What's new

What is Jihad?

Perhaps then we should look relative figures.

Countries with largely atheistic populations have better standards of living than religious societies...Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Japan, Switzerland, New Zealand, France....and much lower crime rates!!

Most Nobel Prize winners, and indeed most influential people (in the positive sense) aren't very religious at all....

The standard of living argument is a flawed one, the Islamic world at its prime was leading the globe in science and literature, this was of course at a time when the religion was not quite as "polluted" as it has become today, but it debunks your theory that progress and development is achieved by atheism or secularism alone. Modern day examples include the Gulf States, where "religious" Arabs govern, and "development and progress" is out pacing the countries you mentioned (not saying that they have caught up - just that the rate of progress is phenomenal).

There are a lot of factors that have contrived to keep societies backward - culture, the lack of political evolution, being conquered etc. It is incorrect and dishonest to cherry pick one aspect of those societies and ascribe their relative backwardness to it.

I am saying that belief in any of the established religions can potentially lead to what you call "rationalization of evil".

I say that most of those religions in their "pure unadulterated form" do not offer any leeway to do that - when crime is committed, it is Man who is contriving to find ways to justify it -if religion was not there, it would have been something else - race, ethnicity, tribe, culture, tradition, political system - in fact, all of those have been used as justification throughout history, and would probably have been used as justification had religion not been around.

Lets face it, civil society is unnatural. Men commit crimes very easily and modern society can disintegrate into chaos at the drop of a pin. Why should we give it more and more reasons to do so, by encouraging belief in superstition?

If a "God" says that "though shall murder, discriminate, and wreak havoc" - of course such beliefs shouldn't be encouraged - just like Stalins and Mao's shouldn't - but since Islam (or my hypothetical religion) does not, then no "evil" will be rationalized. Restricting religion will not stop such men, they will find other vessels to incubate their hate.

There has been no successful religion ever, in the history of man, without a system of conversion/protection and concentration of power!! Right
from the primitive african paganism to the supposedly advanced Christianity or Islam.

In effect, your so called "religion" isn't a religion at all, but just an idea, like the millions of other ideas floating aroung in peoples' minds!!

Also, there hasn't been a single working religion without a set of predifined ground rules, so that a clear distinction can be made between "us" and "them", between the tribe and the enemy.

That is more or less what you are defining to religion to be. Its contemporary definition is much looser:
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

It could also be argued that making "us vs them" distinctions is simply a matter of human nature, and religion, with most preaching equality and respect for all, actually trying to repair the sort of mindset that sets stock by such "us vs them" values. Obviously Man has manged to finagle out of the restrictions of religion throughout history, and actually commit the opposite in its name, but I still maintain that those atrocities would have occurred in the absence of religion as well.

Additionally, I can see that you are trying to create a watered-down version of Islam by picking and choosing the parts you like and discarding the ones you don't. I like your optimism and hope, but sadly, that isn't how things work out in the real world. Religion is inextricably mired in politics and power, and will continue to do so if we treat religion as a public matter rather than a private one.

Then whats is kosher and what isn't? How do you distinguish the followers from the unbelievers?

Your religion is so vague that no theologian would consider it separate way of thinking.

Basically, it can be definded as a weak and watered down version of Humanism with a belief in a featureless creator who basically does nothing else...in effect....what is called deism.

Look, who cares what Kosher or Halal is - Those can simply be called "quaint" traditions even - the deeper concern is what principles a belief system puts forward. And it is those principles that determine whether "evil" is justified or not. The principles I put forward are a summary of what I take away from the Quran - and are really the make or break parts of this argument - the rest of the "details" as you call them are just window dressing.

I completely agree with you that religion and politics have become mired in each other, and that I believe is unnatural. Religion should stay personal and be a source of spiritual solace. But unfortunately it has become a vehicle for certain peoples ambition for for power and control, but I reiterate, such people would have found other means of mischief.

