Goofyplatypus: "We definitely need more good news about Muslims. But it's incumbent upon Muslims to be more proactively positive in Western society, don't you think?"

Yes, and I've said much the same (referring to the 'moderate' mainstream Muslims IF they differ from the the extremist philosophy; their 'silent majority'!) on this very forum.

Goofyplatypus: "It's the bad things terrorists do. Combined with people like you berating Westerners for not being more understanding."

Eboo's articles never get into the heart of the problem.

Oh, Puh-lease!

The U.S. government doesn't even call terrorism terrorism any more. And with a few isolated exceptions, the left-wing, anti-U.S. media stopped using "Islam" or "Muslim" in stories years ago.

I remember in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a move by black activists to insist that race shouldn't be mentioned in crime stories. The argument was that it was racist to accurately point out that a black person committed a crime.

The result has been hilarious. Now, the media errs on the stupid: "police are looking for two males in jeans" or the really obvious -- they mention race only when the person is white, making it evident the perp was black because they don't mention white.

It's the same way with you and your theory of Don't Tell The Truth About Terrorists. I don't see Buddhists out there flying planes into bulidings. I don't see Amish blowing themselves up at a school bus stop to kill members of another sect.

We definitely need more good news about Muslims. But it's incumbent upon Muslims to be more proactively positive in Western society, don't you think? If they actually contributed more obviously to our societies -- and I'm not saying theye don't, I'm just saying "more obviously" -- then perhaps they'd get more positive coverage.

What's hampering plurality relations is not coverage of the bad things terrorists do, Eboo. It's the bad things terrorists do. Combined with people like you berating Westerners for not being more understanding.

The links above and these: Some of what I've been reading:

http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2009-03-29/519138news.html

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/10806.htm

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Aycy3RxNqtAJ:indianelections09.umbc.edu/analysis/%3Fcat%3D19+Narender+Modi+on+Hitler&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/18/india.lukeharding

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/868469.cms

An interesting cover-story in 'The Atlantic' Monthly: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/india-modi

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Hindutva.htm

CLEARTHINKING (CONFUSED THINKING)

One mistake which is common on blogs is to assume things about other bloggers.

Although I am not an atheist, I am not deeply religious either. What I like about Contabb1 is that he is always expressing moderation and accomodation and What I do not like about you is showing aggressive feelings about monotheistic faiths. Your diatribe against other religions without conceding the irrationalities of Hindu practices does not make those practices of Hinduism any more acceptable. Rather, they are repulsive.

You evade answering questions, because you have no answers. The questions would not have been raised here but for your aggressive statements about others.

CLEARTHINKING1

You have strange hang-ups, you have NO facts, no argument. You accuse others of being “supremacist” when you, as broken record, have been telling how much better your own Hnduism is. And your attitude is offensive, unfit for a civilized discussion. And you persist.

The more I read about Hindutva and your posts, I see more and more similarities emerge.

CLEARTHINKING1: [Here's a quote from the current article posted by Eboo Patel. The key word for you is "honest".
"Cru members were ……….Be HONEST.”]

Raise it with the writer, Eboo Patel. OK? You question the writer, not others. Haven’t you learned this much yet ?

CLEARTHINKING1: “I had told you I am an American, and I never said that it is my NEW home. Yet you incorrectly prejudge me as a foreigner in your land.”

Your biography is of no relevance here. You were the one who inserted it here (asking me to ‘prejudge’ you by your “colloquisms,” like a newbie!). Just like ‘dropping your g’s’ and your (what can be kindly termed as) blathering 'logic' of connecting it somehow with the Colbert show and sarcasm !

CLEARTHINKING1: “I have refrained from responding to your ethnocentrism and bigotry, but I will let your words speak for themselves. (As I wrote before, the best antidote to supremacists is to let them speak and let everyone hear their words.)”

YOU and YOU alone have haven harping on your “ethnocentrism and bigotry” in every single post: YOUR religion over every one else’s. Your India over every other country.

How loudly does this speak, eh ????

CLEARTHINKING1: “I am an American, if you haven't figured that out from my colloquialisms yet. So I don't need advice about the "West" ; It's my home, too.”

Regardless, it’s what you say, how you say it, its logic, rationale that matters, NOT your religion, or when you became (or started acting as) American and how you learned to dro yur ‘g’s’ !

Don’t blame others for what you say.

CLEARTHINKING1: “I would like to welcome you to America, year 2009. You sound like a caricature from the past …………….. about their supremacist attitudes.”

Juvenile gibberish!

CLEARTHING1: “P.S. Judaism does promote the idea that their followers are superior and chosen by God. They just don't have the strange urge to proselytize and spread their religion onto others like Christians and Muslims.”

Spoke like a Hindutva hate-mongerer !

CLEARTHINKING1 to nadinebatra: [“The reason there is so much conflict wherever Islam and Christianity come into contact with each other or with other religions is the belief that "my book & prophet is better than yours."]

Wow ! Sounds like Cantabb’s “My baby/child better then yours,” doesn’t it ? How original !!!

At least has learned this much to parrot something different !

Does Polly want another cracker ?

Nadinebatra,

You wrote, "we do know that all religions in the details of their belief systems and rituals are different but OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO FIND COMMON GROUND THROUGH INTER-FAITH DIALOGUE."
You are almost there but still don't get it. The reason there is so much conflict wherever Islam and Christianity come into contact with each other or with other religions is the belief that "my book & prophet is better than yours." Be honest and cleanse yourself of this supremacist attitude if you have it, and you will begin to see that different religions are simply different paths to the same Truth. Interfaith dialogue will no longer be necessary because there will be sincere mutual respect. Then you will become peaceful and tolerant. You will begin to understand the statement in the Rig Veda, "That which is One, the sages call by many names."
Good Luck.

Cantabb,

Here's a quote from the current article posted by Eboo Patel. The key word for you is "honest".
"Cru members were HONEST about their belief that accepting Jesus as your Savior is the ONLY way to Heaven, as well as their wish that EVERYONE would follow that path. MSA members were HONEST about their conviction that Jesus was a prophet, but NOT divine, and that the Qur'an is the MOST relevant, beautiful, and necessary access to God's word."
Remember, these are the most moderate, liberal, inter-faith types of Christians and Muslims. When the "moderate" ones believe Jesus is the ONLY path or Mohammed is the superior prophet or the Koran is most necessary, what do the not-so-moderate ones believe? Do you still not understand my point of needing to address the fundamental conflict of supremacism? Be HONEST.

Cantabb,
I had told you I am an American, and I never said that it is my NEW home. Yet you incorrectly prejudge me as a foreigner in your land. I have refrained from responding to your ethnocentrism and bigotry, but I will let your words speak for themselves. (As I wrote before, the best antidote to supremacists is to let them speak and let everyone hear their words.)

"Uncivilized, uncultured, provocative and offensive! It may be okay in India, but not here in the West."
"an advice for conducting a sensible discussion in a polite Western society"
"makes your claim of the West as “[your] home” any credible, either. Just Laughable!"
"thanks to the 'tolerance' of the mostly Christian 'West' (his new 'home')."
"None of your ‘western’ intellectuals you hang out with in your new “home’, America, ever told you how offensive “supremacist’ (including of some Hindus) is as a term in such a discussion?"

I would like to welcome you to America, year 2009. You sound like a caricature from the past with your attitudes towards others who dare question your superior Abrahamic religion. Unlike you, at least the young people in Cru and MSA are honest with themselves about their supremacist attitudes.

P.S. Judaism does promote the idea that their followers are superior and chosen by God. They just don't have the strange urge to proselytize and spread their religion onto others like Christians and Muslims.

nadinebatra :

Thank you..... [as I await the broken-record 'Clearthinking', that is].

IF not all, most people in the world do have a common interest -- to live in peace, to reduce mutual misunderstandings and violence -- as much as we can.

Why should a 'common ground' be so difficult to find ? It will remain so and get more so, unless people learn to keep their own individual preferences (religious, political etc) within some civilized boundaries. Moe important, there has to be a desire to FIND that 'common ground' -- just to have or realize having a 'common interest' gets us nowhere.

Violence does not speak Arabic, Hindi, English, Russian, German or any thing. It has its own language, almost universal.

This Forum can't keep the discussion focused, and has turned it into a slug-fest ! Sophomoric lead articles on Islam/Muslims and their beliefs don't explain or clarify the situation.

Kudos to Cantabb1 for articulating so lucidly. I appreciate what you are trying to do.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the issue is: we do know that all religions in the details of their belief systems and rituals are different but OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO FIND COMMON GROUND THROUGH INTER-FAITH DIALOGUE (my words).

CLEARTHINKING1:

If you think “we” are making “progress,” it must be that YOU are beginning to learn.

You still repeat the same things, over and over (‘a low caste’ wrote your constitution, your country had Muslim Presidents, a woman and a Sikh Prime Minister, etc) – ignoring other widespread realities, e.g., Hindutva philosophy sweeping your country (your own posts serving as a mouth-piece), violence by Hindu extremists against religious minorities increasing, etc.

India still has a long way to go toward its SECULAR constitutional goals – Secular, not Hindutva goals as you had been talking about here. A democracy is NO democracy unless the rights of minorities are protected, just as well as those of majority. [Incidentally, your Constitution was written in 1950 -- not in 1947, as you say, which is when India got Independence. ]

Good to see you now admitting that Hinduism -- more ‘supremacist’ than what you call other “supremacist” Abrahamic faiths– also needs some ‘restructuring’ after 7,000 years, “but not as fundamental” as the Abrahamic faiths (I notice you are now dropping Judaism from the Abrahamic faiths. Learned something you didn't know before: I am touched!). Your bias, however, for the Hindu ‘supremacism’ couldn’t be clearer, as in: "’fundamental restructuring’ needed for the Abrahamic faiths, not just the usual reforms needed with time” [You mean, not follow the progress in the Caste system, or the time it took ?].

And you add : “Hinduism is a continuous search for Truth and open to restructuring and reform, and that is exactly what has been continuously going on.” Since it took 7,000 (minus ~60) years to recognize the “Caste system” and try to treat the “low caste” better, I think slower than molasses in a New England winter is still progress.

With regard to other faiths, I think you remain un-informed (Islamic prophet superior to Jesus or Moses? Not questioning the Scriptures – did you ever know how constantly Torah is debated/questioned by the Jews, or how the Bible is by the Christians?, etc).

Some scholar Abrahamic faiths should really help you out in this area !

Clearthinking: “To change these kinds of attitudes (supremacism) will require serious discussion, not feel-good interfaith dialogue.”

Your hang-up with “supremacism” is amusing, the more you harp on it. Your suggstions to other Hindus to shed their “inferiority complex” seems to provide a tell-tale window into your own thinking.

As I mentioned before, this attempt at “interfaith dialogue” is neither effective nor productive: Articles by the blog-writer are sophomoric. Posters like you appear to be hate-mogerers, mouth-piece of Hindutva, provocateurs (‘my-baby-better-than-yours), and NOT here to participate in this kind of unfocused, un-Moderated dialogue. This Forum seems to serve as a HATE-fest, free-for-all ! What a waste of an opportunity.

Cantabb,

I think we are making progress! But please read carefully. You asked: "what you think is “necessary” [“ a fundamental restructuring of these religions” i.e., Abrahamic religions]: Does Hinduism also need “a fundamental restructuring” too?"

YES! Hinduism also needs restructuring and reform, but not as fundamental. Hinduism is a contuinuous search for Truth and open to restructuring and reform, and that is exactly what has been continuously going on. For example, the caste system is not relevant in the modern world, and it has been and is being reformed. That is why the constitution (written in 1947 by someone from a "low caste") expressly prohibits discrimination. That is why a recent President of India and the current supreme court chief justice are from the "low caste". Obviously they have had the opportunity for education and advancement. Women's rights have also been and are being reformed, and Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister in the 1970's and the current President is also a woman.

The important distinction is that Hinduism does not have obstacles to reform. If someone disagrees with something written 2000 years ago, they can speak up and try to change it. This is exactly what men like Swami Vivekananda started in the late 1800's, and today significant progress has been made. Flexible and tolerant systems can adapt with changing times. For example, 89 years ago American culture had changed enough to allow women the write to vote as equal members of society, and the constitution was changed. Hopefully, someday soon America will have a women President, just like India has had women as President and Prime Minister.

As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), The Koran and Bible cannot be questioned or changed because they are the word of God (both books claiming superiority over the other). So modern people are forced to walk away from these religions and become atheists, humanists, agnostics, etc. This can create tension within society and diminish spirituality in a society. Is there a middle ground where parts of the Koran can be declared incorrect and incompatible with modern norms?
This is my point about "fundamental restructuring" needed for the Abrahamic faiths, not just the usual reforms needed with time. All systems of belief need to be reformed and change with the time, but some are designed to be rigid and cannot be changed. So if someone believes that the Koran is superior to the Bible and other books, and that Mohamed is superior to Jesus, and that the whole world should be Islamic, how can this be reformed or restructured without fundamental changes? These are not fringe beliefs in Islam, but they are the core beliefs required of all Muslims and the core teachings of the Koran. To change these kinds of attitudes (supremacism) will require serious discussion, not feel-good interfaith dialogue.

INDIANS51: "Clearthinking1, it’s pointless to debate with you."

I don't think it's "pointless." Who does really "debate" with him?

He debates with himself, gets caught in his only web, and shows over and over again how consumed he is by his hatred toward ALL Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Watching that is NOT 'pointless'. It's amusing !

He can't say all that openly in India, without getting into trouble with the law (recalling the reports on V. Gandhi), but he CAN here -- thanks to the 'tolerance' of the mostly Christian 'West' (his new 'home') and the User ID anonymity on 'un-moderated' Forums, blogs and discussion groups.

His hatred must have a vent. Without a vent, where else it can go, what can happen ?

He has already provided hints in this

"interesting article" he posted earlier:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24790152-5006784,00.html "

So, be kind !

Clearthinking1, it’s pointless to debate with you. You’re what you are—a Hindu Taliban who is shamelessly trying to cover up the lies of your co-religionists and promoting your “superior Hindu culture” by denigrating other faiths. Once you said you wanted Hindus to shed their inferiority complex. I gave you the reasons for the inferiority complex (March 25th 10:48 AM) and you didn’t have any answer. I also gave you so many reasons why your “superior Hindu culture” claim is baseless (March 23rd 11:12 AM). Again, you didn’t have any answer. When I quoted Nobel laureate Amartya Sen on Hindu fanatics: "The Hindu militant presents India as a country of unquestioning idolaters, delirious fanatics, belligerent devotees, and religious murderers," all you could say was Mr. Sen is not a Hindu now. Does that matter? Mr. Sen was born as a Hindu and lived in India before migrating to UK and he knows what Hindu fanatics are capable of doing. No wonder smart people like Mr. Sen, Bobby Jindal, Richard Varma and so many others are not Hindus anymore.

People like Clearthinking1 are creating havoc in India and minorities are very much afraid of them. I read recently that more than 30,000 Dalit Christians are still hiding in the jungles of Orissa after scores of their friends and relatives were killed, so many women were raped and thousands of homes, farms and churches were destroyed by the Hindu Taliban goons. The sad part is that these fanatics always attend the best Christian educational institutions in India, but hate Christians and other minorities, and then leave India and work like slaves to please their Christian bosses in the West, or the Muslim bosses in the Middle East. Wherever they go, they engage in hate-filled rants about their “superior Hindu culture” on the Internet under the anonymity of a user ID. My question to these fanatics is why did you abandon your “superior Hindu culture” to live in societies you supposedly hate?

