Church Lures Gujarat Tribals to Christ

Dear Farzana, Chowk Staff, and Chowkies, this is a serious alert ...

for an insidious assault on Chowkies` privacy. I believe that the previous administration, including member(s) of Chowk Staff have helped John Galt (aka JG or JagdeeshGodbole) in obtaining confidential information, such as e-mail and IP addresses, about certain Chowkies. This information has been shared with Saminasha and Scout and involves Temporal and a few other insiders. Not very long ago, a post was intercepted and it was clear that the intended victim was Dalit. Recently other victims have been myself, Queenie, and a couple of others seen as ``enemies`` by this gang of insiders. This information is discussed and exchanged in media outside of Chowk, such as e-mails and other websites and chatrooms.

While this is a breach of confidentiality and certainly against all norms of ethical conduct and possibly US laws, it is very difficult to prove in a court of law. You have to prove that the act was intentional, malicious, and resulted in tangible harm to the victims. Emotional distress is no longer a guarantee for conviction.

I have been using Anonymous IP software for a very long time to preclude my IP address from being divulged. Not that I care, but it is fun to have them think that I am in UK one minute, and then in Poland the next, while appearing in US, Canada, and even Germany during the day. Almost all my life is an open book and I really don`t care about people knowing more about me than they already do. But, I do not appreciate covert actions, behind my back, to use insider information and break a trust that was ostensibly established between Chowk and Chowkies. The identities and locations of Chowk Management are well known as are the ones for some of the criminal perptetrators. I hope they realize this.

If, however, any actual harm comes to me or my family as a result of John Galt, Temporal, Scout, or Saminasha`s despicable and immoral behavior, I will come looking for them. We can always start with Ms. McDonald and go from there.

So, here is my sincere request:
1. Chowk Management need to investigate and correct this obvious breach of confidentiality.
2. The pernicious activity by JohnGalt (JagdeeshGodbole), Temporal, Scout, and Saminasha needs to stop RIGHT NOW.
3. A simple apology from the perpertrators will suffice once this silly game is stopped.

Thanks,

One last comment. It may have been made by others, but it bears repetition.

About a decade ago, after a fairly intense internal debate, Christian missionary groups, most active of which tribe are the ones based in the US, made an epochal decision.

They decided to move away from their old cumbersome model of sending `white` missionaries to places like India. Instead, they resolved to work overwhelmingly through closely-monitored but well-trained and well-funded local agents.

On surface, it was a minor policy alteration. Yet missionary literature fully understood its future impact. The writers knew that in sheer economic efficiency, operational effectiveness, legal legerdemain, and moral deception, this move was the equivalent of a nuclear strike in their relentless demographic war against people of Indic religions.

Often times, numbers and compositions of populations are destiny. And lest we forget, we have only one India.

Didn`t feel like returning to this board because I knew there would be no new arguments here.

The ONLY thing that has to change is the Hindu response. When others have a good thing going against you they have no reason to alter course just because you don`t agree with them.

Obviously, we are not dealing here with people who belong to any mutual-respect society.

re:#178 by Urstruly
May be Pak had the earthquake because mullahs like Urstruly have now started quoting Bhagawat Geetha instead of sticking to their own book!
Sridhar

Re: #7 by stuka

[The Christian preists etc need a good ass-kicking. Hindu groups are doing a good job of re-conversion though. See, there are some advnatages of right wing Hindu groups as well. ]


I`m pleasantly surprised by your post.

Religion is inextricably connected to culture, for myriad reasons. If the church doors are open, and some inquisitive soul goes in to look for answers, and likes what he finds, and therefore converts, it NEVER causes problems in society (except in Islamic countries).

Because the general public realises it was a genuine change of heart. This kind of conversion is benign for another reason as well - this kind of true change of heart happens to only an insignificant number of people in the population, and therefore has no destabilizing effects in society.

What causes resentment in society is when poor people are specifically targeted in a calculated way on account of their financial vulnerability. The person converts, not because he was inquisitive, read the scriptures, and had a change of heart, but because of reasons that have to do with gratitude and/or subtle coercion - if I convert, I`ll be rewarded with a number of things like my neighbor - my son will get a good job etc. Also, the missionaries generate a feeling of alienation and hostility towards the previous religion and society.

Compassion needs to be there for compassion`s sake. The ``mission`` of the missionaries is to convert as many people as they can to Christianity. When there is a ``profit`` motive (conversion of as many people as possible), the public rightly percieves this as the religion of the rich countries using their money to
win over poorer sections of their society.


Keeping the church doors open is always welcome, and should be in any civilized nation. Going out and actively proselytizing while using your financial resources as bait should be condemned.

tahmed32#190:

I think that Jang got mixed up between Islam and Salam. While Islam means submission, Salam (or Hebrew Shalom) does, I think, mean peace.

HP: Cheers my friend. Thanks for speaking up for me. Not that cheap insults from these missionary-bashing thugs without any substance to back it up bothers me. :-)

#188 harimau - while thanking your for your effort in writing that lengthy gibberish (which i didnt read), let me congratulate you on your creativity: after 6 years of calling me a mullah, you finally discovered that wasnt working. so now in an extraordinary display of creativity for an rss thug, you start addressing me as terrorist. Seems like you half-brained rss thugs are easily terrorised!!

and that is why you rss thugs go go after christian missionaries, burn 12 year old girls in gujerat, and have been forming rss rat packs on chowk to go after Ferzana Versey for the crime of speaking out (fat good it has done you, she is the editor now!!). And disappear from chowk when behram comes after you in your own language, waving a sugarcane!!

#188 Thank you, harimau.

jang #189 The word Islam does mean submission per my understanding as well. If there are individuals who claim Islam means peace when in fact they know the word means submission then that is indeed hypocrisy.

But then..what`s in a name: ``jang``, e.g., means war - and from your posts it is obvious you dont come to chowk to pick quarrels (as some keyboard pehlwaans like to do). :-)

the biggest hypocracy is islam means peace..this is a subterfuge behind arabic .. islam means submission and let us all be proud of it. why bullshit?

Ref terrorist32 #89

[urstruly: (on my way out, but just say #87)....Yaa Khuda!! failing to find anything in the Quran to what he boldly claimed ``Islam said``, Urstruly has to dig into Judeo-Christian books to support his need to stone to death those he change their religion!! ]

Well, with this statement, you have promoted yourself from being just a mullah into a terrorist.

Just a few months ago, a Christian missionary group in Afghanistan was kidnapped aznd threatened with death by stoning for proselytisation activities.

So what if the Koran doesn`t explicitly say ``Kill the Apostates!``? It says enough about killing Kaffirs, does it not?

But this man goes around pretending that Islam is a religion of peace. Why is it that no Christian missionaries are allowed into Pakistan except on (closely-watched) medical missions? Why is it that the bishop in Lahore committed suicide right in front of the steps of the court?

Chacha Ahmad (as Gujju calls him) wants to have his cake and eat it too: he wants to live in the West while simultaneously practicing the vilest form of his religion. So he goes around saying ``Islam is the religion of peace`` while completely ignoring the murderous activities of the Islamist thugs around the world.

His black heart bleeds for the victims of the Kashmir earthquake but he has no tears to shed for the three hristian schoolgirls who had their throats cut in Indonesia. He wants his civil rights in the US and Canada but has nothing to say about folks who bomb bars in Bali. Don`t the Balinese have a right to run businesses?

Sicko! Psycho!

Just wait for this man`s daughter to attempt to run away with a gora who won`t convert to Islam. He is sharpening his knife for the eventuality.

Re: # 180

HP:

``that why Hindu faith is so weak that people convert for a few medicine or crumbs that churches throw their way. ``

its because the hindus are taught that all religions are true. they are different paths to the same god. whereas muslims and chirstians are taught that we you forsake allah/chirst you are going to burn in hell.

hindus should emulate muslims/chirstians. they should throw this garbage of ``all religions equal`` and be as aggressive as them: my way or the highway.

Urstruly (I hope Romair sees this …[wide grin]),

Here’s a brief summary of arguments, yours and mine.

Your views …

1. You’ve argued that Islam inherited details of earlier scriptures ... e.g. killing apostates, blasphemers, adulterers. You cited verse 6:90 to support your view.

2. You further argue that recorded ahadith indicate Prophet’s support for teachings of earlier scriptures. Thus (all?) details of Torah apply to Muslims as well.

My counter-arguments …

3. In 6:90, Quran suggests that earlier scriptures came from the same Source as Quran. A Muslim should therefore accept divinity of Torah. Actually this applies to teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism, Zorastrianism, etc. as well … but that’s somewhat of a different issue.

