| Author | Topic |
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
 Posted - Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 10:36 PM 
This forum having been polluted by a puppy virus I am obliged to quit for good.
Thanks for Nida_e_khair and others who tried to check this virus in vain. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Friday, November 24, 2006 - 2:17 AM
| the bad news is that you are still polluting it with your extremism. |
|
marwan
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Friday, November 24, 2006 - 11:20 PM
simple... I dont agree with abduullah yusuf ali...
no crime there... he can quote no qur'anic evidence to support his claim, only perhaps external sources... |
|
marwan
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Monday, November 27, 2006 - 3:05 PM
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Monday, November 27, 2006 - 10:38 PM
Nida_e_khair
You say:
"I just need the answer to one question only: Why were the believers, at first, allowed to have sexual relations with slaves?"
Excuse me dear Nida your question is a bit absurd.
My question is: why should one possess a slave if one cannot use it as a slave; for whatever purpose one likes?
In fact you are using the terms 'believer' and 'slave, as mutually exclusive terms which they are not as believer can be a slave and a slave can be a believer. Your question should rightly be "Why should a master be allowed to use his slave in whatever manner he likes?"
Its answer would be: This is what a slave is meant for. This boils down to the question: Why human beings be allowed to be made slaves at all? |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 12:35 AM
Dear Nida
Marrying ones own slave! The very proposition is absurd. A slave is 'Mamlook',i.e.,one's property like a cow or a donkey having no rights whatsoever like a free human being. AS it is, the marriage, which is a social contract among free individuals, becomes out of question between a master and his slave. Marriage can ,however, be contracted with a slave of some body else and that too only with the consent of his/her master, and mind not that of the slave him/herself as you can use a donkey of someone else only with the consent and under the conditions arranged with his master. You better read Hidaya, a renowned book of Fiqqah, about the shariah rules governing slavery. It allows even the son of a slave owner to have sex with his fathers' slaves in his capacity as his heir. The fact is the pre-Islamic Arab society was a slave-owning society and it continued to be so even after the advent of Islam.
Regards |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 12:16 AM
Oh dear Nida, how could I make you understand that status and legal rights of an individual are not contradictory to kindness (Ehsan) and compassion. In fact Islam orders you to observe justice with kindness (Adl wal Ehsan). Islam ordains you to be kind to the animals even and there are secular laws also about preventing cruelty to animals. But this does not mean that they have any legal rights which can be agitated in a court of law. In fact the concept of human rights has a a very recent origin which has lead to prohibition of the institution of slavery altogether even in the Islamic Constitution of Pakistan. One can understand the difficulty to reconcile the concepts prevalent in a pre-Islamic slave-owning society of 14 centuries ago for the people with the mind-set of 21st century human rights.
You just read the story of Hazrat Yousaf, a prophet-slave, in the Quran and see what was the status of the slaves in those days. No body questioned Zulekhah having sexual desire for his slave but the latter was incarcerated for no fault of his. Again Hazrat Younas was thrown in the sea only on the suspicion that he was a run-away slave. Afala Tadabiroon. |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 1:01 AM
Nida_e_khair
I can understand your confusion, dear, and will try to clear it.
The fact is the slave, as such, is not treated as a human being with a free will, but only a 'property' possessed by somebody like a cattle. Now you can use your slave as you like, including having sexual intercourse with him, but if someone else wants to use your slave in any manner, he will have to seek your permission. After all, what is marriage. It is simply 'Eejaab-o-Qabool' (proposal and acceptance) for, inter alia, sexual intercourse. In case of a slave, if a proposal is made by someone who posses no proprietary rights in him he will have to seek permission of his master.
This is what I understand about the status of the slave from reading 'Hidaaya', a renowned book on Islamic Fiqah.
Btw, what is your age dear Nida? You seem to be too young to understand such things, but I appreciate your quest for seeking the truth.
I hope this will make the matter clear to you. If not, let me have your e-mail address to communicate to you direct at a personal level. |
|
marwan
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 1:41 AM
beware tilawat nida, he/she is a trickster and secular religionist.
He/she is as much a muslim as I am a christian.
He/she only wishes to crush your faith under the guise of secularism. |
|
marwan
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 1:53 AM
quote:
Oh dear Nida, how could I make you understand that status and legal rights of an individual are not contradictory to kindness (Ehsan) and compassion.
