Opinions on Islam

[Gill Harley]

Amazing! I thought that islam came out of judaism, clearly I thought wrong. :)

satay

In my opinion, and that of some other scholars, Islam is a mixture of a version of Judaism and 'the old pagan religion of the Arabs' which, imho, is based on Vedic teachings. For instance, the idea of circumbulating is surely an Indian one?

However, the Koran, unlike any other scriptures I've read, is an incredibly negative literature and the first books anyway, are more about what they're not (i.e. the People of the Book, or the Jews) than what they are. Mohammed in this book is scathing about the People of the Book (the Jews) even though he pinched many of their clothes.

[Namo Narayana]

koran is violent, murderous , intolerant tabloid

[Gill Harley]

I agree with you on that, Namo Narayana.

When we had the bombings here, our Prime Minister and all the politicians were at pains to point out that the true Islam is not a violent, murderous religion and that the Koran preaches peace. They have obviously never read the Koran and know little about the religion. Its founder and leader encouraged the violent murder of anyone who disagreed with his 'religion'.

[Namo Narayana]

I agree with you on that, Namo Narayana.

When we had the bombings here, our Prime Minister and all the politicians were at pains to point out that the true Islam is not a violent, murderous religion and that the Koran preaches peace. They have obviously never read the Koran and know little about the religion. Its founder and leader encouraged the violent murder of anyone who disagreed with his 'religion'.

they really think that they are aloof, including george bush himself. not many in India know that . Not sonia not manmohan not the communist.

[rkannan1]

The story of Yayati and his sons is in Mahabharatha.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01085.htm

SECTION LXXXIV


(Sambhava Parva continued)
And he continued, addressing another son of his, 'O Turvasu, take thou this weakness of mine along with my decrepitude. With thy youth, O son, I like to enjoy the pleasure of life. After the lapse of a full thousand years I shall give back to thee thy youth, and take back from thee my weakness and decrepitude.' "Turvasu replied, 'I do not like decrepitude, O father, it takes away all appetites and enjoyments, strength and beauty of person, intellect, and even life.' Yayati said to him, 'Thou art sprung from my heart, O son! But thou givest me not thy youth! Therefore, O Turvasu, thy race shall be extinct. Wretch, thou shall be the king of those whose practices and precepts are impure, amongst whom men of inferior blood procreate children upon women of blue blood, who live on meat, who are mean, who hesitate not to appropriate the wives of their superiors, whose practices are those of birds and beasts, who are sinful, and non-Aryan.'.. .........................................


Yayati next addressed Anu and said, 'O Anu, take my weakness and decrepitude. I shall with thy youth enjoy the pleasures of life for a thousand years.' To this Anu replied, 'Those that are decrepit always eat like children and are always impure. They cannot pour libations upon fire in proper times. Therefore, I do not like to take thy decrepitude.' Yayati said to him, 'Thou art sprung from my heart, thou givest not thy youth. Thou findest so many faults in decrepitude. Therefore, decrepitude shall overcome thee! And, O Anu, thy progeny also as soon as they attain to youth, shall die. And thou shalt also not be able to perform sacrifices before fire.'



SECTION LXXXV


"The sons of Yadu are known by the name of the Yadavas: while those of Turvasu have come to be called the Yavanas. And the sons of Drahyu are the Bhojas, while those of Anu, the Mlechchhas. The progeny of Puru, however, are the Pauravas, amongst whom, O monarch, thou art born, in order to rule for a thousand years with thy passions under complete control.'"

We use the terms Yavanas and Mlechchhas for foreigners in general. But it is not that clear who are who in exactly.


One point is clear, that Yavanas are meat eaters, snatch neighbour's wives as their properties etc. These things perfectly match muslims in general.

[Gill Harley]

I'm sorry but I think you've misunderstood my post, rkannan1.

I don't think one should malign other people who subscribe to the Muslim faith. Many of them are very good people and at least as spiritual as some Hindus. It's also a sweeping generalisation - and you can't generalise where people are concerned. Everyone has a mixture of animal and divine nature, and people from any religion can choose to stay in the animal nature or rise above it.

Also the description of the Turvasas from the Srimad Bhagavatham could fit any race that lives in Kaliyuga today - including my own. So it's not helpful to knock people because of their religion, or to demonise one particular race. Otherwise, the next logical step is to go on a "Holy War" against those you suspect of coming from the Turvasa race, and this would make us no better than them.

In my post, I was merely pointing that the Koran is intolerant to other religions, contrary to what our world leaders tell us. It doesn't help, therefore, imho if we are then intolerant of them! What our world leaders should be saying is that most Moslems do want to live in peace with their neighbours, despite their religion stemming from a warlike leader, i.e. Mohammed.

[Namo Narayana]

Gill, you dont need to be politically correct. we are not diplomats. though muslims are people like us, but if fed with poison in the mind they turnout to be serpents. the poison is fed from kuran and hadiths and the mullahs.
the thing about muslims is they change and interpret their scriptures according to the situation. for example the evil Mo would say dont live among kafirs but now lot of muslims are living among kafirs in the west. they reason they would say is they are here to help kafirs from going to hell as if hell is in a well across the street. we need to wake people up on this evil. lot of indians dont know about it. Even the Hindutva people dont know this about koran..... i learnt quite a bit in faithfreedom.org

[Gill Harley]

Hi Naro Narayana

I'm not trying to be politically correct. In my understanding, and also according to my guru's instruction, it is against the dharma to criticise others for their differing faith.

[Arjuna]

Please do not speak against Islam is general. Qur'an is also a holy scripture, not less than any other.
Personally i think that time of Islam is finishing. But it doesn't mean Islam is not a true religion that can lead to the One God.

Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti,
as Vedas say.

