Understanding Sanatana Dharma

#678

TAhmed,

In your post #657, you said

....This parroting of sexually laced rubbish is just that. All I can say is I am glad you dont find pakistanis (other than ali1 a long time ago, and even he has gotten bored and stopped) dong this, although for every one target for sexually laced cheap shots in islam there are ten in hinduism if anyone wanted to lower himself to this level.


You have said the following -- several times in fact -- in the past...

• You are not interested in exchanging insults.


• You have no pre-concieved notions and will strive to keep an open mind.


• If anyone points out a factual error in your statements. You will accept it immediately.

With the above in mind, could you please tell us if you acknowledge the following?

• The last two people who were banned from Chowk were Pakistanis and they were banned for writing obscenities


• HP was censured and one of his posts removed for writing obscenities. Several of his posts where he called Sadna several obscenities still remain for all to see..

In the light of the above, kindly let us know if you think that your statement has any legs to stand on...

Regards

harimau: I see you are learning something from chowk. Only trouble is, all you have learnt is to say ``oye`` from urstruly. This mimicry of those who despise you indicates the problem with you hindutvas - you try to become like them even as you claim to be their enemy. You badly need to have a chat with Dr. Phil to get rid of your complexes.

Ref jang #675

Don`t argue with folks like Inji-kari-kuzhambu though he thinks he sounds more sophisticated if he uses the handle `soysauce`. He is probably trying to see if he can collect a bunch of his frllow Dravidian goons to hold a black flag procession on Aug 15.

This is the same idiot who said he had no objection to the triple-talaq system of divorce... he is looking for support from ANY person, even if it is a Koran-quoting mullah like tahmed32.

Ref Mullah32 #674

[harimau: i see the hindutva leech has managed to wiggle its way to this board. ha! ha!]

Oye mullah, I have been posting on this board for about a week now just in case you do not have the ability to look for posts under my name.

alephnull #662 Just the fact that Dawkins (or any man) has said something doesnt make it reasonable - sometimes very smart people say or do very stupid things. You need to look at the facts and logic to something to decide whether it makes sense. No human being is pure reason, and we all (even the smartest among us) have our views colored by emotion. So, one can only pass judgement on something specific that is said, and not just give an individual a carte blanche simply because of his standing in society.

He may be well versed in biology, but that does not make Dawkins the master of all knowledge - and it certainly does not make him more knowledgable on Islam than the average man on the street. suicide bombing is NOT an islamic tradition nor is it exclusive to muslims - the japanese kamikazes, the sri lankan suicide bombers are two obviousl examples, and one can find countless others from western history (even the victorians, who glorified the ``noble six hundred`` who ``rode into the valley of death``). and the Quran explicitly prohibits suicide in any case, and the military history of islam is in fact often associated with the opposite kind of behavior - that of chivalry in battle, as in case of salahuddin ayubi (respected through the centuries even by his bitterest enemies, with brits even naming their most popular post WWII armored vehicle after him - saladin). suicide bombings are driven by a kind of mindlessness that is the opposite of the basic message of the Quran. By labelling muslims as fanatics driven by dreams of houris, neither Dawkins nor any other individual is doing civilized society any favor.

If you seek western authors` views on islam, i suggest you refer to those who are indeed well versed in islamic history, theology, culture - read armstrong, esposito, huston smith, bernard lewis - and you will find them reinforcing the point I make about islam and muslim societies. The fact that you have to seek the views of a man who knows nothing about islam (as discussed above) to support your case should, I think, give you something to think about.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

harimau: i see the hindutva leech has managed to wiggle its way to this board. ha! ha!

look soya

caste etc is no problem at all. bring it on (except the dalitistan.org because its stale). inidia is littered with critics of the caste system from the times of Tukaram. the problem is that here is a board with 600+ posts on the dominant religion of india, and pakis have one lousy ali post to show? (besides the author) rest have mumbled some stuff like nice article. no posts on state of the religion, how it does at ground level in pakistan, nothing! its mind boggling. how does an indu learn about pakistan in this case wrt to sanatan dharma? and then the big n small poster whine about how come the indoos are evil folks who dont want to play nice.

so do this, cut and paste what fodors what it says about caste in india and start an info trail. i will join in if something clicks.

Ref ali_1 #653

[#639 by HP

PS. You keep referring to ``RSS types/drones`` in your posts.... I think you are mistaken. These are not card carrying RSS members, just average middle class Indian Hindus.]

How about those of you who drop money into jihadi collection boxes? Would that be the average middle-class Muslims of Pakistan or are the jihadis funding themselves?

Ref Mullah32 #657

[....This parroting of sexually laced rubbish is just that. All I can say is I am glad you dont find pakistanis (other than ali1 a long time ago, and even he has gotten bored and stopped) dong this, although for every one target for sexually laced cheap shots in islam there are ten in hinduism if anyone wanted to lower himself to this level.]

Oye Mullah, wasn`t it HP who was calling Sadna a ``ho`` and ``hor`` just on this board? So why do you say it was only ``ali_1 a long time ago and even he has gotten bored and stopped``?