Since The Learned Clearthinking does not apparently read questions before answering (Sarah Palin anyone?), I will repeat them..with capital letters whereever appropriate for emphasis.

1. Please let us know the name of Muslims in political positions of power in India. Kindly, do NOT include Presidents or Governors as they are ceremonial positions. For that matter, please do not include potiticians from Kashmir, which has a muslim majority. We are trying to prove that Hinduism is very liberal, isn't it?

2. Please let us know, when was the last time any HOLY WAR has been waged in order to prove the superiority of one religion over another and to gain conversions. Do you really belive the Bombay incident was designed to CONVERT more Hindus to Islam? And, while we are at it, since you are talking about "supremacism" of Christianity, lets hear a few current examples of the Bible being pushed by the sword.

3. Could you please add more names to the list of countries that allow the government to opress minorities. If your point is that India should mimic Pakistan or Sudan, then please say so.

4. Again, let us say what the people on the Godhara train were celebrating, what was the date of the Godhara incident, and what was it the anniversary of.

5. Again, may we know, in a few words, the legality of the position of India in Kashmir. Who signed what, and who opposed it. What is the moral standing of the Indian occupation?

*****************************************

Let us hear the answers...no going off in tangents please.

To CLEARTHING1:

CLEARTHINKING1: “You don't seem to try to read or digest anything before commenting. So we have the same dialogue over and over, just like the previous accusations of ranting.”

Had you read the very next sentence, you’d have seen how else your view does not prepare the ground for “peaceful coexistence among religions”:

[cantabb: ” ………when you call “their belief supremacist” and “the real source of religious conflict in the world.” ]. Further on I also said: “Does it not make your religion more of a ‘supremacist’ than others you accuse of the very same? If ‘the superiority complex is fundamental to their structure’, what about your portrayal of Hinduism? ”

As to what you thought I missed in your post [ " It will take a fundamental restructuring of these religions to have tolerance, equality, and mutual respect."], didn’t you see my comment in the very same post : [Cantabb: You say that “tolerance, equality, and mutual respect” are “necessary for peace,” but you show NONE of that toward other religions ! What about “equality” among various Castes within the same religion?].

And, what you think is “necessary” [“ a fundamental restructuring of these religions” i.e., Abrahamic religions]: Does Hinduism also need “a fundamental restructuring” too? Your and Hindutva probably think such “a fundamental restructuring” in Hinduism is absolutely out of the question, because it is already perfect.

CLEARTHINKING1: “The whole point is that there has not been and will not be peaceful coexistence as long as supremacist attitudes exist.”

How juvenile ! You think your hate-mongering, and totally unprovoked attacks on other religions, in entirety, is ANY way to achieving “peaceful coexistence” ? How about your Hindutva “supremacist” attitude – that’s OK?

None of your ‘western’ intellectuals you hang out with in your new “home’, America, ever told you how offensive “supremacist’ (including of some Hindus) is as a term in such a discussion ?

Given your demonstrated limited but highly biased views -- so devoid of logic, facts and figures -- you are totally out of your depths to even try to think of commenting, much less analyzing, what MY views are on these different religions. So, I dismiss all that as preposterous!

All you have been doing here is RANT, re-cycled Hindutva hate-mongering, ad nauseum! All that gutted numerous times here -- not just by me but several others !

Bostonbrahmin,

A few more answers to help you resolve some of your Hindu-hating/self-hating internal conflicts.

2. "Please let us know the name of the countries in the world where the state, as represented by politicians in power, goes out to harm the lives of innocent minorities."
Uhhh, Pakistan comes to mind rather easily - ask Obama and the CIA. Did you really mean to ask this question?

3. "Since you are so concerned about the plight of the Kashmiri Pundits, please let us know under what agreement and by who, is India holding on to any part of Kashmir."
Are you not concerned about the amazing number of people who have been murdered or displaced in Kashmir or is it that Hindus don't count in your book? The political history of Kashmir is well-documented. But in your mind, how does that affect whether innocent people are killed or displaced? Are you saying the lack of final status of Kashmir's borders justifies murdering innocent people? You are starting to lose your phoney moral high ground rapidly.

4. "Re "Supremacist religions" Please let us know where in the world is Islam/Christianity being expanded by force. Please let us know who are being converted forcibly. If you cannot find a current example, please let us know when the last "holy war" took place."
Holy war or Jihad continues today from the Philipines to Thailand to Pakistan to Iraq to Egypt to Darfur to the World Trade Center in New York. Historically, millions have died in holy wars whether they were Zoroastrian, Bahai's, Jews, Coptic Christians, Animists, and even those forgettable Hindus. Do you think the suicide terrorist attack on Mumbai by Punjabi muslims was motivated by politics or Jihad? Read the transcripts from Mumbai.

5. Even if we accepted your comments that Muslims set fire to a train in Godhara, please let us know what was so special about that train, and where the people were coming from."
The Sabarmati Express was carrying Kar Sevaks who were returning from a ceremony called Purnahuti Maha Yagna. Eyewitnesses said the Muslim attackers numbered about 500. 40 of the 58 deaths were of women and children charred on board. The burning of these children and women was justified by what exactly in your twisted psyche.

Once again Bostonbrahmin, your irrational hatred of Hindus has exposed the hypocrisy and hollowness of your claims of moral superiority and yearning for interfaith dialogue. Any other questions?

Bostonbrahmin,
There you go again. You have the mentality of many 60+ year old Indian Hindu immigrants to America. They still carry a heavy burden in their psyche from the inferiority complex (vasana) that the British beat into the older generations and it still persists today. A feeling of calmness and satisfaction comes to these Indian Hindu immigrants when they they criticize Hindus or Hinduism, especially in front of gora sahib. Many of these people did this in front of their children, and subsequently lost their respect. You are anonymous so no one knows what truly motivates your behavior. But you certainly mimic that syndrome. Nothing personal, just an observation.

You asked:
1. Muslims in power in India.
Since India gained independence in 1947, three Muslims have been appointed the President of India: Dr. Zakir Hussain, Dr Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. Current influential Muslims include: Mohammad Hamid Ansari, the current Vice President of India; Omar Abdullah, chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir; A R Antulay, minority affairs minister. Some other influential Muslim politicians include Sheikh Abdullah and his son Farooq Abdullah, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, Salman Khurshid and Ghulam Nabi Azad. India is home to several influential Muslim businessmen. The only two South Asian Muslim billionaires named by Forbes Magazine, Yusuf Hamied and Azim Premji, are from India. Dr. Abdul Kalam is one of India's most well respected scientists. Some of the most popular and influential actors and actresses in Mumbai-based Bollywood are Muslims. These include Yusuf Khan (stage name Dilip Kumar), Shahrukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Madhubala.

By the way Mr. Hindu-hater/self-hater, do you think people are washing and spraying incense before or after these people visit?

Cantabb,

You don't seem to try to read or digest anything before commenting. So we have the same dialogue over and over, just like the previous accusations of ranting.
You wrote: "Labeling Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) as “supremacist” does not prepare the ground for “peaceful coexistence among religions.” Of course not! I wrote, " It will take a fundamental restructuring of these religions to have tolerance, equality, and mutual respect."
The whole point is that there has not been and will not be peaceful coexistence as long as supremacist attitudes exist. You may not agree with this, but can you at least try to comprehend it so your rebuttal is relevant.
You seem to have no understanding of what makes Islam and Christianity unique in the history of religions. You also seem to be in denial of the fact that most religious conflict throughout the world involves either Islam or Christianity.
Part of the reason I have taken an absolutist position on these blogs is so that people like you can understand the destructive power of supremacism. But I don't think you get it. For example, some people have trouble understanding the Steven Colbert show because of limited abilities to understand irony and sarcasm. You don't even seem to understand why I "dropped the g's" in the last post.
It's difficult to have a discussion about abstract concepts with a concrete thinker. Oh well. Good luck in your goal of converting people to Christianity by all means necessary.

Interesting article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24790152-5006784,00.html

Clearthinking..

Since Hinduism is such a tolerant religion, let us look at a simple scenario:

A man walks into the house of a conservative Hindu family. After a while he walks away. If the man were (a) Muslim, (b) Christian or (c) Hindu of a lower caste, the process will be so:

He will not be allowed to step into the house. If he has to be accepted, after he leaves the areas he has visited will be washed out very thoroughly, incense will be sprayed, and the holy water from the river Ganga will be sprinkled. If he was allowed to sit on a sofa, the covers will be removed, wasted and disinfected.

Now, question for you. Is the scenario too far stretched? If you think it is, then maybe you need to get out of your books and then look at reality as it exists.

Of course, Hinduism is a very tolerant religion..

Mr Clearthinking may answer a few of my questions, since he is such a learned person.

1. Please name the Muslim politician in power in India. I say "power", and so please exclude the president and the governors, who are largely ceremonial. And, also let us keep into mind how many states are there in India.

2. Please let us know the name of the countries in the world where the state, as represented by politicians in power, goes out to harm the lives of innocent minorities. (I will give you an example: Gujarat).

3. Since you are so concerned about the plight of the Kashmiri Pundits, please let us know under what agreement and by who, is India holding on to any part of Kashmir.

4. Re "Supremacist religions" Please let us know where in the world is Islam/Christianity being expanded by force. Please let us know who are being converted forcibly. If you cannot find a current example, please let us know when the last "holy war" took place.

6. Even if we accepted your comments that Muslims set fire to a train in Godhara, please let us know what was so special about that train, and where the people were coming from. They were celebrating an anniversary of something. What was it?

CLEARTHINKING1:

Clearthinking1: "Can this attitude ["supermacism" of Abrahamic faiths] be changed with feel-good interfaith dialogue? No.

This "interfaith dialogue" is NOT effective or productive, given the quality of articles posted by Mr. Patel. [Sorry, Eboo !]

NO interfaith dialogue is even possible with highly prejudiced, militant/extremist Hindutva propaganda that is so intolerant of other religions. Hate personified !

CLEARTHINING1:

Once again, you grossly undercut your own position, and you seem so consumed by hatred of other religions that you don’t even have a clue.

Labeling Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) as “supremacist” does not prepare the ground for “peaceful coexistence among religions,” or it serves your version of “tolerance,” when you call their “their belief supremacist” and “the real source of religious conflict in the world.”

Does it not make your religion more of a ‘supremacist’ than others you accuse of the very same? If “the superiority complex is fundamental to their structure,” what about your portrayal of Hinduism? If yours is supposedly more “tolerant” than other religions, how do you justify the caste-system, a tiered finality, a permanent inequality of people within the same religion, condemning some as ‘untouchables’ for almost “7,000 years” ? You say that “tolerance, equality, and mutual respect” are “necessary for peace,” but you show NONE of that toward other religions ! What about “equality” among various Castes within the same religion ?

Clearthinking: “So, calling Hinduism tolerant and peaceful and stating the obvious that Muslims and Christians must believe that their god is better (supremacist) than others is uncivilized.”

“Calling Hinduism tolerant and peaceful” in view of the realities (not “anecdotes”) pointed out in not just that State Department report but in reports world-wide (even in the Indian media) is denying the continuing atrocities against Indian minorities. Here your comments seem to come right out of the pages of Indian right-wing, Hindutva militant extremist propaganda that I have been reading. Stating that “their [Christian, Muslim] god is better (supremacist) than others,” is YOUR own biased assumption, and when you call these biased assumptions “the obvious,” you are living in your own world, NOT the same realm of most scientists in this country or the West.

This man ‘doth protest too much, methinks’ !

Dropping your “g’s” (“…those intolerant Hindoos seem kinda tolerant and peaceful, considerin' what they're dealin' with.”) doesn’t necessarily make you “an American” or makes your claim of the West as “[your] home” any credible, either. Just Laughable !

Again, your comments on the State Dept report (on Atrocities against Indian religious minorities) fit in snugly with the intolerance of the Indian Hindutva militant extremist groups.

“[T]he fundamental facts remain,” and “the Truth will always prevail,” but certainly NOT YOUR prejudiced version of the facts or the truth!

This highly offensive attitude: Hardly a part of any civilized discussion in this society!

Bostonbrahmin,

You keep missing the point. I know this is new to a lot of people, but it is not that complicated. I use the word supremacist not just to be provocative, but to make what I think is the essential point about peaceful coexistence among religions.

The key concept is tolerance. Tolerance is superior to intolerance, not one specific religion to another. If Hinduism is more tolerant than Islam, so be it. If the shoe fits... I didn't make either of those belief systems.

If a true-believing Christian or Muslim gets uncomfortable reading my posts, that's a good thing. If they believe that a Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Zorostrian etc. will go to hell because they have not accepted Jesus or submitted to Allah, then I call this belief supremacist and the real source of religious conflict in the world.
People with such a belief need to re-evaluate that belief. Many Hindus, especially in America, celebrate Christmas. Hindus go to Sikh, Buddhist, Jain temples. No problem; what's the big deal?. Unfortunately, Muslims and Christians cannot do this. Acknowledging the equality of another religion is percieved as an existential threat.
Can this attitude be changed with feel-good interfaith dialogue? No. These religions were designed to expand like empires, and the superiority complex is fundamental to their structure, philosophy and writings. It will take a fundamental restructuring of these religions to have tolerance, equality, and mutual respect. I do not know if this is possible, but it is necessary for peace. So let's try.

Cantabb,
"Uncivilized, uncultured, provocative and offensive! It may be okay in India, but not here in the West." So, calling Hinduism tolerant and peaceful and stating the obvious that Muslims and Christians must believe that their god is better (supremacist) than others is uncivilized. I am an American, if you haven't figured that out from my colloquialisms yet. So I don't need advice about the "West" ; It's my home, too.

I have refrained from directly commenting on your reference to the State Dept. report, because I didn't feel it added anything new to the discussion. But for the sake of completeness: These human rights/religious rights reports are as critical as America gets, so I hope you read it carefully. A few quotes from your favorite report:

1. "The Constitution provides for secular government and the protection of religious freedom." I must admit that's mighty nice o' those intolerant hindoo majority to set up the government like that. Pakistan call itself an Islamic Republic and openly promotes Islam in its constitution.
2. "In May President APJ Abdul Kalam invited Dr. Manmohan Singh, a member of Congress Party, to form a coalition government." I must admit that's mighty nice o' those intolerant hindoo majority.
3. "Dr. Singh, a Sikh, became the first member of a religious minority to be prime minister. As President Kalam is a Muslim and the President of the governing Congress party (Sonia Gandhi) is a Christian, three of the most important politicians in India are members of religious minority communities." I must admit that's mighty nice o' those intolerant hindoo majority. Those poor exploited minorities seem to control the entire government; those sneaky Hindoos!
4. "The legal system accommodates minority religions' personal status laws; there are different personal status laws for different religious communities. For example, Muslim personal status law governs many noncriminal matters involving Muslims, including family law, inheritance, and divorce." I must admit that's mighty nice o' those intolerant hindoo majority to accommodate Muslim demands for special laws based on the Koran for multiple wives and quickie divorce - talak, talak, talak - better than Las Vegas for Muslims.
5. "Some major religious holidays celebrated by various groups are considered national holidays, including Christmas (Christian), Eid and the anniversary of the death of Mohammed (Muslim), Lord Buddha's birthday (Buddhist), Guru Nanak's Birthday (Sikh), Holi (Hindu), and the Birthday of Lord Mahavir (Jain)." I must admit that's mighty nice o' those intolerant hindoo majority to make NATIONAL HOLIDAYS for every religion (mostly 1-2%). In America, we only get Christmas, hmmm.
(Part 2 continued below)

(Part2 continued from above)
6. In Godra "Two train cars were set on fire, and 58 passengers killed, including 15 children and 25 women." The report conveniently forgets to mention the the innocent women and children were Hindu pilgrims in a clearly marked train. The murderers were local Muslim men.