[Namo Narayana]

Please do not speak against Islam is general. Qur'an is also a holy scripture, not less than any other.
Personally i think that time of Islam is finishing. But it doesn't mean Islam is not a true religion that can lead to the One God.

Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti,
as Vedas say.

Arjuna, grab an english translation of koran and see what it says. in my current thinking ability i dont called islam a religion. i am saying this after knowing the interpretation of kuran. Apologies if this hurt anyone anyway.

[Singhi Kaya]

Please do not speak against Islam is general. Qur'an is also a holy scripture, not less than any other.
Personally i think that time of Islam is finishing. But it doesn't mean Islam is not a true religion that can lead to the One God.

Sorry Arjuna...here I have to say your thoughts are wrong.
Thinking doesn't finish evil, doing does.
More people critisize Islam better.

Qu'ran is a scripture which some regards as holy. Full Stop.


Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti,
as Vedas say.

Does this translate to "all religions are true or lead to god"?? It doesn't. Please don't mis-interpret a sacred hynm and reverse the implication of the statement.

On serious note, if you have studied Koran and is aware of its main tenants and know the life of mohammad. Then this post suggest you are not prepared to accept truth and may be, face the consequences - how does that reflect on virattva or vira bhava in general?

All life is Yoga - those who compartmentalize spirituality into something separate from other choices in life are surely not travelling the road to perfection. Truth is one of the forms of Atman.

I don't intend to be harsh - I think this deserves more discussion with you. Perhaves for the first time you quoted on a political topic and it is not correct.Notice my confidence here.

[Singhi Kaya]

Arjuna, grab an english translation of koran and see what it says. in my current thinking ability i dont called islam a religion. i am saying this after knowing the interpretation of kuran. Apologies if this hurt anyone anyway.

No need to apologize. You intended to speak what you think is true as is true. It will only hurt who are not with truth - no bad karma there. Krishna who have advised the same.

It's a strange curse on sanatan dharma that spiritualists don't take the side of truth. No wonder Krishna never came back after 5000 years have passed, though he promised to come every time their is torture on wise men. Only implies spiritualists are not wise. Re-inforces my faith on how great the path of Karma - the yoga of work is.

[Gill Harley]

"The dog will stop barking at its own reflection in the stream, when it knows that it is not another dog but itself. All are reflections of ourselves, and so, whom are we to hate and whom are we to love? The wise men maintain the attitude - "Give up attachment, give up entanglements - Thyaga (renunciation) alone grants freedom". Renounce the idea of your being separate; see all beings in yourself, and yourself in all beings. That is the highest renunciation, the renunciation of the sense of ego, which makes you cling to this temporary body - this bundle of bone and flesh with a name and form."

Sathya Sai Baba

I was hoping to have some discussion in these threads about the root of Judaic religions, tracing it back to the Vedas, the true fountainhead, the sanathana dharma, without it deteriorating into personal insults towards individuals within a particular religion.

Is that going to be possible? :)

[Singhi Kaya]

Straight speech often sounds like personal insult. That was not the intention.
I'll wait for Arjuna to say if he thinks this is personal insult.

He wrote much staright stuff on ISKCON;).

But Agreed Islam shouldn't come in a Judaism thread.
I'll create a new one for that.


edit to add: we are already there - :doh:

[satay]

Mod hat on

namaste,
please keep the personal sentiments on islam for another forum. There are plenty of such forums on the internet. Let's try to keep this forum clean of all hatred if possible...

The easiest way to do is to think about how we behave in a temple and apply that same attitude here on this forum.

thank you.

satay

Mod hat off

[Singhi Kaya]

Mod hat on

namaste,
please keep the personal sentiments on islam for another forum. There are plenty of such forums on the internet. Let's try to keep this forum clean of all hatred if possible...

The easiest way to do is to think about how we behave in a temple and apply that same attitude here on this forum.

thank you.

satay

Mod hat off

I agree with personal insults. But topics which are politically charged will result in some sparks flying. We can't expect dharmic calmness everywhere.

[nekozuki]

I've had more problems out of Christianity than Islam, but I guess that's because some of my family members are Christian. I'm going to hell because I have something from Lord of the Rings in my room. :(

[Arjuna]

Read Vedas then and see what is there as well ;)

I have rather decent knowledge of Islam and know that many saints were there. Sri Ramakrishna, Shirdi Sai and Babaji acknowledged Islam as a way to God. There are even Naths who are muslims.
Go read about sufism — that is real pure Islam. Not the ridiculous terroristic propaganda.

[Namo Narayana]

Read Vedas then and see what is there as well ;)

I have rather decent knowledge of Islam and know that many saints were there. Sri Ramakrishna, Shirdi Sai and Babaji acknowledged Islam as a way to God. There are even Naths who are muslims.
Go read about sufism — that is real pure Islam. Not the ridiculous terroristic propaganda.

Arjuna, please feel free to come to faithfreedom.org and discuss why you think islam is way of god.

[Singhi Kaya]

Read Vedas then and see what is there as well ;)

I have rather decent knowledge of Islam and know that many saints were there. Sri Ramakrishna, Shirdi Sai and Babaji acknowledged Islam as a way to God. There are even Naths who are muslims.
Go read about sufism — that is real pure Islam. Not the ridiculous terroristic propaganda.
Pure Islam is Koran and the Hadith. Rest are later development and harbour the apologists. So let's base arguments on Koran and if possible hadith.
History of sufis are neither very rosy too. But my case is against Islam.
(you must know the defn of a muslim? one who believes allah is the ruler, mohammad is the prophet and koran is the revelation. Anything outside is actually against islam if it contradicts Koran at any point)

You are a christian I guess - so what does your excursion into kaula tantrism say about christianity? Nothing. Right?

One cannot put a barrier to a real spiritual quest, so muslims should be allowed in sanatana dharma. But that is no basis for defending Islam.-Is it? Am I being illogical here?

