Freedom of expression/Inflaming religious senti's - Page 21

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil

@ Rehan: It may not be possible to reform Islam in the right direction, but "Muslims" can always pick and choose what they want to follow. The thing is, the Bible is meant to be unchangeable too - but how many Christians actually follow the Leviticus and throws stones at people who disrespects their parents? If I am not wrong, slavery and pedophilia are condoned in the Bible too.
You are right - Muslims who would not follow the basic tenets of Islam may not be true Muslims - they may not even be proper Muslims in the proper definition of the world. Yet, there's nothing wrong with them labeling themselves as Muslims as a cultural identity. I mean the basic principle of Christianity revolves around Jesus being the savior of mankind - yet, I have come across "Christians" who don't believe in the Bible, consider Jesus fictional and even questions the existence of God. By all meaningful purpose of the word, they are not Christians, but they still regard themselves as such and I see no problem with that honestly.
"Muslims" can also follow a similar route.

As for marital rape - I don't know. I think it is criminalized in my country though. Here's a pretty good article on it by a Muslim scholar: http://www.suhaibwebb.com/relationships/marriage-family/spouse/question-regarding-marital-rape/
I hope it is criminalized in every country soon enough.

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christian texts were never considered to be authored by God in person - rather they were 'inspired' by God's word, or so is the belief, and written by men. Its a well known fact that Bible, as we know it today, was compiled three centuries after Christ in the Council of Nicea. Consequently it didn't hurt Christians much to accept Biblical laws as a fallible and temporal documents. Whereas Quran is supposed to be the verbatim word of God that is applicable for all time and thus its impossible for a Muslim to amend it while still calling himself a Muslim...Secondly, the kernel of Christianity is merely faith in Jesus Christ, while that of Islam is absolute submission and obedience to Allah and Muhammad. In fact Muslims are very proud that while Jews and Christians have gone astray in the way of unbelief, Muslims alone remain true to the word of God to the letter.

Your country Bangladesh is no more an Islamic state than India is. Bengalis, just like Indian Muslims, had never accepted Islamic culture wholeheartedly; though recently there seems to be a rise in Islamism among both these communities. And Bangladesh doesn't follow an Islamic law - it follows the English Law (same as India's, with little modifications) - the Indian Penal Code 1860, under which domestic rape is a crime.

Thirdly, the link you provided offers very weak defense to its claims..It doesn't cite any injunction from Quran that explicitly prohibits marital rape. It merely says that husband is not suppose to harm his wife, provide for her food and clothing and take care of her the way shepherd takes care of his cattle..In fact it accepts that its obligatory for a wife to "respond to his husband's request for intimacy, such that he would not need to bring a complaint against her". What is that supposed to mean? Clearly, the wife doesn't have much choice there. And if using force is indeed forbidden, then how would the author reconcile it with husband's right to beat his wife in case he "fears disobedience" (4.34)?

Already in 3rd world countries there is a tendency to deny any such phenomenon called marital/spousal rape..Take India for example - according to a study an astonishing 87% of Indian women have faced spousal rape at one point or other. Yet only a fraction of it is reported and most of the time the police refuses to lodge a FIR because they can't fathom how a wife can possibly accuse her own legally married husband of 'rape'! Surely, the wife is characterless! Even the well-educated judges advise women to take back their complaints and 'learn to adjust a little' because it will destroy "Indian family system" if we are to prosecute every husband for every little excess..That's why I am as ruthless in my criticism of India's hypocritical culture and fake values as I am of Islam..Now imagine if this is endorsed by religion and sanctioned by the Creator of the Universe Himself, which woman would dare to complain?

Yes, you may call a person Moderate Muslim or Liberal Muslim or Agnostic Muslim or Atheist Muslim or Gay Muslim etc, but I am not quite in favour of this. Because I feel this so called moderation provides a tacit cover to extremists who follow their book to the letter. Also you must understand that most Muslims - be it liberal, moderate or orthodox - fear Allah and punishment of Hell beyond everything else. So its easier for the fundamentalist Mullahs and Imams to guilt trip the heterodox Muslims of ignoring Allah's commandments with the threat of hell and judgement day. Most of them would revert back to orthodoxy, or at least not oppose it, once they are convinced that doing so would help them to win Allah's favor and secure a place in Heaven - something that Muslims greed above any thing in this world. That is why its safer to try and eradicate Islam rather than reform or reinterpret it..

