Why Am I An Agnostic Muslim?

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

re:#255 by singularity
You hit the bull`s eye when you said the problem with muslims around the world is ``Arabization``.
I have often argued that the Holy Qoran needs to be reinterpreted by countries depending on their own ethnicity and culture. Even in India, scriptures have been reinterpreted down the ages. This did not in any way affect the religion but only strengthened it.
The book written in 7th century Arab was meant only for that period. One has to take what is relevant and move on. Besides, countries like Pakistan have imbibed a culture that is closer to India`s than Arabian Peninsula. So, countries like Pak, Bangladesh should have their own version of Holy Qoran, imbibing the best of the Arabic version but instilling in it a lot of local flavor and making it culturally and linguistically compatible.
Few Indians understand Vedas which are considered sacred. Few can understand the ancient scriptures written in sanskrit. If i want to read the latest version of Geetha, i go for an English version. Each author has given his own interpretation of that scripture but that never changed the original meaning. The latest 2 volume book on Geetha by Yogananda (God speaks to Arjuna: a spiritual interpretation of Geetha) is a classic and is in English.
This is what is needed in the Islamic world. People need to take over the religion from the mullahs and make it their own. Sura and Hadith need to be made relevant. Arabia is still in the middle ages. All they got is oil, which is fast disappearing. Once they run out of it, they will be back to where they have always belonged: on the back of a camel.
Sridhar
P.S: I do not agree with many of your assertions that Prophet Md (PBUH) was not real or that Islam is a false religion. I also do not agree when u said there have never been any prophets. That is utter nonsense. I will talk about this later.

Romair,(in addition to #254)

Your very example about the HDI levels is proof enough about my point about the muslim identity confusion. You list the Islamic civilization in the middle. I think, what you mean by Islamic is the Arabs and persians which will make it in the middle. But what about Afghan, Pak, Bangladesh, Indonesia who are lower than the hindu/buddist Civilization? You certainly cant add them with Muslim. Now here s your conundrum, though Afghan,PAK,Bangladesh wil fit in with India, you wont put them there coz of your religious prizm. That is the big confusion between various identities and problems coming up due to viewing everything from ISLAMIC PRIZM.

But at the same time, You are not categorizing Africa as part muslim and part christian, You simply lump them all as African? Why the difference? You seem to conveniently ignore the africans are muslims when you see them as liability. All this problems arise out of one event. The ARABISATION of the Non-arabs and the imposing of Tribal arab culture, myths and superstition in the garb of god on the non-arabs. Everything boils down to the same issue. MohaMAD is no prophet, Koran is no Gods words and certainly Islam is not gods true religion. Far from it, Islam ends up as MohaMAD`s arab imperialism.

Romair #249,#252

Here is the fundamental flaw in your argument.

1) You are confusing statehood with Religion. That is a basic problem for all muslims. The problems between 2 states are political problems. Not religious. Infact there has not been any religious problem OTHER than in the minds of the muslims who hold on to the thin shreds from the religated past and delusional one UMMAH dreams of the past.
Every problem you listed is a political problem,including Israel-Palestine.

A Pakistani is culturally, linguistically, ethnically Indian. The real issue is why is a Pakistani muslim who has absolutely no ties with an ARAB or with a Bosnian or with Indonesian bringing that into the realm of ISLAM and sees it as his problem? Nobody else does it, Not Christians, Not Buddists. India is ofcourse a unique Civilizational-cultural-religious-nation. So there is simply no possibility between state and religion getting mixed up coz both are one and the same.

A Bosnian muslim is ethnically, culturally, linguistically a slavic person. NOT ARAB OR INDIAN. And the problem in Serbia was political not religious. My point about ISLAM being Arab imperialism in the garb of god and religion is vindicated by this idnentity crisis muslims suffer from. Why is that muslims ignore their OTHER IDENTITIES of language, ethnicity, culture and look and relate to everything from the narrow religious prizm.