7. "In 2002, an attack on the Swaminarayan Hindu Temple in Gujarat left 40 persons dead before security forces stormed the temple."
"In 2002, two assailants captured Hindu and Sikh pilgrims at a Hindu temple in Gandhinagar, Gujarat. During security forces efforts to capture the assailants and free the captives, 30 persons were killed."
"Between December 2002 and March 2003, approximately 30 Hindus died in explosions in the Hindu-dominated areas of Ghatkopar, Parle, and in a commuter train in Mumbai. Police blamed Muslim students for these killings."
As I said before, MORE HINDUS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY "MINORITIES" THAN "MINORITIES" KILLED BY HINDUS.

8. "Throughout the period covered by this report, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) continued to be a focus of violence. Pan-Islamic militants committed atrocities against Hindus."
9. "Militants also carried out SEVERAL MASS KILLINGS of Hindu villagers and violently targeted Pandits (Hindu Kashmiris) in an attempt to force Hindus to emigrate." These mass killings are conveniently lumped together in the report.
10. "According to the report of the Home Ministry from 2002-03, approximately 56,246 Pandit families fled their homes in J&K due to the violence." The number of displaced and exiled Kashmiri Pandits is 200,000 - 300,000.
YES, ITS TRUE. The group most displaced and exiled in their own nation by violence is...(drum roll please) - Kashmiri Brahmins due to Muslim violence. That highest of caste is the most victimized. This inconvenient fact is not often mentioned. Hmmm, maybe a simplistic understanding of caste and "minorities" in India today is not enough.

11. "Despite the incidents of violence and discrimination during the period covered by this report, relations between various religious groups generally are amicable among the substantial majority of citizens."

I must admit those intolerant Hindoos seem kinda tolerant and peaceful, considerin' what they're dealin' with.

Cantabb, there are many anecdotes in the report that you can quote, but the fundamental facts remain. There's a saying in Hinduism: Satyam Vijayate - the Truth will always prevail.

Cearthinking...you got it perfectly..and then let it go. In your own words..

"If a Muslim wants to live peacefully, fine. But if a Muslim wants to become a terrorist and murderer based on the Koran, then this needs to be addressed. This needs to by addressed first by Muslims directly, not just by calling these people fringe"

*******************************************
Why is it so difficult for you to take the one step forward, and accept your own logic? If it is necessary that the change must come from within the body of followers of a particular religion, then it is necessary for the the people of other religions to hold their tongue while the process takes place, and not sabotage the process by ranting and raving and badmouthing it?

A moderate liberal Christian would have a lot of issues with the religious right. However, when they are faced with criticism from followers of Islam or Hinduism, they are likely to be defensive. Similarly, while a liberal muslim may be completely against the narrow-mindedness and brutality of the Taliban, but is not liketly to take kindly to attacks on the religion itself. A liberal Hindu will feel loathing at the Hindu Taliban that is about to take over India, but he will not accept the mindless spouting that characterizes some of the posters in this forum.

Why dont you take the beam out of your own eye before you talk about the splinter in the eye of your brother?

In any case, the only way a person can be of any consequence is within the context of his own community. The moderates of every religion have a common interest: The stop the spread of extremism. Let us all take care of our own house first.

Part 2 of 2

CLEARTHINKING1: “The one thing I have learned from studying supremacism against blacks in America, is that it is best to expose it and to let the supremacist speak.”

The basic thing you haven’t learned is that your favorite term “supremacism” is offensive. Shows basic ignorance.

CLEARTHINKING!: “I am not arguing about the superiority of one religion over another.”

What else have you been talking about ? Not that Hinduism is better/superior/more tolerant than Abrahamic religions? Strange!
How long and how often you can keep twisting things or trying to get out of the web you created for yourself ? Amusing to watch you try.

You have shown, over and over again, that you are incapable of participating in an intellectually honest and balanced, unbiased, unprejudiced discussion. A few others seem to agree.

Part 1 of 2

CLEARTHIKING! (to Bostonbrahmin)

Trying to twist things again, Clearthinking1 ?

Clearthinking: “These people try to sound reasonable, but it doesn't take long for the anger and hate to come out. Cantabb has repeatedly written the following "Try this at a street corner in the US or most places in the West (or the place you work), and you would soon realize the risks involved." This is an obvious attempt to intimidate and threaten, potentially with physical harm.”

“Anger and hate” from your posts hits one in the face right away: “it doesn’t take long” !

What you continue to miss is the fact you can not talk the way you do (‘My religion/baby is better than yours’) in a civilized discussion (even under the forum anonymity or on a street corner face-to-face). Uncivilized, uncultured, provocative and offensive! It may be okay in India, but not here in the West.

You’ll learn that if you try this on YOUR street corner from the people YOU talk to (not me). Consider that a helpful suggestion, an advice for conducting a sensible discussion in a polite Western society: NOT what you are foolishly trying to take it as “an obvious attempt to intimidate and threaten, potentially with physical harm.” NONSENSE !

You just don’t do that, even under the anonymity of user ID, when people are trying to understand other beliefs and faiths. You can’t keep blaming others for what YOU initiate without provocation.
Obviously, you haven’t learned that yet.

Those [“intelligent, educated Westerners”] you talk to the way you do here: “most agree with the basic premise when presented to them - that Hinduism and Vedanta promote tolerance and peace, whereas Islam and Christianity often create religious conflict due to supremacist attitudes.”

They never asked you about Hindu right-wing extremist violence/atrocities against religious minorities (Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and others)? And they accepted your justification that these minorities have killed more Hindus over the years, that’s why Hindu extremists have to do it in the name of Hinduism/Hindutva/Vedanta – all that only “promote tolerance and peace”? Ummm?

They never asked you about the well-documented violence against religious minorities in India, described in this link and in your Country’s own media ?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35516.htm

And they never asked you why Hinduism, being so much better than what you call the “supremacist” Christianity and Islam, shouldn’t be considered “supremacist” too ? Particularly at the very top of this list of "supremacists"? Never asked you why has this religion practiced a Caste system (tiered from the superior caste down to the untouchables) for about “7,000 years” (perhaps minus last 60 or so years)? No questions at all?

You must move in a uniquely unquestioning circle!

The anonymity you complain about is the SAME anonymity you enjoy while spewing your unreconstructed hatred and provocations.

Bostonbrahmin,

Excellent post on the caste system. It was clear and concise, which is not easy for such a topic.

We disagree about a basic point. You wrote, "Such discussions are unhelpful, and in the end a complete waste of time." My view is that a lot of people pretend to be for dialogue and mutual respect, but are insincere. For example, nadinebatra writes "I agree with Eboo and Cantabb1 that promoting interfaith dialogue is the need of the day." These people try to sound reasonable, but it doesn't take long for the anger and hate to come out. Cantabb has repeatedly written the following "Try this at a street corner in the US or most places in the West (or the place you work), and you would soon realize the risks involved." This is an obvious attempt to intimidate and threaten, potentially with physical harm. I have had many similar discussions at work in the West. People I work with are intelligent, educated Westerners, and most agree with the basic premise when presented to them - that Hinduism and Vedanta promote tolerance and peace, whereas Islam and Christianity often create religious conflict due to supremacist attitudes.
What is interesting is the reaction one gets here on this forum. Because of the anonymity, people's true colors come out more quickly. The threats and intimidation attempts by Cantabb and the usual anti-Hindu rants of HSNKHWJ, India51, and now nadinebatra are examples.

The one thing I have learned from studying supremacism against blacks in America, is that it is best to expose it and to let the supremacist speak. As you can see already, their arguments are limited and incorrect. However, these incorrect beliefs are prevalent under the surface and need to be discussed and exposed.
I am not arguing about the superiority of one religion over another. If a Muslim wants to live peacefully, fine. But if a Muslim wants to become a terrorist and murderer based on the Koran, then this needs to be addressed. This needs to by addressed first by Muslims directly, not just by calling these people fringe. If you believe in the infallibility of the Koran, the arguments made for violence by jihadists sound more logical than arguments made for peace by Eboo Patel. If Eboo does not believe that the Koran is the unquestionable word of God, then he should say so. Until this is clarified, insincere interfaith dialogue will cause more harm than good.

The attacks on Hinduism are quite limited and usually include caste, dowry, supposed genocide against muslims, christians, and Buddhists and cow urine (this is apparently a favorite of Hindu-haters). These attacks often confuse social and political issues that existed in all societies and try to attach it to Hinduism. You presented a nice discussion on caste. The other issues are even easier to discuss and explain. So, is open nonviolent discussion and debate a waste of time? Absolutely not; it is necessary for progress.

Both Muslims and Christians worship the same God, along with the Jews too, please don't forget them. Their followers, and the sort of idiot teachings they spew don't speak very well for any transcendent truth of their dogma. When they do violence, they disprove the existence of their God.

The real question is what to do about a bunch of fanatical idiots besides shoot them on sight.

Indian51,

You are wrong in many ways.
I am not, never have been, and will never need to be a member of a Hindu extremist group.
I do not have much interest in Indian politics. It's complex and messy, but that may be a good thing for democracy in a diverse place like India.
To be proud of Hinduism and its philosophy does not make you an extermist or fundamentalist.
To say Hinduism is peaceful and tolerant is not a supremacist statement.

Amritya Sen does not consider himself a Hindu, which is probably why you like his statements. He has disavowed Hinduism and calls himself an atheist. He divorced his Hindu wife soon after moving to Britain, and married a Christian Brit. His current and third wife is also a Christian and Brit. His first 2 children were with the first wife, and his second 2 children were with his second wife. He may still be a "decent Hindu" as you like to call him, but that's probably not his preferred description of himself.

So you are wrong about Mr. Sen, just as you are quite wrong about me. Mr. Sen probably has his own identity issues and his own agenda, just like you.

I think Clearthinking1 belongs to one of those Hindu extremist groups who bring a bad name to the vast majority of Indians/Hindus who believe in tolerance. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, a decent Hindu, had fanatics like Clearthinking1 in his mind when he said, "The Hindu militant presents India as a country of unquestioning idolaters, delirious fanatics, belligerent devotees, and religious murderers."

Let's not repeat history and let our guard down in fear of not having enough gas,jobs,or religious organizations versed in the culture.
Posted by: formerheap | March 28, 2009 3:51 PM
********************************

Could you please remind us which history that you are so afraid of repeating. I dont honestly remember any "holocaust" happening from being too tolerant of other cultures.

nadinebatra...please..can you please read a post before commenting.

As we continue to show tolerance,attempt to work with,or have to take a stand to maintain the essence of the rules,laws,and human rights that are afforded US in the United States,this "muslim"tolerance and cultural diversity continue to infilitrate the fiber of our country.When one of the 22 middleestern countries (Egypt)which had the gull to commit terrorists acts against the entire world on American soil are still able to exert their force,power,and control on any USA street in any village,town,or city they choose under the guise that we have to be tolerant,we have to accept these acts of terror,intimidation,socioeconomic control,and fear factors is comparable to the holocaust in this country.Let's not repeat history and let our guard down in fear of not having enough gas,jobs,or religious organizations versed in the culture.

Bostonbrahmin:

I am not sure if I understand the functional nature of the caste system. What is functional for upper castes is non-functional or dysfunctional for the lower castes or the untouchables.

A lawyer's son has a choice to become a lawyer or become anything else. Such a choice does not exist in the caste system.

One is born is a particular caste and lives one's entire life in that caste. There are restrictions in social intercourse in the caste system.

The untouchables get only the promise of a better life next time, someone wrote here. I agree with that.

Let us not confuse the class system with the caste system--the former is open-ended, the latter is a closed system.

CLEARTHINKING1:

What seems to run through your posts is the repeated provocation I have pointed out before: ‘My child is better than yours’ !

Try this at a street corner in the US or most places in the West (or the place you work), and you would soon realize the risks involved.

This offensive attitude, this provocative approach does NOT belong in any civilized discussion, or where people are trying to listen to other points of view, and promote understanding and tolerance, rather than stir up differences with inflammatory language. Which is what I suggested you follow/practice Rig Vedan and Gandhian philosophy, than preach it or do just the opposite.

You also undercut your own ‘arguments’. Hinduism is ‘BETTER’ than what you call the “supremacist” Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Doesn’t that make Hinduism ‘supremacist’ too ? Supported by such fundamental /inherent beliefs and practices like ‘Caste-system’ which flies in the face of ‘all men are created equal’ ? What about humanity and tolerance ?

You say you are a “Scientist” working in the West, and then you present such things without documentary evidence or reason (as if to justify or rationalize Hindu violence against Christian and other Indian minorities) :

“I will use capital letters to state this amazing fact again: MANY MORE HINDUS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY "MINORITIES" THAN "MINORITIES" KILLED BY HINDUS. This has been true for centuries, and is true as recently as the past few decades (Islamic and Sikh terrorism). I will not repeat the previously cited examples of Hindu forgiveness and tolerance.”

“….it is considered NOT LOGICAL to find an example of a violent act by a Hindu and claim that it is contradictory evidence. (I can see your excitement in your use of capital letter). If one Hindu kills one missionary in Orissa, it is not proof of equivalency.”

Did you ever read the link I posted for you several times so far? :http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35516.htm [Violence against religious minorities in India].

“Let us all contemplate and discuss this in a civilized and nonviolent manner.”

Something you still haven’t learn to do, despite numerous reminders.

YOUR hate-filled, intolerant posts violate the very philosophy you like to talk about ! You are abusing this opportunity for a civilized discussion. You are incorrigible.

Since there has been a number of posters who have tried to talk about the Caste system in India, I was wondering if I may venture to give a 101 version, just in case there are people reading this forum that genuinely seek knowledge. Most do not, and they may go ahead and keep posting their rants, and I dont care.

The caste system started as way to fix people to their professions. Even today, it is easier for a son of a Lawyer to become one, and the son of a farmer to be another farmer. The caste system mandated that people follow their father's prfession. This loss of social mobility is obviously not acceptable by today's standards. However, 3000 years ago, it was immensely helpful, specially in a society that was going through a transformation from a nomadic to a agrarian form.

Every profession was given a caste (or a subcaste) and people were foreced to stick to their caste. This helped in extreme specialization of skills and efficienct transfer of know-how from generation to generation.

It is logical that if a soldiers son is necessarily a soldier, he can be trained from an young age. Furthermore, there will be less incentive for him to run away from the battlefield as there will be no other profession open to him. If a class of people were formed whose main duties were to write, recite and propagate the scriptures, the enormous time and resources spent in teaching people how to read and write well (say equivalent to a college degree) can be foussed on a few who will then be forced to use such skills. The same for the business people, and the farmers. It was necessarily a way to streamline the functions of a society.

Caste System -Part 2

People have been talking about the vileness of untouchability. However, we need to look at the roots of why one class of people were considered "untouchable". It was a necessary tool to stop the spread of infection. People who dealt with dangerous professions such as handling dead bodies and handling dead animals were considered untouchables. It was the 2000 yr old equivalent of the Hazmat suit. In the times where nobody had any clue about dangerous pathogens, it was discovered that the people who had developed an immuntiy to certain diseases can still be carriers if they were allowed to mix in the general population. Thus, they had to be isolated from the main body of society.

Let us take a look at contemporary society. We have now a whole bunch of people who train as english majors and then go to business school. We have sons of farmers who travel to city and become factory workers. We have "kids" 25 yr old who still dont know what they will do in life. All of this may have a benefit at the individual level, but to a society it is immensely wasteful. We can today accept such a waste, as we have generally overcome the forces of nature through progress of science and technology. However 3000 years ago, it was probably very helpful to regimentalize society.

