Hum dekhenge song in The Kashmir Files. - Page 8

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The Quran was originally written in 610 CE. I don't think anyone today can claim with absolute irrefutable certainty that they know exactly what the original text said and meant. It has been over 14 centuries since it was first published. Since then there have been multiple translations, interpretations, and schisms over interpretations.

Yes, there are some Muslim clerics and their followers who interpret it as a literal and violent imposition of Islam on others and destruction of other religious icons in the process.

Many people however interpret "idol destruction" as symbolic and metaphorical. It could mean that people stop following harmful idols and messages. It could mean destroying their presence in one's mind and heart. Even idols can mean anything from an image of God that is worshipped to people who are admired and loved.

Imposing Allah's rule or only Allah's name remaining can be interpreted as preaching in the name of Allah to others or that personal piety and worship will naturally lead to peace and order being restored. Allah itself can be interpreted as a God separate and superior to other Gods or as just another name for a universal God.

And it is possible to look down on other people as infidels who will never attain heaven without resorting to violence against them or wishing them ill.

Dogma is created and passed on by humans. Every human creates and passes on their beliefs based on their life experiences. It is rare to find any two people who 100% agree with each other's interpretation of an entire body of scripture.

What exactly is a 'harmful idol'?

And, opposition to idol worship is one of the basic tenets of Islam. I don't think you'd find any Muslim cleric anywhere who condones idol worship. And yes, the Quran may have been published multiple times, but the interpretation and stance regarding idolatry has never changed. Muhammad's destruction of pre-Islamic Arab idols in Kaba is still glorified and upheld. Opposition to idol worship is universally Islamic, not a 'some clerics' thing.

No mosque or Islamic religious place anywhere has pictures or idols in it. Only calligraphy.

So yeah, let's not force alternate definitions where there can be none.

Originally posted by: catchmeifucan

Idol worshipping is considered as the least kind of worshipping in Hinduism also. Read up Isha Upanishad which talks about it extensively. Idol worshipping is done to help one to be able to concentrate on meditating upon that particular form/aspect of the God.

I found this link which covered a few aspects of it.

https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/2123/do-the-vedas-prohibit-idol-worship

BTW, the so called idol worshipping haters hold Mecca and Medina , the Kaaba so dear to them- isn't it one form of idol worshipping?

Thats different from asking followers to kill idolaters. Quran says this not just once, but multiple times. Even Shankaracharya believed in monotheism. But he never said that idolators should be killed and their idols broken, like the Quran does. There's a difference. And there are twelve upanishads, and the Isha one is not supreme.

Your knowledge, Conviction and Clarity is amazing.

I wish I had all these information to be able to discuss on various topics.

Originally posted by: Kangubai

You have been put on *ignore* mode

😊 I will prevail!

Originally posted by: NathuPyare

I don't know why your post is not getting quoted.

Anyways..

For you it may be just a interpretation but what interpretation the extremists choose is what really counts.

For ex. When extremists say - kashmir me agar rehna hai to Allah hu Akbar kehna hai, it leaves no scope for survival of those who won't say Allah hu Akbar. Then only the name of Allah will remain there (bas naam rahega Allah ka) as disbelievers will be made to raliv galiv or chaliv. There is your connection between the lines.

And since Rama and Shiva would not mean God for muslims. Therefore 'bas naam rahega Allah ka' does not leave a scope for Gods and beliefs of other religions.

As far as Hindus are concerned they believe in sarva dharm sarvbhav and vasudhaiv kutumbakam and uptil now most even belived in Gandhi's distortion of Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram .... ishwar Allah tero naam. But acceptance has to be both ways. Secularism is not a one way street which only Hs have to walk.

If the extremists interpretation is the only thing which counts, then extremists after watching Kashmir Files are interpreting that Islam is bad, all Muslims are bad and they deserve our hate. So that is the only interpretation which counts right? According to your own logic?

Okay, so Muslims are supposed to believe in Ram and Shiva, and if they don't, then they shouldn't talk about Allah because it's Anti-hindu? Just taking the name of Allah makes it Anti-Hindu for you people.