Without getting specific on which saints have ackowledged Islam, I feel this should be argued out based on Koran and real facts on Islam and its history. Faith is good for the follower of the path, we are rationally arguing a topic. It is not because I'm afraid to denounce a saint, but I don't think bhaktas here will accept it and things may get ugly ending in me being denounced to speak :)

Btw I didn't get your reading on Vedas.

[Singhi Kaya]

I've had more problems out of Christianity than Islam, but I guess that's because some of my family members are Christian. I'm going to hell because I have something from Lord of the Rings in my room. :(

Are u not a catholic? Wasn't JRR Tokien a devout catholic?;)

[Arjuna]

Sorry Arjuna...here I have to say your thoughts are wrong.
I don't intend to be harsh - I think this deserves more discussion with you. Perhaves for the first time you quoted on a political topic and it is not correct.Notice my confidence here.

I didn't speak even a word about politics. I spoke about RELIGION, way to God. As such, Islam is also a path — which is proved by fact of existence of many saints.
I never supported political "islam", let alone terrorism. These are actual phsycic deseases of this culture. But plz do not mix religion and wordly dealings.

[Arjuna]

Arjuna, please feel free to come to faithfreedom.org and discuss why you think islam is way of god.

Thank U :)

But i am in no way promoting Islam (and NEVER political so called "islam"). Just i do not want to keep silent when dharma-aparadha is done. As Hindu one may consider Islam to be upadharma, "local religion". It is OK. But it IS a religion, path to same God of the Gita, Vedas and Agamas.

In the sense of accepting shahadah, i am also a muslim :). As Ramakrishna and Shirdi Baba were. But i do not subscribe to all political nonsence be it muslim ot hindu. Pure religion doesn't deal with politics.

Those who kill innocent people in the name of Allah betray true Islam.

[satay]

It is not because I'm afraid to denounce a saint, but I don't think bhaktas here will accept it and things may get ugly ending in me being denounced to speak :)


A mutual respectable discussion is encouraged. Come on guys, we are all adults here and I trust that when things get personal one of us will step back and say..."hey, we are getting personal here instead of discussing the issues".

Islam is a major "issue" that influences the lives of tons of dharma adherents.

Dharma doesn't mean we have to put up with injustice. So please keep discussing but don't make blanket statements without proof. This applies to "all" members and I am not pointing fingers at you singhi...

satay

[Arjuna]

Pure Islam is Koran and the Hadith. Rest are later development and harbour the apologists. So let's base arguments on Koran and if possible hadith.

For me Islam is the religion of Ibn al-'Arabi, J. Rumi, Baba Farid, Hallaj and other saints.
Qur'an was written in certain historical situation, as Gita was. Gita also in a sense advocates killing and violence. There are "hindus" who kill innocent people just because they believe in Allah or Christ. Maybe few, but still. In history of Hinduism we can also find some dirty pages. But let us not confuse these with Religion, with Brahmajnana.


History of sufis are neither very rosy too. But my case is against Islam.

Do U know much about sufism? Have U met sufis in Ur life? Which books on sufism have U read?
Al-Ghazali, a great theologian had proved to orthodox mullahs that sufism is valid version of Islam. And it was accepted. Sufism is a part of Islam, actually the best part.


(you must know the defn of a muslim? one who believes allah is the ruler, mohammad is the prophet and koran is the revelation. Anything outside is actually against islam if it contradicts Koran at any point)

Qur'an has many levels of interpretation, it has to be seen in context of mystical tradition. As every scripture. If one reads Vedas without proper keys, he finds them indeed ridiculous. But if one reads as Kapali Shastri or Dayananda Swami, one sees something totally different.

I also accept Allah (GOD, Shiva, Kalasankarshini or YHVH) and Muhammad as God's messenger. I see no problem in this.
If one has a truely religious vision, he sees same Truth in any guise.

This doesn't mean that ANY "religion" is leading to God or that every path is equally effective and straight. But for sure Islam can be a Path.


You are a christian I guess - so what does your excursion into kaula tantrism say about christianity? Nothing. Right?

Devi took me, it's Her will and grace.
I respect christianity and know that advanced mysticism exists there too.


One cannot put a barrier to a real spiritual quest, so muslims should be allowed in sanatana dharma. But that is no basis for defending Islam.-Is it? Am I being illogical here?

Muslims can reach God through Islam without any conversions. But of course they should be allowed to enter hinduism. Religion should be a matter of one's free choice.

[satay]

Do U know much about sufism? Have U met sufis in Ur life? Which books on sufism have U read?
Al-Ghazali, a great theologian had proved to orthodox mullahs that sufism is valid version of Islam. And it was accepted. Sufism is a part of Islam, actually the best part.


Isn't sufism a 'version' influenced by dharma and in particular, sanatana dharma? I know at least of one sufi that was killed by main stream muslims in the past for uttering "Aham Brahamasmi' (of course in urdu). I can't remeber his name but I will dig it out for reference.

Sufism is not main stream islam preached by the mullahs. But I digress...
satay

[satay]

But of course they should be allowed to enter hinduism.

who is stopping muslims from entering hinduism? anyway, there is no need to 'enter' into hinduism. there is just an adoption of dharmic life...isn't it?

satay

[Arjuna]

Other muslims are stopping :D
I don't know about exact issues but generaly they don't allow any conversions from Islam.

The person U refer to killed by muslim folk was Mansur al-Hallaj, he said "Ana al-Haqq", "I am Thruth".

But sufism did not develop under hindu influence. Quiet opposite, if influenced several hindu sects, as well as helped Sikhism to appear.

[satay]

Other muslims are stopping :D
I don't know about exact issues but generaly they don't allow any conversions from Islam.


their exact issue is the scripture they follow.



The person U refer to killed by muslim folk was Mansur al-Hallaj, he said "Ana al-Haqq", "I am Thruth".