4. As Quran was revealed, it abrogated parts of earlier teachings, and offered new teachings (new book, new rules! So what’s the issue?). It admits to this in verse 2:106. Quran further clarifies that as it abrogates earlier teachings, it replaces them with better ones. Therefore details between Quran and Torah are bound to differ.

Along the same lines, Quran addresses blasphemy, apostasy, and adultery … and specifies how to deal with these issues. If Torah condones killing the perpetrators, Quran clearly offers different solutions.

5. Recorded ahadith getting corrupted is not rocket science. If Torah and New Testament can get corrupted (which you admit), historical accounts can be inaccurate (everyone accepts this), then why not books on ahadith? Most importantly, books on ahadith blatantly contradict the message of Quran. This should be a clue to the wise.

Lastly …

In our previous debate you argued relentlessly, but failed to make your case. You then abruptly ended the discussion.

Click []

You are now citing a new set of excuses. Chicken?

And ponder over the example I gave in #183 … it says a lot about you.

dullabhatti#182:

You do have a point, that is why I referred to Bible and not to the quran or the hadith, which have a better historical anchor. Just like Bible, claims are occasionally being made of diggings and other ``scientific`` evidence that are supposed to support Ramayan and Mahabharat. But, it is all a matter of faith as far as I am concerned.

Urstruly#179:

I have almost reached the limits of my knowlege of Hinduism, which is primarily based on Ramayan and Mahabharat. I would hope that a true believer like rsridhar or harimou can validate what I am saying.

The contradiction between the concept of Swarg/Nark and reincarnation has intrigued me as well and I have not really found a satisfactory explanation of this inconsistency. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any authoritative book on Hinduism where one can find definite answers to such questions. But I can share with you what I have been told.

But first some inaccuracies in your post. First, Krishna is not a mere deity for Hindus but God Himself, just like Jesus is for Christians. Secondly, the concept of Swarg and Nark is not extant but still coexists with the concept of reincarnation among the Hindus. While we refer to a dead man as ``Marhoom`` in Urdu, we refer to him as ``Swarg-vaasi`` in Hindi. In our language, when people went to offer condolence upon someone`s death, they would say ``Swargaan ch vaasa hos`` [may he find a place in heaven].

So, how are the two reconciled. Through the interregnum between death and birth. When a man dies, he can in some cases attain Moksha/Nirvana if his accumulated deeds over all his previous births qualify him for it. In such a case, his soul is freed from further cycles of rebirth and his atman (soul) finds union with Parm-atman (Supreme Soul). In other cases, the atman must find a new body -either human or animal if the soul has regressed- suitable for his next birth. This process takes 13 days during which time the soul rests in swarg or nark, depending upon one`s good and bad deeds. The Hindu process of mourning lasts for 13 days at which time a person`s kriya karm (kirya karam in Panjabi) is performed and the mourning ends.

Urstruly,

You are incorrect on both accounts.

Civility in our discussions ended when you started to tell lies against Ahmadis in general, and Mirza Sahib in particular, and failed to back them up, and failed to take back what you wrote.

Here’s an example: Not too long ago you accused Mirza Sahib of calling his opponents “children of prostitutes”. When I corrected you, you (probably) realized you bungled up. At that point the right thing would have been for you to take back the filth you wrote and to express regret. Do you recall your response??

You are the one who sank to uncouth behavior. And I held you accountable for what you wrote. Respond to this in a straight forward manner if you can.

Furthermore, the last time we discussed such issues, I raised the same arguments that I`ve raised here. This was your response:

Click []

So I think that once again you are making excuses and trying to shift the blame. No ...?

Dost ji, I am reading your discussion with urstruly with interest. I find it very informative as my knowledge about Hinduism is very limited.

to my question: whether Ramayan and Mahabharat are fictional or real is inconsequent to my question...suppose they are real stories ..but still the books were written long after the events. The authors Balmik and Ved Vyas never met any of the characters, so how fair is it to attribute any statement word by word to any of the charaters? So how sure are we then that Krishna did claim himself to be God or was it author`s own interpretation or how he heard about? This is not even first or second hand narratives like Hadith...it is even weaker than hadith. Don`t I have a point?

Re: # 163
Then what do you think I am saying. I have saying all along that people have right to follow whatever religion they want but missionaries should not lie, cheat or bribe to save souls.

#165 by poolani on November 17, 2005 11:00pm PT
“People like tahmed32 are a scum of this world. I really do not know why Chowkies should tolerate him.”

The first thing should be for you to stop posting articles here. If you can’t take the heat stay away from the gas stoves in Gujarat…or you call them stopes too!

“Suryavanshi is optimistic: “My men are lured by cash, kind and help. But I’m sure they will reconvert to Hinduism if some Hindu group offers the same benefits. Also, the government should chalk out some measures to curb this practice.”

I am not going to flatter you here with you prowess in writing or quoting different people but at least a theme has emerged, perhaps unintentional, that all conversions are for some worldly benefits and people would reconvert once the benefits of conversion disappear.

Now as I understand it there is no re-conversion in Hinduism…in that case, people are just changing names from Nathoo ram to Michael ram and then changing it back to Nathoo ram again. So why is conversion such a big issue?

The other question I have for you that nobody seems to be paying attention to out of reverence for your worthy effort in bringing the plight of the converted hindus home, that why Hindu faith is so weak that people convert for a few medicine or crumbs that churches throw their way. Have you had a chance to look into this issue or it is all about churches are luring people into conversions.

Obviously, the poverty and helplessness of the poor Hindus is so stark that a few quid would make them change their religion.

Let me try and pick your brain even further…The Muslims/Sikhs/any other religion, in India or in Gujarat are as poor as the Hindus are, then why is that the Hindus are an easy prey for the evil priests than the Muslims or Sikhs or anyone else with a different religion. Poverty in India is not specific to the Hindus alone.

If I sound a little sarcastic then accept that as a part of posting articles on chowk and taking a little heat and sarcasm from people like tahmed and me.

Sattar:

There are two reasons I did not respond to your post:

1. We have discussed these issues ad infinitum earlier.

2. You are not a very pleasant person to have conversation with. You used to be pretty reasonable and tolerant person but then you turned into abusive and insulting. When things or arguments don`t go your way you use these two attributes as your defense mecahnism.

If you can maintain a modicum of decency in this exchange of views you are quite welcome to join the debate.

Dost

As I said, more I learn about other religions more I am convinced that the origin of all religions is One Supreme God and He had only one message to mankind, i.e. of Monotheism.

As far as concept of re-incarnation and karma is concerned, although it contradicts the concept of final judgement and then Heaven or Hell in Islam; but on examination I found out that the concept of Karma as a matter of fact is a derivative (or deformation) of the concept of original concept of Heaven and Hell that was once inherent in the ancient vedic Hinduism.

In ancient vedic hinduism there was a concept of Heaven (sawarg) and Hell (narkh) and this concept was associeted with the good and bad deed of the human beings - which is the basic beleif in Islamic belief system as well. What may have caused this concept to distort or get corrupted must be a philosophical dilemma that man might have come across in those times. Someone in that time might have raised the question (to the high priest or to the messenger of God of that time) ``Any particualr sin that I committ in this world is a one time deal, or may be if I committ it repeatedly, even then its occurance is of finite time and with a finite duration, so why when I`d go to hell for my sins, I`d have to burn and suffer till eternity i.e. for infinite number of times for infinite duration``. The same argument might have been made for good deeds as well. So at that time the people with weak faith, who couldn`t comprehend the mercy and bounty of their Creator might have rebelled. But since the concept of Cause-n-effect is so hardwired into our genes they could not (or a large majority of them) could not deny the Divinity entirely niether they could deny the concept of action and their consequences so they invented the concept of Karma and re-incarnation. The core idea is that you are re-born with the finite baggage of your previous deeds and their consequences. You do your time for a finite time of a lifetime bear the consequences and move onto the next re-incarnation untill all your finite good deeds and finite bad deeds cancel out each other and you become a clean slate.

Ironically, in Baghvad Gita, which in my opinion was written quite late after vedic times, mentions that Lord Krishna promises Heaven & Hell in excahnge for the worship man does for Divinity(Allah), Bhootas (Evil) and Krishna (Diety). If you recall our previous conversation, Didn`t I say that even the dieties in Hinduism refer to One Supreme God.


