Seemingly, God is Angry at America

It`s nice to know that an American, let alone a person living in Detroit would have such hatred for America. It`s ironic. You need to leave America and go back where you came from!

Tell me, does god hate pakistan more than America? The Katrina death toll is just over a thousand, yet in Pakistan today, tens of thousands have died in an earthquake.

I`m going to take you at your word. God punishes people who are bad. You called on a human sacrifice in your last paragraph. As you say, God must be angry. Maybe he is angry that Pakistan harbors so many terrorists? America is a blessed country. God willing it will stay that way without all of the hatred.

Delhiwala, Romair

Two kinds of understandings must be developed. One must learn to see commonalities across groups. This makes a person human. One must also learn to see key differences between groups. That keeps a person from turning into a blind fool.

Re: # 121
Romair,
I did your article, maybe there is a disconnect in my aprehension.
On twice reading your both posts, I do not see them connected but I do agree in gererality with your post.

Difference as I see it is:
Powerful wants to dominate others at all costs, I agree.
Strong suppresses weak, I agree
Rich oppresses poor, I agree

But none of them derive there reasoning from religous ideology.
In Islam, Jihad is Hiilal against the Non-Believer, that is why it is officialy sanctified.

Neither Bible(old/new testaments), Torah, any Hindu or Sikh book says that your objective is to bring non believers into your faith.

That was my basic point. I try very hard to not reach at conclusions on the DESI rivalry basis.

Please help me to understand if what I said is innacurate and how?

delhiwalla #117: I don`t think you understood my reply. Perhaps because you were only looking for the word, ``Islam`` in it...........

My reply was a generic reply, discussing the philosophies of religion, athiesm, secularism and anything else, one clings onto to answer life`s questions. I only emphasised Islam, because that is a religion I follow. However, I was discussing religions of all variety.........You will need to get out of a South Asian thinking frame, and free yourself of local and even historical politics to understand this.........

Any group, of any religion, that is the strongest in the world, will kill the most people. Such societies tend to be progressive internally, due to which they are successful, and villlaneous to the poeple they conquere. The USA is one of the most progressive countries, domestically, in the world. Yet it easily kills the most people in the world, in other countries, also. Go talk to any South American or Arab if you don`t believe. This is not because the USA is Christian. It is because that is how any superpower, of any faith, operates.........

If you think the story of South Asia is nothing but a story of Muslim killings, then I am afraid you need to re-read the history books. It is the story of any powerful group - Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh etc. - killing anyone they could. Do read what Ashoka did in his battles. Or the famines the British created in Bangladesh. Do you think the Hindu rajas fighting each other were a bastion of civility?

Similarly, in todays world, whomever is powerful is killing more of the, ``other.`` There are more Muslims being killed by people of other faiths, today, than vice versa. I can give you exact statistics, if you like. Look what was done to the Jews, by the Christians. They almost wiped them off the map of the world. Jews thrived in Spain, under Muslim rule. How many Jews (or Muslims) are in Spain, now? Compare that to the number of Hindus in India now? Isabella took Spain a mere 35 years before Babur took parts of India, and hundreds of years after Muslims took India. Yet within a century, Muslims and Jews were wiped out in Spain..........

But all this is a moot debate. Anyone of any religion or philosophy, will dominate others, if they can. The religion or philosophy, has nothing to do with it. The human desire to dominate another, is a very strong force, independent of religion, or athiesm or secularism. A disproportionaly high amount of violence in the past 50 years has been carried out by athiest and secular countries. Violence is oblivious to all such concepts.

So some of the most progressive societies in history were Muslim. As were some of the most regressive. This goes for all religions. And will continue to happen.........

One can thus remain caught in one`s biases towards other religions, and towards other philosophies - religious or non-religious. Or one can try to search for answers, with an open mind, outside the boundaries of time and space i.e. forget about what you are seeing now, or your own locality and biases, and try to logically find answers to questions of life............

delhiwalla #117: I don`t think you understood my reply. Perhaps because you were only looking for the word, ``Islam`` in it...........

My reply was a generic reply, discussing the philosophies of religion, athiesm, secularism and anything else, one clings onto to answer life`s questions. I only emphasised Islam, because that is a religion I follow. However, I was discussing religions of all variety.........You will need to get out of a South Asian thinking frame, and free yourself of local and even historical politics to understand this.........