Over the passage of time, the caste system also helped in allowing newer migrants to enter Hindu society. When the Huns from central Asia overran all of Europe, a branch also came to India, even though their effect was less severe. The Huns who eventually settled in India were brought into the Hindu fold, and were given the caste of "Rajputs", namely son of Kings. They were a special warier class and were instrumental in keeping out the invading muslims in later centuries.

I am not about to defend the caste system of today. It is a vile institution that has long ceased to be useful. However, we need to look at things in the proper context.

Eboo pontificates:
“The more sentences we read which begin with "young Muslim" and end with "terrorist", the more we expect those two things to be linked."

A more accurate statement would be “every time Muslims read their Quran, the more they link violence against the other with Allah and His Divine commands. “

Clearthinking..

Perhaps it is time you look very carefully at the posts you have been making. You start off by saying the Islam and Christianity is aggresive by nature. However, I have yet to see a post that has such a message. I dont remember last time anybody has talked about the superiority of their religion over others. Except you, that is.

The moment you set up such an argument, you open up the floodgates of criticism that can be either infantile, or serious. The point is, it is your posts that are drawing such arguments, and fouling up the space.

Every religion has within itself fundamentlly good things, beautiful things. However, whenever any of the proponents make arguments such as yours, it opens up a whole set of discussions that are totally unhelpful.

If somebody pushes Christianity, I can show proof that slavery was justified using the Bible. If somebody pushes Islam, I can throw Mahmud Gazni and his deeds, as well as contemporary Saudi Arabia at him. If somebody pushes Judaism, the actions of the settlers in West Bank and Gaza is all too obvious. If somebody pushes Buddhism, there are enough Hindu-Buddhist fights in Indian history (not to mention comtemporary Sri Lanka) to punch holes in his argument. If you push Hinduism, they will throw the Manu Samhita at you, as I have done before.

Such discussions are unhelpful, and in the end a complete waste of time.

CLEARTHINKING:

I have been trying to understand Hinduism and other religions by reading so many comments of different individuals.

It appears that you are the one who is trying to promote "Hindus are peaceful" and superior and other religions are violent.

You never explained with any reasonable logic as to why Manusmriti promoted caste system--one of the oldest Hindu philosophies. You just say it is reformable. Is it?

I have read comments stating dowry is still given and taken in India and the caste system is very much alive and a dominant theme in India's social structure.

I never found an answer as to why Hindus promote urine drinking, burning alive widows, burning alive young brides for dowry, why they ask the untouchables to handle human waste and take the load on their heads for dumping it somewhere.

I never found an answer as to why Hindus have been burning Christian churches and demolishing mosques in India.

I never found a satisfactory answer as to why the officials of BJP led government in Gujarat promoted genocide of Muslims there.

Don't tell us that urine drinking does not amount to violence. I feel it is part of the mind set of the Hindus.

I never found an answer as to why Hindus eliminated Buddhism in the two post Ashoka centuries?

Isn't it ironic that Buddhism was born in India and today India has only 2 per cent Buddhists?

The argument that Hinduism is non-violent is totally unconvincing to this liberal-minded American.

I agree with Eboo and Cantabb1 that promoting interfaith dialogue is the need of the day.

Some people of Islamic faith may be promoting ‘a goodness which extends not only to fellow humans, but to animals and the earth’ as Eboo Patel claims in this heart-warming story but it is just a story. Fact is Islam is based on Qur’an. Qur’an openly calls for the killing or converting of non-believers (i.e. pagans) and idolaters (i.e. Hindus and Buddhists) and for oppressing and humiliating the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians).
Qur'an calls on Muslims to wage jihad against non-Muslims 2:191, 2:193, 4:66, 4:84, 5:33, 8:12, 8:15-18, 8:39, 8:59-60, 8:65, 9:2, 9:5, 9:14, 9:29, 9:39, 9:73, 9:111, 9:123, 25:52, 37:22-23, 47:4, 48:29, 69:30.
Qur'an promotes jihad against the non-Muslims by glorifying it 2:216, 9:41, 49:15, or by promising lust in paradise to Shaheeds (martyrs) who die in such a war 3:142, 3:157, 9:20.
Qur'an promises hell to non-Muslims 3:85, 4:56, 5:37, 5:72, 8:55, 9:28, 15:2, 21:98, 22:19, 22:56, 25:17, 25:55, 29:53, 31:13, 66:9, 68:10, 72:14.
Qur'an warns Muslims against mixing with non-Muslims 2:21, 3:28, 3:118, 5:144, 9:7, 9:28, 58:23, 60:4.

Some fundamentalist Muslims take these messages of Qur’an literally and Eboo Patel and his band of moderate Muslims can NOT prevent those fundamentalists from carrying out Qur’an’s edicts. May be Eboo Patel and his band should initiate a movement to change these basic edicts of Qur’an.

nadinebatra,

A short course in logic and statistics will be very helpful to you. I cannot provide this for you, but let me try to point out somethings that might help you.

We all know there exist Hindus who are murderers, rapists, criminals etc. The discussion is whether the philosophy of Hinduism promotes violence or helps diminish violence in the world, especially when compared with Islam, for example.

Here is a concrete example to help you. If someone states that the S&P 500 stock index was down 10% last year, it is NOT LOGICAL for you to claim that this is false because you know that ONE of the companies in the S&P 500 had its stock go up. Similarly, it is considered NOT LOGICAL to find an example of a violent act by a Hindu and claim that it is contradictory evidence. (I can see your excitement in your use of capital letter). If one Hindu kills one missionary in Orissa, it is not proof of equivalency.

I will use capital letters to state this amazing fact again: MANY MORE HINDUS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY "MINORITIES" THAN "MINORITIES" KILLED BY HINDUS. This has been true for centuries, and is true as recently as the past few decades (Islamic and Sikh terrorism). I will not repeat the previously cited examples of Hindu forgiveness and tolerance.

So, the question remains. What is the source of religious conflict in India and throughout the world? Is it more due to the nonsupremacist philosophy of Hinduism and Vedanta, or is it more due to the supremacist philosophy and the urge to proselytize inherent in Islam and Christianity?

Bostonbrahmin,

Thank you for the reference to the writings of Sri Chaitanya. I think we agree that there are innumerable beautiful examples of Hindu writings demonstrating the peaceful and tolerant philosophy of Hinduism.

You (and others) seem to confuse confrontation and tension with violence. Please read the writings of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. They understood that creating tension in the minds of others is the most effective way of creating change, especially when it comes to moral issues. Gandhi read the Gita everyday. I suggest you read chapters 1 & 2 again with good commentary to understand why Bhagavan Krishna advised Arjuna to stand up and fight for Dharma. The Bhagvad Gita is one of the fundamental texts of Hinduism and has been studied by numerous brilliant men. They all came away awed by the succinct presentation of the essential conflict.

Try to understand how the Gita is consistent with righteousness and nonviolence. Try to understand why Gandhi found inspiration for nonviolence in the advice given Arjuna to fight. If you don't understand, ask a learned man you respect.

Nonviolence (Ahimsa) does not preclude selfdefence. Simplistic idealism can be destructive. If you promote wrong ideas, you will increase the amount of suffering in the world, not decrease it. Would you council absolute nonviolence and absolute nonconfrontation to everyone always? Would you have advised Gandhi and King against the confrontaion they sought bravely, and told them instead to be nonconfrontational and passive - don't offend the British, try to have interethnic dialogue. There is a fine line between the ideal of nonviolence and cowardice.

As I have said before, I believe it is the supremacism inherent in the teachings and history of Islam and Christianity that is the source of most religious conflict in the world today. Why exactly does this statement create so much tension and discomfort? Is it because it is false or because it is true? Let us all contemplate and discuss this in a civilized and nonviolent manner.

THIS REPORT CONTRADICTS CLEARTHINKING'S ASSERTIONS:

Modi Govt says minister led mob that killed 95

Gujarat minister Maya Kodnani led a mob that killed at least 95 Muslims in Ahmedabad during the riots of 2002, said an affidavit given by the state’s government to the high court on Thursday.

"She was a leader of the mob and at the relevant point of time she was an MLA who instigated the mob to commit the crime and therefore was in the main role,” said the affidavit.

Here’s what the affidavit said about her role in the riots:

“During the investigation of the offence, it has been revealed that she had fired from her pistol and it has been further revealed that she came in her car and had distributed swords to the mob.”

This affidavit would have come up in Gujarat High Court on Thursday, but Justice AS Dave refused to hear the matter. A different judge will hear the case now.

READ FULL STORY:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=81863a15-6f1e-462d-85a7-4decf674597a

BOSTONBRAHMIN:

Another thoughtful post, BB !

"Vaishnav saint Sri Chaitanya: ....be as forgiving as the trees, and as humble as the grass."

Beautiful thought !!

Thanks.

All of this only gets to show how "interfaith" dialog is just a fun term coined by academics out to get a free lunch.

It assumes that the "faiths" are themselves homogenous, and there is one clear narrative that a majority of the people belonging to the faith can relate to.

That is obviously an oversimplification. The Universal Unitarian feels nothing but loading for the Southern Baptist, and the feelings are mutual. The Wahabist Muslim will feel that the Muslim who visits the marzat of a saint (as most Muslims in India do) is guilty of apostacy, punishable by death. The modern average Hindu would feel nothing but anger and shame at the Mosque breaking Millitant Hindu Taliban that is the main opposition party in India.

I think, if there is any reason for "interfaith" dialog, it would be to ensure that enough evidence is placed on the table to negate the idea that any single group, no matter how vocal they are, are not allowed to fool the world into believing that they are the sole voice representing their faith.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask Mr Clearthinking to read the works of the Vaishnav saint Sri Chaitanya, who asked his followers to be as forgiving as the trees, and as humble as the grass. Vaishnav principles of universal love is truely one of the many important faces of Hinduism

CLEARTHINKING1:

Your 3-part post has the same RANT against others religions. You were the one who attacked other religions, UNPROVOKED (not just some groups in those groups), and STILL continue attacking them.

In fact, you have been using this UN-moderated Forum to continue your religious right-wing propaganda, raw and intolerant.

As I said, learn and follow Rig Veda and the Gandhian principles, NOT violate them !

NOTHING in your post that I have NOT responded or dismissed several times before. BYE !

Cantabb,

You wrote: "I am here to understand from an interfaith dialogue" and "I had a favorable view of Hinduism, before I saw such hate."

Unfortunately, this is what interfaith dialogue often sounds like. You have become used to a fantasy of one-sided interfaith dialogue, where one side (usually Muslim or Christian) comes to the table with a supremacist attitude. For Hindus, who have no superiority of prophet or book issues, no proselytizing, no expanding, and no winning the war, this is understandably offensive.

So either everybody comes to the table with supremacist attitudes or nobody comes with supremacist attitudes. Christians and Muslims must say that their book or their prophet is right and better and others are wrong and inferior. This is not mutual respect. Without mutual respect, interfaith dialogue will not make progress. And worse, such dialogue by people of good intentions provides cover to those within each religion with destructive tendencies and bad intentions.

Now that you have a better sense of what religious supremacism and narrow minded hate looks like, which do you prefer - everybody comes with a supremacist attitude or no one? The days of Hindus saying all religions are equal and just different paths to the same truth are on pause. Muslims and Christians were in India for over the last 1000 years with the wrong (supremacist) and destructive attitudes.

It has been the same problem almost everywhere in the world - native peoples in USA, Canada, Australia; animists in Africa; pagans in Europe; Zoroastrians in the Middle East, and Hindus in Asia. The ill treatment of other people and disrespect for other religions has been the source of perpetual religious tensions.
(continues below)

(continued)cantabb,

You seem to believe that if one belief system promotes tolerance and diversity of spiritual paths and another promotes intolerance of different beliefs, both are equal. For example, the ideal of tolerance in Hinduism is stated directly in the Rig Veda and is presented symbolically in the multiplicity of "deities". Hindus often go to Sikh, Jain, or Buddhists temples and accept their founders as enlightened sages. Hindus would be happy to call Moses, Jesus, and Mohamed as another "god" or sage if one likes. But this has to be reciprocated at least with mutual respect. Do you think the Abrahamic faiths are capable of sincerely doing this?
(continues below)

(continued from above)
P.S. I have previously responded to your statements about attacks on minorities in India. Briefly again, minorities have killed many more Hindus than vise-versa. This fact is true even as recently as the last several decades (e.g. Kashmir terrorism & Sikh terrorism). In spite of this, the current PM is Sikh and the last President was Muslim, Sonia Gandhi is Christian, the current president is a woman. Hindu intolerance? Please. Contrast this with predominantly Muslim nations.
Don't worry about inflammatory language. Hindus have been insulted by British Christians and Muslims (even the Koran insults Hindus) for hundreds of years and they are used to it. Hindus have forgiven the crimes during British colonialism, Muslim terrorism, and Sikh terrorism. As I wrote above (and for the umpteenth time) all these groups all have disproportionate representation as Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc. This should tell you something, if your mind is open.

Clearthinking1 wants Hindus to shed their inferiority complex. I must say Hindu customs are responsible for it. Hindus often find themselves confused as to why they worship icons created out of clays and stones into the shape of ridiculous half-animal half-human objects with weird stories associated with them. Hindus themselves can't understand how and why they worship the penis of Shiva or the vagina of Parvati; why lord Ram allowed his brother Laxman to have sexual relationship with his wife Sita (as depicted in several works of art) how the great lord could be so stupid to spend 12 years preparing the army of monkeys, invade the abductors country, free his wife and then caste a doubt at her chastity (there are stories about the sex life of Ravan with Sita as well and that Luv and Kush were, in fact, Ravan's and not Ram’s sons) then bury her alive. Hindus are also amazed how five men could keep one wife only because their mother blurted out something stupid and silly without knowing what she is talking about. How the epitome of virtue could gamble away everything he had including his wife (which by the way was shared by his other five brothers). It is also amazing how Krishna, the next avatar could so easily get away with fornication and rape of so many young girls and still get worshipped. How this conniving individual was worshipped despite his record as a sexual predator, a forgery master, a con artist and a troublemaker who incited hate and wars between brothers for debatable reasons. There are also disgusting customs like urine drinking, selling cow urine as a soft drink, sprinkling of cow urine on food, etc. It's enough to shake vigorously the mind of any straight thinking individual. And then you have customs like caste system, bride burning, burning of widows, “fertility treatment” for women by Hindu priests inside the secret chambers of temples, prostitution in the name of Gopis of temples, etc. People are ashamed to associate with the repugnant Hindu culture and the wholesale corruption in India. So they say they are from Africa or fom the Caribbean.
As for you Clearthinking, there’s nothing wrong for enjoying life with your wife and children in the West. Just enjoy life and don’t try to whitewash the repugnant Hindu culture with Vedanta or any other “superior Hindu culture” crap.

EDITED (Grrrrr!)

To HSNKHWJ:

Thanks, but can we get past mutual recriminations and have a meaningful 'interfaith' dialogue?

Extreme right-wing fundamentalism from any side doesn't work in an open multicultural society like ours. Such Anti-Semitism and open hatred against other religions IS NOT be tolerated in THIS country. Perpetrators face a LOT of legal risk.

Anonymous IDs on such forums shouldn't be abused.

Given the published case of Varun Gandhi's case, I doubt (and am not sure) if anyone could get away with inflammatory language, fanning racial/religious conflicts or tensions publicly in INDIA either.