The reason is simple. Arabs starting from the tribal Arab MohaMAD have successfully brainwashed their converted muslims into believing they are arabs and should all fight for the arabs if the arab way of life(meaning ISLAM) is attacked. So this extensive arabization has also taught the muslims to think lowly about their other identities. This is achieved without much effort since these converts are all descendants of a defeated ancestors who were forcefully converted to ISLAM by sword and blood. So the converts easily giveup their other identities and there starts the identity issue which results in more arabization coz now they cant go abck to their past as the link is broken. This applies to much of Persian, Egyptian, turkish, pakistani Muslims. Not so much for Indian muslims coz they have their cultural link in the form of Hinduism,though currently they are in denial mode about their hindu origin. But this is only temporary coz the overwhelming hindu everything around them will eventually pull them that way and will be muslims only in names but will actually be following Hindu culture and language and have hindu attitude.

2) You brought up the ir-relevant Srilankan Tamil issue which is ethnic in nature. There are muslim, christian, Hindu tamils amongst them. So your analogy is really invalid.

3) The persecution complex you are showing, saying the whole world is up against muslims is part of the problem of Arabization. Instead of worrying about their country, their people, their security, their welfare, their education, their development, the muslims endup fighting for the master arabs who enslaved their minds, a case of massStockholm syndrome. Now the arabs have a huge army of converted NON-ARABS but who are so arabized(Islamised) that they will fight and die for the arab masters. Thats why I say MohaMAD was better imperialist than the British themselves.

So it is not a case of Non-muslims killing muslims, the muslim responses is based on their imagined persecution complex. These events are infact CAUSED BY THIS IMAGINED DELUSION ABOUT ONE UMMAH. Israel-palestine is a Political problem but the muslims take it as religious one and as a result send muslims from various countries who are un-related to the issue to fight as Jihadis. Now, another political problem comes up in Kashmir and the very same muslims in various countries like Afghan, who have no bearing on Kashmir come in droves to fight a war which has no relevance to them. And the same thing gets repeated in every place from Chechnya to Bosnia to China. All over the world. So the muslim persecution complex and their reaction to different UN-REALTED political problems as attack on their IMAGINARY UMMAH is the reason for the same muslims being defeated in all these places. And this defeat is again seen as defeat of the IMAGINARY UMMAH and feeds the religious fervour of more Jihadis. And it becomes a vicious cycle.

Now let us see if you can respond with any fact and reason or de-generate like tahmed32 and resort to personal abuse without being able to answer the points raised. If you do that it only proves my point that muslims are all about sound bytes but when serious questions are asked either melt away or self destruct with volleys of abuse and violence.

Romair,

You raise several issues here. There is obviously an issue of coexistence between the muslim and non-muslim world, because almost all the conflicts that are currently underway in the world today involves muslims in some part of the world. We can find reasons for this but that is the reality whether we like it or not. Muslims are also facing a harsh time in non-muslim lands particularly in the west, which is yet again another manifestation of this conflict. I agree with you that Muslims are suffering more from this than non-muslims, but that is all the more reason to look at this problem.

The muslim vs non-muslim conflicts can be broadly classified into two types. The first type of conflict is the nationalist conflict, such as Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, Chechneya and a few others. This type of conflict typically occurs when a minority group within a larger entity wants to separate and create their own state or if people feel they are occupied. The second type of conflict is ideological which is represented by OBL and his cronies with funding from Saudis. This conflict is to promote pan-Islamism by first imposing a wahabi type system within the Islamic world, erect walls to keep out non-muslim influences and eventually take the battle to non-muslim nations. In other words, engage in jihadi activities to promote a misguided interpretation of the faith. Until a few years back, the Afghanistan/Pakistan/Saudi axis was the pivotal point for this conflict, but it had its presence in other places as well.