Any group, of any religion, that is the strongest in the world, will kill the most people. Such societies tend to be progressive internally, due to which they are successful, and villlaneous to the poeple they conquere. The USA is one of the most progressive countries, domestically, in the world. Yet it easily kills the most people in the world, in other countries, also. Go talk to any South American or Arab if you don`t believe. This is not because the USA is Christian. It is because that is how any superpower, of any faith, operates.........

If you think the story of South Asia is nothing but a story of Muslim killings, then I am afraid you need to re-read the history books. It is the story of any powerful group - Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh etc. - killing anyone they could. Do read what Ashoka did in his battles. Or the famines the British created in Bangladesh. Do you think the Hindu rajas fighting each other were a bastion of civility?

Similarly, in todays world, whomever is powerful is killing more of the, ``other.`` There are more Muslims being killed by people of other faiths, today, than vice versa. I can give you exact statistics, if you like. Look what was done to the Jews, by the Christians. They almost wiped them off the map of the world. Jews thrived in Spain, under Muslim rule. How many Jews (or Muslims) are in Spain, now? Compare that to the number of Hindus in India now? Isabella took Spain a mere 35 years before Babur took parts of India, and hundreds of years after Muslims took India. Yet within a century, Muslims and Jews were wiped out in Spain..........

But all this is a moot debate. Anyone of any religion or philosophy, will dominate others, if they can. The religion or philosophy, has nothing to do with it. The human desire to dominate another, is a very strong force, independent of religion, or athiesm or secularism. A disproportionaly high amount of violence in the past 50 years has been carried out by athiest and secular countries. Violence is oblivious to all such concepts.

So some of the most progressive societies in history were Muslim. As were some of the most regressive. This goes for all religions. And will continue to happen.........

One can thus remain caught in one`s biases towards other religions, and towards other philosophies - religious or non-religious. Or one can try to search for answers, with an open mind, outside the boundaries of time and space i.e. forget about what you are seeing now, or your own locality and biases, and try to logically find answers to questions of life............

Re: # 112
Delhiwala:

I suggest you watch an excellent TV series that BBC produced and called ``Connection`` and James Burke narrated it. This series shows many important connections in the technological development. Including how gun powder, and printing technology was taken from China and how Europeans developed it. They took more than THAPPA-CHAPPA, they took ``ink`` as well, which by the way had origin in India. This goes to prove that technology cannot be contained by nation-state borders.

Anil Kapuria

Re: # 118
Thank You for correcting me.
Howcome Chinese don`t seek claim on first printing press. OTH, Gun Powder is rightfully credited to Chines. Kuch Samaj Nahee aya????

dehliwala: actually, sirjee, i think i got it right (this time at least). :-) i.e., i googled on ``Printing Press`` and found this in wikipedia: ``The printing press is a mechanical device for printing multiple copies of a text on rectangular sheets of paper. It was first invented in China in 1041. It was reinvented in the West by a German goldsmith and eventual printer, Johann Gutenberg in the 1450s. Apart from Gutenberg, the Dutch Laurens Janszoon Coster has also been credited with this invention.`` Printing Press

but your broader point is valid i think (as i mentioned in my previous note) - the printing press had very little impact on China whereas it changed europe (and thus the world) when the same thing was (re)invented in europe a half-millenium later. This is true for other chinese inventions/developments too - thus, chinese built giant ocean-faring ships starting around 600 AD i think which were bigger and travelled further than anything Columbus or Vasco de Gama had. However, given the nature of european vs chinese society and political structure (as i mentioned earlier), the europeans used their tiny vessels to circumnavigate the globe and colonize the decadent empires (including the subcontinent) whereas the chinese - they simply prohibited ocean voyages after second Ming emperor (Xu Di) died around 1423 i think.

Thus, regardless of anything else - it is the decentralized european society vs the monolithic societies of the rest of the world (chinese, indian, ottoman) that put europe as the flagbearers of human progress the past few centuries.

Re: # 115
Romair,
Nobody doubts the intentions of Quran and its message. Below is my understanding that is derived after having numerous meetings with interfaith participants including Episcopalian, Ecumenical, Catholic, Hindu, Sikh, Jain as Non Muslim - and Egyptian, Iranian, Turkish, Iraqis, Bangladeshi and some Pakistanis as Muslim representatives. I have no disrespect for Islam or Muslims but below is my summary of what I gathered factually while trying very hard to not let my families personal anguish at Partition.