^ I want to read it. 😭 Can you repost it in my scrap.

@ Rehan: We are going in circles. You obviously have done more studies of Islam and I have not so I am not in the best position to answer all your questions. I will just say that there are still Christian evangelists and Hindus who take figures like Ram, Krishna etc as real living persons with divine powers than mythological characters? You know one such member right in this forum. The % of Christians or Hindus who consider their religions to be mythology based are certainly less in number than Muslims, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

If you want to eradicate Islam, IMO every religion should be eradicated from the face of the earth. All religions have their shares of skeletons in the cupboard, some more than others.

Finally how do you stop people from believing in their religions? Belief will be in people's psych no matter how much you may try to remove it.

I see no problem with moderate religious people, be it from any religion. They may not be true religious people, but hey who needs that? It's their wish if they want to be labelled as members from a religion but not follow it each and every second of their lives.

Anyway I am done with this, only have to respond to Aya's post some other day. Keep your spirit for critical thinking going. I was not offended by your posts one bit. \\/

Gotto do an assignment for school now. 😭😭

edit: as for marital rape we will have to see. Let me search for more Muslim scholar's opinions.

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil

^ I want to read it. 😭 Can you repost it in my scrap.

@ Rehan: We are going in circles. You obviously have done more studies of Islam and I have not so I am not in the best position to answer all your questions. I will just say that there are still Christian evangelists and Hindus who take figures like Ram, Krishna etc as real living persons with divine powers than mythological characters? You know one such member right in this forum. The % of Christians or Hindus who consider their religions to be mythology based are certainly less in number than Muslims, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

If you want to eradicate Islam, IMO every religion should be eradicated from the face of the earth. All religions have their shares of skeletons in the cupboard, some more than others.

Finally how do you stop people from believing in their religions? Belief will be in people's psych no matter how much you may try to remove it.

I see no problem with moderate religious people, be it from any religion. They may not be true religious people, but hey who needs that? It's their wish if they want to be labelled as members from a religion but not follow it each and every second of their lives.

Anyway I am done with this, only have to respond to Aya's post some other day. Keep your spirit for critical thinking going. I was not offended by your posts one bit. \\/

Gotto do an assignment for school now. 😭😭

edit: as for marital rape we will have to see. Let me search for more Muslim scholar's opinions.

Ok..By 'Eradicate Islam', I meant wean them out of the illusion that Muhammad was the prophet of God. Islam's problem is not belief in Allah, but the belief that Muhammad was its prophet..Once Muslims stop believing in Muhammad's prophet-hood, I think most of the problems of the Islamic world would be solved...I know "eradicate Islam" sounds something very sinister, on the line of final solution..😆

Yes, there are people who believe in the historicity of Christ, Krishna and Ram, but we must understand that the character profile of these mythological figures were no way similar to that of Muhammad - who by the way was very much a real human being and whose day to day activities are well documented in history..They may have been flawed or some of their activities or words might have been misogynist or casteist, but on the whole their life and message weren't bad.

The main problem with religious moderation is that its a fragile and unstable state of existence. Moderates do not have a firm ground for their position, nor can they hold their own against extremists. I remember watching a debate on whether Pakistan needs secularism. Now there were two panels - the secularists and the Islamists..The secularists had put up a tough fight with some genuinely valid points and it seemed that they might win; at which moment a niqab-ed woman from the audience stood up and asked "Why do we need secularism? The kafirs are deprived of Allah's guidance and that's why they need to experiment with man-made laws..But we Muslims have got direct guidance from Allah and his prophet on every matter - be it economy, government, politics, personal ethics or warfare. When we have God's eternal laws why do we need man-made laws?"..Now tell me, what do you expect a 'moderate' Muslim to reply to this?

So as you see, despite their numerical superiority moderate Muslims stand no chance against Islamic Fundamentalism..Orthodox Muslims shall still continue to have an upper hand.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Yes, that, I think, shall be the final fate of all religions..But for now I want Islam and Brahminsm to be gone for good..These two creeds have destroyed hundreds of millions of human lives and continue to do so unabashed..