Nuclear power can be harnessed for both good and Chaos, but do not blame "nuclear physics" for that, blame those men who took the knowledge and used it become a destructive force - it is similar with religion.
 
I have to try and take a break for an exam on Monday (lets see how successful I am) so short answers to your last post:

1. Yes
2. No
3. Not to be confused with "do not study, question, explore, discover..." Its more of a spiritual position related to Allah's infallibility.
 
The standard of living argument is a flawed one, the Islamic world at its prime was leading the globe in science and literature, this was of course at a time when the religion was not quite as "polluted" as it has become today, but it debunks your theory that progress and development is achieved by atheism or secularism alone.

Yes, but one must remember that you are talking about the middle ages, where the definition of "science and literature" and also of "standard of living" was quite different from the modern one.

Definitely, Islamic empires at their peak were examples of successful medeival societies. But then, they were medeival societies, and cannot be replicated in the modern world!

Modern Science has progressed beyond medeival thoughts and ideas, and any society which wishes to become modern will have to think modern as well.

Modern day examples include the Gulf States, where "religious" Arabs govern, and "development and progress" is out pacing the countries you mentioned (not saying that they have caught up - just that the rate of progress is phenomenal).

The Gulf states are what they call, a curious result of circumstances:

1. They have no universities and research programs worth taking note of.
2. Their justice systems, treatment of minorities and women is, well, medeival.

The only reasons they are seemingly progressing are:

1. They import their technology wholesale. Western engineers work on projects designed, planned and executed by westerners who just get funded by oil money.
2. They are kingdoms, which means that the king's megalomanic dreams are followed to the letter.
3. Strict imposition of Islam has meant that society is disciplined and follows orders.

Basically, it gives the outward appearance of grandeur, nothing more. Arabic society is medeival to the core and without the oil, would be little better than any other developing nation.

There are a lot of factors that have contrived to keep societies backward - culture, the lack of political evolution, being conquered etc. It is incorrect and dishonest to cherry pick one aspect of those societies and ascribe their relative backwardness to it.

I think if you consider Europe, France, Britain, Germany etc. have been at war for most of history. They indeed have very violent histories. You can't excuse the lack of development and modern thinking by saying that "OH, they were conquered and colonized". Every country was conquered and colonized, Britain by the Romans, Spain by the Moors, etc, etc,

The fact is, that their interpretation of Islam is exactly what is keeping them backward, nothing else.

I say that most of those religions in their "pure unadulterated form" do not offer any leeway to do that - when crime is committed, it is Man who is contriving to find ways to justify it -if religion was not there, it would have been something else - race, ethnicity, tribe, culture, tradition, political system - in fact, all of those have been used as justification throughout history, and would probably have been used as justification had religion not been around.

Yes, this would have been true throughout history until the word "democracy" was invented and until man found better ways to organize society.

A modern secular society has moved beyond tribalism, and by encouraging religion, we are taking a step backward rather than forward.

Religion was also a way to unite people against the other tribe. Fortunately, we have progressed to a point where we can find common ground to build a society with people of other ethnicities and tribes and cultures. So why do we need religion at all?


If a "God" says that "though shall murder, discriminate, and wreak havoc" - of course such beliefs shouldn't be encouraged - just like Stalins and Mao's shouldn't - but since Islam (or my hypothetical religion) does not, then no "evil" will be rationalized. Restricting religion will not stop such men, they will find other vessels to incubate their hate.

I think a modern society can prevent dictators and haters from carrying out their plans. The free media and press, cross cultural dialogue and science will, and has, to a large extend created the modern world where totatitarianism is looked down upon rather than encouraged.

I think that we no longer need a god to tell us what is right and what is wrong, since these things can be explained rationally.

It is true that the power-hungry will always be around, but atleast they won't be able to claim that they have almighty god on their side!!
So I think restricting religin will play a positive role in discouraging such things, even if it doesn't end it completely.


