What is Hinduism? A Personal View

#297 Posted by SR:

SR sahib,

Since you are having fun, let me join in. I assert that I can be kind to you without loving you ar being your friend. I do not see any contradiction :)

Addendum to # 296

Re: # 241 Urstruly wrote: ["... So if one part of the religious text ... (says "X") ... and the other ... in the same breath, ...(says "Y")... then obviously either the text has been corrupted or it has never been Divine.

Divine ... has to be simple and non-contrdictory so that the mere mortals, for whom it is meant, could understand it. ..."]

This is another good one:

[QUOTE]
On the one hand, the Quran commands all Muslims to show kindness to their parents, even if they are disbelievers [17:23-24, 31:14-15, 29:8, etc.]. On the other hand, it demands not to show any love or friendship to those who oppose Muhammad, even if they are their parents [9:23, 58:22].
[END QUOTE]

Re: # 241 Urstruly wrote: ["... So if one part of the religious text ... (says "X") ... and the other ... in the same breath, ...(says "Y")... then obviously either the text has been corrupted or it has never been Divine.

Divine ... has to be simple and non-contrdictory so that the mere mortals, for whom it is meant, could understand it. ..."]

Very well said. Exactly my sentiments also.

Now let's take a look at some samples from a critical source:

surely it is biased as all criticism is, by definition... but let us do some private study and contemplate if there is any merit in these claims about the contradictions in Quran.)

[Quote]
The Qur'an makes the following statements regarding the food that unbelievers will have in hell:

No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari S. 88:6 Y. Ali

Nor hath he any food except the foul pus from the washing of wounds, S. 69:36 Y. Ali

In a footnote, Yusuf Ali gives the following explanation for Dhari:

It is a plant, bitter and thorny, loathsome in smell and appearance, which will neither give fattening nourishment to the body nor in any way satisfy the burning pangs of hunger. ...

Other translators render the term as "bitter thorn-fruit" (Pickthall) "dry, bitter and thorny herbage" (Sher Ali), "cactus thorn" (Arberry), "the foul thorn" (Palmer).

Obviously, both kinds of ‘food’ are chosen to evoke a feeling of horror when thinking about Hell. However, the contradiction is in the double claim that this or that will be the only food, i.e.

No food except Dhari (88:6).
No food except foul pus (69:36).
There is yet another passage that is relevant to this discussion:

Is that the better entertainment or the Tree of Zaqqum?
For We have truly made it (as) a trial for the wrong-doers.
For it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hell-Fire:
The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils:
Truly they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith.
Then on top of that they will be given a mixture made of boiling water.
Then shall their return be to the (Blazing) Fire. S. 37:62-68 Y. Ali; cf. 56:52

Thus, regarding this one topic alone, the Qur'an contains three contradictions:

"Eating of the tree of Zaqqum" (37:66) contradicts "eating only Dhari" (88:6).
"Eating of the tree of Zaqqum" (37:66) contradicts "eating only foul pus" (69:36).
"Eating only Dhari" (88:6) contradicts "eating only foul pus" (69:36).

[END QUOTE]
Taken from this cursed source:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/#internal

See many more ... some are a bit frivilous

...SR

PS: Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones at others.

Urstruly:

Thanks for your thoughts. You write:

"This is not possible where society has serious religious leanings."

It has taken me quite sometime to understand this, especially when one (like me) puts a higher priority on democracy vis-a-vis "secularism" as it is today understood or mis-understood.

You see, our religions bring along with it a culture and history. Some of it is good and some bad for what we perceive to be "development". In the 50s and 60s, Mao deceided that most of it was bad for China and so he unleashed the "cultural revolution". Perhaps what we see in China today would not have been possible without this "revolution".

While "development" is important, participation in the process of development and having a say in the process is perhaps equally, if not more, important. Otherwise, there is little to differentiate between humans and machines (or should I say animals). Since South Asians are "religious" per se, people are bound to bring in religious guidance in choosing the path/process of development. In a democracy, such phenomena should not be checked.

However, and here I agree with Kaal, Echo and Zeemax that, the three dominant religions - Hinduism, Islam and Liberalism - in the sub-continent do not intersect to propose a common set of guidance to the process or definition of "development". So what should be done?

Since, the problem is more stark in India let me narrow down my proposal to India. We need empowerment at the local levels - panchayats and municipalities. I had proposed that they should be able to implement their own "social laws" and even have their own enforcement structure - i.e. police force. As pointed out by others, this may not be fully feasible. I agree. But it could at least be used to start the debate.

What are your thoughts?

Regards.