Ah...yes, I remember it now. :)



But sufism did not develop under hindu influence. Quiet opposite, if influenced several hindu sects, as well as helped Sikhism to appear.

it is interesting that you say that sikhism was helped in its birth by sufism. Could be a possibility...I know a bit about sikhism...do you have some examples on how sufism helped sikhism to appear?

satay

[Arjuna]

We have many unintelligent people in every religion. Islam is not an exception. Once again, hindus aren't all good and innocent as well.

Regarding Sikhism, better try to look in some scientific sources. I'm not too much into this theme.

[Singhi Kaya]

Isn't sufism a 'version' influenced by dharma and in particular, sanatana dharma? I know at least of one sufi that was killed by main stream muslims in the past for uttering "Aham Brahamasmi' (of course in urdu). I can't remeber his name but I will dig it out for reference.

Sufism is not main stream islam preached by the mullahs. But I digress...
satay
Sufism existed before Islam came to India - and developed much in India.
But then, sanatana dharma was in arabia before Muhammad killed a some and converted the rest. So why it has a spiritual touch is ovious. Some how they saved their ass by always supporting Islam-o-fascists when they did unjustice to society - Inspite of holding a different theme. In simple words it's untruthful and sycophancy which is the hall mark of sufi history (comment only made on the political side). Something like we are seeing today in this thread.

[Namo Narayana]

Arjuna, few bad apples ? if you see any muslim country there is nothing remarkable about it. take saudi arabia, they dont tolerate other religious process in their country. their law is hand for hand.

take Iran same thing different shia cult. hand for hand. women are oppressed. In islam one woman is equal to 1/4 of the evidence. you need four women to be an evidence.

see pakistan. they have honour killing if the girl commits adultery or marries from another religion.

if you quit islam you are apostate and according to Mohammad they should be killed. now u say do u love mohammad ?

I dont think we are talking about few bad apples.
please show me anything that is reasonable about islam.

[Arjuna]

Yes, i am well aware of all these things. I do not like social principles of Islam, let me make it clear, and in no way i advocate any of ridiculous and outdated laws. And i do not want to live in any muslim country (maybe Malaysia OK).

But again, these are not religious matters, but social.

[Singhi Kaya]

Where are u by the way. It should something like 3:30 in russia? are u an insomniac like me?

[nekozuki]

Are u not a catholic? Wasn't JRR Tokien a devout catholic?;)

No I am a Hindu and my mom's side of the family knows this ( except for her brother who was the one that said I was going to hell for having that stuff in my room, so no I'm not telling him because I don't feel like getting this long lecture about betraying Christ) and my dad's side of the family doesn't know(my mom and dad are divorced so it's easy for him to not know) because of my very,very devout Baptist aunt. And yes JRR Tolkien was a devout Catholic, but wizards are the devil regardless. :D

[Eternal Law]

Opinions on Islam

I believe it is temporary canal emerged out of river Sanatana Dharma for some reasons which only Shiva can explain. Some part of it is really divine like some suffis and others are height of corruption.

Islam with a message of "Bismillah ur RAHman ur RAHIm" was a stirct warning for those who divided HAR and HARI.

[Namo Narayana]

even sufiism can be challenged. there are certain western people who fled sufis after knowing their truth. we need to save the west who are innocent and also educate indians who think islam is a religion

[Arjuna]

even sufiism can be challenged. there are certain western people who fled sufis after knowing their truth. we need to save the west who are innocent and also educate indians who think islam is a religion

Please, let us not judge the whole by its worst parts.
There are ugly things in every religion (as a social phenomenon).

There were and are true upasakas and true saint in Islam, as in every other great religion.
This is not to say Islam is superior in any way but to tell truth.

God wouldn't allow Islam to spread and even exist if no spiritual Truth would have been there.

[Namo Narayana]

Please, let us not judge the whole by its worst parts.
There are ugly things in every religion (as a social phenomenon).

There were and are true upasakas and true saint in Islam, as in every other great religion.
This is not to say Islam is superior in any way but to tell truth.

God wouldn't allow Islam to spread and even exist if no spiritual Truth would have been there.

Arjuna, god gives human brain to think not take everything on god and reason out. Islam did not spread because of what God wished.People have reasoned out that it was because Hindus and Jews at that time were naive and did not know the true nature of these barbarians. they thought muslims were like other conquerors. But that did not happen to be true. Muslims would have wielded even havoc but for the invention of fire arms. muslims are not big inventors, thats why they are subsided now and may be for a long time. Islam is phobic to development and science. that is one great advantage for folks like us.
Havent you read in hindu dharma that even if evil spreads god comes only when it goes out of hand ?just try to go and see what quran says. i used to be naive like this but now i have seen people pointing out the quaranic and hadith verses which are not anything divine or religious. why muslims spread ? because of conquests, murders slavery. the enslavened people were put in fear . if you look into a muslims they live in fear of their so called allah and prophet. the women are downtrodden. it is legal per quran to beat women and wives. now what literature even if it is not perfect tells these ? I have not known anything in hinduism or christianity to have said like that.

I think i gave u a website www.faithfreedom.org (http://www.faithfreedom.org) where you can argue your good opinions on islam. i am sure u wouldn't win. but atleast you will wake up.

[nekozuki]

But not all Muslims act like that, not all of them are striving for bloodshed. Though these type of Muslims are in a very,very small minority.

[Namo Narayana]

But not all Muslims act like that, not all of them are striving for bloodshed. Though these type of Muslims are in a very,very small minority.

nekozuki, that is what all people who dont know about islam and muslims think. but the truth is far from waht they think. you are thinking that there are a certain group that is extremist. but the truth is almost all muslims are fed with anger and hatred in the little mosques. their quran feeds hate and superiority complex in them. it says only people who accept quran can live in this world. that gives muslims the reason to kill others. i can keep going on .

when you edit your posts, there is an option to delete next to save. just click on it and it will delete your post.

[nekozuki]

I will admit I don't know a whole lot about it. I used to sit behind a Muslim girl during my Senior year in high school and I thought her rather interesting and we would talk and all but other than that I still didn't really know a whole lot. Yes the Koran does preach violence and hate in fact conversions are done through Jihad, it's actually a good thing to have a Jihad according to the Koran, doesn't sound like God's word to me. They say the Devil reigns supreme in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Paganism yet I'm seeing a Satanistic attitude in Christianity and Islam: hate. I see no Devil worshipping in Paganism seeing as how it's nature worship and they don't believe in the devil and Hinduism and Buddhism focus on peace. Yesterday someone told me that I was going to hell and the antichrist lived inside me and I was living proof that the Revelations is happening. When in fact no one knows what the hell the Book of Revelations is talking about, most scholars are starting to agree that it is describing the fall of the Roman Empire. The city of seven hills mentioned in Revelation= Rome, it was known as the city with seven hills and the number 666 is actually the numerical reference for Nero, hence the antichrist since he persecuted Christians. I wish I could find a website on it, it actually makes a lot of sense.

[Namo Narayana]

Exactly. onething that is beautiful in dharma is it doesnot look into your plate and see what you are doing. it does what it should need to convey to people. i just finished seeing about bible in NGEO and it talks about cook up in bible and later gospels. i did a google search for jesus kashmir. it turned me an article saying jesus was a buddhist.

i find it hard to believe that jesus was angry when he reached the temple. he throws away everything people are selling at the temple.

for in dharma either krishna or rama never shows any anger. so it turned me off.

[nekozuki]

I know I never understood that, the whole temple thing that is. The Bible is probably the most tampered with scripture. Look at how the Book of Enoch was taken out because it made no sense, but neither does the Garden of Eden story. Some people also think the Bible is a valid history book, this is not so. There is some accurate history in it but not much. Ramses in the Exodus story of the Bible is much different from the historical Ramses. So the Bible cannot be literally taken as the only scripture for anyone.

[Namo Narayana]

many christians including one of my good friend gets her temper out when i talk about christianity. she is a born again. though she is a good person but she is born again and believes in armageddon and stuff.

[Namo Narayana]

now lets not deviate on the topic of islam to bible :p

[nekozuki]

I think they kind of go hand in hand though since they both branched off from Judaism. Although I'm nearly squeezing the keyboard buttons to not say anything about armageddon. I too have a Christian friend and she says I betrayed Christ, I just shrug my shoulders.

[satay]

I think they kind of go hand in hand though since they both branched off from Judaism. Although I'm nearly squeezing the keyboard buttons to not say anything about armageddon. I too have a Christian friend and she says I betrayed Christ, I just shrug my shoulders.

You seem to be around a lot of hard core fundamentalists. Glad to see that you are shrugging them off. True christians (like my wife) don't say such things like you betrayed christ and such nonsense like that.

satay

[nekozuki]

Actually I find manipulating Jesus's teachings and having holy wars in his name as betraying him. Not worshipping the same God in a different way. I am around a lot of fundamental Christians, I live in the american south so what can you expect?

[Namo Narayana]

i would justify cruasade on jihadis. that was right thing to do. hindus should have done something like that. prithviraj should have cut ghori into pieces and put on kaali maa's neck as garland.

Jai kali kalkatha wali

[Namo Narayana]

You seem to be around a lot of hard core fundamentalists. Glad to see that you are shrugging them off. True christians (like my wife) don't say such things like you betrayed christ and such nonsense like that.

satay

i remember you saying you married a christian. onething i like about christians ,in india, who are converted already is many dont try to convert you. they mingle easily with hindus. i have seen lot of brahmins marrying christians. samething is not true to muslims. i think in due time these converts will be absorbed into hinduism.

[nekozuki]

The Inquistion is probably the worst thing any Christian has done. Pagans worship the Devil....please......give me a break. Trust me Namo Christianity cannot convert devout Hindus. If I become the last Hindu standing so be it, I will not become a born again Christian. The best Christians out there who actually follow Christ and are peaceful are the Gnostics who were actually the first Christians but the Pope banned the Gnostic Gospels and called them heretics.

[Namo Narayana]

tell me what not papacy didnt do. the medieval popes were actual rulers and had armies. certainly devout hindus wont even be slightly disturbed by christian teachings. you will find no real hindus go converted to christianity. those who converted were the downtrodden poor atleast what i know in south india. now they started giving money to certain businessmen who r not doing fine and resurrect their business and ask them to preach christianity.

[nekozuki]

I bought Hinduism Today and there was something in there about saints, swamis, and sages coming together about the conversion problem. As you can see no one is tolerating it much longer, I'm afraid something really,really bad might break out between Christian missionaries,Muslims, and Hindus. Let's pray and hope not.


Speaking of the papacy: Rome is actually my favorite European city and I want to go there but if I do I will be a little sad about the ruins of ancient Rome, reminds me of the old days :(

[Namo Narayana]

indeed rome is a cultural treasure. roman and greek polytheism has lot of commonality with hinduism. not much muslim conversion in india I believe. someone correct me if i am wrong. but missionaries convert a lot into christianity. couple of missionaries were also killed. but christians as such are not crazy like muslims. there is no hindu christian hatred as far as i know . but there is always the problem of missionaries that too evangelical and born agains.

[nekozuki]

Nope, Christians aren't as bloodthristy as Muslims. Unfortunately, here in the south some of the backwoods Baptists are still on a witch hunt :mad: if I say jesus was married to Mary magdalene I'm called a heretic and Satan. Then again those are the ones that are still in the Dark ages.

[Namo Narayana]

they keep repeating that mary magdalene was married to jesus or she was a whore something like that in discovery and Natural geog channel..... but there are some ardent christians. at some angle there is little that is different between these christians and muslims

[nekozuki]

Mary Magdalene being a whore was actually put in the Bible by guess who..........The Pope :) Very strange isn't it? Could there be a little secret I wonder.

[Namo Narayana]

some even dont consider a pope a christian. hilarious iisnt it. it goes like this. is he a christian no answers the other, he is a catholic. lololol.

already this thread was split from judaism for being too islamophobic. now it is going to be broken again into a christian thread lol. thanks to us neko :p

[nekozuki]

I remember how some thought Pope John Paul II was the antichrist lol, that's funny. Some guy who can barely walk is the antichrist.......ooooo so scary. Yeah, I can't help getting a bit off topic. I could go on about Atlantis is that okay lol.

[Namo Narayana]

use the canteen forum to post anything gibberish. it will be fun.

[nekozuki]

ooo yay fun. Let's get back on subject shall we?

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Moderator Note:

This thread has been getting off topic. There are plenty of other forums to talk about Christianity, Bible, and just small talk in general. This thread is titled "Opinions on Islam" and posts should stick to that point. If this continues off-topic, I will be forced to either move those posts to another thread or simply remove them altogether.

Do you have any questions or comments about moderation policy? If so, please send a private message to Bhakti Yoga Seeker or contact one of the other administrators on this website. Namaste. ~BYS~

[Arjuna]

nekozuki, that is what all people who dont know about islam and muslims think. but the truth is far from waht they think. you are thinking that there are a certain group that is extremist. but the truth is almost all muslims are fed with anger and hatred in the little mosques. their quran feeds hate and superiority complex in them. it says only people who accept quran can live in this world. that gives muslims the reason to kill others. i can keep going on .

I had and have some number of muslim friends and in fact know that Ur opinion is not accurate.
Again, i do not say political "islam" or social rules of shariat are OK. But as every religion, Islam has an inner core, which is pure mysticism.

[Singhi Kaya]

I had and have some number of muslim friends and in fact know that Ur opinion is not accurate.
Again, i do not say political "islam" or social rules of shariat are OK. But as every religion, Islam has an inner core, which is pure mysticism.

I think Prabhupada's 4th regulation on celebacy has an inner core and a deep meaning which is pure mysticism.

[Gill Harley]

I agree with Arjuna, that at the heart of every religion is mysticism, and it takes a similar form in all religions. This is why we keep getting sidetracked in this thread, because all Judaic religions (i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam) come from a similar source, which, I believe, was, at one time, the Vedic religion.

So I guess it depends on whether you're a 'glass half empty' or 'glass half full' sort of a person. You can either concentrate on the dharmic heart of all these religions, and benefit from the thousands of years of devotion within it, or you can concentrate on the outer shell of the religion, which is pure maya. :)

For every post on here about how awful the Muslims are, it would be easy to come up with comparable lists of all the awful things the Christians have done, the Jews have done and yes, the Hindus have done. But none of that is anything to do with the pure spiritual truth, which is what I'm here on this forum for, and so I assume, is everyone else.

If we are going to discuss the outer shell of a religion, then that is no different to discussing a political grouping and we can be really negative about all the awful things each one has done, which might be satisfying to the ego but none of us will feel that we have progressed spiritually, in any sense, at the end of it. But if we discuss the mysticism at the heart of each of these religions, the Love for God, which they all have in common as their bottom line, then we will all really benefit.

[Namo Narayana]

Gill, I am not only counting on the atrocities of Islamic invaders but also on what koran or the hadiths teach. I dont see any point in arguing over how merciful Islam is . Peace loving hindus like you would like to say everything leads to god. I used to think like that sometime back. But no longer I guess. I am not a keen person on bashing religion but I think I should have an opinion if something is going to harm society.

[nekozuki]

While every religion has it "good" and "bad", it says something if the religion is known for it's bad deeds and its backwardsness. Hinduism, Buddhism, and paganism are known to peaceful.

[Namo Narayana]

I had and have some number of muslim friends and in fact know that Ur opinion is not accurate.
Again, i do not say political "islam" or social rules of shariat are OK. But as every religion, Islam has an inner core, which is pure mysticism.

what religion tells its followers that kill who dont believe in their god.

what religion tells women are not considered full evidence.

what religion tells apostates should be killed.

I can go on but all i care is you people wake up and see the axe is nearing your neck and do something. I dont care about islam.

Arjuna why dont you pose the questions to your muslim friends. see if they dont get angry.

[Gill Harley]

Gill, I am not only counting on the atrocities of Islamic invaders but also on what koran or the hadiths teach. I dont see any point in arguing over how merciful Islam is . Peace loving hindus like you would like to say everything leads to god. I used to think like that sometime back. But no longer I guess. I am not a keen person on bashing religion but I think I should have an opinion if something is going to harm society.

Hi Nama Narayana

I don't think you've understood what I said and perhaps it's my fault for not making myself clear. It's isn't that I disagree with your opinion, or am against your right to express it. My point is - there are plenty of discussion boards where those sort of debates go on all the time. On this one, though, I hoped that we could discuss the spiritual lore, in other words, the mystical heart of religious teachings and not solely concentrate on where that religion's has gone wrong. I think that I would find that more helpful way forward. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.:)

[Singhi Kaya]

My only problem with these later (sufis claim that md himself started the cult, but all their developments are after the prophet was gone.) cults within Islam is they are distraction when we criticize mainstream Islam.

I'd have no problem if people talk about sufism or philosophy of rumi and make a claim to their validity as a spiritual path, but when people start to put these as a shield to defend muhammad's brutalism & koran and make ludicrous claims like these are real Islam - it boils my blood. Please keep your arguments to the point.

