I disagree.
I do not think that he is betraying his own people.
Telling truth can never be a betrayel, no matter who is saying that to whom.
View those clips also.
with love,
sanjay
Zinnat, I have some questions:
1.) Are you Muslim?
2.) This thread is in the wrong subforum because Islam means a religious community, right?
3.) Or Islam does not mean a religious but a political community, then this thread is in the right subforum, right?
4.) Because you have chosen this subforum, I conclude that you assume that the Islam is not a religious but a political community, right?
I didn’t say that he actually is betraying anyone. I said “destine to be seen as”, accused of. Just as you did not attend to the detail of what I said yet reacted to disfavor, they will not attend to the detail of what he said but merely react to disfavor. You proved my point.
Truth be known, that isn’t entirely true. No one can ever tell the total truth and thus is stuck giving partial truth. He can give wise partial truth or unwise, but he has no choice but to do merely one or the other. In either case, he has not exactly “told the truth”. Truth telling is trickier than that. The effort is to give “wise partial truth” rather than “unwise partial truth”.
Since everyone is stuck knowing only partial truths and very much misinformation, it is really difficult to speak “wise partial truth”. The person is going to be attacked regardless, but wise partial truth tends to bring less attack. So when preaching that a crazed group of people are wrong, it might be unwise because of the attack that is destined to follow (just as with your very mild form of reaction/attack back at me with your last post).
He is telling a great many people that they are wrong and should be shunned. Those people are not going to like that. They will become his enemies, instantly and passionately. They will ignore any truth relating to what he has said. They will spread the rumor that he is lying or deranged in some way. It doesn’t really matter much what anyone says to hostile people if it doesn’t appear to support their hostility.
Just look what happened to Jesus when he tried to explain to the Jews that God is about love. People, especially in that neck of the woods, are passionately presumptuous and get angrily hostile very easily.
Not at all. I am a traditional Hindu.
No.
This thread has nothing to with what is in the Islam, but what is the percertion of the society about it.
Having said that, if the mod would shift the thread, i have no objection either. But, i do not think that would be right decision.
with love,
sanjay
Arminius,
For more clarification, i am a proud Hindu, but even if i were a Muslim, i would not be ashamed of that either.
with love,
sanjay
So you are a “traditional Hindu”, as you said, and yet you defend the Islam. That reminds me of the modern Christians of the Occidental culture, thus the Catholics and Protestant Christians, because many of them also defend the Islam in order to destroy their own religious community. So why I am saying that? The modern Occidental Christianity is the only religious community which destroys itself. Today Christianity is the most attacked religious community. So it is more attacked than Islam. Christianity is attacked by other religious systems and also by itself.
That’s true. 
{tis shame}
I noted long ago that Christianity seems to have given up on itself. But that’s what comes from not really understanding your adversary.
Not exactly, James.
The fact of the matter is that he is not just an ordinary cleric. He is seen as the master of Quran and Islamic issues within the Muslim intellectualls and educated middle class. He has a lot of followers who recpect and obey him too. That is why he is not short of money either.
During his last demonstration at Islamabad almost one year ago, he gathered such a huge crowd and maintained it for 2-3 days there, that Pakistani PM was forced to invite him to talk and accepted his demands at that time, though nothing much happened in the end.
But, he is enough popular to be taken seriously.
Philosophically, you are not wrong, James.
But, does that mean that all should close their eyes, ears and mouths and sit in the corner?
That does not serve the purpose either.
Secondly, if no one can neither know nor tell the complete truth, what is the solution?
That is all true. I know that happens and he knows that too. That is why he does not live permanetly in Pakistan but in Canada as he has dual citizenship.
But, at least he is honest and have the courage to display it, even at the cost of his life.
Some hate him but some respect him too, even in the hardcore Arab countries. He is at least giving the vioce to those who see the misuse of Islam but cannot help it.
And, he is doing far more that only preaching. His organization runs many schools in Pakistan. He has founded a political party and been parlimentarian himself too in the past, though he resigned later on some issues.
That is true and Jesus knew that by hook or by crook, one day they will win over him too. Did he not tell that already?
But, he still did what should be done. Knowing his defeat and fate did not force him to compromise with his mision.
A very few use to have the courage to do that.
Secondly, had Jesus done the opposite and kept silent, there would be no Christianity either as we know it today.
Today, no body remembers those Jews but everybody remembers Jesus.
James, sometimes one has to do what should be done, irrespecitve of the result would be. Sometimes, efforts become more important and effective than the results.
with love,
sanjay
I don’t know any Western Christian who would say: “I am a proud Christian”. This Christian would not survive the agitation of the Western media. And that fits exactly to what I said in my last post.
Zinnat, how can you know whether or not you are ashamed, if you were a Muslim? You are no Muslim!
Arminius,
I am defending truth, not Islam. And, by the way, i defend Christianity too in the same way.
It is neither my fault nor i can help it for the simple reason that i do not see much wrong in either of those.
My knowledge/faith in Hinduism does not restrict me to defend Islam. However, it may be diificult for a Muslim or a Christian to do the same for Hinduism. I know their reasons.
Secondly, my guess is that you have not studied Hinduism much, otherwise you would have not said this.
[u]Barring Deistic subsets, Hinduism is more philosophy than a conventional religion. It is quite different from Abrahamic religions in this reagard.
Secondly, besides scricptures, when it comes to the details of spiritual practices like yoga and meditation, there is no difference between Vedanta, Buddhism and Sufism, except language[/u].
And, that is my real interest because that is the real essense of any religion. All the rest that we see in the religious scriptures, is derived or concluded from that.
with love,
sanjay
You are saying that you defend Islam and that you are no Muslim, but merely defending the truth. So, I conclude that for you the Islam belongs to the truth, and you mean “reality”, when you use the word “truth”. Right? That’s important because reality and truth are not the same. Religious communities are a part of reality, regardless of whether they are also a part of truth or not; but if religious communities are a part of truth, then they are always also a part of reality.
Okay.
That is what a modern Western Christian also says. But Christianity is originally a so-called “monotheistic” religion, and since it has become modern it demands defending other religions, especially other “monotheistic” religions. So, what you are saying is something which belongs thematically to the Islam but refers to your own religion, the Hinduism. Hinduism as a whole is no so-called “monotheistic” but a “polytheistic” religion. And in polytheistic religions the defense of other religions is not as big a problem as in “monotheistic” religions because polytheistic religions are able to integrate other religions. Thus: when Christianity defends other religions, then it attacks itself because it is actually a “monotheistic” religion; and because the modern Western Christianiity has been destroying itself more and more since the beginning of its modern times it probably has been changing from a monotheistic to a polytheistic religion.
And if all religions do that what the modern Western Christianity has been doing since the beginning of its modern times, then there would merely be polytheistic religions. And polytheistic religions can also be called as one polytheistic religion, if there is nomonotheistic religion anymore (maybe that will be the case in future). A good omen for you and your religion, Zinnat.
Maybe for 99% of the humans in the future the religion will be a polytheistic one (similar to what the monotheists call heathendom), the society and its economy and policy either a “Brazilanised” one with an impending dominance of the machines, or similar to that of the hunters and collectors of the past.
Not for many modern Western Christians. But probably you don’t know much about Christianity and other “monotheistic” religions (see above and below).
Really? One can doubt that.
Said what? I knew much more about Hinduism than you about Christianity.
So, thanks for your insults and good bye.
Zinnat was trying to defend the truth about Islam, not trying to defend that Islam IS truth. He has done the same concerning Christianity. He is saying that someone has a misunderstanding of what Islam or perhaps Christianity is really about and he is trying to set the story straight. He is not claiming that any of them are necessarily religions of Truth (else he would be defending RM:AO 
).
If they cannot say that, it simply means that they neither understand Jesus/Christianity nor true Christians either, forget about being proud. That is out of the question.
By the way, you will not find every Hindu defending Islam and Christianity either.
Yes, media effects, though it is not the sole reason.
I can know that by looking into what exactly Islam stands for. By doing that, i can assume what would be my thinking about Islam, if i were a Muslim.
with love,
sanjay
If you are interpreting reality as whatever has been happened or happening in the name of Islam, then i am certainly not supporting that in totality.
I am supproting whatever truth is in Islam, which i think is in the majority. The same is with Christianity.
I doubt that. But, i may be wrong, given the fact that odds are in the favor that you know about their mindset more than me.
Christianity is certainly a monotheistic religion. There is no doubt about that whatsoever.
This is from where the problem starts. Christians (mostly) do not understand/interpret Christianity how it should be done. They even do not follow what Jesus said in this regard.
Did Jesus ever ask not to follow what Moses said? Yes, he clarifed many issues and made it a simple read for the masses.
Christianity is nothing but Jesus’s interpretation of the Moses with some amendments and additions, which were required by the time to avoid masses from confusion prevailed at that time. And, in the same way, Islam/Quran/Mohammad not once asked to disrespect either Moses or Jesus. On the contrary, the fact of the matter is that Quran gives more importance to Moses than Mohammad itself in some regards. Islam says that every Prophet was given a specific task and made competent specifically for it. Every prophet, right from Adam to Mohammad, had a special seal/marking, Just as members here at ILP use to have a specific singnature.
But, do the adherants of these three religions folllow the directions of their original leaders? People neither understand nor do that, much less in the spirit than the letter, though the focus should be more on the spirit than the letter.
All these religions are a part of greter Abramics, from Adam to Mohammad. They lost their true purpose and meaning if taken individualy.
Secondly, there is some difference between not following and demeaning/hating. Not fillowing is fine and acceptable but demeaning is not. Any religion does not need to support others. Not demaning is enough.
Believe what you want or find worthy to believe and let others do the same, but have the patience to listen to the criticism too. Discuss, debate and argue but not demean, hate or try to force the issue with unwarrented power.
Hinduism is more philosophy/idealogy than a conventional religion. It also tells how to make and use tools too besides telling about the final product. Other religions lack this quality as they talk about the product only, not tools.
No matter what Christianity did/doing, the world would ultimately become monotheistic, but not in a literal sense. Sooner or later, no matter how late it would be, human race will realize the ultimate truth. That truth will become a sole religion, though it would comprise almost all present ones too, but with some necessary amendments and new inclusions.
Humans are destined to that future. That is inevitable, no matter how impossible it may look at present.
That is what i was saying about the tools and the product issue.
Hinduism does not dictate terms up to the last destination. It tells the way, give you tools, show the assembly line, but does not assemble the final product for you. It says do it yourself by using given guidelines and tools. Consult me if there is any need but do not expect me to do it for you.
On the other hand, Abrahamic religions offer final product only. They neither give tools nor tell the method how to make it. All they say that this is going to be in the last. Thus, no need to go in the details of the processing as that may confuse you. You can have it as it is.
Lord Krisna says the same to Arjun in Mahabharat/Gita about his hesitation to fight against his own relatives.
[b] Lord Krisna says do not hesitate, discern the good and just from evil and unjust, and do exactly what should be done by you under the given circumstances, irrespective of what will be the outcome and to what extent you can influence that, and also do not worry how the outcome may affect the others too.
Your discreation and duty ends at your honest and objective discerning and consequent action taken. That is all. The result is neither in your hand nor you are competent enough to comprehend it its full capacity, thus forget about that and do not try to discount that in your thinking and action[/b].
That is precisely what i am trying to do. Hinduism gives me the choice to disern good from bad on my own. That is why i can defend whatever truth i find in other religions, even being a Hindu.
But, Abrahamic religions do not give this liberty.
That, how can i defend Islam being a proud Hindu.
I have no way of knowing that in reality as we never discussed that. That is why i said it is my geuss that you have not studied Hinduism much. My guess may be wrong.
Secondly, as far as my knowledge of Christianity is concerned, I may not be aware of its litrature much, but i get the gist of its basic ideology for sure.
Good bye.
But, i do not even tried to insult you, forget about doing that. I am not sure for what you are taking an offence.
It would be better if you clarify that.
with love,
sanjay
Exactly, but i fail to understand why intellectuals are unable to get this simple thing straight.
I have seen enumerable occasions, almost everytime, as soon as i say a word in the support of any religion, people straightaway start telling me how bad things they have in them. They even do not bother to look what exactly i am trying to say.
The massage taped in their tape recorder turns on and does not stop untill it plays out fully, whether that old recorded message is pertinent with the discussion or not. They just play it on and on. Knowingly or unknowingly, it is included in their moral premises to do so everytime, whenever they found a slight reason. As soon as they start talking, this recorded tape turns on atomatically and keep playing in the background all the time.
Armininus will provably take this as his insult too, though he has not said anything such and i am not referring to him either.
I do not have any problem with RM. I believe you and accepet its methodology.
But, as we discussed earlier, i have one difference with AO.
with love,
sanjay
Nevertheless, James,
You seem to be agree with the OP about his interpretation of the Islam. What will happen to him is a different issue.
with love,
sanjay
The problem with Islam, the same problem suffered by all major religions, is that there is more than one “real interpretation” of it. It’s based in a particular set of holy scriptures as well as the words and actions of prophets, and those are always open to multiple interpretations. The Umma has but one interpretation, and even if it is the oldest or most traditional, that does not make it correct (or, at least, not the only correct interpretation). i tend to think Islam might reasonably be seen as condoning the violence of certain terrorist groups - i myself am no scholar of Islam, but certainly there are numerous actual scholars and clerics who would agree with me, infidel though i may be. So while the insightful and eloquent cleric highlighted in many of Zinnat’s videos may be right that by a certain classical interpretation of scripture, terrorist political violence is unjustifiable, there are still obviously many clerics (some no doubt equally eloquent and insightful) who disagree, yet have just as reasoned interpretations of Koran.
i guess i simply don’t believe that Islam, or any other major religion, is innocent of inciting violence among people, notwithstanding the OP’s implication that people who think religions incite violence are “biased and intellectually blind”. As Zinnat’s cleric himself points out, it is the NON-violent extremism present in all religions that gives rise to violent extremism.
True.
Almost true.
That is true. Some cleric type people support terrorism, which they should not do.
Having said that, if you start investigating and look deep enough into those people, you will find that most of those are actually nowhere near to be a cleric in true sense. They do not have neither any real capability nor knowledge to interpret Quran.
Many people may not be aware of that Quran is not written in common Arabic but pre-cassical Arabic, which is quite different and complicated from the present form. A simple ‘.’ can completely change the meaning. There are much people left in the world that can read and understnand it correctly and completely. There is special course of it and it takes about 8-9 years to learn that language only. And, there is only school to learn that, somewhere in Saudi Arabia.
Most of the people/cleric/intellectual interpret the previous interpretations. They actually do not know what is written there and what exactly it means. This is going on and on. One blind following the other blind standing next to him assuming that the other one would have the vision..
Thus, the fact of the matter is most of those people, who recite Quran in their support, do not know themselves what does their recitation actually stands for.
UPF, my assumption is that there are not more than a couple of hundreds people left in the world, which can understand Quran in the real sense. Thus, the time has come for taking texts in the spirit, not literaly.
That is what is the actual cause of all that from either side. Religions are used to motivate people for other purposes. It is the same thing that people do use nationalism to motivate others to fight. Religions are not the cause but mere tools, which are fallen unfortunately in the wrong hands.
UPF, may i sak you to show me where Mohammad asked to kill innocents or even the adherants of other religions?
Please, do not tell me that this particular group or person says that. Tell me specifically where Mohammad said that?
On the other hand, i can tell you a lot of his sayings where he said otherwise.
You are commiting the same mistake of reaching the conclusion without investigation.
It is neither the fault of Mohammad nor Quran if some people are interpeting them wrongly. Discern the real culprit.
with love,
sanjay
Who are you talking to, and what are you appealing to? One needs to consider that, or one might as well be talking out loud about his visions of flying unicorns.
Anyone who falls in that category.
I do not undestand clearly what you mean by that!
It would be better if you elaborate a liitle to make it easier for me to understand and answer.
My guess is that you are saying why you should believe him and not someone who claims about a flying unicorn.
with love,
sanjay