The Capture of Christianity

pinku bhai, sometimes there is nothing more one can add, especially after Pinku has said everything there is to be said. :)

----------

"I will not denigrate Muhammad, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or any other religion or sect or their founders."

That is strange. You had no compunction denigrating Adi Shankara - the singlemost important actual religious figure to most Hindus today, and that too, on charges that were despicable because they were patently false. Not once did you take your opinions back despite repeated requests. In fact, you never have any problems questioning the validity of most things Hindu.

Murad ji, here is a friendly, construtive suggestion.

You probably don't see it, but you have accumulated a very impressive resume of blatantly anti-Hindu writings, and now, some questioning the myths of Christians.

Now, if you can't bring yourself up to question the core myths of Islam and Muslims, at least write the next article explaining your views as a deist or a believer in a cosmic spirit. Most importantly, explain to us all how that is different from the view propounded by Islam. (real Islam, not what mortal human beings understand or interpret of it.)

We, I, need something to convince ourselves that you are not a total fraud merely exploiting the hospitality of your Indian/Hindu friends.

You seem like a good man. We would all like to believe so. Give us a reason to confirm that hope. Thanks a lot. I will sign off on this debate, and leave this subject, for now, in your capable hands.

Kaal,
by the way you took two "thank you" from me and never replied on that "applonius" stuff that i copied?

It seems you can write a book on "understanding muslim/islamic reason", perhaps after a little bit of more exercise here..

Kaal chakra,

In #155 Murad took the trophy of "secularist" while we were offering "pseudo secularist" or "indian secularist". What are you managing man??

Murad said:
[[
I can and will go no further than the limits of my knowledge or beliefs.
]]

So there lies his committment, he can drop his quest for knowledge or truth if it seems to affect his Islamic commitment as a non practising muslim??

This also suggests that a practising muslim doesn't even need to have any such quest for any knowledge or truth.

And it seems you were right, things/world may be quite different if you are a muslim:-) And reasoning can be completely optional thing (like use when needed for Islam) in that case.

Re: # 155

I can and will go no further than the limits of my knowledge or beliefs.

I will not denigrate Muhammad, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or any other religion or sect or their founders and cannot describe them as gobbeldygook just to please you.

It is a long exploration and I will go at my own pace. I don't mind a prod orconstructive suggestion from you or anyone else but I will neither blindly praise or condemn any of them. If this makes me a secularist so be it though I call myself a deist or a believer in a cosmic spirit not an agnostic who believes in no religion. I do not believe that death is the final full stop and that all life is a miracle that goes on and on.

Kaal,

Nice work in exposing Murad'ji. I was initially thinking he is not breaking the "islamic myths" because it is not wise to do so.

Anyways, it is not just him, there is a class of 'Indian secularists' who when it comes to breaking Islamic myths, wear purdah and hide under the bed. :-)

Absolutely not, but it is the truth to its believers. Sattar bhai is absolutely, genuinely, profoundly convinced of the "truth" as is tahmedji or masadi bhai, and may be laddu dada too (though I am less certain about laddu because I don't know what he believes in).

But what you said makes sense to me in one important sense. There was nothing 'divinely creative' about Islam at all either. Almost all its elements were already available and understood at the time and in the region. The great human creativity - which cannot be denied - was to put everything together, to bring apparently diverse elements at one place. But that is what creativity is all about, most of the times.

Re: # 158; Kaal

true ... only to a point though.

cults can be self-sustaining ... the political ideology was consolidated by the immediate followers (the Salaaf) and developed into an art form ... with political dominance comes control over personal lives, guilt, hellfires and promises of carnal abandon in the hereafter can be hard to resist for the mere mortals when there is no information technology around!

as for ideas spreading/more converts etc ... I'd like to bring you back to your favourite topic ... Mirza Ghulam Ahmed sahib had a lot of converts too ... and figures show his flock is expanding by the minute with unsuspecting East Africans, some europeans and americans coming into the fold! ... such is the power of cults ... do we accept it as "the truth"?

cheema bhai, that is the view of an unbeliever. As such Murad bhai might want to develop that in one of his articles and books, should he choose to break Islamic idols.

But even there, at least two major questions remain. Cults are a dime a dozen. Few of them grow so fast. Even after accounting for the fact that unique conditions prevailed at one time, one is confronted with the fact that even today, numbers of its adherents is growing, not only internally but also because of differential entry-exit advantage (more converts in than converts out).

So there is a set of unique factors that have and today enable its growth.

Second issue has to do with stability in time. (Other) cults come and go. Islam has been stable as a rock. There have always been people like you cheema ji (sorry :)) but the core, in relative terms, has never changed. It's basics are the same today as they were 1400 years ago. So there are a set of factors that have to explain that.

I, as an unbeliever, do not believe there is anything divine in all this at all. All of this can be explained in very simple structural, organizational, ideological terms. But breaking Islamic idols is not my interest. It is enough for me to say that I don't believe any of this, and respect those who do - because some of those believers are very intelligent, sincere men and women.

(United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann said on Tuesday that the world body should ban defamation of all religions and disagreed that such a move would impinge upon freedom of speech.

“Yes, I believe that defamation of religion should be banned,� he said in response to a question at a press conference to highlight the interfaith conference at the UN headquarters. No one should try to defame Islam or any other religion, he said, adding: “We should respect all religions.�

Mr D’Escoto, a former Nicaraguan foreign minister who himself is a priest, said that religion was a very divisive subject and that’s why the meeting would concentrate on common ethical values to make a common front against hunger, ignorance and disease.