Actually that is bull. In the Qur’an Allah tells us to release “slaves” and to spend money in the freeing of slaves.
If you say to someone that I respect you and will respect you as a human, and then tell them, you are my slave and you have no choice but to do as I say and stay my property. Thats a contradiction.
Present the Qur’anic evidence for your conception of the slave in the Qur’an.
quote:
In fact Islam orders you to observe justice with kindness (Adl wal Ehsan). Islam ordains you to be kind to the animals even and there are secular laws also about preventing cruelty to animals. But this does not mean that they have any legal rights which can be agitated in a court of law.
This is an irrelevant analogy, as in no way does Allah compare the human and muslim to an animal and the rights of an animal. But this is to be expected of you, you have no logic.
quote:
In fact the concept of human rights has a a very recent origin which has lead to prohibition of the institution of slavery altogether even in the Islamic Constitution of Pakistan.
Nope, human rights were the from the revelation of the Qur’an, a long time before the Magna Carta. Present your evidence for your statements.
quote:
One can understand the difficulty to reconcile the concepts prevalent in a pre-Islamic slave-owning society of 14 centuries ago for the people with the mind-set of 21st century human rights.
Typical tilawat, degrading the Qur’an and islam as a 7th century religion for smelly backward arabs, not compatible with the enlightened secular modern man. This is the disgusting attitude that tilawat had nida, read his/her other posts and my repose to them in other forums here.
quote:
You just read the story of Hazrat Yousaf, a prophet-slave, in the Quran and see what was the status of the slaves in those days.
Whats the point? Allah was telling us of this incident, not telling us that slavery was good. He was not a prphet slave, he was a chosen man of Allah who was enslaved and who Allah FREED by his will.
quote:
No body questioned Zulekhah having sexual desire for his slave but the latter was incarcerated for no fault of his.
Who?
quote:
Again Hazrat Younas was thrown in the sea only on the suspicion that he was a run-away slave. Afala Tadabiroon.
Really? Where is this stated in the Qur’an?
Go back to you atheist and secualr friends tilawat…
2:14. when They meet those who believe, They say: "We believe;" but when They are alone with their evil ones, They say: "We are really with you: we (were) only jesting."
2:15. Allah will throw back their mockery on them, and give them rope In their trespasses; so They will wander like blind ones (to and fro).
salaam
Edited by: marwan on Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:02 AM |
|
marwan
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 1:56 AM
quote:
Nida_e_khair
I can understand your confusion, dear, and will try to clear it.
The fact is the slave, as such, is not treated as a human being with a free will, but only a 'property' possessed by somebody like a cattle. Now you can use your slave as you like, including having sexual intercourse with him, but if someone else wants to use your slave in any manner, he will have to seek your permission. After all, what is marriage. It is simply 'Eejaab-o-Qabool' (proposal and acceptance) for, inter alia, sexual intercourse. In case of a slave, if a proposal is made by someone who posses no proprietary rights in him he will have to seek permission of his master.
This is what I understand about the status of the slave from reading 'Hidaaya', a renowned book on Islamic Fiqah.
The effect of hadith and sunnah… made up by the slave masters of Arabia and iran…
quote:
Btw, what is your age dear Nida? You seem to be too young to understand such things, but I appreciate your quest for seeking the truth.
I hope this will make the matter clear to you. If not, let me have your e-mail address to communicate to you direct at a personal level.
The wolf showing concern for a sheep… Beware his/her hidden teeth nida… |
|
Zulfee
USA
|
Posted - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 11:21 PM
quote:
For God's sake Brother Zulfee! The poor guy was only QUOTING Ghaalib!
Brother puppy, you know what? You're right. Maybe "puppy" does mean something good in some other language. I didn't think of that before. I won't make fun of your username anymore.
And by the way, I'm neither a bitch, nor a hypocrite. Let Allah be the judge! That would be better for you.
You are telling a lie, Nida!!!!!!!!! |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 12:15 AM
Nida_e_khair
You say:
"Question for you (tilawat): Do you think that if we had slaves in the 21st century, we would still be allowed to have sexual intercourse with them?"
Certainly as Islamic Shariah is as valid today as 14 hundred years ago, but the laws in both secular and religious states generally prohibit the very institution of slavery now. Even the UN Declaration of Human Rights does not allow it now.