Now start quoting the relevant verses from Koran about why this is permissible under the rules of Islam.

alephnull #660 ``

``First, once you have abandoned religious faith, you have no religion; at best you can be said to have been brought up in a particular faith tradition which you then rejected; thus Nietzsche came from the German Lutheran tradition in which his father was a divine. ``

Fine. But nevertheless, this was the faith and culture he was born in. It was not like he was ridiculing muslims or hindus or anyone else. The correct comparison would be with the christian extremists (and indeed, the standard items of ridicule used on chowk - namely the prophet`s wives and the concept of houris - is taken from the west, where these were stock in trade for the christian extremists through the centuries).

``Secondly, Nietzsche expended a lot of ink discussing and criticizing the ‘priestly mentality’ and hieratic tradition of Judaism which he claims the Christ tried to undo. One could of course argue that Judaism was the lineal ancestor of his own native faith tradition, and it was Judaism’s role as progenitor of Christianity that excited Nietzsche’s interest. [But by the same token one could describe Islam as merely a very successful Christian heresy and therefore a suitable target for criticism by Christians or ex-Christians.]``

Surely the standard an educated person in this day and age is expected to meet is higher than that of the christian extremists during europe`s dark ages. When tens of thousands of anabaptists for example were burnt at the stake to take just one of countless examples of their superstitious and hate-filled view of the world. And even Nietzsche, despite having provided some interesting views, is hardly a philospher any civilized society would follow - the Nazis were his ignoble offspring.

``Nietzsche in any case went on to develop a general critique of religion. Claiming that he ridiculed only his own religion is patently false. Voltaire’s case is interesting; he spent much energy excoriating Christianity (‘Ecrasez l’infame!’) and on occasion compared Islam very favourably to it; in other instances he was expressly hostile to Islam; and he would very likely be hostile to the common essence of the Abrahamic traditions. ``

As I recall from reading Candide a long time ago, Voltaire was more of a social critic. And in particular seemed to have a gripe against well off (monks being one of the social ``estates`` he ridiculed) people who saw the world thru rose-colored glasses (``let them eat cake``). His criticism of christianity (as i recall) was largely on account of the priestly class (the monks), from which hinduism would hardly be immune (where the priestly class were the top caste, not even the third estate as in voltaire`s france). There is no doubt valid criticism against Abrahamic traditions too - the religious zeal associated with monotheism is contrasted (correctly, in my view) with the less passionate mixing of religion and politics of hinduism or the oriental religions.


``Third, there is no shortage of dead Europeans of some fame and considerable intelligence who attacked a multitude of other belief traditions, both the beliefs of pagan Hindus and Buddhists and the religion of the infidel Turks, to say nothing of the blaspheming Jews. ``

Agreed. Some live ones too.

``In any case, what appears to underlie the distinction you draw is the notion that criticism of one’s native religious tradition is acceptable, whereas that of ‘alien’ religious traditions is absolutely non-kosher.``

This is not really the distinction between kosher vs nonkosher that I see. The distinction is fundamentally on the REASONABLENESS of the criticism. Surely this mindless repetition of ``hoors`` by jang which started this discussion does not fall in the category of being reasonable. (``hoors`` have been used through the centuries by sex-obsessed christian priests to ridicule the ``mohammedan heresy`` as they saw islam, but in fact are mentioned perhaps once in the Quran, and certainly nowhere close to being the central theme of the Quran which has to do with praise for God and his creation and of the responsibility of the individual to behave in a civilized manner.).

Thanks for an interesting post and for giving me the chance to make my views clear.

#655 by CoolAL on July 16, 2004 12:00pm PT -- 00181896
#644

[quote]
..yes coolal -- we mean ALL pakistanis regardless of their mental state
[/quote]

:-)

Soooooo, are we to take it that IF the chowk staff don`t give you an answer or give you an answer that you don`t like, you too will go elsewhere Like your esteemed co-poster?




err no coolaljee -- my departure from chowk or otherwise will entirely be my own decision :)


PS. You keep referring to ``RSS types/drones`` in your posts.... I think you are mistaken. These are not card carrying RSS members, just average middle class Indian Hindus.

yes we all know that ali-1 -- as for leaving this -- i think my patience with the paki bashers is running out too -- i think there are better things in life than talking to losers whose only aim seems to be to live off a website....


shrimate jee will never learn it seems: ``That happened on this thread too - Indians were discussing Hinduism, not Paki-bashing and along come a hero and his sidekick who started whining about Paki-bashing and Modi. You can go to articles by dost-mittar and Farzana and see the gratuitous posts on `Paki-bashing` and `hate-mongering` make their appearance.`` -- well on many other boards shrimati jee, along come the paki bashers and talk about everything but the content of the article itself -- it seems u and those like u are so used to this script that u readily recognize it dont u --



shrimai jee again: ``#652 by sadna on July 16, 2004 12:00pm PT -- 00181899

The best way to foster better `Indo-Pak understanding` is to stop fomenting terrorism in India.