That is more or less what you are defining to religion to be. Its contemporary definition is much looser:

Hah!! The dictionary definition hardly tells you anything about the realities of religion!! Not worth considering!!


It could also be argued that making "us vs them" distinctions is simply a matter of human nature, and religion, with most preaching equality and respect for all, actually trying to repair the sort of mindset that sets stock by such "us vs them" values.

Practical Islam makes quite a clear distinction between the believer and the unbeliever. It clearly differenciates the two, infact, by sending the other to burn in hellfire!!

This "hellfire" itself is the biggest factor which causes division, not to mention hadiths that consider unbelievers inferior and not worthy of respect.

It is absurd to consider religion as a uniting force for the world, when it is clearly meant to differenciate.

The verses that ask you to treat the unbelievers kindly is just charity. The core of the message is that "look, we are muslims, we are superior to non-muslims, who shall go to hell anyways". I don't think there is any doubting that.

Look, who cares what Kosher or Halal is - Those can simply be called "quaint" traditions even - the deeper concern is what principles a belief system puts forward.

These so called "quaint" traditions are often the sole reason for massacres and war!! They are applied with equal zeal as the other principles and the believers feel equally insulted when someone refuses to follow them!!


And it is those principles that determine whether "evil" is justified or not. The principles I put forward are a summary of what I take away from the Quran - and are really the make or break parts of this argument - the rest of the "details" as you call them are just window dressing.

The King of Saudi Arabia, leader of millions, would violently disagree with that one!!

However, I do agree that the details are inconsequential. Problem is, most people don't.


I completely agree with you that religion and politics have become mired in each other, and that I believe is unnatural.

Well I think it is natural, and that religion has been a political tool right from it s conception. It has been used by Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Mayans, name it. All have used it for politics. In fact, some people think that religion was a result of politics, and not the other way around!!

I guess we must differenciate "religion" from "spiritual beliefs". "religion" is a public tool, whereas "spiritual beliefs" are private and personal.

Nuclear power can be harnessed for both good and Chaos, but do not blame "nuclear physics" for that, blame those men who took the knowledge and used it become a destructive force - it is similar with religion.

I think the benefits of nuclear physics far outweigh its faults. But in the case of religion, this cannot be said.

Perhaps it had its benefits in the middle ages or ancient times. In the modern world, religion has very little importance.
 
Yes, but one must remember that you are talking about the middle ages, where the definition of "science and literature" and also of "standard of living" was quite different from the modern one.

Definitely, Islamic empires at their peak were examples of successful medeival societies. But then, they were medeival societies, and cannot be replicated in the modern world!

Modern Science has progressed beyond medeival thoughts and ideas, and any society which wishes to become modern will have to think modern as well.

Look,you have to realize that nothing is going to be completely identical. You keep bringing up issues, and when you get answers you start tying extraneous conditions to the original argument. The concern was "development and progression", ofcourse the development that took place several hundred years ago would be based on the the ideas and concepts relative to that era - similarly, several hundred years from know you could also argue that twentieth century Europeans had a definition of "science technology and development" quite different from what is accepted at that time. Thats a flawed argument - The Muslim world, as a religious society, was at the cutting edge of science and technology and development - that debunks the idea that religion is incompatible with being progressive. Now obviously something happened to derail path the Muslims were on, but that is a different discussion.

The Gulf states are what they call, a curious result of circumstances:

1. They have no universities and research programs worth taking note of.
2. Their justice systems, treatment of minorities and women is, well, medeival.

The only reasons they are seemingly progressing are:

1. They import their technology wholesale. Western engineers work on projects designed, planned and executed by westerners who just get funded by oil money.
2. They are kingdoms, which means that the king's megalomanic dreams are followed to the letter.
3. Strict imposition of Islam has meant that society is disciplined and follows orders.

Basically, it gives the outward appearance of grandeur, nothing more. Arabic society is medeival to the core and without the oil, would be little better than any other developing nation.