Here I found the vedic description of Heaven (Sawarga) at an internet website. The description of Heaven is almost identical to Islamic description which we have thru Qura`n and Hadith. Read and learn:

``…The heaven is well provided with excellent paths…The Siddhas, the Vaiswas, the Gandharvas, the Apsaras, the Yamas and the Dhamas dwell there. There are many celestial gardens. Here sport persons of meritorious acts. Neither hunger nor thirst, nor heat, nor cold, neither grief nor fatigue, neither labour nor repentance, nor fear, nor anything that is disgusting and inauspicious; none of these is to be found in heaven. There is no old age either…Delightful fragrance is found everywhere. The breeze is gentle and pleasant. The inhabitants have resplendent bodies. Delightful sounds captivate both the ear and the mind. These worlds are obtained by meritorious acts and not by birth nor by the merits of fathers and mothers…There is neither sweat nor stench, nor excretion nor urine. The dust does not soil one`s clothes. There is no uncleanliness of any kind. Garlands (made from flowers) do not fade. Excellent garments full of celestial fragrance never fade. There are countless celestial cars that move in the air. The dwellers are free from envy, grief, ignorance and malice. They live very happily…`` Savami Shivnanda 1885.

Urstruly,

No response from you regarding #94 and #124?
What gives?

Getting philosophical is easy. But it is merely an attempt from you to sound somewhat intelligent as you recycle worn out arguments that don`t cut it.


Romair,

This is what happens when I take on our internet scholar on his own turf. As I’ve said before, he ducks the issue. And as you see, he`s done it again here.

#165 poolani,

like behramji, tahmed represents a viewpoint which should be addressed. its a viewpoint perhaps representative of a large number of folks. so its a good thing to know whats going on in that mind.

Re: # 165 poolani
[....I really do not know why Chowkies should tolerate him[tahmed32]....]

Precisely because he is the way he is.... We need to have all kinds of people here in chowk - that`s the whole idea....

Go easy on Mr Tauheed Ahmed, also known as Closet-Mullah32..... Being a Mullah-in-the-Closet, Mr Ahmed has an ``interesting``[read, half-baked] perspective on many things.... So let him say his piece, half-baked [and down-right stupid, sometimes] as they may be....

#156 tahemed

{What you are clearly implying is that you know better than those who convert what is best for the latter - clearly you are in possession of a superior mind where, without even being in their shoes, you know what is best for those who convert to christianity. }

there you go again. where did i clearly imply what you ascribe to me? you CLEARLY seem to be bent on maligning my character for some reason. you may apologize to your god to ease the sour bile taste in your mouth.

do you remember personally, with FREE WILL, denigrating ahmedia beliefs when you got that passport?

correction#172:

In my post to Urstruly, I mistyped Iliad instead of Homer. Iliad, of course, is the name of the odyssey.

Urstruly#144:

“However, later as the time passed, in each and every society man started thinking how could God who is so benevolent and who sustains me, how could He take my beloved child away from me. How could a God who is so merciful kill so many people in flood or earthquake. How does he allow bad things happen to me.”

The subcontinental thought process dealt with this issue by taking God out of this equation and ascribing such happenings to karma or one’s own deeds. In other words, they suggested that there was, indeed, justice in this world but it sometimes takes place beyond Keynesian long-run. In other words, the innocent child who is killed by the earthquake may not have done anything wrong in this life but probably is paying back for some dastardly deed in a previous life. This is why, there is no concept of shaitan in the subcontinental mythology.

“That is the reason that there are identical attributes of gods and godesses in Hindu, Greek, Norsk, and Roman mythologies and almost all pagan religions.”

You are on more solid grounds here. Yes, the commonality is striking. One can see similarities also in Iliad’s classics and Mahabharata and Ramayana. For someone like me, it suggests interactions among our ancestors, either through trade routes or migration from a common stock in historical antiquity.

The differences in your and my explanations are because your worldview is shaped by your faith. My explanation, however, does not arise out of any faith. I believe religions to be man-made. To me, it makes sense that religions that developed in West Asia would build on the existing faiths and philosophies in West Asia, whereas those that developed on the subcontinent would build on philosophies that pre-existed in that area. One can see that when Islam came to India and people became aware of it, religions that developed after that, e.g., Sikhism or Kabir Panth, borrowed concepts from that religion into the new faiths.


Dullabhatti:

You made a valid distinction between “one’s right to convert” and “one’s right to convert others”. There may be distinction in ethics but my understanding of Indian laws is that both of them are allowed; at least this is what I understand from the freedom not only to practice but also to propagate one’s religion.

“Did Krishna write Bhagwat Gita or Mahabharat? My understanding was these scriptures were written later. Since Krishna was not the author himself, how can he claim in Bhagwat Gita that he is God? Please iss te thoRha chaan`ana pao te meharbani.”

One can take Ramayan and Mahabharat as historical facts narrated by later day writers (just as Bible was written by others) or as fiction created by people around some real and imaginary events. If you accept the former, then Krishna indeed claimed to be God while explaining the universe to Arjun, as the authors claimed. If you take the second approach, then it’s all fiction anyway and the answer is self-evident.

BTW in one of your interacts, you raised the political consequences of conversion. This is quite important and I, for one, have never underplayed its importance. However, this is perhaps valid only for conversion to Islam. I am not aware if any Christian convert claimed to be part of a Christian umma or brought trade and commerce to a halt in support of the oppressed Christians in Nigeria, Sudan, East Timor or even Nagaland. As for Islam, I cannot be certain that my own son or grandson wouldn’t become a jihadi or demand a separate Islamic state if I converted to Islam.

SN#147:
“They may very well not be a part of the religion at all. But for a majority of followers it is an integral part, in the way they perceive and practice their religion. So, any talk of understanding/reforming a religion without correcting these is just not gonna work.”

No disagreement there. One cannot cure a problem by being in denial. I am more optimistic about Hindus; the caste problem in the Hindu society is more serious than perhaps anything in Islam. But the elite have at least openly acknowledged it and have been trying to do something about it for the last two generations. Maybe, it will take another generations and two but the problem will finally be resolved. But I am less optimistic about Islam. Here, the elite’s response is to deny the source of the problem and attribute it to a distortion of Islam by claiming that sharia is not an integral part of Islam. Some of them may genuinely believe this to be the case and others are just plain hypocrites who want to put a spin on their faith without having to undertake difficult reforms.

Tahmed32:

“Pakistan on paper discourages religous freedom, but that is not reflected in the minds of the vast majority of Pakistanis”

This assertion needs to be examined. As you said, actions are more important than what’s on paper. I had in an earlier post asked how many Muslims have converted to another religion in Pakistan and lived to tell the tale? Could you please give one or two cases which were well publicised in the Pakistani media? It certainly couldn’t be because Islam is universally admired and being Muslim is a badge of honour which people wear with pride these days in the world? If you cannot give any such example, then facts support Urstruly and please be honest enough to admit that there is no freedom for a Muslim to convert to another religion and Pakistan is a living proof of that.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Hindus in India who have changed their religion; some of them have taken place in mass conversion. Ambedkar did it along with thousands of his followers in a public ceremony. There have been several high profile cases where men have changed their religion just to legally have more than one wife. There have been no riots against them. Even these days, there is a high profile case of Monica Bedi who converted to Islam to marry a suspected bomber of Bombay, Abu Salem. The only time someone reacted violently against such conversion, that I am aware of, was the killing of Australian missionary Stains, which you have of course pointed upteen times in your posts at chowk as an example of Hindu bigotry as exemplified at chowk, without telling which Hindu chowkie or prominent Hindu or organization supported his killer (even VHP condemned it!).

dullabhatti: suppression of an individual`s rights to think for himself makes a country weak, not strong. diversity of religion does not make a country weak unless it is accompanied by religious intolerance - the US has perhaps the world`s greatest diversity of religions and conversions from one faith to another is not an issue.

poolani: coming from someone who decries not poverty and widespread misery of the poor in india, but the fact that ``poverty is forcing the tribal community to embrace Christianity``, i consider it an honor to be considered the scum of the earth. i would be really insulted if you said i was like one of your heroes.

#166 ``Teresa and Missionaries of Charity are any day a more potent cancer than the church ever will be. ``

They certainly are - for hindu men like poolani arguing to keep hindus from opting out of hinduism. Mother Teresa is the worst nightmare of the rss thugs.

harishhyd #164 That convoluted definition of free will, tampered by ifs and buts, is obviously your definition of free will. it is not the english dictionary meaning of free will. look it up in an english dictionary, then come talk to me.