I am here to learn and understand from an interfaith dialogue, IF Washington Post, Eboo Patel and other members of Faith panel can try to maintain it at a rational level.

Hope they can. BUT so far, THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO ON THIS FORUM!

EDITED (Grrrrrh!)

To HSNKHWJ:

Thanks, but can we get past mutual recriminations and have a meaningful 'interfaith' discussion here?

Extreme right-wing fundamentalism (from any side) doesn't work in an open multicultural society like ours. I am sure such Anti-Semitism and open hatred against other religions will NOT be tolerated in THIS country.

Perpetrators face a LOT of legal risk.

Anonymous IDs on such forums shouldn't be abused.

Given the published case of Varun Gandhi, I doubt (and am not sure) if anyone could get away with such inflammatory language, fanning racial/religious conflicts or tensions publicly in INDIA either.

I am here to learn and understand from an interfaith dialog, IF Washington Post, Eboo Patel and other members of Faith panel can try to maintain it at a rational level.

Hope they can. So far, THEY HAVE NOT ON THIS FORUM, unfortunately!

To HSNKHWJ:

Thanks, but can we get past mutual recriminations and have a meaningful 'interfaith' !

Extreme right-wing fundamentalism doesn't work in an open multicultural society like ours. I am sure such Anti-Semitism and open hatred against other religions will be tolerated in THIS country. Perpetrators will face LOT of legal risk

Anonymous IDs on such forums shouldn't be abused.

Given the published case of Varun Gandhi's case, I doubt (and am not sure) if anyone could get away with inflammatory language, fanning racial/religious conflicts or tensions publicly in INDIA either.

I am here to understand from an interfaith dialog, IF Washington Post, Eboo Patel and other members of Faith panel can try to maintain it at a rational level.

Hope they can. So far, HAVE NOT ON THIS FORUM!

Cantabb1:

You have articulated your position as clearly as possible and CLEARTHINKING believes in muddying the waters because he has no answers to the issues raised by you or by Indian51. To summarise:

(1) Clearthinking and the fanatic Hindus (not all Hindus are fanatics) hate monotheiestic faiths.

(2) Indian51 put it aptly about fanatic Hindus: "Tjey hate Christians and other minorities, but work like slaves to please their Christian bosses in the West, or the Muslim bosses in the Middle East."

(3)"they engage in hateful rants about their superior Hindu culture."

(4)The untouchable women from India described their plight before the U.N. describing the inhuman treatment they are subjected to by the upper caste Hindus such as cleaning the human excrement by their bare hands and carrying the heavy load of excrement on their heads.

(5) India is 85% Hindu and Transparency International has put India on top of its Bribe Payer Index.

(6)According to WHO about 770 million people in India defecate publicly.

(7) About 20 million female fetuses were killed by Hindus in a 10 year period.

(8)The British Medical Journal Lancet reported that more than 100,000 young brides were killed in bride-burning fires in India every year.

(9) Hindus are the biggest racists. Racial bias lawsuit was filed by Blacks against Brahmin Prime Minister, Vajpayee for refusing to be served by black workers in the hotel he stayed.

Clearthinking has no shame when he claims the superiority of Hindu religion. He has never denounced urine drinking, burning alive of brides for dowry, burning alive of widows (Sati), discriminating against minoritities.

He has not rejected BJP, Bajrang Dal, Shiva Sena, Vihwa Hindu Parishad (VHP=World Hindu Council)

This phenomenon should be of no surprise to Americans. After Obama was sworn-in, a boy sitting in a classroom at a clearly urban school was asked what Obama's victory meant to him by a reporter on CNN.

To paraphrase, the boy replied, 'It means that when you see a black person on TV, they might not be a rapper, athlete, or a criminal. They might be a doctor or a lawyer or the president.'

Too long have we accepted narratives for whole groups of individuals and not accepted the consequences of doing so.

To Clearthinking...

I get your point entirely. I guess, to each his own. If you believe that provoking small-minds into proving their minds are indeed small is the way to go, then go ahead and provoke them as much as you like. I think it is waste of time. The best way to respond to them is to not respond to them.

The point I was trying to make, and I will repeat again here, that the fundamental principle of interfaith dialog is to try to represent the "real" version of religion as is currently followed. This, as opposed to pedantic arguments about the roots of the religion, as the scholars might want to do in a school of Divinity, for example.

The image of Hinduism that you are trying to paint, exists in the books. However, whether it ever reflected the general society at any point of time, is debatable, and even if it did, that was a few thousands of years ago. It has very little to do with the Hinduism of today.

For the last few hundred years, the co-existence of Islam and Hinduism in India has produced a radically new form of Hinduism and Islam, that is as far removed from the Rig Veda and the Koran, as the current generation X is from the Hebrew Bible. Thus, endless discussion of the ancient texts does not lead anywhere.

My point is, the version of Hinduism and Islam that is practiced in the subcontinent is a much more advanced version of the original, for both of the religions. It is a product of co-existence, and the give and take of ideas between the two, in which they have come closer and they have enriched each other.

The general Hinduism (and Islam) that is practiced in India is confusing, freewheeling and generally benign. The greatest influence is from Sufi saints and from the Bhakti movement, where the message is "Lord resides in the heart" and the spirit of universal brotherhood. This so called "Easy" version of religion is the product of the teachings of many good men of both religions, for the last few hundred years, and thus talking about ancient "pure" Islam or the Rig Veda is pointless.

So, who are the people who follow the "easy" version of Hinduism or Islam? The answer is the common, and generally poor people in the villages. While the scholars fought each other in trying to establish the roots of their religion, these people have learned how to live in harmony. As a result we have temples and Dargahs where people of either community visit and offer prayers. Some time ago, this point was brought forward by somebody that by offering prayers to a Mazar, A. R. Rahman may have violated the fundamental principles of Islam. People don't care for such semantics.

It is my opinion, the the best way to move forward is to recognize this, and bring it out for the world to see. If you want something to be proud about, look into the teachings of Sant Kabir and Sri Chaitanya, and you will find shades of Rumi and the Bhagvad Gita amalgamated into one.

CLEARTHINKING1 to Bostonbrahmin:

"One can almost smell and taste the burst of hatred and bile that comes out against Hindus.......
My goal is not to convince hateful or supremacist people to be respectful of others but to let other people see the hate and to let them feel supremacism. I believe that the supremacism inherent in Islam and Christianity is the biggest source of religious conflict today, and no amount of politically correct, feel-good interfaith dialogue will work. You may disagree, and this is a legitimate topic for intellectual discussion - not Cantabbian & Ebooian interfaith dialogue for the sake of interfaith dialogue."

"My goal is also to convince some Hindus (you decide is this applys to you) to shed the inferiority complex after 300 years of British propaganda against Hinduism."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In YOUR case, most reader can NOT ONLY "almost smell and taste the burst of hatred and bile that comes out against" Christians, Muslims and people of other religions" but are FLOODED by YOUR hatred and vitriol, self-styled 'teacher'!!

I don't remember any one here talked about the "inferiority complex" YOU mention "some Hindus" have or must "shed." You are imagining, once again, as YOU smear YOUR own religion (of which I always had a favorable opinion) by unprovoked denunciation of other religions, repeatedly.

Are you here as a MOUTHPIECE of some extreme-rightwing violent group of your religion, I have read so much about in the Media ?

Did you read the links I posted for you on violence against Indian minorities (Christians, Muslms, Sikhs) ? Why NO comment yet ?

In this incoherent blather, YOU are bubbling with intense hate. YOU forced in 'Hinduism' in this discussion and condemned other religions, not just some practitioners of them, but the ENTIRE religion itself: YOUR child is NO better than anyone else's child to that person !!! DID you TRY THIS on your colleagues at work or any street corner yet ?

You call yourself a Scientist ? Unheard of in my field of science in this country or anywhere else in the West.

Practice what you preach, "Guru" : Follow Rig Veda principles, Gandhian example. Don't try to besmirch a great tradition.

Use this "inter-faith" opportunity; don't abuse it.

Bostonbrahmin,

You may think my "pro-Hindu" writings are a waste or distraction off topic. But think and read a little more carefully. Sometimes a point is made best indirectly by example and symbolism. I am quite sure you have a good enough understanding of the methods of teaching in Hinduism to know that communicating an abstract concept can be done in many ways. The teacher (guru) uses what he thinks is the best method. But in the end the student will contemplate and realize on his own or he will not.

For example, instead of saying too many muslims have a visceral hatred of Hinduism based on the Koran (e.g. idolators, polytheists, kafirs, lower than Christians and Jews, and worthy of killing) in words, it is better to let others see it and know it viscerally. It is easy and predictable to push the buttons of HSNKHWJ and Indian51, etc. One can almost smell and taste the burst of hatred and bile that comes out against Hindus. It seems to bother you, but does it scare you?

My goal is not to convince hateful or supremacist people to be respectful of others but to let other people see the hate and to let them feel supremacism. I believe that the supremacism inherent in Islam and Christianity is the biggest source of religious conflict today, and no amount of politically correct, feel-good interfaith dialogue will work. You may disagree, and this is a legitimate topic for intellectual discussion - not Cantabbian & Ebooian interfaith dialogue for the sake of interfaith dialogue.

My goal is also to convince some Hindus (you decide is this applys to you) to shed the inferiority complex after 300 years of British propaganda against Hinduism. They are the masters of propaganda - gotta give them credit for the sunsetless British Empire, while not forgetting the massacres, famines, and lack of economic, education, or political progress in their colonies during their reign. Many educated Hindus become reflexively self-critical when confronted by anyone because the inferiority complex has left a deep scar on the Hindu psyche. Hindus seem to constantly criticize themselves and each other, even after 300 years of British/Christian and 700 years of Muslim rule and oppression. Pretty amazing! The facts about Hindu tolerance and peacefulness aren't really debateable in your mind, are they?
(continued below)

(continued)
You have a very good knowledge of Hinduism, yet like Arjuna in Chapeter 1 you seem to weaken in the presence of Nonhindus. Instead of using your intellectual arsenal to fulfill your dharma, you make excuses. Read chapters 1 & 2 of Gita again (with commentary by Swami Chinmayananda for example) and see if it applies. Arjuna makes wonderful arguments for not killing or, in your case, not making strong statements in favor of Hinduism. You fear this will lead to conflict, but conflict is always there as long as supremacism is there.
Ch.2. v.11: "You have grieved for those that should not be grieved for; YET, YOU SPEAK WORDS OF WISDOM. The wise grieve neither for the living nor for the dead.

Too many people today, especially Indian Hindus, speak only empty words of wisdom. But the wise know that right action done with the right knowledge and an attitude of sacrifice (Karma, Dharma, Yagna) must be performed. Be proud of Hinduism and reform social problems wherever they exist, as many have done and are doing. But be clear and firm in your convictions.

CCNL: The Historic Truth and Theological Reality about Islam and actually about all religions are not forms of hate.

"The Historical Truth and Theological about Islam" may be what it is. Those interested in that knwo that or can find out for themselves.

But your diatribe WAS not only HATEFUL but totally inappropriate for THIS interfaith forum.

Isn't there some "Historical Truth and Theological Reality about" Hinduism too ?
Like Caste-system, Hindu violence against Christians, Muslims, Dalits and Sikhs ?

Are YOU and Clearthinking here to discuss things in a rational manner, OR, as it has benn clear, to spread Indian/ Hindu Right-wing violence-inciting propaganda toward Indian Minorities -- something against the law in India itself?
Remember how, according to your own Election Commission, banned V. Gandhi from the Election ?

Follow Rig Veda principles, Gandhi's philosophy. Don't besmirch all that !

Cantabb:

You are correct. Some posters repeat the same thing again again indicating one of three things about themselves:

(1) they suffer from OBSESSIVE, COPULSIVE. PERSONALITY DISORDER.

(2) they suffer from bankruptcy of ideas. This indicates that they are semi-literate at best.

(3) they love to parrot. Parrot speech is mimicking without comprehension.

cantabb1,

The Historic Truth and Theological Reality about Islam and actually about all religions are not forms of hate.

Clearthinking1, Coloradodog and other slumdog Hindu fanatics are the most ungrateful, corrupt, devious, dishonest, cheating thieves in the world who treat their own people (untouchables and lower caste) like dirt. They hate Chritstians and other minorities, but work like slaves to please their Christian bosses in the West, or Muslim bosses in the Middle East. They've no values and to hide their insecurity, they engage in hate-filled rants about their "superior Hindu culture." What a shame! You might remember the blue sari-clad untouchable young women from India at the UN describing their inhuman treatment by the upper caste Hindus such as cleaning the human excrement by their bare hands and carrying heavy loads of that excrement on their head, etc. A survey by Transparency International, a global anti-corruption group, listed India on top of its Bribe Payers Index. This on top of the Most Corrupt Nation in the World award. Some other facts: According to World Health Organization, about 770 million people in India defecate publicly. About 20 million fetuses were killed by Hindus in a ten-year period because they were females. A recent Lancet, British medical journal, study concluded that more than 100,000 young Hindu women were killed in bride-burning fires in India every single year because they did not bring big dowry. Hindus are also the worst kind of racists. I see that every day. Remember, the racial bias law suit filed by the hotel staff in Boston because former Prime Minister Vajpayee did not want blacks to serve or cook for him when he visited the US. India is also on top of prostitution and sending women and young girls for immoral traffic to foreign countries. This is the “superior Hindu culture.” I hope these fanatics will be born as untouchables in their next life of reincarnation so that they will get a taste of their own medicine.

WASHINGTON POST : 'FAITH' FORUM EDITORS (and/or EBOO PATEL)

Isn't there some place in Washington Post for this kind of INTENSE HATRED, like in this CCNL Post ?

CCNL | March 22, 2009 9:54 PM

And, those of CLEARTHINKING1 !

AN ABUSE OF THIS 'INTER-FAITH' EFFORT !

Now, here's a subject for a Muslim documentary:

Hardline Saudi clerics urge TV ban on women, music
The Associated Press, Sunday, March 22, 2009; 6:48 PM

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- A group of Saudi clerics urged the kingdom's new information minister on Sunday to ban women from appearing on TV or in newspapers and magazines, making clear that the country's hardline religious establishment is skeptical of a new push toward moderation…"No Saudi women should appear on TV, no matter what the reason," the statement said. "No images of women should appear in Saudi newspapers and magazines."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032200983.html?hpid=sec-religion

Printed from




Jaipur woman burnt alive for dowry
23 Mar 2009, 0311 hrs IST, TNN

JAIPUR: In yet another dowry death in the district, a 32-year-old woman was allegedly set on fire by her in-laws at Kumharon Ka Mohalla under Bassi police station on Saturday. She was rushed to SMS Hospital in Jaipur where she succumbed to her injuries on Sunday morning. The victim’s father has lodged an FIR, but no arrest has been made as yet.

According to police, the deceased – Anju Devi – was repeatedly beaten up by her in-laws including her husband Mahesh Jangid and his brother Bhanwar Lal. “Anju’s father Laxminarayan said that Mahesh and his family were demanding dowry ever since they got married a few years back. On Saturday morning, Mahesh, Bhanwar Lal and his wife poured kerosene and set her on fire at their house in Bassi,” said Rameshwar Bagariya, in-charge of Bassi police station.

In fact, this was not the first time that quarrel over dowry took an ugly turn. The victim’s father, a retired government employee, had to lodge an FIR against the in-laws earlier also, but after the intervention of relatives, a compromise was reached and the in-laws promised that they would properly lookafter Anju.

READ FULL STORY IN TIMESOFINDIA.COM

And why is the koran the worst book ever written?