“People talk about bailing out the Wall Street when, in fact, humanity needs to be bailed out,� he added.)

Can there by anything more ground breaking from UN president? Religions are divisive so respect them, submit yourself to their dictat and hegemony and don't argue with them.

I'm registering a new personal religion. Do the same. An excellent way of getting your way through when you don't have an argument.

Re: # 141; KaalChakra
[[ IMO both have some pwerful and seemingly unique properties ]]

that phenomenon my dear friend is known as "Cultism" .... it is nothing but a Cult around a personality and his alter-ego ... if you read the more recent stories of religious cults in america for instance (David Koresh being one such example) ... people would do absolutely anything to uphold that cult (including women allowing their children being sexually abused by the cult heirarchy; not forgetting people prepared to kill, themselves and others, to uphold their "principles") ... same principles apply here ... it just got out of hand because of contemporal circumstances in the then world order

hope it clarifies

Just to help you along, again, I suggest you might use akcheema's points (if you agree with them) to build your case for Islamic idol-breaking in your next articles and books:

1 - Mohammed was very much the prophet of the (non-existent) allah

2 - Koran was the best gobbledigook he could come up with

3 - Islam is as original a source as the "arabian nights" is for the 'guidance' for mankind

------------------

Now those are statements that no believing Muslim will agree with, and by articles articles and books establishing them, you would have most certainly broken Islamic idols just as you constantly break everyone else's idols.

And Murad ji, I have humbly suggested that you have been most dishonest about this. You have said nothing that a true believer in Islam like tahmed ji would not say, and if you have even remotely implied anything, you have never stood up for it. (for instance, you once implied that Muslims read the false Quran these days, original one having been lost, but when questioned, you never took a stand.)

So,

We all know how Islam has been 'hijacked.'

We all know that hadith are evil, and the 'original' Islam (whatever it was) has to be restored.

We all know that Muhammad was an ordinary human being (not a Son of God, since God sent 'messengers' not sons), and that he brought a 'message' from the True God.

Murad ji, what have you done but confirm all of Islam as everyone, including Tahmedji, knows it?

Please, let's see some actual slaying some Islamic myths. You can do it if you put your mind to it. :)

Re: # 139
AKCheema. I think this extract from my old chowk article on the hijacking of Islam (oct 2006) should answer your questions.

Most Muslims believe that the Quran is the infallible, eternal and unchangeable words of Allah but very few know how much the teachings of The Prophet had been revised over the past fourteen centuries. The Quran only began to be compiled fourteen years after Muhammad’s death in 632 AD when Khalif Abu Bakr gave Zaid Ibn Thabit, one of The Prophet’s companions, the task of writing it. The third Khalif Othman then announced the definitive Madina version in 665 AD. Several other versions were gathered up and burned.

But the Suras, or verses, of the Quran did not answer all the questions of a changing society so Muslim clerics sought further scriptural authorities for interpreting Islamic law. Two hundred years later the celebrated Al-Bukhari added examples from the life of The Prophet as the Hadith. He traveled the entire Muslim world to compile most of it. But he, appalled by the credulity of people, on his own authority rejected 99.6 % of the 600,000 pious contributions offered to him.

I believe that Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Nanak and others were great mortal human beings who were later called prophets. Re Muhammad I dont think he ever called himself a prophet but a messenger and a warner. The Arabs had a complex that the Jews and Christiabs had their prophets so they called Muhammad a prophet too after his sudden and unexpected death.

Sattar bhai, I apologize. I indeed didn't address the mirazi issue.

My firm belief is that Mirzaism, like some forms of sufism, takes elements of Hinduism and imposes them on Islam. As such it blurs the boundaries, besides of course distorting and destroying the spirit of Islam and hurting non-Muslims who might be taken in by Mirzai falsehoods.

In my view, the only people who gain from Mirzaism are Mirzais, not Muslims, not non-Muslims. Besides I expect it to be a true cultist phenomenon (being based on little logic), and as such it offends my sense of what kinds of religions should be left unopposed.

Now, please feel free to oppose Hinduism or any other religion that hurts your sensibilities. That is ok. Even Murad bhai is at liberty to oppose anything he likes. We are objecting only to his role as a secularist.

Kaal bhai,

I don’t think you addressed the issue:

You are full of praises for (mainstream) Islam, even as you openly malign Mirzaees. Why stoke the fires of religious divide, unless you have something to gain from it. Is it because Mirzaees started the ruckus in your own backyard (Qadian) … or because their patient, calm approach makes it difficult for you to rile the crowds against them?

I’ll explain further: You took a position, very quickly and seemingly without full understanding, on the last prophet issue. You have gone to ridicule mirzaees and their chief, often making comments that bordered on lowly propaganda. I am inclined to think that these were not innocent mistakes, rather calculated responses, perhaps designed to raise undue suspicions in the minds of people.

This is why I am questioning your own honesty about your motives.

Of course, sattar bhai! You just have to ask.

I believe that Islam and Hinduism are two fundamentally different religions. Any attempts to create false similarities between these two have ended up (1) hurting Hindus (2) creating huge amounts of ill will and bloodshed.

We need people to clearly see the differences between these two. This will help Hindus (that is where my rightwing goals come in) and it will help poor Muslims who get slaughtered in riots as well (secondary but important goal.)

If my theory is right, then Murad bhai is playing to hurt Hinduism and Hindus. That is why I oppose him. Once he truly dissociates himself from Islam, there would be no reason to oppose him.

Hope it does not seem that there is any hidden agenda here, anymore. Thanks, sattar bhai.