.
The second discourse (vv., 38-72) was sent down in Rajab A. H. 9 or a little before this, when the Holy Prophet was engaged in making preparations for the Campaign, of Tabuk. In this discourse, the Believers were urged to take active part in Jihad, and the shirkers were severely rebuked for holding back their wealth and for hesitation to sacrifice their lives in the way of Allah because of their hypocrisy, weak faith or negligence.
The third discourse (vv. 73-I 29) was revealed on his return from the Campaign of Tabuk. There are some pieces in this discourse that were sent down on different occasions during the same period and were afterwards consolidated by the Holy Prophet into the Surah in accordance with inspiration from Allah. But this caused no interruption in its continuity because they dealt with the same subject and formed part of the same series of events. This discourse warns the hypocrites of their evil deeds and rebukes those Believers who had stayed behind in the Campaign of Tabuk. Then after taking them to task, Allah pardons those true Believers who had not taken part in the Jihad in the Way of Allah for one reason or the other.
If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:
1. to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,
2. to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
3. to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
4. to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.
1. Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam. Therefore the following measures were adopted:
1. A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months.(vv. 1-3). This declaration was necessary for uprooting completely the system of life based on shirk and to make Arabia exclusively the center of Islam so that it should not in any way interfere with the spirit of Islam nor become an internal danger for it.
2. A decree was issued that the guardianship of the Ka`abah, which held central position in all the affairs of Arabia, should be wrested from the mushriks and placed permanently in the hands of the Believers, (vv. 12-18) that all the customs and practices of the shirk of the era of `ignorance` should be forcibly abolished: that the mushriks should not be allowed even to come near the ``House`` (v. 28). This was to eradicate every trace of shirk from the ``House`` that was dedicated exclusively to the worship of Allah.
3. The evil practice of Nasi, by which they used to tamper with the sacred months in the days of `ignorance`, was forbidden as an act of kufr(v. 37). This was also to serve as an example to the Muslims for eradicating every vestige of the customs of ignorance from the life of Arabia (and afterwards from the lives of the Muslims everywhere).
2. In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.
3. The third important problem was to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, who had hitherto been tolerated in spite of their flagrant crimes. Now that there was practically no pressure upon them from outside, the Muslims were enjoined to treat them openly as disbelievers (v. 73). Accordingly, the Holy Prophet set on fire the house of Swailim, where the hypocrites used to gather for consultations in order to dissuade the people from joining the expedition to Tabuk. Likewise on his return from Tabuk, he ordered to pull down and burn the `Mosque` that had been built to serve as a cover for the hypocrites for hatching plots against the true Believers.
4. In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a` conflict with the whole non-Muslim world. That is why those people who had lagged behind in the Campaign to Tabuk or had shown the least negligence were severely taken to task, and were considered as hypocrites if they had no plausible excuse for not fulfilling that obligation. Moreover, a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim`s faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine. (vv. 81-96).
If the above-mentioned important points are kept in view during the study of this Surah, it will facilitate the understanding of its contents.
------------
Topics and their Interconnection
This portion deals with the sanctity of treaties and lays down principles, rules and regulations which must be kept in view before breaking them, in case the other party does not observe them sincerely. 1 - 12
In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behaviour. 13 - 37
In this discourse, the Muslims have been told clearly and explicitly that they will inherit the rewards promised by Allah only if they take active part in the conflict with kufr, for that is the criterion which distinguishes true Muslims from hypocrites. Therefore true Muslims should take active part in Jihad, without minding dangers, obstacles, difficulties, temptations and the like. 38 - 72
This portion deals with the problems of hypocrites and lays down rules and regulations governing the treatment that should be meted out to them and points out their distinctive marks from true Muslims. 73 - 90
This portion deals with the case of those who remained behind and did not accompany the Holy Prophet for Jihad to Tabuk. For this purpose they have been separated in different categories, that is, the disabled, the sick, the indigent, the hypocrites, the believers who realized their guilt and punished themselves before the return of the Holy Prophet from Tabuk and those who confessed their error. Their cases have been dealt with in accordance with the nature and extent of their offence. 91 - 110
In order to make their noble qualities look all the more conspicuous and dignified by contrast, the characteristics of the Believers have been mentioned, and they have been reassured that Allah, the Sovereign of the Universe, is their helper and guardian. Accordingly, because of their sincerity, He has forgiven the Three Believers who did not take part in the expedition. 111 - 118
In the concluding portion, general instructions have been given to the Believers for their guidance. 119 - 127
This is the conclusion: ``Follow the Messenger who is gentle and compassionate and your greatest well-wisher, and trust in Allah, the Lord of the Universe``. 128 - 12


I think I have said more on this topic than I had wanted to and will refrain from saying anything else.

I just don`t get it.Why this obsession with the Shivlinga?
No,ali_87,I don`t think the worship of the Shivlinga will ever go away.It is different from sati,which has no religious sanction.Even if you want to talk about the gre