A synopsis for those eyes that have not seen-

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels"/"pretty, wingie thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the massacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Current crises:

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

EC holds Varun Gandhi guilty in hate speech row

The Election Commission on Sunday night held Varun Gandhi, a Bharartiya Janata Party (BJP) nominee for Lok Sabha polls from Uttar Pradesh, guilty of breaching the model code of conduct and asked the party not to field him as candidate.

"Any sponsorship of his candidature by the BJP, or any other political party at this election, would be perceived as endorsing his unpardonable acts of inciting violence and creating feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of India, destroying the social, democratic and plural fabric of the country," it said.

READ FULL STORY:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage

You (and others) seem to have an insatiable need to exploit social issues of the past and present in India even though significant progress has been made just to belittle Hinduism. Why?

****************************************

Because politcal forces in India have been trying their level best to move India back to the middle ages and away from modernity and harmony, and these forces of darkness are using Hinduism as their major platform on which to build their evil rule.

The same "social issues" that you so simply wish away is currently being employed by Hindutwa parties to push their own agenda, a agenda that most normal people find vile and despicable.

You may think all of this is armchair theorizing. However, even as I write, these communal forces are trying their best to start a fire that will cause enormous damage.

Forget about some posters who are laughably out to their depth, and should be laughed at (Meditation started with Buddhism..har har....confusing Jainism with Buddhism as the root of vegetarianism, etc).

The point was and is terrorism and its depiction in the common narrative. Why dont you take your need to support Hinduism the religion elsewhere where it is more appropriate?

CLEARTHINKING1:

Utter nonsense !

YOU were the one who forced in every single discussion. And, then YOU made outrageous comments and generalizations, condemning other religions – repeatedly and ad verbatim. Those claims that denounced every other religion had to be evaluated, and YOU faced questions on comments YOU made here almost unprovoked, and then you complain ?

One minor risk of throwing stones from a glasshouse !

YOU are the one, Prejudiced – and YOU have maintained it by repeatedly making the highly offensive, derogatory comments about other religions (judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc), and en masse.

What you have displayed here is NOT “the truly unique aspects of Hinduism,” BUT rather the far, far-right wing of a great religion. In this YOU are doing a great disservice to YOUR own religion.

Follow the Rig Veda principles!

Clearthinking: You (and others) seem to have an insatiable need to exploit social issues of the past and present in India even though significant progress has been made just to belittle Hinduism. Why?

NONSENSE !

I have not ‘belittled’ ANY religion, including Hinduism. With hateful diatribes against other religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism), totally unprovoked, YOU and YOU are the one, grossly misrepresenting a religion (and its TRUE representatives, like Gandhi) many people in this country like. We also recall how the Right-wing fundamentalist suddenly snatched him from your country !

Do YOU even understand what YOU post ?

Do you say all this where you work? Try it and find out !

Clearthinking wrote:

"There is a reason why tolerance, pluralism, yoga, ahimsa (nonviolence), meditation, and vegetarianism are associated with Hinduism..."

*************************************************************************
Clearthinking is far removed from thinking clearly.

Ahimsa (non-vuiolence) is a Buddhist concept and ideology. Hindus have always been violent starting with the Aryan invasion, establishing a caste system and commtting atrocities against the untouchables (Dalits).

Vegetarinism: Ancient Hindus used to performs "yagya" (animal sacrifice) and ate meat.

Yoga is also originated with Buddhism. "Shanti, Om, Shanti" was chanted by the Buddhists. Shanti means peace. Only the Buddhists were peaceful and vegetarians.

Meditation was also performed by the Buddhists. Gautama Buddha left his family and meditated in the forest.

Hindus are masters of deception. They killed the Buddhists by the millions after the King Ashoka's death. Today, they are claiming that these concepts and practices are Hindu. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If you want to make India a prosperous democracy, stop trying to fool the world, stop burning down Christian Churches, stop demolishing mosques, stop urine drinking, stop killing brides for the sake of dowry, stop killing widows in the name of Sati, give Muslim, Christians, Dalits their Human Rights.

In short, stop BJP, Bajrang Dal, Shiva Sena, RSS. and other communal outfits.

Cantabb1,

You and many others want to blame all social problems on Hinduism. This may be convenient to maintain prejudices about other religions and peoples, but it is inhibiting your ability to see some of the truly unique aspects of Hinduism. These unique qualities can be learned from to make the world more peaceful, if that is a goal you share. There is a reason why tolerance, pluralism, yoga, ahimsa (nonviolence), meditation, and vegetarianism are associated with Hinduism.

Every pluralistic society has had social problems related to race, ethnicity, class, gender, etc... In America, women did not have the right to vote until 89 years ago. Should we blame this on Christianity only? There are gender and race issues today, but progress is being made. One could go on and on about how a beautiful document such as the U.S constitution talked of freedom and equality, yet it allowed slavery and considered women and blacks property. But that was in the past, and things are changing. You (and others) seem to have an insatiable need to exploit social issues of the past and present in India even though significant progress has been made just to belittle Hinduism. Why?

BOSTONBRAHMIN:

To CCNL: Okay, you made your provocative comment of the day...made your life more livable, I can guess.

I think they define themselves -- more so, on the subject of their comment.

Others could say (I suspect they do) the very same about their Scriptures.

And, you are back to the school-yard !!

Clearthinking wrote:

"E) The constitution of India has outlawed any discrimination based on caste; the constitution was written by a dalit (low caste), not Nehru (Brahmin) or Gandhi (Vaishya). The vast majority of Hindus are not Brahmins but are proud of and happy being Hindu. It is common to believe that there is serious constant tension & exploitation amongst the castes in India today but the truth is not that simple. This simple presentation is satisfying to anti-Hindu sentimen..."

********************************************************
Clearthinking is far removed from thinking clearly. He thinks that making laws or passage of an ideal constitution solves all the problems.

Hindu Code Bill of 1950s made dowry or the caste system illegal. But dowry is still given and taken in India. The caste system is very much alive there. Follow the incoming elections in India and you will learn this fact.

The confused Clearthinking is justifying the caste system to be functional. Good or functional for whom: the privileged or the downtrodden untouchables?

While the Brahmin and other "twice born" castes enjoy the pleasures of this life, the poor Dalit gets only the promise of "better Life" in next life if the Dalit "behaves" and continues to serve the "twice-born" castes.

Appointing a Muslim or a Dalit President of India represents "show pieces" for propaganda purposes. The truth of the matter is that the BJP, the RSS, the Bajrang Dal, or the shiva Sena are the black marks on India's so-called largest democracy.

Christian churches are still being burnt down in India, and there is a widespread discrimination against minorities. Hindu communal elements have infiltrated even the Indian Army. They have been caught to plot bombings and carrying them out only to frame innocent Muslims. THEY DECIDED TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE ANTI-MUSLIM ENVIRONMENT AFTER 9/11.

Clearthinking your rants are pathetic.

bostonbrahmi,
Reading the koran, the worst book ever written, is sufficient to show that Islam is a violent religion. The media has no influence on this conclusion
**********************************
Okay, you made your provocative comment of the day...made your life more livable, I can guess.

Now let the adults talk..

bostonbrahmi,

Reading the koran, the worst book ever written, is sufficient to show that Islam is a violent religion. The media has no influence on this conclusion.

I can see the usual suspects are all gathered together here as well.

Just wanted to refer to somebody pointing out that the 24/7 media can be used to push the point that the vast majority of muslims do not blow themselves up.

Unfortunately, there is harly any market for that point of view. The 24/7 media has a very small margin of error in figuring out what the market wants, and drop in ratings and viewers is suicidal. As long as people want to demonize a whole region, they will find justification for it.

Now, the question would be, why do a vast majority of people want to belive that Islam is evil? After all, they didnt even kill their Son of God. Here, I would have to point out that the Crusades have a long shadow on the thinking of the Church. In the US, we can add another component, that of racism and willingness to belive in bad things about brown people. It should be noted that the US has always been beaten by people of color (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq), and has won againts other white people.

In Europe, the racism is even stronger, with the collective memory of the years of colonial domination. There is also a very large minority of muslims that are visibly present, whether that of people from North Africa in France, Turks in Germany, or Pakistanis in UK. In spite of all the talks of so called multiculturalism, these minorities are strongly resented, and the feeling is mutual.

Also, perhaps it will be not too out of place to look at the hand of Jewish money in enforcing certain points of view in the media, as far as US is concerned.

The media will cater to all of these sentiments, and will feed images that help them generate revenue. This is a vast echo chamber, and it is difficult to break out of it.

COLORADODOG: What is it about Abrahamic religions that they have little tolerance for other, especially their own?

Maybe something similar to some of their own (like Dalits) in the caste-based Hinduism. Or, similar to the tolerance shown in India to local Christians and other minorities. Same religious sectarianism.

Lumping three religions, eh ? How rational !

What is it about Abrahamic religions that they have little tolerance for other, especially their own?

CLEARTHINKING1:

Parroting the very same lines, dismissed many time before on these forums by me ? Are you here as a mouthpiece of fundamentalist Hindu groups, with some 'talking points' that you must repeat, no matter the topic.

Once again, you ignore the topic of discussion ('Counter-Terrorist Storytelling'), as you have done 3 or more times before, to spew the same hateful rants against every other major religion of the world.

This is an 'Interfaith' effort, designed, I think, to promote mutual understanding among groups --- NOT a fundamentalist/extremist soap-box to denounce, en masse, ALL faiths (not your version of Hinduism).

Washington Post MUST reconsider the usefulness of such an "interfaith" dialogue, under these destructive circumstances.

Now, you throw around the terms like "fundamental supremacism" in your denunciation of religions (mostly Abrahamic). Once again, that's YOUR interpretation from YOUR fundamentalist-Hindu point of view that blames the victims of Hindu violence (against Christians and other Indian minorities).

Isn't the caste-based Hinduism that you say has been in existence for 7,000 years (minus 60-some years) an prime example of the "fundamentalist supremacism" you accuse other religions of ?

What in the world is YOUR definition of "fundamentalist supremacism" ?

Your 'justification' of the caste-system (practiced for well over 6,000 years) is yet another re-hash ! NOT from a Dalit (or other caste's) view point either !

Why did Gandhi, who was finally killed by a right-wing fundamentalist, have to fight so-hard to abolish what had been practiced for "7,000 years" ?

This seems to exist despite 2 recent Acts (1955 & 1989 (of your Constitution (written as you say by a Dalit) -- despite your sugar-coating and rationalizations.

YOU have nothing to say, except parrot those extreme-right-wing 'talk-lines' handed to you.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YET TO SAY ON THE LINKS IN MY LAST POST (Reports of Hindu violence against Indian minorities, including one by a US government Agency) ?

As I said, I had a favorable view of Hinduism, before I saw such hate. Hope you'd try practicing 'Rig Veda' principles!

Come back when you get NEW 'Talking Points' to parrot -- the one you have had, now threadbare and tired, and disemboweled a few times !

The objective of this comment is to push India to be truly secular as it claims to be. Not only there is entrenched caste system but there is institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities. Yes, some action has been taken to alleviate the hardships of the lower caste but there is no movement towards the rights of the religious minorities. Not only The Suchhar Report is an eye opener but also targeted killings and harassment of Christians is telling a different story about the claims of secular and democratic India. India should move aggressively towards the rights (representative, judicial and economic) of the religious minorities to avoid future problems.

AKafir:

My comments were against 'sweeping generalizations' --- similar to what you mentioned below.

I have also asked several Q's about Koran and its teachings, and why some "Muslim youth" behave differently from "most Muslims." That's an area where many of us have lots of concerns.

Dragging in Hinduism here, or claiming how much it's better than Judaism and Christianity is an offensive line of thinking, a major distraction.

AKafir: "Most muslims are not violent." And, "Condemning ALL muslims is plainly wrong and giving into hate."

The rest is part of the same diatribe by "CCNL" and "Clearthinking" against everything Not-Hinduism, no matter the topic. NOT helpful to any possible 'interfaith' dialogue, or to those like me who are trying to understand the reasons for the conflicts. A real disservice !

Cantabb,
You have not answered the simple question about the fundamental supremacist attitude towards other religions of Islam and Christianity? You answer with questions, but sometimes a yes or no is a good place to start.

In terms of the "caste system" (if anybody cares to read & know):

The caste system is the favorite whipping boy of anti-Hindu people, so a few facts and opinions :

A) The caste system is a division(4) of labor in a society based on tendencies of INDIVIDUALS towards 1)knowledge, 2)politics, 3)business, and 4)labor.

B)Identification of caste by birth is a corruption and is indefensible. This must be fully corrected. It has been outlawed constitutionally since 1947, and social change is slower - but it is happening.

C)There is no basis for caste by birth in the shruti literature of Hinduism. The Manu Smriti is often cited as the source of some of these beliefs, but this is a 2000 year old book rarely read or quoted today (except by Hindu-haters to make a point). This is one of innumerable smriti texts and can be and is being questioned and reformed.

D) The social structure of separation of castes is designed to balance power in a society. For example historically, the Brahmins had knowledge and respect as scholars and teachers, but no political power, military power, or wealth. The business class (Vaishya) had wealth and associated power, but not the knowledge, political, or military powers. The political class (Kshatriya) had political and military power, but had to respect the knowledge and did not control the business. This way power wass not concentrated in one group, which can be destructive (e.g. Harvard grads going to Goldman Sachs and then to the Treasury Department).

E) The constitution of India has outlawed any discrimination based on caste; the constitution was written by a dalit (low caste), not Nehru (Brahmin) or Gandhi (Vaishya). The vast majority of Hindus are not Brahmins but are proud of and happy being Hindu. It is common to believe that there is serious constant tension & exploitation amongst the castes in India today but the truth is not that simple. This simple presentation is satisfying to anti-Hindu sentiment.
(continued below)

(continued from above)

F) The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India is a dalit; a recent President (1997-2002) of India was dalit; Significant reservations are made for scheduled castes at universities, even in a country with limited resources. Significant progress has been made since independence in 1947. More progress and reform will be made in time.

G) Stratification and division of labor has historically existed in all societies. Much worse parallels exist in recent human history. The "low caste" Black slaves in America & Britain are an example. 150 years ago, Black and Native American slaves could be owned as property, killed, raped, or separated from their children with inpunity. Low castes in India were never treated so poorly as slaves in America or Britain or Aboriginals in Australia or Canada.

H) Everyone acknowledges the historical deficiencies of the past in America, Canada, Britain, Australia but the situation has improved. But in India, it is convenient to not acknowledge the progress and use this as a bludgeon against Hinduism.

I) An individuals caste was supposed to be based on individual tendencies and was not supposed to be by birth, but this system was corrupted. It is not now - that is why any caste can be President or Chief Justice in India. Blacks in America had limited rights, but not now - Obama is President.

The caste system was never as absolute and simple as it is usually presented in the West. Otherwise, it would not have continued. Think about it. The supposedly "highest" caste (Brahmins) gave up access to money, material wealth, kingship, political power, and military power. Why? That is not the path for oppression of others.

Hindu-haters do not want to acknowledge the complexity of the caste system and that tolerant and peaceful systems make progress. They like to selectively talk about the past, while trying not to acknowledge that Hinduism is a uniquely tolerant and flexible religion amenable to reform.

Whatever text is quoted as the basis of the caste system by birth can be questioned, reformed, or discarded in Hinduism as times change. Monarchy with social stratification was common 2000 years ago but today constitutional democracy with equal rights is the norm. Societies were patriarchal and male-dominated 2000 years ago, but today equality is expected. "Fine!", says Hinduism, "make the necessary changes, but keep working on your individual spiritual growth."