Again, you talk about "development with religion" and then start attaching extraneous conditions when given examples. The gulf states are providing their populace with some of the highest standards of living in the world, with excellent infrastructure and civic facilities and institutions. Whatever the circumstances, it is they who have taken the initiative to utilize their resources in a manner that benefits them, and that is indicative once again that religion is completely compatible with development. Whether you care for the system of government there is a different issue.

I think if you consider Europe, France, Britain, Germany etc. have been at war for most of history. They indeed have very violent histories. You can't excuse the lack of development and modern thinking by saying that "OH, they were conquered and colonized". Every country was conquered and colonized, Britain by the Romans, Spain by the Moors, etc, etc,

The fact is, that their interpretation of Islam is exactly what is keeping them backward, nothing else.

I am not saying that being conquered is what was to blame for certain societies progressing and others not, but that there are a lot of complex factors involved - inter tribal tensions, culture, conquests, corruption, regional upheaval etc. To determine why different societies went in different directions would require exhaustive study of all possible influences on those societies. To cherry pick religion and blame it as you have done is a dishonest argument.

Also, why are South Korea and Israel so much more advanced than India? They have all existed for about the same amount of time - India claims for itself a secular status, while Israel was created for "Jews" - there are obviously very many factors involved.

Yes, this would have been true throughout history until the word "democracy" was invented and until man found better ways to organize society.

A modern secular society has moved beyond tribalism, and by encouraging religion, we are taking a step backward rather than forward.

Religion was also a way to unite people against the other tribe. Fortunately, we have progressed to a point where we can find common ground to build a society with people of other ethnicities and tribes and cultures. So why do we need religion at all?

You are digressing from the issue, belief in God and religion does no preclude the possibility for democracy, indeed they can flourish side by side quite well , and continue to in several countries - of course some interpretations do not allow for compatibility, but that again is a failing of humans in not reasoning properly and seeing where the long term benefits lie, and not a failing of religion.

I think a modern society can prevent dictators and haters from carrying out their plans. The free media and press, cross cultural dialogue and science will, and has, to a large extend created the modern world where totatitarianism is looked down upon rather than encouraged.

I think that we no longer need a god to tell us what is right and what is wrong, since these things can be explained rationally.

It is true that the power-hungry will always be around, but atleast they won't be able to claim that they have almighty god on their side!!
So I think restricting religin will play a positive role in discouraging such things, even if it doesn't end it completely.

It has been shown that "modern society" is existing in harmony with religious beliefs in several societies, all the things you ascribe to modern society, as if they were the sole construct of atheistic thinking, are appreciated and by rational believers as well. You keep missing the point about the power hungry - several examples have been given that a lack of "religion or God" did not prevent humans from committing some of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen. To simply argue against something because it "might" be used as justification is flawed reasoning - since the lack of "religion" has also resulted in millions dying, your logic can also be used to deny people the right to be atheists or secular.

Whether people prefer to have faith in a deity or not is their own business, it is not up to us to tell them whether they need it or not.

Hah!! The dictionary definition hardly tells you anything about the realities of religion!! Not worth considering!!

The "realities" of religion are, as I have maintained, a matter of perception, in your and Samudra's case they are case of "misperceptions". But you digress once again, you claimed that my hypothetical religion wasn't one, that is not true, the definition of religion indicates my religion to be in perfect harmony with it. What you think religion should be defined as is not what is being discussed.

Practical Islam makes quite a clear distinction between the believer and the unbeliever. It clearly differenciates the two, infact, by sending the other to burn in hellfire!!

This "hellfire" itself is the biggest factor which causes division, not to mention hadiths that consider unbelievers inferior and not worthy of respect.

It is absurd to consider religion as a uniting force for the world, when it is clearly meant to differenciate.

The verses that ask you to treat the unbelievers kindly is just charity. The core of the message is that "look, we are muslims, we are superior to non-muslims, who shall go to hell anyways". I don't think there is any doubting that.