Plausible deniability about fomenting terrorism works only in the short term. Deniability does not work when fomenting terrorism goes on for sooo long that firangs become career experts on it, start writing books about it and give US congressional testimonies about it, and even Council for Indian Muslims in UK join in the `Paki-bashing` by demanding that Musharraf shut down Pakistani terrorist organisations.`` -- sheesh lady i told u before and i`ll tell u again, u need to get some personal issues sorted out -- u sound just like a has-been nirupama rao when u say this -- u do know who she was/is shrimati jee?

Sadna again (yawn): ``All this whining is simply two things, 1. some people are sore losers aka master obfuscators `` -- yes shrimati jee, that would be yourself , to that i would add masters at doublespeak and at bringing in completely unrelated things when thoroughly drubbed in an argument -- also pathological hatred for a nation or nations :)



#651 by AhmadBilal on July 16, 2004 12:00pm PT -- 00181898
#644 by omar_r_quraishi

``and by the way i dont think most pakistani musicians are too bothered whether people in india know about their music, other than of course because of commercial considerations``

This is an interesting point. I wonder if Indian market would welcome Junoon and rest of the Pakistani artists with all the patriotic songs they do. As I mentioned at another place, Junoon did a concert here a couple of years back. As usual they were nice enough to let us gather in front of the stage and party. The crowd had a large number of Indians too. Everything was rock n roll as usual till they started a patriotic song “Jazba-e-Junoon”. When they reached the “Pakistan kabhi na bhoolo” part, a portion of the dancing Indian crowd stopped, which was followed by embarrassed looks and whispers. But soon they realized that it was ok and joined the chorus in best spirit of having fun with the music. So if they expand their market to India, would it be a similar case of initial shock, followed by getting to the chorus? Thanks.


ahmed it would be a case of making lots of money, which i suppose is okay with all music bans -- i think strings are planning on touring india some time very soon --

#649 by AlephNull on July 16, 2004 9:24am PT -- 00181891
tahmed #646

{{try to overcome your poor upbringing instead which never taught you that only a stupid man ridicules other people`s religions.}}

On the contrary, religions have in the past been attacked, criticized, ridiculed, systematically demolished by very clever men, of the caliber of Voltaire, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell. Abstaining from this enjoyable bloodsport is no mark of superior virtue or more refined upbringing.


true aleph jee though i hope that u arent implying that u r a voltaire, nietzsche or a russell because that would be thorough misrepresentation jee -- given your persistent use of big words i suspect u do harbour such delusions of grandeur ;)

i just wanted to see who the 666th interactor was, and i was expecting it to be manto. .not khamkhwahi. . . :))

i shall return if this reaches another number which shall remain nameless.

[#140 by Mantolives on June 29, 2004 2:53pm PT -- 00179501
Huma Mir...
I have neither the inclination nor the time to continue this debate... especially when it will now become personal with insults flying all over... now that Khamkhwa is joining in. ]

...oye manto!
why my noble name included in your ignoble i-log and that too without permission, commission or royalty...jawaab do...

#660 AlephNull
Add to your list Aldous Huxley who did criticise christianity but reserved his worst criticism for judaism which he called a barbaric cult!
If the purpose of criticism is merely to reform religion then perhaps it makes sense to say only criticismfrom within would not be rejected outright by the believers and therefore has some value. I think however that this is a narrow and simplistic view. Criticism from outside also can embolden reformers as happened with Sati in hinduism.
But criticism does not need to have any immediate beneficial effect. The kind of criticism that one sees in a global medium such as this if printed in newspapers in india or pakistan would lead to riots, massacres and whatnot. But this wonderful medium has the excuse that it is not physically anchored in any one place and attacks here could in fact be healthy with none of the severe side effects.
Let me give you an example: ali1 raised the question of castism in hinduism in #78 for which he has received nothing but grief. All right, he was being provocative and even abusive but the point he raised has been glossed over and I think sheds light on the castist attitude of even modern hindu indians. This is a worthwhile point to make.
It was wrong to banish any of the interactors for what they said. Here`s one medium where things can be said with very little adverse outcome in the real world. Moreover, it betrays a certain paternalistic attitude where the offended need to be protected.
The losers who have been attacking Sadna personally for the hard stance she has taken w.r.to pakistan and its political relationship to india need to be exposed for the morons that they are. She has handled the situation quite admirably without removing any of the barbs from her criticism. She has not stooped to the level of her attackers. Removing certain posts attacking her dulls the history and robs her of the credit she deserves.
Peace between india and pak cannot be achieved by whitewashing the attitudes of the majority on either side. Sadna represents an influential POV.

hp, i`m not enjoying this either. but i believe that if you cannot respect living persons, you are not a true follower of any religion. the Prophet does not exist in isolation from the world.the same rules apply to you and yours as to everyone else.goodbye.
ali1, stop playing precious, you`re the one that talked of certain parts of indian women smelling like fermented idlis, or was it dosas?yes, you apologised, but so did poor dost-mittar.if sadna and arjun_m use facts, why use terms of abuse to fight them?tell me now how many indians have used the sort of language that your esteemed mate barachota did-and he hasn`t been the first.
you cannot avoid the fact that your government does encourage deaths of innocent civilians.most of us can differentiate between a government and a people.this does not make you bad. but nothing that anyone else does makes what your goverment does good, or even acceptable.