Re: # 40

Romair Sahib,

Excellent post. I think I will send you links of not only proud secularists but millitant secularists as well.

From you post you appear to be non fanatic Muslim. But sir rest assured if such people sprouted in Pak and abused your religion prophet etc and were given primacy of place in media then believe me you would return from Canuck not to rejoin PAF but Al Qaeda.

You can then forward the same to Mr YLH and see if secularism ``the true dictionary meaning that is`` is palatable.

Re: # 23

Dear Shri Stuka,

You really have the wrong end of the stick. Teresa and Missionaries of Charity are any day a more potent cancer than the church ever will be.

Remember organisations like Opus Drei are under a 100k in membership but they are the brain that controls the foot soldiers of papism.

What organisations like MoC have done is that they have made reconverted secularists like you focus on the C part when they are actually for the M part. And remember this is not a discussion of MI6 where C is the title of the Chief meaning C for Cumming which Ian Fleming Changed to M for Mansfield in James Bond.

People like tahmed32 are a scum of this world. I really do not know why Chowkies should tolerate him. I know even if he is blocked, he will reappear in a new attire. And that`s cowardice. And, dude, I do not owe you an explanation. To know about me you only have to do a Google search, but that is not the case with you. And this will be the last time I will be answering your mail. Do you think if any sane person will reply to the mails sent by bin Laden or Narendra Modi? And I am not a Hindu but a citizen of the world: this is to the other pals who thought I was touchy and a VHP guy. I am not going to rest my case.

#151 by tahmed32

[free will means the right to make a decision. no ifs and buts or questions on whether or not it was a wise decision.]

Free will - The word `free` means free of all inducements, coercion, or fear. If a decision is influenced by any of these factors, then it is by no means ``free``. Is it so difficult for you to understand this simple word that you type one meaningless post after another without giving so much as a thought to what it means?

samosa: if christians become hindus out of free choice that is fine. I dont care how many hindus or sikhs or muslims or christians you have in india. why should i? i dont care what religion a person follows as long as he does it out of his own free will. that is all i am saying.

#160 correction last line in first paragraph should read as ``as superior beings who think they know what is religiously/spiritually better for the poor and orphan since they are feeding their stomachs.... ``

since one person one vote became the rule of democracy and concept of self determination got importance in making or breaking countries...the issue of conversions is central political issue. but no one wants to talk about it because it is not politically correct.

Tahmed sahib, orphanage is already taking care of the kids, feeding them clothing them and hopefully educating them...what does converting them achieve? tell me how does it benefit them by converting? If the orphanage is already helping the kids - and I am sure it is good people who are helping the kids - then why convert them? why not educate them and let them decide when they become adults which religion to chose? Why ``doing good`` is dependent upon whether the person whom you are doing good is converted to your religon or not? In my view it is these orphanage people or missioneries who are acting as superior beings who think they know what is better for the poor and orphan being fed....

tell me why is it so hard to help a poor, orphan, sick and weak person without worrying about his religion?

BTW I think views of most of the Paks are not any different on the missioneries issue than most Hindus...if situation was reversed I am sure they will argue the same way. What if the western donor agencies send preachers along with their money to preach Christianity in Kashmir? it should be ok by your logic, after all it would be beneficial to the victims...I am sure billions can be spent by Christian right for that cause....donor fatigue shateegue uDD jayegi ikk damm.

Re: # 157
tahmed32 there will be a few more sikhs and christians in indian than hindus - so what??
According to your logic there is nothing wrong if there are even less christians. Thus, there is nothing wrong or bigoted about the babus....correct. You should not take offence if babus on chowks are against conversion.

#153 avkrishna

Shri tahmed is what is known as a ``soft islamist``. You may be familiar with soft hindutva -- our friend fits into the same model. Just as the true hindutvadi will always end up claiming the uniqueness or amazing specialness of hindu tradition, our friend tahmed has also from time to time enlightened us on the ``perfectness`` of islam. When confronted with contrary evidence, he will slip-and-slide away. Unfortunately knowledge of english just turns a bigot into an english-speaking bigot, nothing more.

dullabhatti: please see what i have to say about ``luring`` people to jang below.

you say you are find it disgusting that orphans are converted to sikhism. if you hold the welfare of the individual to be the goal, rather than the welfare of religion (and those who make a living by feeding off religion, i.e. priests etc., since the Almighty clearly does not need religion to make a living), then you should be very pleased that someone is taking care of those orphans who obviously have no where else to go. So there will be a few more sikhs and christians in indian than hindus - so what??

jang #154 doesnt change what i wrote - i said that india provides religious freedom on paper, but that is not evident in the minds of many hindus (on chowk at least), as expressed in so many different ways including this deep aversion to that most basic of religions freedoms, ``conversion`` to some other religion. Of course people get ``lured`` to things when they exercise their free will. Would anyone in his right mind exercise his free will to NOT get lured to anything (religion or whatever).

What you are clearly implying is that you know better than those who convert what is best for the latter - clearly you are in possession of a superior mind where, without even being in their shoes, you know what is best for those who convert to christianity.

Pakistan on paper discourages religous freedom, but that is not reflected in the minds of the vast majority of Pakistanis (again, on chowk at least, with the exception that proves the rule being urstruly). And no, i am not lying about urstruly - he is in fact two steps ahead of this article - he not only wants to discourage conversions - he wants to stone converts to death (see his post below).

Tahmed sahib, no matter what spin you give it, motivating people to change religion using material lures and lies is immoral and unethical...on top of that most of these people are illiterate, poor and vulnerable who are not in a position to make an informed decision...not exactly the situation for free will.

I abhor the conversion of weak, poor and vulnerable by anyone...few weeks ago Dilliwala or some one posted on UP a news item of some kids in a orphanage in East Punjab converting to Sikhism..these were the kids some as old as 10 yrs...living on the food and clothes given by these Sikh custodians of the orphanage...does that sound moral and ethical? I don`t think so. I was disgusted by that news.

This issue is different than an individual person going on a spiritual searh and finding some path he likes. It would be humans rights violation not to let that person follow what he wants.

#152
{While that may be true on paper, the fact is that religious freedom is deeply resented by a lot of Indians }

this is untrue. its conversions using tempral lures is what is resented, not religious freedom. also, this article merely reports that church is usign lures. if that is what denigrates it, its the churches problem. unless you prove that this article is a lie, there is no denigration of the church by this article. the church by using lures has has denigrated itself.

an yes, there is religious freedom in india, on paper, and in practice. e.g. you can get a passport without denigrating anybodys faith.

pakistanis, except you, have mostly have ignored this article as far as i can see. urstruly has not supported this article.

so, in conclusion, you are .....

# 152,

For a moment I thought, in the process of giving back to some of us who get really nasty (other boards), your general disposition might have changed. (Nothing wrong in retorting to some of them though, unfortunately that`s the only language they understand)

Glad to know that all`s well ;-)

Good Night,
- Avkrishna

avkrishna: this is what i wrote in #119 ``poolani: you have no case to rest - just the pandit-hate education of india that causes you to blame christian missionaries for ``converting`` people, instead of facing the truth about the primitive social habits (casteism etc.) that are universally condemned - except among hindu babus.``

OK, casteism was not the right example of ``primitive social habits`` that we are discussing here and i am sorry for that. instead of ``casteism etc.`` that should read ``suppression of religious freedom etc.`` I dont have a problem taking back something it is wrong.

And please dont tell me that India is a secular society and the Indian legal system provides for religious freedom. While that may be true on paper, the fact is that religious freedom is deeply resented by a lot of Indians - and this article denigrating christian missionaries as well as the support it received from indian posters but virtually none from Pakistanis (except urstruly, the exception that proves the rule) is clear evidence of that.

as for my being not as friendly as before - i still am sir. Why would i come to chowk if I disliked people here? I wish you and everyone all the best in your real lives. But I retain my right to free will and to rant about things that I think are worth ranting about. :-)

dullabhatti: ``If one is deliberately lied, duped, cheated into making a decision, I don`t call it free will.``

that may be your definition of free will. it is not the english language definition of free will. free will means the right to make a decision. no ifs and buts or questions on whether or not it was a wise decision. it is mere arrogance on the part of those who think they know better than someone else what is good for him.

This is disgusting. Not one post on Jinnah or gandhi or partition. What the feck is wrong with you people?

Re: # 141
DM, Caste is a part of Hinduism but nowhere Hinduism tells to discriminate among people of different castes. Since, Hinduism does not have a single book but I dont know if Ramayan, Mahabharat or Gita every talks about it.
Today caste is used to discriminate people but those who are doing it because of ignorance or selfish reason. India needs to get rid of casteism and only way its going to come is through education.