If we are to get into a discussion over Islam, I would prefer we do it in a different thread, so as to not confuse the discussion even more. Also, as I indicated earlier, I do not believe the Hadith to be infallible and a "contaminated" source of guidance. I would prefer if we stick with the Quran for making any points.

These so called "quaint" traditions are often the sole reason for massacres and war!! They are applied with equal zeal as the other principles and the believers feel equally insulted when someone refuses to follow them!!

The King of Saudi Arabia, leader of millions, would violently disagree with that one!!

However, I do agree that the details are inconsequential. Problem is, most people don't.

Quaint traditions are not the reasons for war - the reason is that humans utilize religion, tribe, race, belief system as a vehicle for hate. The fault is once again that of the person who cannot reason or think rationally enough, or chooses not to, to understand the sin of his actions.

Well I think it is natural, and that religion has been a political tool right from it s conception. It has been used by Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Mayans, name it. All have used it for politics. In fact, some people think that religion was a result of politics, and not the other way around!!

I guess we must differenciate "religion" from "spiritual beliefs". "religion" is a public tool, whereas "spiritual beliefs" are private and personal.

Yes religion has been used as a political tool. That is important, people have done this to religion, not the other way around (though of course there are cults out there that do preach evil).

I think the benefits of nuclear physics far outweigh its faults. But in the case of religion, this cannot be said.

Perhaps it had its benefits in the middle ages or ancient times. In the modern world, religion has very little importance.

That is a very subjective area. Some people would completely disagree with you about the benefits of nuclear power - eg. in the US, a new plant has not been built in decades because of strong opposition. To each their own. For some Yoga suffices, others Islam, and yet others it is evolution.
 
Well, obviously the assumption is that most terrorists are fanatic muslims, fanatic muslims have to wear beards, therfore anyone with an islamic beard is suspect!!
Its obviously a crude generalization, but its better than nothing!!

Sikhs also keep beared and mostches does it mean they be called fanatics????
My mind how your haterd is brewing like that.

Before 9/11 if you had the chance to search or read the word fundamentalist was used for the strict form of Christianity.
According to Webster Dictionary the word fundamentalist is used for Protestants.

According to Oxford Dictionary “Fundamentalist is person who strictly adheres to the ancient doctrine of religion”.

Now a days the definition of fundamentalist after 9/11 has been changed in the same dictionary which says [“A person who wants to act upon the teachings of a religious book “specially Islam” ]
Now you can my God how on earth they had added the word Islam to and religious book to this definition after 9/11.
You can see the same mentality at work against Islam nothing else.




In effect, your so called "religion" isn't a religion at all, but just an idea, like the millions of other ideas floating aroung in peoples' minds!!

How do you diffrentiate between an Idea and a Religion????
By logic of your defination the same can be said about every religion.



Additionally, I can see that you are trying to create a watered-down version of Islam by picking and choosing the parts you like and discarding the ones you don't. I like your optimism and hope, but sadly, that isn't how things work out in the real world. Religion is inextricably mired in politics and power, and will continue to do so if we treat religion as a public matter rather than a private one

If the religion is being mired in politics and power by men you can not blame the religion for itself but those who are exploiting it.
Tell me you give a Brand new Car for example to say BMW to a person for testing who does not know how to drive at all will you blam the car for bad performance or the driver who does not know driving???

Your religion is so vague that no theologian would consider it separate way of thinking.

If you can not understand it because you can not try to undertsand it without brining you hatred for Islam (which is indeed natural for you being hindu) you can not claim on part of theologian that they will not consider Islam a separate way of thinking.
How many theologian you had read who did not and had you ever tried to find out how many of them do believe in it.

Basically, it can be definded as a weak and watered down version of Humanism with a belief in a featureless creator who basically does nothing else...in effect....what is called deism.


All the religion who’s believers are called people of the book i.e Islam, Christianity and Judaism believe in the doctrine of ‘featureless’ creator unlike those religions which have many gods that too symbolized by different creatures and things.
 