The world is more accepting of the first kind of conflict i.e. the nationalistic conflicts. Depending on the situation, each non-muslim country has a different take on these conflicts and the dynamics are different. A common theme does show up that somehow muslims are not able to live as minorities in non-muslim lands (except for the Palestinians who lost their land). However, we can chalk it to the wishes of the people and agree that these conflicts have some merit to them outside religion.

The world is totally unaccepting of the second kind of conflict i.e. one based on pan-Islamic expansionist agenda. In 2005, that is absolutely unacceptable to anyone. Hence any action on that account will get a swift and heavy counter-attack. This is where the roots of the current muslim vs non-muslim fight lies. Even in the Indo-Pak context, the 10 year jihad in Kashmir did not provoke India as much as one attack on the Parliament in Delhi which was viewed as the first shot in a pan-Islamic battle for India. You are well aware of all the current events related to this including 9/11. The fear is that the muslim world will fall to wahabi fanaticism internally and then try to export it to everyone else. The smashing of the Afghanistan/Pakistan axis has already occured. However, the Saudi funding axis still remains and in fact, the menace is becoming more distributed in different parts of the world. By the way, I dont think economics is an issue here because this is all ideological.

addition to #249: I forgot to mention the ratios of deaths and killings and occoupations, with respect to the Orthodox civilization and Muslim civilization. The Orthodox civilization occupied Afghanistan, where it killed upto 1 million Muslim. It currently has killed upto 100,000 Chechnyans (who are part of the Muslim civilization). In addition, uptil the 80s, it had occupied areas like the Muslim `Stan countries of Central Asia. Which immediately opted out of the Orthodox occupation, when given a chance for self-determination............

In Yoguslavia, the Serbia (Orthodox civilization member) has killed so many Bosnians (Muslim civilization member). Bosnia opted out of Orthodox civilization, the moment it had a chance...........

To the best of my knowledge, at the moment, the Muslim civilization is not occupying the lands of any other civilization (East Timor is free, now). Though I may have missed an odd example, here or there. Nor is there any example of Muslims killing more members of other civilizations, than vice-versa, except in African Sudan and similar areas. However, even if we total that up as Christian deaths, it will still be less than the number of Muslims killed by Christian civilization members, worldwide...........

Infact, most of the killings by the Muslim civilization are within the civilization, i.e. they are killing other Muslims. Iran/Iraq war is a good example. As is Pakistan/Bangladesh, and Turks/Kurds..........

Romair #249,
I guess by Hindu suicide bombers you are referring to the Tamil Tigers, but then the LTTE has Christians too. Also I dont think that the LTTE ever claimed to be fighting for a Hindu cause or called non-Hindus as infidels.

Romair #249,
I guess by Hindu suicide bombers you are referring to the Tamil Tigers, but then the LTTE has a Christians too. Also I dont think that the LTTE ever claimed to be fighting for a Hindu cause or called non-Hindus as infidels.

amit #246: ``The non-muslim world has a vested interest in encouraging the muslim world to move towards an enlightened interpretation of their faith and buy into a peaceful coexistence with non-muslims across the world.``

Every time I read something like this, I have to always wonder how much of it is legitimate and how much of it is media-hype.

For example, you have stated that the Muslim world has a responsibility to exist peacefully with non-Muslims. Quite true. But what about the flip side. Does the non-Muslim world have a responsiblity to exist peacefully with the Muslim world, also? How do you conclude that it is the Muslim world that is not existing peacefully. Maybe it the non-Muslim world that is not existing peacefully. Or maybe both.

An objective way to look at who is contributing more towards a non-peaceful existence is to look at who is doing the most killing, occupation, military attacks etc. Are more Muslims killing Jews, or have more Jews killed Muslims? Have Muslims occupied any Jewish lands and/or have Jews occupied Muslim lands? Similarly for all other faiths. Are more Muslims being killed by Hindus today, or are more Hindus being killed by Muslims? Have Muslims occupied any Hindus lands, today, and have Hindus occupied any Muslim lands? So on and so forth.

If you were to do such an analysis, you would discover, that Muslims are being killed in far larger numbers by people of other faiths, than vice-versa. There really is no contest. It is in ratios of upto 1 to 25, in some cases!!!

The other thing you need to take a look at is the Human Development of the Muslim civilizaition, in comparison with Huntington`s other civilizations. Where exactly do Muslims rank on the world`s HDI scale. They are certainly not at the top. But are the at the bottom. Definitely not.

At the top of the list, on the HDI scale, is the Western civilization, which has a huge lead. That is followed by the Japanese civilization. But what about after that. On the world`s HDI, the average member of the Muslim civilization is ranked quite a bit higher than the average member of the Hindu civilization. He/she is ranked higher than the average member of the African civilizaition, also. As well as higher than the Bhuddhist civilization. And around the same level as the Sinic civilization members. If you don`t believe, please to a calculation of the countries in various civilizaitons and their rankings on the HDI scale....

Based on HDI, the world`s civilization`s would be ranked about, as follows:

Western
Japanese
.....big gap.....
Orthodox/Latin (about tied)
Sinic/Islamic (about tied)
....gap......
Hindu/Bhuddhist
African.

So the Islamic civilization, today, is about in the middle of the world, on the HDI (slightly towards the lower half). This is indicated by migration patterns also. Everyone wants to migrate to the Western civilizaition countries. No one migrates to the Hindu or Bhuddhist or African civilization countries. However, people willingly migrate from these three cilvizations into the Muslim civilization countries, all the time. Infact if the Muslim civilization countries threw their gates open, millions would migrate to them, from civilizations lower on the HDI scale......

This is why I have always found comments related to the demise of the Muslim civilization, its current place in the world, its violence etc. greatly biased. If far more Muslms are being killed by individuals of other civilizations and religions, than vice-versa. If far more Muslim lands are being occupied by individuals of other faiths, than vice-versa. And if Muslim civlizaition is actually ranked higher on average, than many other civilizations, in HDI. Then why in the world is it not being portrayed as such?......

I think the answer is quite simple: Any civilization, if analyzed with respect to the Western civilizaition will look backwards. So there are genuine problems within the Muslim civilization, in comparison with the advancement of the Western (or Japanese) civilization. No doubt. However, the Hindu, Bhuddhist and African civilizations are not analysed like that. For example, how many people in the world would know that the majority of the suicide bombers, by a large margin, are actually Hindus?

Why is the Muslim civilization diagnosed so microscopically and in such a subjective manner?

Because it has ended up in an indirect, and now direct, conflict with the leader of the Western civilization (USA), through Israel (which is also part of the Western civilization). If Israel had been created in Jaffna, Sri Lanka, then the Tamils would be carrying out suicide attacks against the Israelis, instead of fighting the Sinhalese. In such a situation, the Hindu civilization would have been analysed in huge detail, in international media, because it would have been in a direct conflict with the Western civilization. Fox News would have been analyzing sati, and the caste system, and what not........The leader of the Tamil Tigers would be more famous than OBL......Tamil Nadu in India, would be considered the hub of terrorism financing.......

Similarly, if the Muslim civilization were fighting the Orthodox civilization, no one would have cared. Infact, the, ``courage`` of the Muslim fighters would have been cheered. This is exactly what happened when the Afghans (and through them the whole Muslim civilization) was fighting the heart of the Orthodox civilization, i.e. Russia. The same Afghans and Talibans (and even the same OBL) were the heroes of the world, because the Western civilization, through its media dominance, portrayed them as such, since it supported the Muslim civilization, in that conflict.

So, one should look at every thing in perspective, and objectively. The Muslim civilization has a lot of problems and it commits a lot of violence. But it has had far more violence committed against it than it is committing. Also, it is better off in Human Development than many other civilizations........