Re: # 145
Bhagvad Gita is a conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjun when Arjun becomes filled with doubt on the battlefield. Realising who his enemies are; relatives, beloved friends, and revered teachers.
To demonstrate the infinity of the unknowable Brahman, Krishna gives Arjun a glimpse of cosmic sight and allows the prince to see Him in all his divine glory. He reveals that He is fundamentally both the ultimate essence of being in the universe and also its material body.

Dost, Urstruly

Interesting discussion. Keep it going....

I am not sure if SameerJB is around. I would love his take on this.

Dostji,

[Thus anyone claiming that sharia is not an essential part of Islam or that Casteism is not a part of Hinduism is laying the foundation of a dishonest dialogue. ]

They may very well not be a part of the religion at all. But for a majority of followers it is an integral part, in the way they perceive and practice their religion. So, any talk of understanding/reforming a religion without correcting these is just not gonna work.

---

SN

Re: # 136
About kerala episode:
Loss of limb is a complete lie. That particular missionary was on a tourist visa. He was violating his visa as a tourist is not suppose to participate in missionary activities. And the reason for him to run away was that he would be arrested by police for violation of visa.
Riot usually involves lot more people than in that incident.

Graham staines murder if that is what you are talking about then it was a murder. Even the court said that VHP is not involved in it. Again it was a murder more than a riot.

#141 Dost ji you wrote ``The exception is Krishna who, in Bhagvad Gita, does claim to be God himself. But that too is one brief moment in the life of Krishna. And there are many who claim that Bhagvad Gita is really not part of Mahabharat but a stand-alone document which was inserted in the story of Mahabharat later on.``

Did Krishna write Bhagwat Gita or Mahabharat? My understanding was these scriptures were written later. Since Krishna was not the author himself, how can he claim in Bhagwat Gita that he is God? Please iss te thoRha chaan`ana pao te meharbani.

Dost

I think in olden times when human mind was still evolving and societies were primitive God sent his messengers who taught human beings about their Creator. The message was readily acceptable to those people because Cause-and-effect is so hardwired into our genes. However, later as the time passed, in each and every society man started thinking how could God who is so benevolent and who sustains me, how could He take my beloved child away from me. How could a God who is so merciful kill so many people in flood or earthquake. How does he allow bad things happen to me. Attributing all the bad things to that benevolent God was considered ultimate sin and blasphemy; so in order to be safe from blasphemy man created the concept of a good god and a bad god. Where there was a Mazda, there became an Aharman too. Man became a toy between these two dieties. This concept further developed and man started thinking, hey how could a God who sustains me and grows my crops can also bring flood that destroys my crops. So he argued that there must be a god of crops and harvest and another god for flood and disaster.

So then man thought it sounds so illogical and gods seem so petty who fight over my crop and my harvest of fish, so he assigned them a second tier as dieties. Whereas the concept of a Supreme Being remained intact who would intervene only in case those dieties became out of control and the misery of man became uncontrolled. That is the reason that there are identical attributes of gods and godesses in Hindu, Greek, Norsk, and Roman mythologies and almost all pagan religions.

Ironically, the core argument of Atheism is also that how can a benevolent God be Cruel at the same time. Why would he let small children die. How can he allow women to get raped and men go blind and die in misery?

Qura`n refers to first phenomenon as ``Shirk`` i.e. creating false gods along with Supreme Being. and second phenomenon as ``Kufr`` i.e. ouright denial that God even exists. A good portion of Qura`n is dedicated to these two phenomenon.

Islam stipulates that both good and bad are from God. And both good and bad are a test to the human being. God tests us when He blesses us with good, whether we spread his bounty around or not. And when bad things happen to us He tests us whether we remain loyal to Him or not. The pupose of life is to pass His tests with flying colors. Now that the human mind is primitive no more and his faculties of reasoning and understanding have developed to this degree this concept of test must be understandable for him.

tahmed sahib, fine I am Robertson and you are mother Teresa but before you wrote #104, you did write #54. If one is deliberately lied, duped, cheated into making a decision, I don`t call it free will.

Re: # 119
Tahmed,

For a person who takes exception to any misinterpretation from others about your remarks, you are quick to assume something about others` posts and accuse them.

No where did this author or I or others so far have even explicitly or silently condoned/supported casteism. But you start of accusing all of us being casteist (ex post 119) without even apologizing to us after that issue had been made clear..

I dont want any apologies but I would love to hear your take,

Thanks,

P.S: I have observed you being generally cordial over the years. Slightly surprised about the recent aggression, that`s all

Urstruly#118:
Before I write this post, may I say that while I miss the ``old`` urstruly`s wit and barbs, I like your new avatar more. It`s more earnest and persuasive style than the old. Now, to your post.

I think that if there is going to be a dialogue and understanding among religions, especially between Hindus and Muslims, it should be on the basis of honesty and truth and not on the basis of distortions of reality. Thus anyone claiming that sharia is not an essential part of Islam or that Casteism is not a part of Hinduism is laying the foundation of a dishonest dialogue.

Secondly, I am a bit uncomfortable talking about Hinduism as my knowledge of that religion is less than my knowledge of Islam and Sikhism. But I will share whatever imperfect knowledge I have and let others correct me when I falter.

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiv are not three deities but, according to the Hindu mythology, are the three manifestations of the same Supreme Being, Allah or Parmatma. In these manifestations, they perform separate roles, Brahma that of creator of the universe, Vishnu that of its preserver and Shiv that of the destroyer. Brahma and Shiv do not incarnate, all nine avtars of Hindus are incarnations of Vishnu, whose job it is to protect and preserve the balance in the universe.

As far as I know, Hindu avtars generally did not claim to be avtars, but the avtardom was attributed to them by later authors/poets/sages. The exception is Krishna who, in Bhagvad Gita, does claim to be God himself. But that too is one brief moment in the life of Krishna. And there are many who claim that Bhagvad Gita is really not part of Mahabharat but a stand-alone document which was inserted in the story of Mahabharat later on. As you can see, Hinduism lacks the definiteness and certainty that is characterisitc of the Abrahamic religion.

Most religions have two aspects - a moral code and a metaphysical explanation of the world. I think that most religions do more or less agree on the moral code, which can be encapsulated in a single commandment, ``Dont do unto others what you dont want them to do unto you!``. But there is no unanimity on the second part. Here, the eastern religions, in particular, show a tremendous diversity, with the underlying theme of karma and rebirth, two elements that seem to be missing in the Abrahamic faiths.

I also agree that division of socieities into some kind of a hierarchy was probably common to all societies, Hindus just seemed to have perfected it and more successful at retaining it for a longer period of time than other religions.

``As his horizon broadened one day he went into that grand temple and broke all the idols of the temple except one which was the idol of the highest diety. He put his hammer on the shoulder of that diety. Soon the priests and king found out that someone had broken all the idols. Every one suspected Abraham of the crime but when he was enquired he pointed to the idol of the chief diety and said don`t you see that he has the hammer on his shoulder. The king argued that it was just an idol how could he broke other idols.``

This is quite similar to what we read in our school books about the founder of the Arya Samaj sect of Hindus, Daya Nand. He saw that mice were eating the sweets donated to Lord Shiva on the night of Shivratri. He argued that how could an idol who could not protect himself from a mice protect other humans. He turned strictly against idol worship, which is what distinguishes Arya Samajis from Sanatanist Hindus.

If religion were just a private club for loonies and the misguided and those being taken advantage of, carrying on its practices behind closed doors with its incense and its candles and its dressing up and its peculiar rituals and its collections, that would be okay, more or less.

But it isn`t just a private club. It has taken custody of ``good``. Religion claims the right to determine what is good, and what is bad/evil, and it appropriates unto itself the right to tell the rest of us what to think and how to think on various subjects, and what `being bad` is.

To claim to speak with authority on behalf of a god on various subjects when the reality seems to be that they are just making it up on the back of an old envelope on a whim and they grab any old text and claim that text is the word of a god is fundamentally dishonest.

If religion can`t say, hand on heart, ``this is definitely what a god thinks, he told us so``, then they should shut up and stop making it up.

It is unfortunate that most religous comments to not contain the warning (even in small print): this or that is just a theory and may in the fullness of time be proved to be completely untrue or completely or partially true... we just don`t know at the moment and theologists are working on proofs but for the past 10,000 years have failed to find them. Noneless most monks, priests, churchwardens and choirboys think that for the time being it is seems a plausible theory even though plenty of people think it implausible, but hey their opinions aren`t worth a row of beans because ``generally accepted religious opinion`` overrides scepticism until the weight of evidence causes a theory to be regarded as untenable... eg `an eye for an eye` as defunct compared to flavour of the decade, the `turn the other cheek` ideology, but both are equally admissiblable and merely ideologies, yet the latter appears to be more acceptable, though the former was more acceptable in earler centuries. Priests who changed their minds and who now believe the `eye for an eye`ideology were of course misled and misleading earlier generations of students by wasting their time on something hardly anyone believes in nowadays. The religious community apologises in advance if by the time you read this text, the theory is disproved and replaced by something else... you will be credited for your time studying the history of religion and the daft theory which we now find amusingly naive, of which this may be one, or then again it may not, in which case you heard it first from us.``

It amuses me that the church - not known for its support for homosexuals - has been run by them for centuries.

Being a priest was one of the only ways of hiding your indifference to women in society without getting a red hot poker rammed up your jacksie.

... and let`s not forget nuns.

Why is it that religious people get very excited at finding a line in the holy book prohibiting homosexual acts, but they go all quiet when you point out the bits that talk about blood sacrifice or killing members of your own family to show your love of God? Sanctimonious cherry pickers, the lot of them.

We are put in this club or that (Muslim, Christian, Protestant, Church of the Yellow Rabbit) before we can think for ourselves. There, often, we tend to stay, even once we can think for ourselves. The music may be rather nice. The social gatherings may be rather nice. What being religious (and therefore righteous?) says about us may be rather nice. Too nice to leave, whatever we believe.

One has to distinguish between (a) being in a particular club (a matter of social convenience and status) and (b) believing what the club pretends to believe (an entirely different issue).

At a guess, probably most members of any particular religion don`t actually believe what the religion pretends to believe, but that isn`t a bar to attendance or membership. The more the merrier. So the farce that religion is, continues.

Children are the most influencible and that is why most religious target children to ingrain their blind beliefs, which become hard to erase later in life.

Seeing the direct and indirect religious conflicts around the world, should nt there be a minimum age, say 16, after which children can be exposed to this `opium` of the masses?

The problem with debates on religion is that they turn into an ``us-versus-them`` affair with all secularists branded as unreconstructed atheists and enemies of the faith, and all believers as irrational and fanatical. You cannot compare religion with science, but only with other religions. Political religion is a real danger in the future.

Will the world ever manage to get rid of religion? Probably not. We are stuck with it.
I am always shocked when those who consider themselves to be `intelligent` (I am thinking of Bush and Blair, among others) continue to believe that their lives are controlled by a man who lives in the sky.

If an alien landed from another planet and was told `I have never seen God, I just know he`s there, and he can see what everyone is doing at the same time, and I go into a building and sing songs to Him..` they would faint with incredulity.
Not to mention `when I am dead, I will carry on living, if I behave myself now`...

Unfortunately people who believe this sort of stuff have the ear and maybe heart (if not brain) of the world`s only remaining super-power. Christianity doesn`t have the monopoly on religious bigots. Religion and its obsession with genitalia may be mildly amusing at first glance....but sadly I don`t think it`s harmless and I don`t think it`s going away.

jang #130 I expect dullabhatti (based on his earlier posts) to show a higher standard of rational discussion than Pat Robertson (or Jay Thakeray or Urstruly for that matter).

dullabhatti #127: In #104, you started with my correction to Dost Mittar by quoting this from me: ``what i am arguing for is not conversions, but in the right of the individual to convert if he/she wishes. that is all, so please dont read more into it than what i am saying. `` and you contradicted what I wrote by saying ``Tahmed, thats not what you were advocating in previous posts. `` and followed it up with bold lettered statements clearly implying that I this is not what I have been saying all along.

Well sir, this is exactly what I have been arguing for all along as you could easily see from the earlier posts. So please next time instead of simply claiming I said something, take the trouble of cutting and pasting what I wrote and THEN challenging it if you dont agree. Then we might even have a discussion that gets somewhere.

this would be a good strategy:

hindu organizations get involved and provide benefits to the tribals and they revert back to hinduism. then christian missionaries up the stake and provide better benefits to the tribals and they convert back to christianity. This loop goes on till the tribals become wealthy and then they forsake religion for Marx.

Re: # 133

Riots took place in Kerala following the activities of some foreign missionaries. They resulted in the loss of limb of the missionary, and a court order to leave.

In Orissa too, a missionary was burnt alive and peace talks were held between the extremist groups.

Re: # 133

Riots took place in Kerala following the activities of some foreign missionaries. They resulted in the loss of limb of the missionary, and a court order to leave.

In Orissa too, a missionary was burnt alive and peace talks were held between the extremist groups.

Re: # 133

India will have a lot more time for development if it stopped being religious.

Only the VHP and the christian missionaries know what they decided upon. I am only infering that the VHP knows this is happening and is willing to let it go, particularly with a BJP in government, which can be blown away if the VHP so want it.

The ground reality is that people are being converted. And Modi is doing nothing to stop it.

Re: # 132
You said in 126 The second being that a compromise between the VHP and christian missionaries talked about a few months ago were only being given effect.
and again in 131 Can you tell me what the christian organisation compromised with the VHP in its talks following similar conversion related riots?
That is what I am asking as I have not heard of any compromise or even any meeting to discuss compromise between VHP and others.
Neither I have heard about conversion riots in ahmedabad or other cities of Gujarat.
You do agree that there is not relation in being atheist and prosperous.

Re: # 131

Can you tell me what the christian organisation compromised with the VHP in its talks following similar conversion related riots?

Re: # 126
I wonder from where you get your information. Modi has not buckeled from international or ngo pressure. He is going strong as ever in gujarat.
Conversions happened in gujarat before BJP or Modis times and they are happening as we speak now. Its illegal under Indian Law to stop conversion.
I have not heard about any compromise by VHP/Missionaries.
Its misleading to quote chinese example to relate prosperity with being athetist as people can cite more examples to properous religious countries like japan and usa. China has only recently cross $1000 per capita income and according to that standard there are countries like malaysia (muslim) and thailand (buddhist) can be considered prosperous.

tahmed takes southern-baptist hate-pamphlets in stride, but talk of a lemon, wo dulle se ruth gaya.

its just a sales metaphor tahamed ;-)

I mean #54..... not #25.

I read #25 and give analogy of lemon car that if one is lied to convert and then later on finds out the lie and even if can convert back....it does not matter, damage has already been done...similar to the car that will now sell for half the price. Read #25 and then my analogy. My analogy is in direct response to #25.

#120 You are acting very touchy...I swear to My God that when I gave the example of lemon car I was not refering to your religion but explaining the concept of being tricked/bribed/duped in general and that too in holiest of all things on earth a religion. Do I think at times Islam is a lemon religion? yes I do...(so here it is if I had to say that I will say that clearly not through analogies). But not while giving this analogy...This analogy was simply to make one emphathize with the feeling of getting bribed or cheated....something that you clearly stated was ok to do while offering someone conversion..or at least conversion from Hinduism since that is beneficial to the converted, and hence it is ok to benefit him even if missionaries end up bribing him.

re other post...if you know bolded words are not yours, I know and clarify they are not yours, other readers who are reading this know you did not say those words, then How am I misrepresenting your views?

Re: # 113

Poolani, there are several theories behind Gujarat being open to conversions. The first being of course that Modi himself was subject to pressures from the international fora for the riots there.

The second being that a compromise between the VHP and christian missionaries talked about a few months ago were only being given effect.

Whatever the reason, the blind follow the blind.

China is the best example I can think of as an atheist country which flourished.

If India stopped being religious, it might just stop being poor too.

Re: # 113

Poolani, there are several theories behind Gujarat being open to conversions. The first being of course that Modi himself was subject to pressures from the international fora for the riots there.

The second being that a compromise between the VHP and christian missionaries talked about a few months ago were only being given effect.

Whatever the reason, the blind follow the blind.

China is the best example I can think of as an atheist country which flourished.

If India stopped being religious, it might just stop being poor too.

Urstruly (#111),

You ignore the possibility that books of ahadith too suffered corruption, just like Torah and New Testament did. And that’s only one example of gap in your reasoning.

You listed two criteria to verify authenticity of Biblical scripture: (1) Quran, and (2) words/actions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) (presumably as recorded by historians).

What if these two criteria contradict each other? On several issues Quran says one thing, but according to recorded ahadith, the dear Prophet (pbuh) did the opposite. You are blowing smoke when you ignore blatant contradictions between Quran and recorded ahadith.

Furthermore, Quran modifies divine law in relation to earlier scriptures, as it addresses the entire mankind for all times to come. As I pointed out (post #94), Quran admits to such changes and to abrogation of parts of earlier teachings as needed.

In short, your reasoning defies reality and fails to add up.

#113 Poolani
You brought up an important topic that has generated some interesting discussion. Interactions on any board in this forum since it is unmoderated tend to meander, so what?
If you`re concerned about quality, then rest assured that it`s not your fault. tahmed32 has the uncanny ability to turn any board into a pig sty..

If religion were just a private club for loonies and the misguided and those being taken advantage of, carrying on its practices behind closed doors with its incense and its candles and its dressing up and its peculiar rituals and its collections, that would be okay, more or less.

But it isn`t just a private club. It has taken custody of ``good``. Religion claims the right to determine what is good, and what is bad/evil, and it appropriates unto itself the right to tell the rest of us what to think and how to think on various subjects, and what `being bad` is.

To claim to speak with authority on behalf of a god on various subjects when the reality seems to be that they are just making it up on the back of an old envelope on a whim and they grab any old text and claim that text is the word of a god is fundamentally dishonest.

If religion can`t say, hand on heart, ``this is definitely what a god thinks, he told us so``, then they should shut up and stop making it up.

It is unfortunate that most religous comments to not contain the warning (even in small print): this or that is just a theory and may in the fullness of time be proved to be completely untrue or completely or partially true... we just don`t know at the moment and theologists are working on proofs but for the past 10,000 years have failed to find them. Noneless most monks, priests, churchwardens and choirboys think that for the time being it is seems a plausible theory even though plenty of people think it implausible, but hey their opinions aren`t worth a row of beans because ``generally accepted religious opinion`` overrides scepticism until the weight of evidence causes a theory to be regarded as untenable... eg `an eye for an eye` as defunct compared to flavour of the decade, the `turn the other cheek` ideology, but both are equally admissiblable and merely ideologies, yet the latter appears to be more acceptable, though the former was more acceptable in earler centuries. Priests who changed their minds and who now believe the `eye for an eye`ideology were of course misled and misleading earlier generations of students by wasting their time on something hardly anyone believes in nowadays. The religious community apologises in advance if by the time you read this text, the theory is disproved and replaced by something else... you will be credited for your time studying the history of religion and the daft theory which we now find amusingly naive, of which this may be one, or then again it may not, in which case you heard it first from us.``

It amuses me that the church - not known for its support for homosexuals - has been run by them for centuries.

Being a priest was one of the only ways of hiding your indifference to women in society without getting a red hot poker rammed up your jacksie.

... and let`s not forget nuns.

Why is it that religious people get very excited at finding a line in the holy book prohibiting homosexual acts, but they go all quiet when you point out the bits that talk about blood sacrifice or killing members of your own family to show your love of God? Sanctimonious cherry pickers, the lot of them.

We are put in this club or that (Muslim, Christian, Protestant, Church of the Yellow Rabbit) before we can think for ourselves. There, often, we tend to stay, even once we can think for ourselves. The music may be rather nice. The social gatherings may be rather nice. What being religious (and therefore righteous?) says about us may be rather nice. Too nice to leave, whatever we believe.

One has to distinguish between (a) being in a particular club (a matter of social convenience and status) and (b) believing what the club pretends to believe (an entirely different issue).

At a guess, probably most members of any particular religion don`t actually believe what the religion pretends to believe, but that isn`t a bar to attendance or membership. The more the merrier. So the farce that religion is, continues.

Children are the most influencible and that is why most religious target children to ingrain their blind beliefs, which become hard to erase later in life.

Seeing the direct and indirect religious conflicts around the world, should nt there be a minimum age, say 16, after which children can be exposed to this `opium` of the masses?

The problem with debates on religion is that they turn into an ``us-versus-them`` affair with all secularists branded as unreconstructed atheists and enemies of the faith, and all believers as irrational and fanatical. You cannot compare religion with science, but only with other religions. Political religion is a real danger in the future.

Will the world ever manage to get rid of religion? Probably not. We are stuck with it.
I am always shocked when those who consider themselves to be `intelligent` (I am thinking of Bush and Blair, among others) continue to believe that their lives are controlled by a man who lives in the sky.

If an alien landed from another planet and was told `I have never seen God, I just know he`s there, and he can see what everyone is doing at the same time, and I go into a building and sing songs to Him..` they would faint with incredulity.
Not to mention `when I am dead, I will carry on living, if I behave myself now`...

Unfortunately people who believe this sort of stuff have the ear and maybe heart (if not brain) of the world`s only remaining super-power. Christianity doesn`t have the monopoly on religious bigots. Religion and its obsession with genitalia may be mildly amusing at first glance....but sadly I don`t think it`s harmless and I don`t think it`s going away.

Re: # 119
tahmed32, you have made up the mind the any hindus posting on this forum is a blind to the problems posed by caste discrimination even though many (or all) hindu chowkies are against it.
People like me or avkrishna have continously agreed that indians have right to change the religion and also indians have right to propogate their religion. But what we are against is lies, bribes and cheating by missionaries to convert people including insulting hinduism.
You are the one who brought pakistan in this discussion in post #10. The blasphemy laws of pakistan make it very difficult for missionaries to convert while there are no such laws in India and thus you cannot compare between issues raised by hindus and pakistani.

dullabhatti - you are totally confusing, sir. you bring up the lemon car analogy in trying to tell me that islam is a lemon. i respond to it, and now you ask me to leave religion out of it.

you write a post that clearly misrepresents my views, and instead of apologizing you claim it wasnt supposed to represent my views.

i am disappointed since i expected a more intelligent response from you. that is all.

poolani: you have no case to rest - just the pandit-hate education of india that causes you to blame christian missionaries for ``converting`` people, instead of facing the truth about the primitive social habits (casteism etc.) that are universally condemned - except among hindu babus.

Dost:

It is true that unlike Abrahamic faiths Hinduism does not put forth the concept of ``prophets & prophethood``. But in fact it introduces a concept of avtar i.e. God Himslef descends upon humans to guide them to Divinity. But there are two interesting points to ponder.

1. Thruough my limited study of Bhagvad Gita and some other Hindu religious text I have seen that these avtars refer to Divinity as a third person. Therefore, it contradicts the assertion that they themselves were incarnation of God.

2. If you look at the concept of avatar it becomes abunduntly clear that these avatars are considered the re-incarnation of three main dieties i.e. Vishnu, Shiva and the third one I forgot; whereas Bhgwan that is Supreme Being is considered above and seperate from these second order dieties.


The point is that, it could be that the concept of Prophets i.e. messengers from Bhagwan that may have got corrupted. Similar corruption has occured in Abrahamic faiths as well. A classical example is the nation of Prophet Abraham (pbuh). Only yesterday I was reading about him. There is an incredible similarity between his nation and the Hindu religion as we know it today. Just like Hinduism society was divided into three casts (this is before Abraham started preaching Islam). The top class was the rulers and priests; the second class was military, traders, business peopel etc. and the third class was that of workers and slaves. Please keep in mind that not only these facts are given in Qura`n but latest excavations and finding of written tablets in the Iraqi city of Urr has confirmed what Qura`n has stipulated. The lead excavator Sir Leaonard Wooley (1955) and translator of the tablets CHW John (1903) have corroborated the Qura`nic tradition.

Anyway, just like Hinduism there was a concept of religious prostitution i.e. Devdaasi in that nation too. The nation beleived in one Supreme God like Bhagwan however it also worshiped second order dieties as well. The top memeber of ruling class i.e. King or the high priest were considered the avtar of those dieties. Just like Hinduism they worshiped the things of nature with the concept of One-in-all, which is also the Hindu concept. Interestingly enough Abraham (pbuh) was the son of the highest priest. And even more interesting is the fact that Abraham`s departure towards Islam was through secular reasoning. Qura`n has mentioned his metamorphoses with quite a detail. According to Quranic tradition Abraham was one day thinking who truly is his God among a lybarinth of dieties when he saw a bright star in the sky. The star looked so beautiful that he said that this might be my God but when the star set on the horizon he reasoned that one that sets cannot be a god; he did the similar reasoning with moon, sun, and then other creations of nature and he found out that all the phenomenon of nature are nothing but the vassals of certain laws and timing. So he reasoned that one who is a vassal himself cannot be the god. As his horizon broadened one day he went into that grand temple and broke all the idols of the temple except one which was the idol of the highest diety. He put his hammer on the shoulder of that diety. Soon the priests and king found out that someone had broken all the idols. Every one suspected Abraham of the crime but when he was enquired he pointed to the idol of the chief diety and said don`t you see that he has the hammer on his shoulder. The king argued that it was just an idol how could he broke other idols. He could not even move a fly from its nose. The Abraham`s reply was, then how could he be God. According to Qura`n that was the moment of truth for Abraham. It was that Newtonian moment when Newton discovered that the things always fall to the ground. It was that magical moment when Abraham realized that Allah is the true and only God and He is free of the bounds of All-in-one- and one-in-all. It was that moment when Abraham realized that His Creator is Absolute.

So Abraham did not become Muslim because of a revelation but because he found God through the evidence that was all around him all the time, since the day he was born. That magical moment; that Newtonian moment was however, a gift from Divinity to him.

The point of this discussion is that we must accept Allahs edict that he has sent guidance to all nations across the globe. This guidance was that of Monotheism i.e. Tauheed. It is the man and time that corrupted His guidance and His message later.

kaurasach #109 I asked you a number of straight questions, you avoided them by referring to something about Dost Mittar saying something to me. As for your kidnapping muslim women in India - instead of talking, go ahead and do it. Dont waste my time impressing me with your disgusting mindset while avoiding questions you cant answer.

all religions strive for the same thing, conquest of fear of death and the unknown. (puranic) hindu religion tries to bind god in idols, muslim religion goes to the source, and binds the human mind itself.

Urstruly#114

You sound like tahmeds32 :-)

...But you still are thinking in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic framework which is not applicable to Indic faiths, even though they are inclusive of monotheism.

The Abrahmic faiths all depend upon divine messages through human prophets. This is not the case with Eastern religions - and I think that I could also include Chinese and Japanese religions in this. Eastern religions encompass several philosophies, faiths, rituals and customs. The concept of a timeless entity is, of course, not unknown to Indic faiths. The word is ``Akaal`` and in Sikh religion God is often referred to as Akaal-Purukh.

As far as I know, and people more knowledgeable than me can correct me, Hindu religion does not limit itself to any particular belief and its system encompasses a wide spectrum from atheism to monoism and monotheism. And Buddha, whom many Muslims now give the status of a prophet, did not bring any divine message, and in fact frequently thought of as agnostic as to the existence of God.

To my non-religious minds, religions grew on exisiting belief systems. For some reason, the concept of human prophets took hold in the Middle East and all religions in that area have more in common with one another than with those outside that region. Similarly, the concept of karma, reincarnation, somehow took hold on the subcontinent and all religions that started here incorporate that concept as a basic premise. They have more in common with each other than with the faiths that developed in West Asia.

Dost

The more I think about it and more I read about it, I become even more convinced that the origin or root of all religions is one and the same. The core teaching of all religions is monotheism and all religions direct human beings towards one God. The later additions like addition of smaller dieties, or elevating ordaniry human beings to the level of God, like Christians corrupted their religion to make Jesus (pbuh) as God Himself; or Jews making Ezra (pbuh) as the son of God; or making of kings and other high priests as ``avtars`` i.e. God-incarnates are all man made innovations. The human mind works at two levels here:

1. When it (human mind) cannot ``visualize`` an unseen God it creates its images in the form of idols, pictures as icons first. These icons soon turn into iconoclasty and then the Original Divine is put asside because it is conveniet to orient oneself to a physical object rather than an abstract concept. Of course it all starts with best of intentions but then turns into an unavoidable practice.

2. Human mind in its primitive state cannot visualize an Entity which do not share any human attributes. So they start attributing human attributes to the divinity. For example, human mind is bound by a dimension called time; so in our efforts to understan that Entity we think that that Entity must also be bound by that dimension. We also start thinking that like human beings He must have children, parents or He must decend up on us in human form from time to time. But fact of the matter is that these are all the tricks that our mind plays on us.

It was a pleasure watching more than 2000 page views for my article and a huge number of interactions. But over the last two days, the debate has ventured out from the main theme of the report (yes, it was just a spot report, and I was not making any editorial stand here; this can come later). But lot of you people have had missed the point and digressed from the subject. Suddenly it became a fight between Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists and a squirmish between India haters and Pakistan haters, which is sad. That was not the purpose of the article. And I could also find some people, like Dilip Chitre, whom I know personally, saying it is a one-sided view and some even said that I am a VHP sympathisers, though in not as many words. I am hurt. I am nothing except that, and I am a vociferous critic in my words and deeds against these spineless guys. And so is my stand against Muslim and Christian fundamentalists too. Well, I rest my case...

Urstruly#96:

When thinking of Hindus, Sikhs, Budhhist, Jains or any other Indic religion, it would be helpful not to have Judeo-Christian-Islamic framework. Manusmriti is not comparable to Torah, Bible or Quran. I have never seen Manusmriti in my life and had not even heard of it until I was quite old.

From what I have read, Manusmriti does not talk about apostacy, as the concept did not even exist in Indic relgions. However, it does seem to prescribe brutal punishments for lower caste men who perform rituals they were not supposed to perform or have an affair with an upper caste girl. I wonder if this is the real basis of honour killings. Even to this day, one finds that in rural India, a lower caste boy is beaten or even murdered for daring to have an affair with an upper caste girl. From my understanding of the Pakistani society, a choora/bhangi caught having an affair with a girl of oonchi-zaat would perhaps also meet similar fate.

Romair # 98

The Holy Qura`n discusses in detail both the Jews and Christians and their books etc. As a matter of fact more than half of the book is dedicated on this subject. The Holy Qura`n makes it explicitly clear that it is incumbent on Muslim to believe that the Torah and Bible are true word of God.

A common conception is that by Torah it is meant five original books of Old Testament and by Bible it is meant the four books of New Testament i.e. Mathew, Luke, Marks and John. But it is an agreed fact that all the nine above mentioned books have been altered by Christians and Jews in several ways, and Qura`n attests to this fact as well. So in Qura`n, one of the reason that God mentions why he sent another Prophet (Mohammad pbuh) to them was because of that corruption that had happened in their books.

Briefly, Torah is the collection of all the revelations that were made to Moses during the course of 40 years of his prophethood; it also includes the first ten commandments that he received on mount Sinai in the form of stone tablets. Moses (pbuh) compiled those revelations in the form of a book and made 12 copies; giving each Jewish tribe a copy. The original was given to Levi tribe. These copies remained intact until the first destruction of the Temple Mount. IN that destruction all copies were destroyed while Levis kept the original book hidden from invaders. As the time went by they, forgot about their hidden possession.. A couple of centuries later when Jews again took power, during the reign of Joshua (pbuh) this said copy was re-discovered (Kings, Chapter 22, verse 8-13). However this copy was lost permanently when second destruction of Jerusalem happened. A few decades later God sent Prophet Ezra (pbuh) upon them who compiled the Torah again in 17 volumes. These volumes contained some of the actual edicts from the original Torah, which were taken from the oral tradition of tribal elders along with a detailed history of Israelites. So in short the books of Old testament that we have now, was compiled by Ezra (pbuh) and those books contain, history of Isrealites, biography of Moses i.e. his ahadith and of course some of the text from the original Torah that was revealed to Moses.

Similarly, the New Testament or Christian Bible is actually a collection of four books. Since the Prophethood of Jesus (pbuh) lasted only three years and it is not known whether he was able to compile his revelations in the form of book during his life time. However, a serious effort to compile all the sayings of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was undertaken approximately 90 years after he departed this world. Same as Torah, these compilations have three components – biography of Jesus (pbuh), his sayings, and some of text that may have been revealed to him. If you look at the bible, at several places it discusses the matters in the terms such as “Jesus said so…” or “then Jesus did that…..” it becomes clear from the context that it is a third person who is writing the biographical note and hence it is not a divine text.

So in either case it is almost impossible to separate what is actually the revelations and what is the altered or additional part. But despite that fact Qura’n explicitly stipulates Muslims to have faith in Torah and Bible. But the question naturally emerges, which Bible or which part of Torah? In order to address this dilemma Qura’n puts forth two criterion of verifying the authenticity of parts of Torah and Bible:

1. It must not contradict Qura’n
2. The judgement lies with Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) to verify the authenticity by his word and action.

These two criterion have been inferred by jurists through the verse 3 of the Chapter The House of Imran 3:3, which stipulates;

“It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).”