If you can not understand it because you can not try to undertsand it without brining you hatred for Islam (which is indeed natural for you being hindu)

‘featureless’ creator unlike those religions which have many gods that too symbolized by different creatures and things.

Jana,

You've just added a post to thread that will ruin this thread.

Remember, we only exchange ideas. You don't have to teach the Hindu's about the absolute reality and show us your true attitude about 'many gods'.

We have our own ideas of Gods and guess what? We're good at metaphysical concepts and epistemological studies.

We have at least six unique philosophical schools with each school providing its own perspective on 'reality'. Some of them are so complex that a lifetime of studies might just not be enough.

Go on. Name a couple of those concepts without google. Can you ? What on earth do you know about Kashmiri Saivism or Vedanta or Nyaya or Sankhya ? What do you understand by 'ekamevādvitīyaṃ' ?

Stop googling and try if there is anything you've learnt before you wish to remind us about your featureless gods that send people to heaven and hell.

Lose your condescending attitude and you'll see reason. We Hindu's know more than you think. I'll delete this post if you delete yours. Abandon your arrogance in faith. It only begets intolerance and aggression.

Calling Hindu's naturally hateful is what your so called religion of peace and humanity and whatever sugarcoating this thread has attempted to provide it, taught you.

All your concepts of God and humanity, intolerance go to bin.
 
Jana,

You've just added a post to thread - and that post is what will ruin this thread.

Remember, we only exchange ideas. You don't have to teach the Hindu's about the absolute reality and show us your true attitude about 'many gods'.

We have our own ideas of Gods and guess what? We're good at metaphysical concepts and epistemological studies. We have at least six unique philosophical schools with each school providing its own perspective on 'reality'. Some of them are so complex that a lifetime of studies might just not be enough.

Go on. Name a couple of those concepts without google. Can you ?

There's is a reason why I have this current avatar. I can convey in Hindu terms with the help of creatures and a form I gave to the abstract, the whole cycle of creation and destruction.

Lose your condescending attitude and you'll see reason. We Hindu's know more than you think. I'll delete this post if you delete yours.


I dont see anything that makes one goes boiling.
I replied to Stealth post and there is nothing in my post where i had question about Hinduism or what you guys know or not about your religion i did not qustion this.
And i do not see anything that would ruin this thread instead the sentimental replies from others will.

As you had eddited your post with quotes from mine to which you have objection i see nothing to be objected as i only replied Stealth to his objection only to Islam and its followers for having faith in "featurless" creator to which i juts clarified that its not only Muslims but all those people who are called people of Book including Christians and Jews who also believe in "featureless" creators Unlike those religions who believe in many gods that too symbolized by different creatures and things.

So what is wrong in above passage ??
I guess i did not question you why you believe or it is wrong on your part to believe in many gods.


Regards
Jana,



Regards Jana
 
The sugarcoating aside skip your 'you hate me' thing. There is a dispassionate discussion going on and it does no good to jump in and say 'you hate Islam, you don't know anything in it and its only natural because you're Hindu!'.

If only you had ever bothered to study beyond what your religion taught you you'd have known about a dozen other concepts of 'featureless' 'Gods' in Hindu schools of thought as well. It's far more refined than Abrahamic concepts. And guess what? SA was only referring to A.M's hypothetical religion.
 
Again, the discussion is not why God does what he does, but showing that belief in religion causes rationalization of evil. I would say that since you cannot show belief in my hypothetical religion to cause a "rationalization of evil", then your premise is flawed

AM.

I'd venture to say that this thread is proof enough for my premise. The inability to perceive the enormous amounts of evil perpetuated in this universe in the name of God and religion, and to continue its rationalization by shifting the blame, engaging in rhetoric and invitations towards book-bashing easily validate my points. I'm correct. ;)

On a serious note as we've agreed to disagree I think I'm skipping this thread, both for lack of time and patience.
 