#277 Eklavya {"salim bhai, many of my Lucknowi Shia friends have refused to make the change. :)"}

Kaal Bhayya,
Neither have I. :) There is nothing wrong with the words "Allah" and "Hafiz" I used them both a lot and quite separately. But "Khuda Hafiz" was working fine and I just don't like dictators changing our language just to please their foreign masters.

So, I bid you "Khuda Hafiz" my brother. :)

Re: # 292

"For the remaining, who live in their private enclaves, at either end of the spectrum, this whole theo-cosmological politics is uninterresting and irrelevent."

Why do every atheist or so called agnostic have to write this disclaimer at the end of their attempt at humor. Lets admit it that you atheists are as adamant and dedicated to promote your religious un-beliefs as the rest of us.

Re: # 241 Urstruly wrote: ["... This concept has evolved into about 30 million gods that are currently being worshipped in Hinduism. ..."]

while we have only one absolute God

And that is as it should be. You see, there is a fundamental difference between our cosmic thology and that of those lungi clad, smelly folk across the Radcliff Line.

Theirs is a parliamentary cosmic theology while ours is a presidential one.

Their Big Boy is the prime minister in a parliament full of petty gods. Our Big Daddy, on the other hand, is an absolute and powerful President.

Our God President dissolved parliament and declared martial law 1,400 years ago. He is also the wielder of the Big Fire Stick. His word is absolute law.

Instead of working with and through his parliamentarians and cabinet minister gods as does that PM of gods, the Hindi Big Boy (or is it Girl?), our Big Daddy has His bidding carried out by an army of sycophantic Angel secretaries, whose powers are every bit as much as those of the petty gods of Hing. Four secretary generals head our bureaucracy of angels: Gabriel, Mikhail, Israfeel and Izraeel.

Don't insist on the superiority of one system over the other. Both systems of faith can deliver added value for a certain proportion of the population.

For the remaining, who live in their private enclaves, at either end of the spectrum, this whole theo-cosmological politics is uninterresting and irrelevent.

...SR

Re: # 288 GT

My answer is "yes", given that the "common socio-political" system is that of constitutional parity. This is possible despite historical, colonial, and post-colonial baggage.

The usual guess of a common reader would be that it would be possible under a secular socio-poitical order, of European nature, but the fact of the matter is that an European sesular system would drive a wedge between the communities because secularism by nature does not give religious freedoms but it takes them away from public sphere. This is not possible where society has serious religious leanings. In other words secularism imposes the religion of atheists upon all using state power.

On the other hand Islam proposes a true secular state where religious freedoms are guranteed through constitutional parities by providing autonomous legislature, judiciary, and other institutions that are needed by humans in public sphere.

Before everyone's jaws drop with awe, I must tell everyone reading this that I am not talking about a idealist religious utopia; I am actually talking about a real system that has been in practice until 80 years ago in Ottoman Turkey. The system was called the "Millet system" which provided jews and christians autonomous judiciary and the penal and civil law. The constitution of today's India is almost there with a provision for Mulsim Civil and Inheritence Laws. An autonoumous legislative body would have made it a true Islamic state with a Hindu majority- whatdoya know.

#289 Posted by GT,

Oh I see.

Both Echoboom and Kaal are right. The answer is a clear and unmitigated NO!

Zee:

Please note that echo's answer to my question (just like kaal's) was: NO.

Zee:

My question preceeded the Khuda/Allah discussion. I reproduce my earler post once again:


Dear Dost, Urstruly, Eklavya etc.

While you have dealt with God/Spirituality etc. embodied in Hinduism and Islam, you haven't dealt much with the socio-political structures implied by these two religions.

Can devout Hindus and Muslims "choose" (when faced with no constraints on choice) to live under the same socio-political structure?

#285/6 Posted by GT,

But community laws was not the discussion, was it? I thought it was the significance of the change from Khuda to Allah.

Somewhere else, I had proposed a panchayat raj with a lot of power invested in panchayats, as a possible solution (in lines with echo's thoughts). But this, as pointed out by many, is not without problems.

Zee:

"And what did Echoboom say?"

His take was as follows: (a) No laws should interfere with the laws of each and every community, i.e. community specific laws; (b) the role of the government was to see that no violence occured between the communities.

But the problem is that community laws are hardly community specific. They often regulate on how other communities should act. Herein, is the conflict. To understand this clearly, think of "elites/liberaloons" as a community and you will understand the problem immediately.

(Just so that you do not forget, I belong to the community of liberaloons).

#282 Posted by GT,

And what did Echoboom say?

To our great misfortune echoboom is no longer on Chowk.

"the only person who has somewhat answered this question is echo" .... I should add kaal too.