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Yes, that, I think, shall be the final fate of all religions..But for now I want Islam and Brahminsm to be gone for good..These two creeds have destroyed hundreds of millions of human lives and continue to do so unabashed..

Now what is Brahminism? Another name for Hinduism? 😕

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Now what is Brahminism? Another name for Hinduism? 😕

Yes...The puritanical/orthodox Hinduism a.k.a. Sanatan Dharma..That Buddha discarded and Shankara 'revived'..Another angle of it is the nationalistic brahminical creed 'Hindutva'. Hinduism is a stupid term in my opinion..

Watch this :

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgDGmYdhZvU[/YOUTUBE]

Why did you edit your post? Please feel free to say anything you like no matter how harsh it is..😳

Le sigh.

I'm guessing you have concerns with the practice of untouchability. It really is a shame to Hinduism and India. Especially the thought that well educated modern day Indians are still so discriminatory and cruel is utterly revolting.

However, the rigid discriminatory practice of caste system is not prescribed by Hinduism. The original varna system dating back to the time of the Rig Veda was not a discriminatory caste system. It was more of an organizational structure in society. Just like how a business is organized into units that have specific functions, society was divided into units so it could function efficiently. No one group was superior or inferior to another. Everyone was an equally valuable pillar to society. The varna one belonged to gave guidelines to ones duty and role in society. Society was mobile as well. Marriage between varnas or upward mobility was not frowned on or discouraged.

Problems arose due to the corruption and hunger for power in the Brahmin class. The Brahmin's were religious and spiritual leaders. They were the ones versed in the Vedas and scripture. They were responsible for rituals and guiding people. Most other groups were not well versed with the scriptures. In order to preserve their powers and extract more income and favors from society, over time Brahmins started making the varna system rigid - prohibiting and preventing social mobility, inter-socialization and eventually introducing the horrific practice of untouchability.

Probably most notorious for most of the archaic Hindu laws is Manusmriti. However, Manu is not a religious authority nor the Manusmriti a religious text. Manu is merely a character in Hindu mythology. He is the Hindu equivalent of Noah. The first man after the great floods. The Manusmriti is his code of conduct and laws that he prescribed when he establishes society. Most Hindu scholars will agree that the Manusmriti is not an authenticated resourced.

There is a myriad of religious texts in Hinduism Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads etc. So unlike many other religions there is no central authority source. However, The Gita which is Krishna's narrative to Arjuna about dharma and karma is probably the highest authority in Hinduism. Most Hindu scholars and practicing Hindus will agree that the Gita is probably the most salient scripture that captures the essence of Hinduism.

Upon reading the Gita (and also some other texts) you realize that Hinduism is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is neither polytheistic or monotheistic. It is neither monism, dualism or theism. A person subscribes to whatever philosophy they reasonably come to. Karma is the central focus of Hinduism. That acts and deeds alone are of importance in a person's life. There is no permanent hell or heaven. Everyone will simply get the consequences of they do. At the same time Krishna cautions Arjuna against acting for a set fruit. Actions must be done because one's core wills it, not because one desires heaven or hell. He also cautions Arjuna that Krishna is merely an advisor. His word is not absolute. Ultimately Arjuna is responsible for himself and has to make his choices. And Krishna never urges Arjuna to fight the war. He gives Arjuna the freedom to decide whether it is right of him to wage a war against his cousins.

That is why Hinduism as practiced by the majority is the most corrupted religion in the world. When they tell you so and so is impure, don't eat this, keep this fast, worship this God, follow these rules, this is the mark of a good person - these all violate Krishna's emphasis on 'karma' and the necessity of a human to think and make their own choices. At best a Hindu priest or similar leader has the right to give advice. But for them to dictate sin, dictate behavior or even demand behavior is completely against Hindu tenets.

Following the Gita, I would say Vedanta philosophy is central to Hinduism - not the pantheon of gods they bombard us with.

Eh sorry for rambling on Hinduism. 😆

return_to_hades - Ok, I see you have been fed the same lie that Hindu nationalists have been feeding to all critics of caste system...I am going to PM a link to you..For some reason I am not able to post the link or the text over here..Its showing error..