The sugarcoating aside skip your 'you hate me' thing. There is a dispassionate discussion going on and it does no good to jump in and say 'you hate Islam, you don't know anything in it and its only natural because you're Hindu!'.

If you are advocating for SA than read his post again he refered Muslims as fanatics beacuse they keep beared what a joke.
as far that hate thing is well one must his/her own consiecne that what they are holding against Islam as it is proven that most of those who hate Islam only read and see things that are against Islam even if they study Islam they come up with only those things which suites them and altogather skip the parts that are related and explains many actions and orderes in Islam and that is the biggest dilema .


If only you had ever bothered to study beyond what your religion taught you you'd have known about a dozen other concepts of 'featureless' 'Gods' in Hindu schools of thought as well. It's far more refined than Abrahamic concepts. And guess what? SA was only referring to A.M's hypothetical religion.

Well if do not know Stealth atleast must have known that there is a concept of 'featureless' 'Gods' in hindusim.
If so why on earth he just mentioned Islam as having anything bad by accepting 'featureless' God.

BTW you are entitled to your PoV and i am as much as you are.
If you want to discuss only ideas than skip things you consider 'irrelevent' why to engage in these at all.

and its it intresting the thread is about Jihad and its meanings and there is nothing related to this in most of posts.


But anyway i dont want to comment on personal posts after this as i do not want to derail this topic.

So back to the Topic
 
Sikhs also keep beared and mostches does it mean they be called fanatics????
My mind how your haterd is brewing like that.

Before 9/11 if you had the chance to search or read the word fundamentalist was used for the strict form of Christianity.
According to Webster Dictionary the word fundamentalist is used for Protestants.

According to Oxford Dictionary “Fundamentalist is person who strictly adheres to the ancient doctrine of religion”.

Now a days the definition of fundamentalist after 9/11 has been changed in the same dictionary which says [“A person who wants to act upon the teachings of a religious book “specially Islam” ]
Now you can my God how on earth they had added the word Islam to and religious book to this definition after 9/11.
You can see the same mentality at work against Islam nothing else.






How do you diffrentiate between an Idea and a Religion????
By logic of your defination the same can be said about every religion.





If the religion is being mired in politics and power by men you can not blame the religion for itself but those who are exploiting it.
Tell me you give a Brand new Car for example to say BMW to a person for testing who does not know how to drive at all will you blam the car for bad performance or the driver who does not know driving???



If you can not understand it because you can not try to undertsand it without brining you hatred for Islam (which is indeed natural for you being hindu) you can not claim on part of theologian that they will not consider Islam a separate way of thinking.
How many theologian you had read who did not and had you ever tried to find out how many of them do believe in it.




All the religion who’s believers are called people of the book i.e Islam, Christianity and Judaism believe in the doctrine of ‘featureless’ creator unlike those religions which have many gods that too symbolized by different creatures and things.

Jana Ji, I request you to read the thread in its entirety before replying. You have misunderstood all my posts.

eg., the "not considered a religion" 'part was not about islam, but about a hypothetical religion that AM made up.
 
AM.

I'd venture to say that this thread is proof enough for my premise. The inability to perceive the enormous amounts of evil perpetuated in this universe in the name of God and religion, and to continue its rationalization by shifting the blame, engaging in rhetoric and invitations towards book-bashing easily validate my points. I'm correct. ;)

On a serious note as we've agreed to disagree I think I'm skipping this thread, both for lack of time and patience.

No one is denying the "enormous amounts of evil committed in the name of religion" - but that is precisely the point - the violence is committed because people manipulate and corrupt religion to justify their goals. The failure here is of society, of people - not of religion

On the other hand, I do see a denial of the "enormous amounts of evil committed by those who do not believe in God", by resorting to spurious arguments by both you, Stealth and the bigot Dawkins, while talking of Mao and Stalin. But I do not blame atheism for that, it was simply a vehicle for advancing Stalin's agenda.