Originally posted by: malikakas

If you are quoting it to hindus who believe in multiple Gods then you are directly contradicting their beliefs. More than that you are saying that only the name of your god should eventually remain which is obviously offensive. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that? It is basically saying you want to wipe out hinduism.

This kind of poem should never be used as anthem for secularity in a multi-faith country. Even besides hindus it is also discriminatory towards atheists as why would they want to live in a world that only the name of 1 god exists? If you want a system of plurality or secularity then you have to promote that in an inclusive way.

The poem might not be an anthem of secularity but I don't see how it's Anti-Hindu. You can practice a faith without being anti-anything. Just taking the name of Muslim God doesn't make it Anti-Hindu. Religions anyway contradict each other.

Originally posted by: AwaamKiJaan

If the extremists interpretation is the only thing which counts, then extremists after watching Kashmir Files are interpreting that Islam is bad, all Muslims are bad and they deserve our hate. So that is the only interpretation which counts right? According to your own logic?

Okay, so Muslims are supposed to believe in Ram and Shiva, and if they don't, then they shouldn't talk about Allah because it's Anti-hindu? Just taking the name of Allah makes it Anti-Hindu for you people.

Check my post. I didn't say extremists interpretation is the ONLY thing which counts. I said its what REALLY counts (though the better word would have been matter instead of count). There's a difference between ONLY and REALLY.

If H extremists interpret that all Ms are bad and deserve our hate and start eliminating Ms, while H moderates kept quiet like when islamic extremists started eliminating KPs and M moderates didn't/couldn't do much then yes extremists interpretation would matter the most. Tomorrow if Islamic extremists decide all idolators (the ones worshipping idols) must be converted, killed or taxed while M moderates choose to look the other side do you really think M moderate's interpretation of idols or idolators will count or matter?

For Muslims there is no God but Allah which leaves no scope for Hindu Gods. However just taking name of Allah doesn't make it anti hindu but saying only Allah's name will remain does make it anti All religions not just anti hindu.

Originally posted by: Kangubai

Itna flipflop kyu bai?

Now you are contracting your original argument saying " allah can just mean any god " which you original said to secularise the poem and to prove it being non "anti-hindu"

Now you are saying there is only one god for muslims which the poet talks about

You are basically canceling your own argument,LOL

Also, i have already commented asto why i consider it anti hindu if you care to read the reaponses in your own thread instead of asking rhetorical questions repetitively.

Lol I never said Allah can just mean ANY God. I said "Allah can just mean God", and even if it's Muslim God, nothing wrong with it.

Just taking it's name doesn't make the poem Anti-Hindu, the same way shouting "Jai Shree Ram" doesn't make the slogan anti-Muslim or anti-Christian.

Calm down MID. You're anyway getting banned after a few hours.

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

Thats different from asking followers to kill idolaters. Quran says this not just once, but multiple times. Even Shankaracharya believed in monotheism. But he never said that idolators should be killed and their idols broken, like the Quran does. There's a difference. And there are twelve upanishads, and the Isha one is not supreme.

At the time the Upanishads were written, there was no idol worshipping only. It was a later development. But anyway, how do you grade the Upanishads?

And ‘killling’ doesn’t have to be interpreted literally.

I don’t have to go by someone else’s interpretation of any text, even if it is Quran. Muslims don't own the Quran just like the Hindus don’t own the Geeta or the Christians, bible! All these texts are open for interpretation and what one draws out of them depends upon ones intellect.

Originally posted by: AwaamKiJaan

The poem might not be an anthem of secularity but I don't see how it's Anti-Hindu. You can practice a faith without being anti-anything. Just taking the name of Muslim God doesn't make it Anti-Hindu. Religions anyway contradict each other.

It’s using the word “ONLY” that is problematic in this context not the word “Allah” that’s the issue. Yes you can practice a faith without being anti anything else. But for that pluralistic verses should be promoted and exclusivist verses should be phased out of the mainstream.