Nevertheless, the scum of life who call themselves as Muslims and their countries as Islamic go to the 'kafir' countries like Ireland to work there as slave labour, are ever eager to serve as sex-slaves too
though seldom considered fit for that. |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 12:38 AM
Nida_e_khair
You say:
"Question for you (tilawat): Do you think that if we had slaves in the 21st century, we would still be allowed to have sexual intercourse with them?"
Certainly as Islamic Shariah is as valid today as 14 hundred years ago, but the laws in both secular and religious states generally prohibit the very institution of slavery now. Even the UN Declaration of Human Rights does not allow it now.
Nevertheless, the scum of life who call themselves as Muslims and their countries as Islamic go to the 'kafir' countries like Ireland to work there as slave labour, are ever eager to 'marwaanrh',i.e., serve as sex-slaves too
though seldom considered fit for that.
In fact it all depends on the kind of Islam you believe in. Just readt his article appearing on 'chowk.com':
"unflinching idealism ... since 1997 chowk illustration
Sign-in
forgot password?
new to chowk?
Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:21:14 AM archives sitemap contribute community unplugged about chowk
Which Islam?
Mohammad Gill
November 24, 2006
“Which Islam?” Parvez butted in. “The Islam of the Flat Earth Society? The Islam of the religious scholars? The Islam of Iranian revolutionaries? The Islam of Saudi Wahabbis? The Islam of the state-obsessed Muslim Brotherhood and the Jamaat-e- Islami? The simpleton Islam of Tablighi Jamaat? He was so frustrated he did not realize he was shouting.” (Zia Uddin Sardar in ‘Desperately Seeking Paradise’, p.327)
I hadn’t read any of Zia Uddin Sardar’s (ZS) books. A couple of weeks back, I was leisurely browsing the collection of books on Islam in our local area library when I came upon Desperately Seeking Paradise by ZS. I was ticked off by the title but nonetheless I picked up the book and took it to the circulation desk for check out. The only motivation for me to borrow this book was that I wanted to read a book by ZS. I had quoted him in my “What is Islamization of Science?” and was disappointed because I didn’t have the opportunity of reading any of his works at first hand.
I read the whole book selecting chapters randomly. I was deeply touched by his desire to see the Muslim world developing into a leading society of the whole world. I empathized with him and was equally pained to see the Muslim world factually as one of the most confused and backward societies of the world. The confusion has engulfed the whole Muslim world. The Muslims believe that they were the glorious and the most successful people of the world in the middle ages because of their religion, Islam. The truth is otherwise. They became successful when they stopped Islam from invading their creative engagements in philosophy and science. Islam did inspire them to spread out in the world but their real success was due to their unequalled progress in science and philosophy.
Mamun-al-Rashid’s Bait-el-Himah (House of Wisdom) admitted scholars of all religions. The ulema hated Mamun-al-Rashid for his liberal and skeptical views. He protected the Muslim skeptics, the Mutazallites, and patronized them in their creative work. The greatest scholars of Islam were skeptics. Religion was not their passion. Many of them were good practicing Muslims but their real devotion was to their intellectual pursuits.
Many of us who hark back to the past glories of our forebears wrongly believe that the excellence achieved by them was by virtue of their religious faith. Although secularism was not consciously the state policy, at an individual level secularism played a dominant role in the intellectual milieu. The Muslim scientists kept their religion as a personal and private practice and did not allow it to interfere in their work. Majority of us tend to believe that if we succeed in developing a pure Islamic outlook (Which Islam? is a bogey here also) intellectually and practically, every thing else will fall in place. ZS has comprehensively looked at it and has ended up in frustration. Having looked at the intellectual comprehension of Islamic theories and practices in many Islamic countries like Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, etc. from close quarters, the question of which Islam? relentlessly stared in his face.
The universality of religion is indeed a chimerical concept (or a mis-concept) in which the followers of almost every religion freely indulge. This indulgence massages their ego and the feeling good about it. The empirical evidence totally refutes it. In the Muslim world of today, Iranian brand of Islam (Shi’ism) is fiercely pitted against the Saudi Wahabbi Islam. Both of them are extreme in their theory and practice. And both of them are arraigned against the whole world. The banality of the rational Muslims is these extreme views and interpretations of religion. Those of us who feel good about our glorious past, try to rationalize and give it as a proof of the greatness of our religion. When we try to find examples of good governance and fair and just treatment of the people by the state, we invariably end up only in giving examples of some good rulers such as Omar-al-Khattab, Omar bin Abdel-el-Aziz, the Abbasid khalifahs Harun and Mamun-al-Rashid among others. Apart from the good rulers, there was no continuing fair and just system of governance. There was no constitution and there were no rights of the common people. Whatever rights were given to them was a special favor of a particular ruler; they didn’t have any constitutional rights.
In a western style secular system, on the other hand, people have rights which are given to them by the constitution and not by a special favor of a particular ruler. Any head of the state cannot take them away by any whimsical act. In such a system, religion is a personal thing in which state does not interfere. However, public practice and display of any particular religion is not countenanced.
Although many of us despise the western style secularism, western science and philosophy, western democracy, and modernity, we do not have any reasonable and pragmatic substitutes for them. The result is an intellectual schism. We hate western education but acquire it nevertheless because without it we can not hope to have a decent living. We hate modernity because it is western in character and essence but we love to enjoy its fruits and products such as cars, travel by air, air conditioning and central heat, color televisions, refrigerators and microwaves, to name only a few of them. Why don’t we accept modernity and secularism as a matter of course?
When Islamic Spain and Baghdad were at their peaks of excellence and science and philosophy flourished there, many western scholars traveled from their far off countries to Spain and Baghdad in search of knowledge. They learnt Arabic so that they could read and comprehend books of science and philosophy written by the Muslim authors. When they returned to their respective lands, they translated these books in their language to transmit knowledge to their people. Books of Ibn-e-Sina and Razi were used as text books in Europe for several centuries even after the downfall of the Muslim world. The Europeans acquired knowledge from the Muslim world and produced in due time Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton. The foundation of science was laid in Europe using the scientific tradition of the Muslim world. Why can’t and shouldn’t do the same thing now? Why do we hesitate in acquiring the western knowledge and using it to lay the foundation of the modern scientific tradition? Anything that is manifestly good is good whether it is western or eastern. We should have no hesitation in acquiring “the good.” Let us forget “Pidram Sultan bood” (my father was a king). We should devote our energies in acquiring knowledge and advancing it further from its existing frontiers. We should keep our religion at a personal level and not try to make it universal. Because, such an effort is fruitless and futile.
Times read: 7926 Interacts: 240 Published on November 24, 2006
Rating:
We encourage all to participate in discussions. All we ask you to be is civil. If your post includes words or masked references that are offensive, crude, repugnant, or obscene, your post will be duly deleted. We thank you for your participation. Please also read the detailed InterAct! Guidelines. If you notice specific instances of personal-attacks, hate-speech, and other kind of harassment please send immediate feedback.
To InterAct!
New users join Chowk Existing users sign-in
alsoby
Mohammad Gill
Tragic Deaths of Three Great Scientists »
similararticles
The Meaning of Pakistan
Aisha Sarwari
Has Hinduism had the Longest Tradition of Continuous Religion?
Murad Ali Baig
His Decision
Kafir
explorechowk
Poems (317)
Short Stories (134)
Plays (6)
Interviews (24)
Novelletes (8)
Translations (33)
Profiles (59)
Memoirs (15)
Being There (17)
Society (27)
Journeys (51)
Humidor (8)
Woman's Room (9)
Playing Field (4)
BollyWoodstock (4)
topics
Teachers (7)
Medicine (29)
Student-Life (2)
Madrassas (2)
Philosophy (27)
Youth (40)
Text-books (1)
Astronomy (6)
Education (103)
Evolution (50)
Science (82)
Literacy (11)
Psychology (15)
History (64)
view more topics
web chowk
set reading options My filter Chowk filter No filter layout=flat layout=nested order=newest first order=oldest first
#240 by krishna_abcd on December 2, 2006 11:37am PT
#237 by ntsyed
If you are making the point that BECAUSE Swami Prabhupada started the movement in the USA, AND the movement is into proselytizing - THEREFORE it contradicts my claim that Hinduism is not into proselytizing, you need to think about the following points:
1) Hinduism has not been into proselytizing in India for thousands of years.
2) The movement in the USA got influenced by Americans with their Semitic upbringing.
3) EVEN if Prabhupada was directly responsible for proselytization, he would represent an aberration, rather than the trend in Hinduism.
[I think it would be easier if you defined the following terms...just so we're on the same page:
- converting
- movement
- proselytizing ]
Look up www.dictionary.com.
[and how do these fit in your definition of philosophies? ]
They have NOTHING to do with the definition of philosophies.
[Secondly, please tell us about who Swami Prabhupada was, if not a Hindu, and the objective of the Hare Krishna movement if not to increase the following of Hindu 'philosophies'...which requires proselytizing and conversion? ]
This is a repeat question. See the first point above.
[Fourth, if Hinduism is not a faith then:
- how does 'worship' tie in with (potentially) modifiable philosophies?
- if there's no concept of worship in Hindu 'philosophies', then what is prostration before statues etc., if not worship?
- if it is worship, then it must have something to do with faith - at least to the extent of elevating those people who offered those 'philosophies' to the level of gods and goddesses, as well as developing faith in their capabilities
- what is the philosophy behind Yellamma? As far as I've been able to see on the Internet, it's simply a commemoration / remembrance of an injustice against a woman and her sons, and has everything to do with 'faith' and nothing to do with philosophy
- licking the yoni of some goddess for relief in menstural problem appears only faith based
- reverence of a god's genital conjoined with that of a goddess appears same as above...based on faith - not in philosophy
- similarly, philosophy seems to have little to do with the concept of devadasis and more to do with faith
still you maintain that hinduism is not a 'faith'? ]
Hinduism is different things to different people. It is different for the peasant and the intellectual. The common man needs the mental crutch of faith to survive - they have colored their faith with different aspects of the Hindu philosophies - few bother to actually study the philosophy. But to the educated intellectual, Hinduism is strictly a philosophy - to be studied and debated at will. You can be an atheist and still be a Hindu - no question of faith there.
[Mr. krishna, every religion has a philosophy...even atheism claims to have one. Without a philosophy a religion is like an empty metal pot. Now, whether the philosophy has strong basis or not is a seperate discussion. But, you cannot separate the two with a few keystrokes. ]
Okay. Quote me a few verses from the Koran that elucidates this philosophy.
[Reply to interact #240]
#239 by krishna_abcd on December 2, 2006 11:01am PT
#237 by ntsyed
I think after interacting with me for a while you will realize that unlike some others, I do not get easily deflected from the point at hand.
So I'll repeat my earlier post:
Show me the two sentences:
1) my "latest assertion", and
2) my "earlier claims".
Then we can see how they contradict each other.
We can take it from there. I'll wait for your response.
KINDLY PUT THE TWO SENTENCES SIDE BY SIDE, NUMBERED 1) AND 2) RESPECTIVELY.
We can address all other compelling issues like "licking the yoni of some goddess for relief in menstural problem " AFTER this.
Thank you.
[Reply to interact #239]
#238 by kaalchakra on December 2, 2006 8:51am PT
ntsyed
Chowk must have convinced you that just because people are "educated," they do not come to possess "highly critical and logical thought processes." :)
An actual study of people who convert to Islam (or any other religion) cannot be based on our assumptions about what these people must have done, or must be like, but rather on actual accounts.
What kind/groups of people convert most often? What do they say before and after? What is their behavior toward self and toward other people like? What kind of needs they express for themselves? How they relate to other human beings and social institutiuons of their own societies? And so on.
[Reply to interact #238]
#237 by ntsyed on December 2, 2006 6:59am PT
Re: # 235 by krishna_abcd
krishna_abcd - #225:
"Hindus are not worried about "converting" other people"
ntsyed - #226:
"I've had Hindus, other than Hari Krishna, hand me booklets on Hinduism at the airport in USA, just like the JW". You're free to call me a liar, the claim runs counter to your understanding of hinduism
krishna_abcd - #230:
"The Hare Krishna movement became a proselytising movement in America....Have you noticed how the Hare Krishna movement is largely ignored by Hindus from India?"
krishna_abcd - #235:
"The "movement" started with Swami Prabhupada in the USA. The Bhakti movement in India was not into proselytization."
which means, the movement Swami (a hindu) started in the USA WAS into proselytizing, and the best proselytizers available to him there were the Abrahimic Americans.
I think it would be easier if you defined the following terms...just so we're on the same page:
- converting
- movement
- proselytizing
and how do these fit in your definition of philosophies?
Secondly, please tell us about who Swami Prabhupada was, if not a Hindu, and the objective of the Hare Krishna movement if not to increase the following of Hindu 'philosophies'...which requires proselytizing and conversion?
I think we can skip "The Bhakti movement" for now, unless of course you feel compelled to indulge into details.
Thirdly, "largely [a relative term] ignored" implies the existence, albeit to a lesser [antonym of largely] extent.
Fourth, if Hinduism is not a faith then:
- how does 'worship' tie in with (potentially) modifiable philosophies?
- if there's no concept of worship in Hindu 'philosophies', then what is prostration before statues etc., if not worship?
- if it is worship, then it must have something to do with faith - at least to the extent of elevating those people who offered those 'philosophies' to the level of gods and goddesses, as well as developing faith in their capabilities
- what is the philosophy behind Yellamma? As far as I've been able to see on the Internet, it's simply a commemoration / remembrance of an injustice against a woman and her sons, and has everything to do with 'faith' and nothing to do with philosophy
- licking the yoni of some goddess for relief in menstural problem appears only faith based
- reverence of a god's genital conjoined with that of a goddess appears same as above...based on faith - not in philosophy
- similarly, philosophy seems to have little to do with the concept of devadasis and more to do with faith
still you maintain that hinduism is not a 'faith'?
Mr. krishna, every religion has a philosophy...even atheism claims to have one. Without a philosophy a religion is like an empty metal pot. Now, whether the philosophy has strong basis or not is a seperate discussion. But, you cannot separate the two with a few keystrokes.
The reason your family of philosophies have been modified by many before is to keep the religion alive. Otherwise, once people lose faith in a philosophy, they move on to the next best thing available. That appears to be the reason behind your propensities towards atheism/secularism by calling an entire civilization a family of philosophies (open to modification) that have nothing to do with faith, proselytizing, conversion, etc. It is the philosophy behind the entire Islamic system that attracts most people to it.
Take it easy and think.
:-)~~
[Reply to interact #237]
#236 by krishna_abcd on December 2, 2006 2:00am PT
#232 by ntsyed
We can always talk about the rest of the points AFTER you post my two contradictory statements.
[Reply to interact #236]
#235 by krishna_abcd on December 2, 2006 1:54am PT
#232 by ntsyed
[Hare Krishna movement:
Would I be correct to assume that Hindu(s) initiated the "proselytizing" before Semitic Americans brought momentum to it?]
No, you would not be. Assume nothing. Check the facts.
[Even if the movement was "largely" ignored [but did exist in India]...]
The "movement" started with Swami Prabhupada in the USA. The Bhakti movement in India was not into proselytization. What the heck are you talking about?
[your latest assertion in this context contradicts your earlier claims. ]
Okay. For me to argue further with you , you'll have to substantiate this statement. Show me the two sentences:
1) my "latest assertion", and
2) my "earlier claims".
Then we can see how they contradict each other.
We can take it from there. I'll wait for your response.
[Reply to interact #235]
#234 by ntsyed on December 2, 2006 1:38am PT
Re: # 231
I'm sure Yousuf Masih or Sreesanth's kissing their crucifix, or the relevant gestures, bother some too...
There has to be a bottom end of being pathetic....then again, this must be it.
;-)~~
[Reply to interact #234]
#233 by ntsyed on December 2, 2006 1:36am PT
Re: # 228 by kaalchakra
It may be useful to explore the process in some sort of systematic manner. Don't you think?
Ditto!
The only known process is the age old practice of study and think as advised in the Quran & Sunnah. Quite a few Muslims can address one's curiosity on various aspects of Islam to the point of satisfaction, but then its one's own deliberations and assessment that compels one to embrace one ideology or another.
While an argument CAN be made that all those embracing Islam could be plain and simple fools or have "fundamental problem with their own nature", it is rendered moot by the fact that a lot of those people are highly educated and successful people. They possess highly critical and logical thought processes, and have compared Islam with their own or other religions. Even if they didn't, in terms of hubris and bigotry it would be an insult to one's own intelligence (rather than the converts) to make such a claim.
(As an aside, most people wouldn't have known that fear of offending Hindus had anything to do with banning Satanic verses :))
I hope you've read the book.
:-)~~
[Reply to interact #233]
#232 by ntsyed on December 2, 2006 1:26am PT
#230 by krishna_abcd on December 1, 2006 10:19am PT
Hare Krishna movement:
Would I be correct to assume that Hindu(s) initiated the "proselytizing" before Semitic Americans brought momentum to it? Even if the movement was "largely" ignored [but did exist in India], your latest assertion in this context contradicts your earlier claims.
You and majumdar not being siamese twins or main spokespersons [...just being scientifically and politically correct ;-)~~] is not the point. I'm sure thousand people have a thousand perspectives of the same thing, but there should be, and there must be, some commonality. The two of you present totally opposite focal points of the fourth or fifth largest religious group.
I'm glad the two of us agree on: "all three of us need to study the subject of our critique before digitizing our thoughts here." [ntsyed, #226] ..........i.e. I study the sources of philosophies in Hinduism and you study the Quran and Sunnah before offering our constructive critiques.
There is nothing to "defend" in Hinduism.
Why?
(a) Is Hinduism flawless?
that would be an absolute contradition of majumdar's admission, as well as your own in the previous posts.
Or is it simply indefensible?
which defies the logic why such a large group of people believe in it and practically live it. Not to mention, that would be treading on very thin ice as far as RSS etc is concerned.
"Nothing to defend in Hinduism" establishes an absence of flaw. If that is so, then how could anyone claim to have improved it, "as many have done before", and how could anyone improve it now?
I think a better analogy could be used here. Geometry is a logical science...perfectly capable of defending itself due to its vast application to improve daily life in many different ways. Even the monitor, mouse, and keyboard you're using right now, as well as the characters you're looking at to learn my thoughts, are highly dependant on geometry. Furthermore, it should be defended because it facilitates life for all that appreciate nature. Whereas such capability in Hinduism has yet to be presented before this audience.
As I have mentioned before, you are still looking at this from the viewpoint of your semitic religions.
I beg to differ. The only point of view I have adopted here is the relevance or conflict between science and religion/ideology viz principles that define behavior. A quick review of this thread reveals it to be so. Therefore, there's no 'semitism' involved on my part.....just a logical thought process as demanded of the present day Muslims to prove why they shouldn't be bombarded to stoneage for their adherence to Allah, Quran, Prophet (pbuh) and his Sunnah whilst trying to enjoy the fruits of scientific progress.
I just stated a fact for you. That if you found flaws in the philosophy/philosophies, you would be making a contribution to Hindu thought - as many have done before.
For philosophies...the fact you stated makes perfect sense. But why so many people follow these philosophies so religiously, to the point of kill and get killed, does not.
suwarg & narg:
This has nothing to do with Hinduism. You will not find any mention of this nonsense by the Hindu philosophers through the centuries.
Fair enough...this part does tie in with your argument. But then why do so many Hindus believe in these and devote their lives to achieve one and avoid the other?
I look forward to "more later...",
...though by the standards established thus far on this board by secular [confused] Muslims, apostates, hindus, atheists, and what have you, that Muslims utterly deserve to be annihilated for their alleged defiance of science...I think all the former deserve that fate more than the latter [Muslims] for failing to prove their allegations convincingly, if at all. Only if that was the MO at UNO, or whatever is left of it.....LoL
Shooting from the hip has a high risk of shooting one's own self in the foot.
Cheers
:-)~~
[Reply to interact #232]
#231 by teshah on December 1, 2006 8:10pm PT
Re: # 147
"You have to be....... sticking your behind in the air"
Properly washed, of course, but why?
Yousaf Masih who has now become Yousaf Musalli does this whenever he makes a century in a cricket match, irrespective of the fact whether his team wins or loses the match. Why?
[Reply to interact #231]
Sorry dear Nida, it was in fact to avoid burdening this site with the material not liked by some gender-consciuous people that I had wanted your presonal e-mail.
Regards
Tilawat |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 10:37 PM
Thank you dear Nida
You better open the website 'chowk.com' and read the gist of the article there and various interacts thereon. Since you seem to be thirsting for knowledge and searching for truth that site would provide you lot of food for thought.
Tilawat |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 12:11 AM
"quote:
I had visited chowk.com months ago, but it hadn't appealed me. It seems they've improved it.
Thanks Bro/Sis Tilawat. (Can you atleast tell me if you're male or female?)
Wassalaam.
"
You have raised a very interesting question, dear Nida. In fact, I myself am in doubt about my gender. You live in Pakistan and I live in its capital, Islamabad. Why not come and see me or let me have your address to see you.
Btw,why not be friends, the relationship in which sex/gender is immaterial. |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|