You can keep ranting about "rationalization of evil", but you cannot show me how "religion" or belief in God causes it, and making statements about "lack of patience" does not somehow lend your argument anymore credibility. You are unable to grasp the fine distinction between an "ideology rationalizing evil" and "people rationalizing evil by twisting ideology to fit their notions".

By the way, I have not indulged in any "invitations to book bashing", you and stealth have made references to Islam supporting and advocating positions that I believe are false - and my "invitations" were for either of you to actually prove your claims by using the Quran. To then turn that around and call it "invitations to book bashing" is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.

Jana:

Stealth was mostly replying to my "hypothetical religion" - that would somehow cause a "rationalization of evil", were his and Samudra's premise correct. He hasn't, as far as I can tell, insulted Islam. Mostly its been a regurgitation, by both him and Samudra, of the common misconceptions about Islam out there, that exist among both Muslims and non-Muslims.
 
Also, why are South Korea and Israel so much more advanced than India? They have all existed for about the same amount of time - India claims for itself a secular status, while Israel was created for "Jews" - there are obviously very many factors involved.

I do not wish to interrupt your discussion.But I need to clarify one point.

India may be a secular nation.But that only means that all religions are treated equal before law. It does not mean that the people are not religious.
People in India whether Hindu, Muslim or otherwise are extremely religious. Religion and religious practices are given far too much importance in the lives of many people in this country. This is something I hate about our society.

But I must say that religion has not been the cause of lack of economic development in India. We have another pathetic ideology to thank for that---> Socialism. But that's another story.
 
I do not wish to interrupt your discussion.But I need to clarify one point.

India may be a secular nation.But that only means that all religions are treated equal before law. It does not mean that the people are not religious.
People in India whether Hindu, Muslim or otherwise are extremely religious. Religion and religious practices are given far too much importance in the lives of many people in this country. This is something I hate about our society.

But I must say that religion has not been the cause of lack of economic development in India. We have another pathetic ideology to thank for that---> Socialism. But that's another story.

You make a good point Mig - it isn't enough for a state to simply suggest that it is "secular", the reality is about what its citizens believe, and the truth is that a lot of the advanced and progressive countries in the world have strongly religious majorities, or large minorities living in them. Even Europe has only recently seen a shift amongst its citizens away from religion, about half or South Korea's population is Christian (the other half or so Buddhist) and they contribute some of the highest number of Christian missionaries in the world. Israel falls in the same boat, and even the US has an exceptionally large and powerful Christian minority, which was a majority only a few decades ago. Yet none of these societies suffered any major problems in developing and evolving while retaining their religious beliefs.

Bashing religion has become convenient, fashionable and a simplistic argument to try and explain ills that should be explored with a much wider prism, that takes into account a wide spectrum of socio-political issues. Granted, certain religious leaders and followers do not help their case by refusing introspection and refusing to study or question interpretations of their religion, but then they have the most to lose were the status quo to be changed.
 
You make a good point Mig - it isn't enough for a state to simply suggest that it is "secular", the reality is about what its citizens believe, and the truth is that a lot of the advanced and progressive countries in the world have strongly religious majorities, or large minorities living in them. Even Europe has only recently seen a shift amongst its citizens away from religion, about half or South Korea's population is Christian (the other half or so Buddhist) and they contribute some of the highest number of Christian missionaries in the world. Israel falls in the same boat, and even the US has an exceptionally large and powerful Christian minority, which was a majority only a few decades ago. Yet none of these societies suffered any major problems in developing and evolving while retaining their religious beliefs.

Bashing religion has become convenient, fashionable and a simplistic argument to try and explain ills that should be explored with a much wider prism, that takes into account a wide spectrum of socio-political issues. Granted, certain religious leaders and followers do not help their case by refusing introspection and refusing to study or question interpretations of their religion, but then they have the most to lose were the status quo to be changed.

Hey Agno, did you completely forget about the Renaissance? Perhaps considered the single most important event that was directly responsible for the emergence of the modern world?
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom