People, who are biased and intelletually blind, and want to blame religions (especially Islam) for everything bad that ever happens, should see these videos carefully, before drawing the conclusion.
I do not know how to post links to the clips, thus i am posting the like to the page of the clips.
Perhaps, this may help them a little.
With love,
sanjay
There is a term Umma come manytimes in those videos.
For those, who are not aware of the terminology, It represents the Cleric Community, as a whole, almost the same as the Church is for Christianity, the clergy, the highest body of governing Islam.
with love,
sanjay
Mannnn… Am I really going to have to dissect Islamic rule? I was seriously hoping to not have to do that. But at least it isn’t as bad as having to dissect Hinduism. 
Of those many videos, only one would play and it was of the good doctor preaching in Arabic. 
So I have no idea what your point was to be, sorry.
Yes, that is true. I just checked that page.
But, James, i find it very surprising. All those videos were there almost 12 hours ago. I have no idea what happened with those. I played those in the morning.
Maybe some technical fault, not sure. I sincerely hope that this has nothing to do with this cleric heading a campain against Pakistani government right now in Islamabad outside their parliament.
with love,
sanjay
So can you tell us what you took away from viewing those videos? What is your concept of “The real interpretation of Islam”?
By the way, he was talking in Urdu language in that lone video, not Arabic.
Urdu is an Indianized Arabic. It has nouns and verbs from both Sanskrit and Arabic. It is almost the Hindi, merely having slightly more words from Arabic. Though, it is written almost the same as Arabic but follows the Grammer rules of Hindi.
It is an amalgamation of Sanskrit, Hindi, Arabic and Persian, written in Arabic but spoken in Hindi.
with love,
sanjay
James,
It was merely a temporary technical fault. The videos are again playing on that page. Check it.
with love,
sanjay
Sounds like a destined to be seen as an “Uncle Tom”.
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.