Hoping to hear an objective and factual answer from you, and not a patriotic one..............

Amit #246,

I agree with you, but in India we have more people who give appeasment(Carrot). It comes naturally to hindus. But we need to have some more who carry the stick also. It is both the stick and carrot which is a better strategy. I carry the stick, you carry the carrot. All carrot and No stick is no good. All stick and no carrot wont change nothing. Thats why US always goes with both a stick and carrot. And thats why though there maybe some opposisition to US policies, overall nobody views the US as outright aggressor with imperialistic ambitions(though they still achieve the same objective with their corporations).

Re: # 244
Shukriya Tahmed Sahib. Nice article!

Singularity,

If you are on a one man mission to convince billions of muslims to give up their faith, good luck to you. You know as well as I do that it will never happen. However, the fact is that most muslims are aware that there are serious issues about their relationship with the rest of the world. The geo-political realities of the post 9/11 world are obvious to everyone. Muslims themselves are trying to figure out this matter. They are well aware that adopting medieval tactics, a la OBL and his jihadi goons, will lead to extreme counter reaction, especially when the non-islamic world is several times stronger in resources and military means. Hence the natural outcome is that we will see a more enlightened and inclusive interpretation of Islam, for the simple reason that there is no other choice.

Take the subcontinent`s context for example. Even twenty years ago, the Pakistani establishment had a misplaced image of their capability with respect to India. It was perhaps an extension of the ancient view that hindus were weak. In the past twenty years, as India has become a strong nation with a powerful economy, Pakistanis are looking at India with new respect. The grudging admiration for India`s progress is evident if you read any Pakistani newspaper. Now I doubt if there is any Pakistani left who dreams of hosting their flag on the Red Fort. Hence you see an enlightened view towards India and coexistence.

The non-muslim world has a vested interest in encouraging the muslim world to move towards an enlightened interpretation of their faith and buy into a peaceful coexistence with non-muslims across the world. This is the only realistic course of action. It can be pursued by developing our own strength, maintaining firmness against any kind of medieval mindset but also engaging the muslim world in becoming friends and partners. Simply attacking them ad nauseum will yield no results.

Re: # 243
Ya Kundian du tu Shaar Haar Davala
Ya Shobhra Vastra Vritaa
Ya Veena ver Dund Mandita Kara
Ya Shweta Padma Asana
Om Shanti Shanti Shanti
May Sarasvati Devi give you wisdom

shoresahib: since i have you here, i thought i would return the favor of your posting the Pope Paul statement on christian-muslim relations by giving you a link to New York Times statement on the basant festival in Lahore. Those kite flying boys of lahore are world famous now. :-)

Click Here>/a>

Shoresahib,
I have read English Translation of koran. As I have read the Bible. The entire concept of SATAN/EVIL has got to do with the way the ancient tribals, living in the saudi arabian desert, dealt with their environment and circumstances with their limited resources and knowledge.

For a tribal with limited resource at hand and limited knowledge, anybody who is fighting him to get the meager resources he has, is equivalent to somebody who wants him and his family dead. So that fight for resources assumes much bigger proportion. This nobody from resource rich India can ever understand. So for these tribals, when their meagre resources are being attacked, protecting it from rivals is a matter of life and death. So anybody who threatens their existence is SATAN/EVIL and they must be killed or converted and made part of your gang. That way the converted person wont take away your resources without putting in any PRODUCTIVE labor to produce it. As simple as that. Its always Economy the stupid.

Now when in 2005, the mullahs wont let the rest of the muslims outgrow that 600AD phase, then there is something very wrong with it. And what is very wrong is Koran and its ossified myths and superstitions of a religated era. So either somebody from within should purge the Koran and make it more modern or SOMEBODY from outside will force the muslims to do it. Simple case of old and rotten being destroyed and new things being created. Remember Shiva`s cosmic dance of destruction of rotten matter through time as new matter gets created from the old.