@CCNL and @cantabb1:

Islam is not muslims and a billion plus muslims do not add up to Islam. Most muslims are not violent. Islam on the other hand is intrinsically violent. Muslims when confronted with the violence of Islam often decide to become more devout and religious and it is then that they tend to become violent. Insulting muslims is self defeating because it increases violence in ones own self. Exposing the violence in Islam is valid and essential. Many of the leading reformers of Islam were once muslims themselves. Ayan Hirsi Ali was once a muslim. So was Ibn Warraq. Condemning ALL muslims is plainly wrong and giving into hate. Condeming Islam as mostly a hateful ideology on the other hand is fairly accurate.

CCNL:

Editing last post (for clarification):

"And that, by definition, is NOT ALL 200 million or 800 Million. Their internal (well- recognized) conflicts in Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere -- that's what you want to bring in, after claiming "All of Islam is violent not just a few youths."

"Like some other Poster here YOU like generalizations, which are considered offensive in a rational discussion, in case you didn't realize that."

"Can you engage YOURSELF in a focused discussion without generalizations and so much prejudice against several other groups ?"

CCNL:

What you WANT to talk about is NOT what I was talking about. That's "obvious" !

Again, I was talking about 'violent Muslim youths'. And that, by definition, NOT ALL 200 million or 800 Million, or their internal (well- recognized) conflicts in Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere -- that's what you want to bring in, after claiming "All of Islam is violent not just a few youths."

Like some other Poster here like generalizations, which are considered offensive in a rational discussion, in case you didn't realize that.

A grossly hateful generalization:
"Let us start with the obvious - All of Islam is violent not just a few youths!!!"

Is "ALL" of Christianity "violent" ?
Is "ALL" of Hinduism NON-violent?

I am NOT here to defend any group. If you didn't get that yet, you missed another point.

I have nothing to do with India or Pakistan or Middle East. I am trying to understand what the conflicts are and why they've remained so or have gotten worse. All you and another poster have shown that: intense hatred and intolerance reign supreme there ! I had a better opinion of Hinduism than you have shown.

The rest of your post is unrelated gibbberish that YOU want to bring in.

Can you engaged in a focused discussion without generalizations and so much prejudice against several other groups ?

CANTABBI1,

Actually you missed the point.

Let us start with the obvious - All of Islam is violent not just a few youths!!!

To wit: (once again)

The Sunni (800 million Muslims) and their blood feud with 200 million Muslim Shiites is hardly miniscule.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/03/iraq.cleric.ap/index.html

"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.

Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

Add to this:

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,402 combat and 822 non-combat) and 90,253 – 98,521I raqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

And all of this horror and violence is based on the dictates of the "worst book ever written" aka the koran aka the Muslim operating manual!!!

CLLEARTHINKING1:

You prove my point !

Same hate-filled rant, over and over again --even the same language (with the same error), same fact-free claims, same tired old baseless generalizations against every other religion -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam -- except Hinduism !

Mere claims about "anecdotes versus facts and numbers" is not enough; you got to present facts and numbers in an objective manner, without bias or personal preference, and be able to analyze them in a coherent manner without bouncing off the wall. Sweeping generalizations are not very scientific, either.

For a guy who claims to be a scientist, you show none of this that we learn in the high school. [btw, an anecdote is also a fact, except that it doesn't occur generally or all the time, everywhere, to hang your hat on.]

CLEARTHINKING: " Do you agree that supremacist ideology (not violence per se) is not just in the fringe population of Christianity or Islam, but is throughout (Pope & Ayatollah & common believers included)?"

Apart from your fact-free generalization,
can you tell us what is 'Hindu cast system' based ? Any hint of "supremacism" here at all in this? Or in the claims of Hinduism being the most tolerant, moral religion promoting plurality ?

CLEARTHINKING: Hindus have lived with Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Muslims for thousands of years.

Haven't Hindu fundamentalists also burnt places of worship, did other violent things against Christians and some other groups ?

Did you ever read the links I gave you last time you make similar comments? Here, again:

On Violence against religious minorities in India:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35516.htm

And many such accounts in Indian newspapers. Do a google search !

CLEARTHINKING: Why so much conflict in the last 1400 years wherever Muslims live?
There must be a reason.

You'll have to ask a Muslim scholar.

Answer me this: Why was Caste system prevalent for most of 7000 years. Untouchables (Dalits) always at the bottom ? Why 2 laws (last one 1989) enacted to protect these groups from harassment and violence?

CLEARTHINKING: It was stated 7000 years ago in the Rig Veda, "That which is One, the sages call by many names." Live and let live is not that difficult, but both sides have to accept it.

Same language in many posts from you ! I wish you can learn to live by those principle.

Let me thank you again for proving my point !!!

Still thinking: Big pile of grocery bags.

In the ocean.

Before you start telling me which 'Ultimate Will of God' has more fangs out to torture me over who I snuggle with....

How bout...

Hundreds of square miles of trash bags. In the ocean. No one cleaning it up.

In fact, still dumping, while whining about some chick not being straight.

I'd almost *put up with it* if you'd man up and pick up after yourselves.

(Cantabb, No need to rehash the old discussion about anecdotes versus facts and numbers.)

But can you or Eboo Patel or anyone please answer this question: Do you agree that supremacist ideology (not violence per se) is not just in the fringe population of Christianity or Islam, but is throughout (Pope & Ayatollah & common believers included)?

All people tend towards supremacism. But it makes a very significant difference when the Holy Book and leaders promote supremacism instead of promoting tolerance of other views and plurality.

Why don't Sunnis leave Shia alone and visa versa? Sufis say some nice things, why not leave them alone? Hindus believe in some good things, why not leave them alone? Hindus have lived with Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Muslims for thousands of years. Why so much conflict in the last 1400 years wherever Muslims live?
There must be a reason.

It was stated 7000 years ago in the Rig Veda, "That which is One, the sages call by many names." Live and let live is not that difficult, but both sides have to accept it. A foundation of "my god is better than your god" doesn't work.

P.S. Let me preemptively apologize if this sounds like a rant again.

"If that's true, then, it would mean: There IS compulsion in religion (whatever that be) and they'll fight the non-believers till they pay higher taxes ?

Maybe some Islamic scholar can explain this!"

The way the Muslim scholars explain this is that there is no compulsion in converting to a muslim. Jaziya and humiliation is not considered compulsion ... that is reserved for beheading. Jaziya and humiliation is a sign of tolerance and magnanimity of Islam that the muslims are willing to tolerate the filthy Kafirs as long as the kafirs live under humiliation.
Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam, and even that is not compulsion for they should know when they converted to Islam that is no exit from islam except Death; apostates are to be killed in Islam.

@sumtinwong: "Divine Revelation: Islam forbids killing of innocent"

The catch is 'who is innocent'?

Allah says:
Quran 005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

So one who does not accept Islam fights against Allah and His Messenger is not an innocent and should be killed.

Be honest and spell out who is an innocent. Is one who speaks the truth that Muhammad was a pedophile and a barbaric butcher innocent?

Divine Revelation: Islam forbids killing of innocent

Editing this: [If "Allah ... did abrogate many of its verses," won't the 'Islamic scholars' have to ask Allah to do that ? ]

If "Allah ... did abrogate many of its verses," what can the Islamic scholars do ? Don't the Muslims take His word, unalterably final ?

ABHAB:

That's really confusing !

If "Allah ... did abrogate many of its verses," won't the 'Islamic scholars' have to ask Allah to do that ?

Abhab: “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (Quran 2:106)."

So something better is "substituted" ? And if as you say "All those abrogated verses are still in the Quran but are not implemented," then is it possible that "extremist youths" are following something that has been "abrogated" ? And others what is still 'operative'?

Abhab: "As an example the verse “Fight the people of the Book till they either believe in Allah and Mohammad or pay the additional Jiziah tax” (Quran 9:29) renders the earlier verse that says ”No compulsion in religion”( Quran 2:256) as obsolete."

If that's true, then, it would mean: There IS compulsion in religion (whatever that be) and they'll fight the non-believers till they pay higher taxes ?

Maybe some Islamic scholar can explain this !

Cantabb asks:
“Who abrogated "many of its (Quran) verses"? The Quran or the Muslim scholars ?”

It is the writer of the Quran, who the Muslims believe to be Allah, who did abrogate many of its verses. “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (Quran 2:106). This is God talking!

All those abrogated verses are still in the Quran but are not implemented. As an example the verse “Fight the people of the Book till they either believe in Allah and Mohammad or pay the additional Jiziah tax” (Quran 9:29) renders the earlier verse that says ”No compulsion in religion”( Quran 2:256) as obsolete.

"The first started scuba diving after seeing a tragic documentary on the Pacific Plastic Dump,"

Before we get into theology, I don't suppose we could all agree that that morass is an embarrassment to any and all Gods or lacks thereof ever named, and all this time and money spent arguing about books could go to fitting some of our idle fishing fleet with big-whackin pool skimmers?

MR. E.P.

What a Parent or a friend or a relative teaches one to believe, while still in diapers, like a 'Baby' & into their early teens, will later-on have good or bad or mixed effects when experiencing reality-on-earth via false religion's when in Man or woman Hood.

So a GOOD, true & right Philosophy taught in the Begining of ones life usually must have a good outcome. And the opposite effect can backfire having a BAD end; by experience.

Editing my post to CLEARTHINKING1:

"Not re-writing recent history, are you?"

CLEARTHINKING1:

What joke !

As I recall, your posts were just RANTS against several major religions. You had sweeping generalizations, denounced everyone and parroted 'Talking points'. NO matter what the topic, the same old RANT. You were NOT able to confront issues or of violence against Christians and other minorities by extremist Hindu groups. You blamed the victims.

Not re-write recent history, are you?

The rest of your post is a re-hash....

Cantabb,

My posts, as you may recall, have always had facts and then opinion. I do believe in forcing people to confront issues instead of going into denial. This is especially true today in relation to Islamic terrorism and proselytization. If Muslims (and Christians) leave others alone, you would not have much religious violence. Read today's AP story: "Pope condemns sorcery, urges Angolans to convert" at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLJ2gzRRfTYc_YuS7r1yuwnmne-gD972GVSO0
The pope can use his energy on many good deeds, but he chooses this. This is the source of most of the religious conflict. Supremacist and disrespectful attitudes are present mostly in Islam and Christianity, manifested by this need to force ones beliefs onto others.

Do you disagree with this analysis? Do you agree that supremacist ideology (not violence per se) is not just in the fringe population of Christianity or Islam, but is throughout (Pope & Ayatollah & common beleivers included)?

CCNL:

You MISSED the point completely.

You quoted me but apparently did NOT read it.

I was talking about "violent Muslim youths" !!!

NOT the entire Muslim population. Get it !

CANTABB1,

You noted:

"What violent Muslim youths find in their reading that the vast majority of Muslims seems miss and does NOT act the way the minority chooses to do ? Is this minority (miniscule, by any account) reading something else, mis- (or, over-)interpreting those dictates to justify their ends ? Ends, not shared by such a vast majority !"

Miniscule???

The Sunni (800 million Muslims) and their blood feud with 200 million Muslim Shiites is hardly miniscule.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/03/iraq.cleric.ap/index.html

"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.

Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

Add to this:

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,402 combat and 822 non-combat) and 90,253 – 98,521I raqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

And all of this horror is based on the dictates of the "worst book ever written" aka the koran!!!

Eboo,

This is today's news. So tell how do you want the media to slant the facts?
****************
MOGADISHU, March 20 (Reuters) - Somalia's hardline al Shabaab insurgents have beheaded two sheikhs from a rival Islamist movement, a spokesman for the Ahlu Sunna Waljamaca group said on Friday.

The killings happened on Thursday, the same day al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden urged Somalis in an audio tape to topple the new president of the lawless Horn of Africa nation.

Al Shabaab, which Washington accuses of having close ties to al Qaeda, has been battling rival Islamists from the Ahlu Sunna Waljamaca movement for control of central regions.

An Ahlu Sunna spokesman said the two religious leaders had been injured by stray bullets during the clashes. He said they were later captured by al Shabaab gunmen as they were being driven to hospital in the capital.

"Elders told al Shabaab that the sheikhs were not fighters, but they turned a deaf ear and beheaded them," Sheikh Abdullahi Sheikh Abu Yusuf, the spokesman, told Reuters.

Yusuf said the killings took place in Balad town, 30 km (19 miles) north of Mogadishu. He also accused al Shabaab militants of decapitating three elderly women last weekend. Al Shabaab officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
***********************

The Kaafirs are not even reporting that the beheadings are done as they were taught by your prophet. That is Muhammad's sunnah.

CLEARTHINKING1:

Quite a U-turn, clearthinking1, from your earlier 'holier-than-thou' posts on other 'Faith' forums, with sweeping generalizations against 3 other religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Whatever caused this "RE-thinking," keep it up.

ABHAB:

"It is worthwhile noting that the Quran has abrogated many of its verses, and that could be used as a precedent except that the somehow more tolerant early verses of the Mecca era were abrogated by uncompromising intolerant later Medina ones."

Confusing, Abhab !

Who 'abrogated' "many of its verses"? The Quran or the Muslim scholars ?

If this was done by the Muslim scholars as you seem to suggest ("Would the Muslim scholars abrogate the later Quran verses with the earlier ones?"), then can the Quran ('the word of God') be so edited/revised ? Depending on how these scholars think appropriate ?

Which were more "tolerant" one ?

Very confusing !

Eboo,
This dialogue between Muslims is a good start in the short-run, especially for young people.
However, the real problem of violence is much deeper. Blaming the media or superficial attempts with public relations will only make small changes, while the problem festers and gets worse.

As many other have already written, the discussion about violence needs to be not just about the media's presentation but about the foundation of Islam on the Koran. Let's suppose that Muslim scholars can agree that certain statements in the Koran promote intolerance, supremacism, and violence. Then, what options are available?
Can the Koran and ideas of supremacy and intolerance of other beliefs be questioned? If the answer is no, then all efforts at media and public relations will fail in the long run.

One can see this tension in people like HSKHNWJ who write on this blog. One minute they are moderate and reasonable and the next they are filled with rage and hatred. Reasonable dialogue always requires a deep respect for the other party. One can believe the other is wrong, but this should not inspire supremacist emotions and hatred.

Often the best result in life is leaving each other alone. When it comes to personal religious and spiritual beliefs, let people live through their own unique life experience. Don't force your beliefs on others. Start with Sunni, Shia, and Sufi. Acknowledge that the vision of Allah is One for all three, just different paths. Then, Jews, Christians, and Muslims can agree that the vision of God is one, just different paths. Then, reconciling monotheistic ideas (God) with the monism of Hinduism (Brahman) will not be very difficult for those who are philosophically inclined. Others can use the monotheistic idea of Ishwara, which is also available in Hinduism for those who need it. Then, if an atheist or non-believer rejects everything, let them. Judge their behavior only by secular laws created democratically.

The key questions for Muslim youth are: : Does your religion help you respect others and evolve spiritually? Do you feel that you have to force your beliefs on others? If yes, how can you change this?

According to the latest issue of the Times magazine, a team of 80 Turkish (jurisprudence) scholars has been meeting for the past three years to ponder Muslim traditions based on the actions and sayings of their prophet dating back 14 centuries. Later this year they are expected to publish six volumes that reject thousands of Islam’s most controversial practices, from stoning adulterers to honor killing. While the more liberal minded Muslims might allow this revision of the traditions but those same “controversial” practices have their counterparts in the Quran. No self respecting Muslim would allow any changes to what they believe to be the literal words of Allah.
It is worthwhile noting that the Quran has abrogated many of its verses, and that could be used as a precedent except that the somehow more tolerant early verses of the Mecca era were abrogated by uncompromising intolerant later Medina ones. Would the Muslim scholars abrogate the later Quran verses with the earlier ones? Because that is what is needed to bring both the revised hadith and Quran in line with each other.