Originally posted by: Rehanism

return_to_hades - Ok, I see you have been fed the same lie that Hindu nationalists have been feeding to all critics of caste system...I am going to PM a link to you..For some reason I am not able to post the link or the text over here..Its showing error..

This is the link you post: http://***urlremoved***/8ejlpyd

It is not any lie, nor has it been fed to me by anyone. There was a point in my teens that I was disillusioned by Hinduism. I did not like the holier than thou attitude of many Hindus. I did not like how certain people felt superior to the others. As a member of the Brahmin community, I hated how they bragged about their higher stature, asserted their dominance and looked down on others. Because of things like caste system, inexplicable rituals, I could not subscribe to Hinduism. I wanted to convert to Catholicism. My parents said I could, but only after I could explain what Hinduism was and why I would be better off without it.

So I started my own study. No one suggested where to go or what to do. I definitely did not turn to any religious organization or religious head because I did not trust them. I didn't have Google as a resource either. I loathed Shiv Sena, BJP, Ram Sevaks and all the Hindutva people. My main catalyst to hate the religion I was born into was what they did with Babri masjid and the riots that ensued in Bombay.

I went out and found books on my own. I would go through stores peruse and picked up my versions of the Gita I liked. A full anthology and some children's versions. I bought the Mahabharata. I would go to the library and read history books, especially those with history of Hinduism and offshoot religions. After moving to the United Stats I decided to study my religion further from western perspectives. Not from converts or the weird breed of Hindu evangelicals but through courses and people whose job is to objectively study faiths. Only after thorough research on my own volition, of my own accord, without any third party telling me what to do or what is a good research - I have come to this conclusion.

The article you post is nothing shockingly new or different. A lot of is a factual critique of Hinduism. But I don't think it actually proves that the caste system is necessary to Hinduism or ought to be ingrained in Hinduism.

Does the caste system exist in Hinduism?
Yes. It is a sad and disgusting truth that in the past and in the present Hindus do practice the caste system and treat it as an inseparable part of religion.

Is the cast system justified?
Absolutely not. An explanation of why the caste system came to being and how it disintegrated is not a justification. Any form of discrimination against any human is wrong.

How did the caste system become the brutal discriminatory system today?
Practicing Hindus used it to discriminate against each other. It was not to protect against Islam. It was not distorted by western colonialists. It was done by Hindus.

Does Hinduism prescribe the caste system?
That depends on what you consider to be the texts of Hinduism. Manusmriti does prescribe it and there are some others. The Bhagvad Gita does not prescribe or encourage it. It has been a very long time since I read the Gita and I will have to refer to the cited phrase in the article and see what the context is. That being said there are many things in the Gita I do not agree with.

Does Hinduism mandate the caste system?
No absolutely not. While some texts may prescribe it - there is no mandate or doctrine in Hinduism that makes it compulsory. In fact it is not necessary to follow any text or code of conduct. They are all guidelines should one so choose. None of them are divine text or revelations of truth. They were codes of conduct written by men in power. The only divine revelation is The Gita as Krishna the 8th avatar of Vishnu narrated it to Arjuna. And as i said in my previous post the gist of the Gita is karma. Beyond focusing on karma, there really is no rule Hinduism prescribes. You may choose a path of worship, a path of knowledge or whatever path you so desire. In fact there is no real code of conduct written by anyone for the Kalyuga.

Are there other evils practiced/were practiced within Hinduism?
Of course the list is endless
- religious prostitution
- slavery
- sati
- child marriage
- harassment of widows
- dowry

just to name a few

I'm not going to say that Hinduism is a flawless religion and has no problems. I'm not going to deny that people who practice these things are not Hindus. Unfortunately, assholes like the Hindutva Brigade, people like Baba Ramdev, and a slew of corrupt and sleazy priests, the discriminating and abusing upper classes in rural India are Hindus. That is the karma they have chosen for themselves. Of all the multitude of choices and ways to live life that Hinduism offers they have chosen to hate, discriminate, abuse and divide. And we have to stand up to them because what they do is not just morally unconscionable, often times it is illegal as well.

Edit: To access Rehan's link which I tried posting put ***urlremoved*** in the place it says url removed.