I respect christians scholars for their honesty to defend their religion based on bible alone. I haven't seen many christian apologists talking about mystic christianity.

I hate such dishonest effort to defend a barbarism. Islam has to go from this universe, it's time is ending. Whether sufi's and rumi's want to go with them to the seven heaven of virgins is upto them.

Btw, sufi's were first class defender's of Islamic Fascism. They generally followed behind an Islamic conqueror. Per haves they represent the most perfect examples of different attitude in speech and action - the hall mark of mohammad and any evil for that matter.

The above para is my criticism of these so called mystic cults in muslim world. Those who are not with truth cannot be spiritualists, for spirit is truth (see gita) - they may appear as mystics and may practice what appears as mysticism - but it ends there.

[Singhi Kaya]

Humans are not pure nor perfect. Nor fully 100% impure and evil.

There is something bad with what is inherently good. (smarta-ism in hinduism)

Similarly there may be something good about what is inherently evil.(what we are discussing)


----- My last post here in this thread --- enjoy your rumism or sufism...I needed to make my point clear. Mods may move this to the Openion on Islam thread. But Ihaven;t posted there for some time.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Neela,

I understand that Islam is intolerant of non-Islam, but I am no scholar of the Koran, so could you please give some references for exactly where the Koran itself (not any later commentary) is “violent and murderous”.

[Namo Narayana]

Namaste Neela,

I understand that Islam is intolerant of non-Islam, but I am no scholar of the Koran, so could you please give some references for exactly where the Koran itself (not any later commentary) is “violent and murderous”.


this is a hadith.


Volume 3, Book 41, Number 602:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "No doubt, I intended to order somebody to pronounce the Iqama of the (compulsory congregational) prayer and then I would go to the houses of those who do not attend the prayer and burn their houses over them."

[nekozuki]

The Koran is probably the most violent religious scripture, Muslims actually convert people through Jihad. The thing is, they're not supposed to kill women and children.

[sarabhanga]

The Ahadith are later narrations on the Sunnah ~ please provide some evidence from the Koran itself.

[Gill Harley]

Singhi Kaya - I would be most grateful if you would change the picture on your posts. I find it offensive on all sorts of levels and I'm surprised that somebody who professes to care about the sanathana dharma would sport such a picture. :mad:

[Singhi Kaya]

Singhi Kaya - I would be most grateful if you would change the picture on your posts. I find it offensive on all sorts of levels and I'm surprised that somebody who professes to care about the sanathana dharma would sport such a picture. :mad:

Namste Gill,

Can you please ask the mods what they think. I'll oblige if they find it in-appropiate.
I'm not obliging to you because "I find it funny at all sorts of levels".

It is a kitty doin a "hands up" - quite a unique and funny pose for a cat. Beyond that I cannot imagine anything else. But various people see things various ways.


Hope you understand my point.

Regards,
Singhi



PS: May be mods can provide their input of what they think. I vote funny.

[Singhi Kaya]

The Ahadith are later narrations on the Sunnah ~ please provide some evidence from the Koran itself.

Firstly Hadith are regarded as authentic history on prophet's life my all muslims from scholars to illeterate. Koran is word of God himself. Hadith is how to live by it, for it's muhammad's own life. So first point would be not think ourselves as experts and see islam in the eys of common muslims. I wanted to say this because I find this attitude to be arrogant and ignorant - quite contrary to persuit of knowledge. So hadith which follows the basis of lifesyle of 1.2b+ muslims is real and authentic. Just because few hindu's here or few muslim apologists there would want to imagine something else, we should not paint things in our mental pictures. I just menationed what I think was an important point, no way intended to mean any thing personal to anyone in particular.

Now I'll gladly oblige with quotes from Koran. You can buy a good version of koran. Pickthall's version is one of the most authentic english versions. As we will see words in koran are so clear in sanctioning barbarism in name of God, that no translation how ever fabricated can totally hide them - unless one writes his own quo'ran. There is no scope if imaginative interpretation in many places.


Qur’an:9:88 “The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah’s Cause.” Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” Qur’an:9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.” Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.” Ishaq:325 “Muslims, fight in Allah’s Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious.” Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.” Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).” Ishaq:324 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.’” Qur’an:9:14 “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.”
Qur’an:8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”
Qur’an:8:73 “The unbelieving infidels are allies. Unless you (Muslims) aid each other (fighting as one united block to make Allah’s religion victorious), there will be confusion and mischief. Those who accepted Islam, left their homes to fight in Allah’s Cause (al-Jihad), as well as those who give them asylum, shelter, and aid—these are (all) Believers: for them is pardon and bountiful provision (in Paradise).”

[Singhi Kaya]

Discourse on Torture



Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”

Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”

Qur’an 5:37 “disbelievers will long to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out there from; and theirs will be an enduring torture.”

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

[Singhi Kaya]

Discourse on Nature of heaven


Qur’an 56:8 “Those of the right hand-how happy will be those of the right hand! …Who will be honored in the Garden of Bliss; Qur’an 56:13 “A multitude of those from among the first, and a few from the latter, (will be) on couch-like thrones woven with gold and precious stones. Reclining, facing each other. Round about them will (serve) boys of perpetual (freshness), of never ending bloom, with goblets, jugs, and cups (filled) with sparkling wine. No aching of the head will they receive, nor suffer any madness, nor exhaustion. And with fruits, any that they may select: and the flesh of fowls, any they may desire. And (there will be) Hur (fair females) with big eyes, lovely and pure, beautiful ones, like unto hidden pearls, well-guarded in their shells. A reward for the deeds.”
Qur’an 56:33 “Unending, and unforbidden, exalted beds, and maidens incomparable. We have formed them in a distinctive fashion and made them virgins, loving companions matched in age, for the sake of those of the right hand.” [Another translation reads:] “On couches or thrones raised high. Verily, We have created them (maidens) incomparable: We have formed their maidens as a special creation, and made them to grow a new growth. We made them virgins—pure and undefiled, lovers, matched in age.”