AMIT:

Look at Tahmed32`s reply. That shows the closed mind which needs some push. It is not going to crack when you apply your appeasement. You are only cheating yourself. The classic reply for your appeasement from such closed minds will be, ``MohaMAD is the Prophet and Allah is the only GOD, that is the truth, EITHER You follow it or be damned to Hell`` Now, the same species will also say out of your ear length, ``these SATAN/EVIL hindus should have been killed or converted and India madea Muslim country. Time will come when the MUSLIMS will capture the world and make it ONE UMMAH.`` But what will be told to you will be ``Your faith for you and my faith for myself``. but probe such species if they dont consider you to be SATAN/EVIL , you will be disappointed. you are still SATAN/EVIL but can exist until the time they get enough strength to kill you or convert you.

Amit #234:

I was not abusive of muslims anywhere in my post. My wordplay on MohaMAD is just funny. Maybe we gotta develop a funny bone. It is a very harmless fun compared to the muslims calling 80% of humans as SATAN/EVIL and sending them to hellfire. Imagine the fun of Gandhi, Buddha and other infidels being roasted while the jihadis who kill the satan/evil infidels enjoy 72 virgins.

As for the sensitivity part, the world functions on give and take. I am sensitive when others are sensitive to me. I was not the one to invoke SATAN/EVIL. I dont call anybody who is different from me as SATAN/EVIL and send MohaMAD or Ali to be roasted in hellfire. I dont prescribe to conversion to my faith and if they change their names from Rahim to Ram they get heaven.

As for your 2nd paragraph,
Mohamad was a man. A tribal arab who faught for his tribe. Agreed. But no prophet. That is only a belief. There has never been any prophets or avatars.

Islam was a vast improvement for the Tribal ARABS. NOT for the Millions who were killed in the name of ISLAM. You are making assumptions about granting DIMMI status to hinduism or confucianism. There is no need for such certification. And besides, Why should somebody be certified by a human so that they wont be treated as SATAN/EVIL. Going by your logic, if somebody is not certified then they are legal to be killed or converted?

You are only trying to give explanations to why the Muslim invaders plundered, raped and killed. That is like giving justification to why a murderer committed all his murders. Everybody has some justifications. Does having justification make it a good act?

You are not giving any solutions as to how such acts be stopped? What do we do to purge such JAUNDICED views. Or do you still want to keep giving explanations at the cost of thousands who die due to such JAUNDICED views? So now having understood the core of the problem in ISLAM is this JAUNDICED view of calling anybody who is different as SATAN/EVIL, the muslims you are trying to defend, ARE THEY WILLING TO MAKE CHANGES to the root cause of those JAUNDICED views? Are they willing to make purges to the koranic scripts which says it? Are they willing to stop the conversion drives? The answer is No they dont want to coz it is holy koran and so it must be right and so they should be REALLY SATAN/EVIL. Back to square one.

Applying to reasons and showing compassion works with somebody with that culture. Not to somebody who are brainwashed with ARAB Lies and who consider it a weakness to call all humans as equals. How can SATAN be equal to Gods children?

Again, if you think about it, you are trying to give justification to why MohaMAD said what he said. So it is OK if he had called Indians and Chinese as DHIMMIS. But that still leaves out the AFRICANS, Native Americans, Incas, Mayaans and other aborigines who have NO BOOK. So they are all SATAN/EVIL and fair game to kill, convert and send to HELL. Think about it. The problem is MohaMAD and the ideology of hate. No amount of justification will change that.

The natural Hindu pacification and appeasement wont win you anything. It will make u appear weak and fair game for butchery. This war has to be won on two fronts. Appealing to the reaons of muslims who are willing to break rank and ask QUESTIONS about MohaMAD and Koran. The other front is to crush the Jihadis and their ideology of hate. Any appeasement will make them believe that u r bending and that gives them fervour based on their blind belief which strengthens them. We got to learn from History.