Issues for Islam as seen by Non Muslims:

1) Behavior of Muslims and their subjugations of other cultures under the name of Islam. Despite what you are taught to believe, Islam is not an Indian religion and came into India with the defeat of local Kings and India`s existing culture at that time. People of Sind or Afghanistan did not run towards Islam seeking enlightment. There was rape and plunder to convert people into Islam at all costs. None of the Islamic countries have any Non-Muslims populace of any significance left. No plularism at all.

2) Even if we ignore the first point and categorize it as bygone era, most of the Non Muslim world(not just India), looks at Islamic countries as mentally backward that deprives its people of progress, this reputation precedes Americas invasions or any other modern day wars or media monopoly. This belief was written extensively during seventeenth century when colonial scouts were sent from Western countries. Majority of the world is on a path of Democratic type of governments, none of the Islamic countries have an elected govt (for the people, by the people model, there might be one exception here).

3) Many of the Shariat Fiqahs and Hadiths sound very unbelievable in the modern day world; even some Muslim scholars doubt them. When every Muslim country ruled by dictators promises that Shariat would be the role model, Non Muslims wonder what is next.

Romair, You cannot alienate Quran from Shariat and that is why we will have wars and civilizational conflicts. All the stories of Al-Khwarmi, and other famous Arab mathematicians will not redeem Islamic masses. There is more need of Islamic revival and if Islam has compassion or peace in its name then it has to show to non-believers.

Kulharee#114

you are a sick little basta.....I am starting to doubt that Tahmed may be correct in identifying you as Indian.

Anil #106: ``Interestingly, it was then in the Christian world. Now the Bible is just a Bible to many to God`s message others, and majority will still call them Christians. The question that comes to my non-muslim mind is can this ever happen in muslim world? I know it has happened in my world, I cannot say about the others.``

Hindvi`s comment is quite accurate.........

The revolution you are referring to, is actually one of the things that led to the creation of Islam. Islam, itself, was such a revolution. I will attempt to look at it from a, ``non-Muslim`` mind. So let`s assume Islam is a man-made phenomenon/philosophy, like non-Muslims believe, and analyze the basics, which it proposed.

Islam is quite unique, in the sense, that it removes the concept of clergy, from religion. There is no clergy in Islam. No one, in Islam, can claim any kind of power or status, based on their religious knowledge. No one, in Islam, is allowed to pass any religious ruling that is binding on anyone. There is no priest, cardinal or pope. And there are no brahmins.

Granted, over time, various clergy-based hierarchies have tried to establish, themselves, in Islam. And have done so successfully. But their power comes from their followers, not from Islam itself. This is why, Islamic history never faced the problems that Christian history faced. No pope was able to gain the kind of power that Christian popes were able to acquire. Because, any Muslim could go to such an individual and tell him to get lost........While in Christianity, the religion, itself, authorized the pope to have such power. Hence going against the pope was going against religion. While, in Islam, the opposite is true. Accepting a pope is going against the religion.

There is thus, no religious beauracracy in Islam. It is basically you and God, with no one in between. Islam does not belong to a priest. Nor is it to be interpreted by the priest. There is no priest. Or everyone is a priest, is another way to put it.

Islam is, thus, a religoin that is actually for the Shudars and the Dalits. In essence it established their authority over the Brahmins in the social structure, of Arabia. And it got rid of the Popes and the priests, in the religious structure. Not a single one of the founders of Islam was a priest. It was founded and run by the equivalent of businessmen, stock brokers, soldiers, beurecrats, shopkeepers, professors, shepherds and venture capitalists of its time.........

This is the stage that Christianity reached, after its reformation..........

This is probably why you will find so many Muslims who feel quite comfortable in Islam, and in the world, simultaneously (though they won`t be shown on CNN and FOX). This is also why you will find so many Muslims who approach life from completely opposing manners, yet consider themselves Muslims. This is also why you will hardly ever find a Muslim who leaves the religion. Including women. One would think that if Islam was the biggest problem for Muslim women, so many of them, specifically the ones in North America, would have switched their religion. But they don`t. This is also why, while your friend places the Quran in a respecful corner, others read it while lying down on their couch........

If someone converts to Islam today, they can go lead the prayers for the largest congregation of Muslims in Kaaba tomorrow. Since their is no hierarchy. I can denounce any ruling by any Islamic set of, ``ulema,`` if I want to. In fact, I am a Muslim, even though, I have not been to a mosque in seven years. And I openly disagree with so much of the Islamic jurisprudence, and do so openly on this site. I study religions, specifically Islam, as a philosophy, and do so in the comfort of a Barnes and Noble.......I still remain a Muslim....