CCNL:

The way I see it is :

If the Koran is 'directing' these Muslim youths to commit such violence, why is the vast, vast majority of over one Billion followers spread out in over 50 countries NOT following those VERY dictates ?

What violent Muslim youths find in their reading that the vast majority of Muslims seems miss and does NOT act the way the minority chooses to do ? Is this minority (miniscule, by any account) reading something else, mis- (or, over-)interpreting those dictates to justify their ends ? Ends, not shared by such a vast majority !

Here, the job of settling the Majority-Minority differences lies with Muslims and Koranic scholars -- NOT the rest of the world !

I am interested in seeing what the Muslim majority is doing to eliminate such violent hatred (directed/blessed or not), since they claim NOT to agree with their violent members and say they 'denounce' their youth's hate-filled actions ?

I also wonder, if those dictates are in the Koran, why is that the great, great majority so wide-spread in the world, don't want to follow in footsteps of their extremist youth ?

Whether or not ONE individual 'denounces' his Scriptures is not even the least of my concerns !

EXPLAIN to the multicultural world in a cohesive, rational manner, and other such questions. Blaming the media misinterpretations or pointing to extremist elements in other religions as a justification of their own acts --- NOT the right way or promote mutual understanding !

Again, as long as the koran directs these young Muslims to commit suicide and to kill infidels and apostates and to abuse women, all the nice things one can say about any Muslim, young or old will be mute!!!!

As always, we await Eboo's condemnation of the koran, the worst book ever written!!!

hsnkhwj:

People of different religion/political parties/geographical region can disagree (and remain so) -- but it helps to listen/talk with an open mind.

No one HAS TO do this, no one has to develop an understanding with others or something different, or try to reduce our differences, but it helps if we want to live peacefully with our different views (and religious preferences). Takes two to tango.

Thanks. A good first step.

COLORADODOG:

What a sweeping generalization against 3 religions !!!

A language seen on these Forums from some 'holier-than-thou' religion followers.

ONCE AGAIN, calling any mother that her baby is not as beautiful as your baby is provocative, likely to start unnecessary fights -- NOT the way to start an "inter-faith" dialogue or a way to develop mutual understanding in these highly contentious times.

Sorry, Coloradodog. Don't practice what you preach at any CO street-corner !

Cantabb:

You and I are on the same track (or is it page?). I agree with you wholeheartedly.
No doubt, there is a need for reform in the Muslim mindset.

A sincere dialogue requires looking both inward and outward. Only if Muslims, Christians, Jews or Hindus all did the this.

BOSTONBRAHMIN:

The 24/7 Media is a two-edged thing too.

It'll broadcast (repeatedly) the images of those Muslim youths who go kill innocent people after reciting Koran, as it will the horrible destruction such things caused. It ALSO offers an opportunity to moderate Muslims and their groups to firmly DENOUNCE these acts, at least a few times. They can work within their own society to teach the violent youth (who portray themselves as so-very-religious) that such behavior IS against Koranic teachings, as the moderate Muslims say it is) and thus try to dissuade them from hurting the image of Islam that the rational elements in the religion like to portray.

The moderate elements in Islam can use the same media to show what they have done to teach the misguided youth, curb/eliminate violence, and instill in them a spirit of tolerance in a multi-cultural world. Militant extremist fringes are present and active in every religion, but that doesn't mean that we cannot try to neutralize/remove them. That everyone does it, is not an acceptable answer or rationalization.

Like Christianity and Judaism, its fellow punitive, vindictive and intolerant Abrahamic religion counterparts, Islam fails to denounce it's scripturally inspired violence. With the small and shallow god of Abraham, the subliminal or (in the case of some Muslims) the obvious theme is it's my-way-or-the-highway and "non-believer" or infidels are to be converted or killed.

Pardon typos and other errors in my last post.

HSNKHWJ: "People all over the world have been fighting with each other for the sake of identity."

Yes, they have.

But does it mean: just because conflicts exist within other religions, Muslims are somehow justified in continuing that within their religious societies ? Is fighting the ONLY way to establish "identity" within a religion, even after about 1,400 years of Sunni-Shia differences ? Or is it ONLY way to seek and establish "identity" in the world with many religious faiths and other differences ?

Haven't we learned something over the past 4 centuries ? Or we are pre-ordained to continue on....

I would believe that a major cause of the problems of the so called Islamic menace, is because of the global reach of satellite television with 24 hour news channels and the Internet with newspapers and blogs that get updated every minute.

Let me explain. Most of the terrorism that seems to take place these days is directed at the media. The news media laps up the visuals, and adds their own commentry which is generally sensationalized. The news is then fed back to everybody, and suddenly people gathering in a diner in some small town in Alabama is talking about Islamic terrorism in India. The visuals and the minute by minute reporting gets preference over the more local, and more important news regarding the US economy. People forget that other than one incident in New York, terrorism in US is mostly done by local boys in Rider trucks loaded with gasoline and fertilizer.

The reporting blows everything out of proportion, and perpetuates the myth that most terrorists are muslims (not true by a mile, ask the Sikhs, the Tamils, the Basques, the people in Ulster, etc). If the media should choose to focus on the positive aspects of the Islamic world, the image would be totally different.

Most importantly, the news media gives hope to dead-enders that are born in every society, that they too can become famous. It is the Columbine effect, and has nothing to do with a religion or a region of the world.

The media has already helped glorify the breakdown of traditional marriages to the point that 4 our of 10 births these days happen to single mothers. They have glorified enough former gang members who peddle their lifestyles in their so called music, that African American kids have a strong pressure to conform to their distorted vision of life. Pushing certain aspects of Islam and the Islamic world at the enpence of a more well-rounded coverage is hurtful to everybody.

When we see sectarian violence and killings within the Muslim society itself (Shia, Sunni, etc), tolerance of other religions -- asking too much ?

hsnkhwj:

"You have been posting rational comments in the past."

Thanks.

hsnkhwj:

"This one dismayed me. Is sectarian violence confined to Muslims?

How about 4 centuries of war between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland?..........People all over the world have been fighting with each other for the sake of identity."

First, we were talking about Islam/Muslims and the respect for the Environment in Islam.

Second, if the discussion were about the history of religious conflicts in the world for the past 4 centuries, we would opening a HUGE can of worms.
Religion (or the way some of its followers conduct themselves) has been the cause and source of much of our conflicts over time.

We were NOT comparing sectarian problems in different in various religions. Or, whose religion is better as some posters had been trying to preach on these "Faith" forums, which is , as I've said before, like: telling a mother that her child is NOT as beautiful as yours -- which is almost always provocative. Sectarian violence is not confined just to Muslims.

Not just conflicts between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, but many others (Christian-Jews; Christians-Muslims; Muslims-Jews; Hindu-Muslims. As well as within different within the same religious group: Shia-Sunni within Muslim societies or between Protestants and Catholics, etc.

Third, you ignored what I said before the sentence you quoted:

"Teaching them about environment we share is fine, but teach them THIS too -- WE are ALL human beings too, and not everyone in this world prays to the same GOD or reads the same book. How about tolerance of differences and peaceful thinking ?"

Any comment on that ??? Or the context of the line you quoted? ?

Young Muslims grow up in Muslim families (mostly women treated like second class citizen who should be covered up), and intolerant Islamic nations (one of 57). It tells Muslim children that only Islam is the supreme religion and others are below you.

How else do you explain naming 57 nations Islamic republics? What an insult to rest of humanity.

Eboo I agree that muslims should have positive examples to set forward to their youth. This can re-enforce good. I also agree that bad examples have the same relative results, more bad behavior. Islam seems to be very overladen with bad examples, relative to western/Christian culture at this time. Not that other religions don't have bad examples from the past. The quran seems to be generating much of the behavior.
So you are tied to LINK TV, I have watched some programs on it, extreme left, I regularly catch Mosaic, all of the Arab and Persian newscast are laden with "distaste" for the Jewish people, I am surprised they show any Israeli news.
As far as headlines being negative or misleading, come on now three weeks ago on our NBC affiliate we saw two headlines. The first was "Dutch citizen goes to trial for setting roadside bombs in Iraq", now I am picturing the little Dutch boy who has his finger in the hole of a dike running around Iraq planting bombs. How about "Swedish youth burn seven grocery stores in Sweden". You know the news is bought and sold, it goes both ways, mostly yours.
If you really want to make a change in your community I wish you luck, you have your hands full.

Eboo,

Kindly explain the peacefulness of the following and the posts below, taken from Quoran.

Kindly explain the peacefulness of the following and the contents of my post below.

THE KORAN ON CHRISTIANS

"4.156-158" : And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Œ
MariumΠa grievous calumny. And their saying: Surely we have killed the
Messiah, Isa son of ΠMariumΠ, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill
him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most
surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no
knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him
not for sure. Nay! +Z&- Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty,
Wise.

4.171" : O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion,
and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah,
Isa son of ΠMariumΠis only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He
communicated to ΠMariumΠand a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah
and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is
only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever
is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is
sufficient for a Protector.

"5.14" : And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but
they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited
among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will
inform them of what they did.

"5.18" : And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and
His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay,
you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He
pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the
heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual
coming.

5.51" : O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for
friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them
for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the
unjust people.

"5.69" : Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Œ SabiansŒ
and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good
they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

Cont'd.

THE QUORAN ON CHRISTIANS

"5.72" : Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah,
son of ΠMariumΠand the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my
Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then
Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there
shall be no helpers for the unjust.

"5.73" : Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third
(person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they
desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those
among them who disbelieve.

"5.82" : Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for
those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are ΠpolytheistsΠ, and
you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to
be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and
monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

"9.30" : And the Jews say: ΠUzairΠis the son of Allah; and the
Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of
their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may
Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

"17.111" : And say: (All) praise is due to Allah, Who has not taken a son
and Who has not a partner in the kingdom, and Who has not a helper to save
Him from disgrace; and proclaim His greatness magnifying (Him).

THE QUORAN ON CHRISTIANS

18.1-5" : (All) praise is due to Allah, Who revealed the Book to His servant
and did not make in it any crookedness. Rightly directing, that he might
give warning of severe punishment from Him and give good news to the
believers who do good that they shall have a goodly reward, Staying in it
for ever; And warn those who say: Allah has taken a son. They have no
knowledge of it, nor had their fathers; a grievous word it is that comes out
of their mouths;they speak nothing but a lie. .C*1

"19.88-92" : And they say: The Beneficent God has taken (to Himself) a son.
Certainly you have made an abominable assertion. The heavens may almost be
rent thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in
pieces, that they ascribe a son to the Beneficent God. And it is not worthy
of the Beneficent God that He should take (to Himself) a son.

THE KORAN ON JEWS

"3.112" : Abasement is made to cleave to them (the Jews) wherever they are
found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with men, and they
have become deserving of wrath from Allah, and humiliation is made to cleave
to them; this is because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and
slew the prophets unjustly; this is because they disobeyed and exceeded the
limits.

"5.51" : O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for
friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them
for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the
unjust people.

"5.82" : Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for
those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are ΠpolytheistsΠ, and
you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to
be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and
monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

"9.30" : And the Jews say: ΠUzairΠis the son of Allah; and the
Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of
their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may
Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! From the ΠHadithΠ, a body of
traditions relating to Mohammed and now supplemental to the Koran: He (Abu Œ
HurayahΠ) reported the messenger of Allah as saying: The last hour will not
come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that
Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the Stone and the tree will say,
O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.
The only exception will be the box-thorn for it is one of the trees of the
Jews. SahihŒ of Muslim , quoted by Israel and the Prophecies of Al Œ QuranŒ
by Ali Akbar, ΠBismiΠPublishers 1992, p.44) (Palestinian Media Watch in
Israel reported in July 2001 that at least four times in recent months
Palestinian religious leaders had taught publicly that this Œ HadithŒ
(Islamic traditions attributed to Mohammed) is an authoritative directive of
Islam today, expressing Allah¹s will that obedient Muslims kill Jews). (In
the terminology of Islam, unbelievers are Jews and Christians)

Young Muslims seem to absolutely relish killing people in the name of Allah.

Once they kill themselve, they cannot kill anymore people.

There is no way for rational minds to understand Muslim suicide bombers.

Cantab wrote:

"When we see sectarian violence and killings within the Muslim society itself (Shia, Sunni, etc), tolerance of other religions -- asking too much ?"

**************************************************************
You have been posting rational comments in the past. This one dismayed me.

Is sectarian violence confined to Muslims?
How about 4 centuries of war between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland?

I am sure you know the history of the rise of Protestant religion as a result of a long lasting violence in Europe.

I have traveled through most of Western Europe as a tourist. Our guides narrated stories after stories of warfare throughout Europe--sometimes people of two or more villages fought with each other not only on religious and sectarian bases but also on linguistic basis.

People all over the world have been fighting with each other for the sake of identity.

"WE are ALL human beings too, and not everyone in this world prays to the same GOD or reads the same book. How about tolerance of differences and peaceful thinking ?"

That is a little hard to do in Islam when Allah himself says:
Quran 5.3 : "This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion"

Quran 3.85
YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

Quran 3.19:
YUSUFALI: The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.

When Allah Himself says that no religion other than Islam is acceptable, how do you preach tolerance of differences?

Clips of Muslim suicide bombers show them reciting Koranic verses before they go out to kill themselves and many innocent people. That's deliberate, indiscriminate murder in the name of religion, an act for which they seem to be getting the blessing (reading Koran).

Sure, not every Muslim youth is a terrorist or engaged in this, but some (no matter how few) ARE defining for the rest of Muslim population what their religion is.

If this is NOT the true religion, the onus is on OTHER Muslims to (i) teach them what is right, according to their own religion, dissuade them from violence, and (ii) explain to the non-Muslim what your religion truly means, and show how this type of mindlessness is being rooted out and/or eliminated -- NOT encourage it, ignore it or express helplessness. Since this mindset is not limited to just one country, there must be some common element that stokes this intense hatred.

THESE actions don't help them or their cause. In fact, it makes it increasing difficult to get even an inch.

Don't blame the Western culture or the media portrayals: haven't these people given us lots and lots of evidence for us to mold public opinion ?

Moderates and other rational, peace-loving Muslim groups bear an ever-increasing responsibility to present a more persuasive evidence, before they can see any change in public opinion.

Teaching them about environment we share is fine, but teach them THIS too -- WE are ALL human beings too, and not everyone in this world prays to the same GOD or reads the same book. How about tolerance of differences and peaceful thinking ?

When we see sectarian violence and killings within the Muslim society itself (Shia, Sunni, etc), tolerance of other religions -- asking too much ?

Eboo,

When those young muslims who blow themselves up justify their evil by quoting the verses of the Quran and the Sunnah of your prophet what can anyone else do except report it truthfully? You should contact the Salafir of Saudi Arabia and tell them that they are teaching the wrong Islam, but then they do not even consider you a muslim do they? You are a lousy Kaafir to them. Please go to the FATA area between Pakistan and Afghanistan and tell them that they have utterly misunderstood Islam.

I for one don't want to live in a world where all nice things are mute.

As long as the koran directs these young Muslims to commit suicide and to kill infidels and apostates and to abuse women, all the nice things one can say about any Muslim, young or old will be mute!!!!

As always, we await Eboo's condemnation of the koran, the worst book ever written!!!