I think people take very short-sighted views on religion, secularism, athiesm and life, in general. One has to look for answers in life. Athiesm certainly does not answer some of the most important questions, in life. Neither does religion, for that matter. Neither does science. One can ignore these anomolies, and be ignorantly comfortable in one`s religion, or atheism (or secularism), and assume one has found all the answers to life. When infact, one is simply disregarding the tough questions. Or one can continously search for answers.........

Rest assured, there is far more to Islam, then your friend washing up to read the Quran. Just like there is far more to Hinduism than your grandmother taking off her shoes to pray. To truly begining to understand any philosophy, one has to disconnect one`s self from local politics, world events - all of whom are presented in very biased manners. One has to even separate ones self from even time and space. And one has to stop making direct comparisons between religions. For example, secularism never appeared in Islam, because there was no Church, hence no separation of Church and State.........

The world is filled with far too many individuals, who feel they have found the, ``right`` answer - be it through religion, secularism, athiesm, or anything else. What the world needs are more individuals who are willing to search for the answer......

When I was in my early 20s, I almost became an athiest. My wife was seriously considering becoming a Bhuddhist, a while back. I never once attempted to stop her. Interestingly over time, I settled on what one could call a, ``philosophically-inclined`` Muslim, as opposed to an ideologically-inclined one, i.e. Islam hasn`t answered all my questions, but it has answered more than anything else i have been able to find (including some, that science has told me, it can never answer). Religion, for me starts, where science stops, i.e. where science cannot answer my questions (not my words; Dr Abdus Salam`s). Interestingly, over time, my wife settled on the same line, without my ever influencing her............

Who knows, in 20 years, we may be Hindus. But the aim should always be to continue the search and discovery process. The day one feels one has the final answer (be it through religion or athiesm), and others are stupid, is the day, one begins the journet on the road to ignorance..........

Re: # 113

While we are going off to a complete new tangent, can one of you guys explain who invented masturbation style where the right arm is pushed from underneath the right leg to perform jerking off. I heard it were Arabs. Any truth to that?

Re: # 112
Tahmed Sir,
I am not sure about this one.
Chinese had thappa/chappa style work bench.
Gutenberg had mechanical press. Ever wondered why Chinese do not question Gutenberg`s printing press as the first one.

anil: you are speaking to the converted when you say that the Quran has been reduced to being an icon by muslims, to be treated like an idol and not as a book to be read and understood. Surely God must be feeling very frustrated (as would any author in such circumstances). :-)

This is just one example of many where many muslims do exactly what they condemn in others - consider themselves a ``chosen people`` vs people of other faiths, bequeath de facto divinity to the prophet, bequeath de facto prophethood to various ``ulema`` through the centures, and to indulge in ``shirk`` every day when they go to pirs and so forth. These are all things that the Quran explicitly and strongly rejects. The one thing they dont do (and which too many ``secular`` pakistanis (including their ``moderate`` presidents) dont do either is what is central to the Quranic message - take individual responsibilty to distinguish between right and wrong and act accordingly.

delhiwala: minor correction - Gutenberg was German, not Swiss. Also, chinese did invent the movable type printing press about 500 years before Gutenberg by a Chinese gentleman named Bi Sheng I think. However, the chinese press did not have the same impact on chinese society that guteberg`s did in european society (where it basically broke the monopoly of the priesthood over the written word, and brought knowledge to the common man). The reason for this is said to be the fact that the chinese alphabet has about 3000 letters compared to 26 that gutenberg`s press had to play with. Also i think the overall nature of chinese society (large monolothic empire) vs european society (``decentralized`` into kingdoms, where men could simply switch allegiances if one king tried to bully them) had a much bigger role in the failure of the chinese society to benefit from the creative genius of individual chinese. I do think anil goes too far in saying that the west ``stole`` the invention from the chinese - and even if it did, that is a good thing and should be called ``learned`` fromt the chinese just as the rest of the world has been learning from the west (whether it likes it or not) for the past several centuries.

Re: # 106
What CRAP?
Daru pee rakhee hai kiya?

Swiss invented the printing press and duplicator not Chinese. Chinese had thappa, Gutenburg had real printing press.