Qur’an 37:40 “Fruits, Delights; they will be honored in the Gardens of Pleasure, on thrones facing one another. Round them will be passed a cup of pure white wine, delicious to the drinkers, free from ghoul (hurt), nor shall you be made mad or exhausted thereby. And with them will be Qasirat-at-Tarf (virgin females), restraining their glances (desiring none but you), with big, beautiful eyes. As if they were (sheltered) eggs, preserved.” Qur’an 88:8 “Faces will be joyful, glad with their endeavour. In a lofty Garden they hear no harmful speech.” Qur’an 88:12 “Therein will be a bubbling spring, raised throne-like couches, drinking cups ready placed, cushions set in rows, and rich silken carpets all spread out.”

[Singhi Kaya]

Those are just very small section of war many such poisonous and meaningless propaganda in the name of God appears continuously and repeatedly again and again and again in the holy book of 1.2b+ people of earth.

Reading Koran is a life changing experience. Any intelligent man will recognize that this genius of a man is just preaching a hate propaganda in name of god with aim of building a team. Occationally he promises rewards of lust. There are occasional meaningless and so called "inspirational" words - but that is not the theme of koran. Mohammad took the existing shaivism of mecca and perverted it to such a extent that it cannot be recognized as a sanatana ritual anymore except for occasional hints.

Koran was the earliest work of propaganda (so is the new testament, but it is not nearly as scientific).

In later days communists and fascists discovered the same - the science of shouting out no sense so many times that it starts to make sense.

That this hate speech and barbarism has been shouted so many times as religion (only a bit intolerant per haves), that we now believe it is. Just read Koran Then read Hadith. Then if anyone has slightest respect for truth, they should no speak the word Islam as synonymous to dharma ever again. If (s)he does I will assume the he/she has no respect for truth and spirituality without truth is just a "show" - like many so called spiritual hindu's have been putting up for some time now.

Thanks for listening!

Regards
Singhi

Footnote: Again intended to general reader, nothing is directed to anyone in particular.

[sarabhanga]

I have already admitted my ignorance of Islam.
And when someone condemns a particular religious text as being “murderous”, it seems quite appropriate for others to request actual evidence from that same text.
Now that you have given some suggestions we can consider the matter properly.

[Singhi Kaya]

Dear sarabhanga Ji

As I have clearly mentioned in my footnotes these are not written for you in particular.

Please don't think I'm accusing you in any sense.

My hatred (not anger) for Islam is so deep that my tone changes when I speak on it. It is real, I can't help it.

Hope you understand.

Singhi

[Singhi Kaya]

For the uninitiated here is a nice site:-

http://islamreview.org/

contains writings of Anwar Sheik and other scolars.
This is gentle and it shows how Islam is just barbarism in name of God disguised as religion.
Knowing Islam, one doesn't have to fall on irrational justifications of few bad apple terrorist's. I hope a great a realization will dawn upon all of us that terrorists and jehadis are in fact most authentic muslims. Terrorism is also not an arbit phenominan. If a hindu decides to be a terrorist he may kill 1 or 2 and then perish. For hindu society doesn't support it. Terroism exist in Muslim society because it has direct support. And then another great realization should dawn that how many are trapped by this barbarism.

These days right wing christians are in the fore-front of intellectual battle agains Islam. Being right wing christians their solutions are chistrian and their own history is not hugely better than Islam. But as far as exposing Islam, they do a very good job. Here is one.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

Finally go to a book shop and get a copy of an authentic translation. Pikthal's is very for he didn't put too much effort to hide facts from the non-muslims, it was written quite some years back.

Don't fall for "The great Prophet" type of books or those who bring sufism to sheild real islam. Though my belief is sufism under the hood is quite the same.

I hope study of islam does change the way you think. It was like the first turning of the wheel of dharma in my humble life. Realization of the true nature of Islam is not the end, for it only brings dispair. Refuge in true dharma becomes all the more necessary after that. I hope some of us at least realize that we are in a battle of kruskhetra and choice is only 2 fold. Side with adharma and perish in this life and rest or be with dharma. Neutral position is only for who doesn't know the truth.

Spirituality is a tool to reach God. But truth is God himself.

Thanks for listening!

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Singhi,

If your Avatar was only a kitten with its hands up there would be no problem. But the gun pointed at the innocent kitten can only be amusing if it is understood as a play on your own name with a hint that the lion is really innocent and any force used against him is likewise an over-reaction.

:D

OK, now it really would be preferable if you changed the image ~ at least for the sake of those who do find it that its offence outweighs its noted humor.

[Singhi Kaya]

I will oblige to your request because you are a sadhu - is this a weakness? I dunno.

I take my true form now. It's more fearful I say to all before hand;), and it is from our dharma. A merciless slaughter going in there ....

[satay]

Namste Gill,

Can you please ask the mods what they think. I'll oblige if they find it in-appropiate.
I'm not obliging to you because "I find it funny at all sorts of levels".

It is a kitty doin a "hands up" - quite a unique and funny pose for a cat. Beyond that I cannot imagine anything else. But various people see things various ways.


Hope you understand my point.

Regards,
Singhi



PS: May be mods can provide their input of what they think. I vote funny.

namaste,
I didn't think nothing of it first but now that some members have pointed it out I do think it is inappropriate and not in tune with the overall site.

Let's look at it this way, would you put a poster up of the same in a mandir or even in hall of a mandir? Certainly not, since it is going to turn off bhaktas.

In my opinion, if it offends others it is not a good avatar. I don't want to be avatar police and leave it up to you to think about what I wrote here regarding having this avatar in a mandir hallway.

[Namo Narayana]

I have already admitted my ignorance of Islam.
And when someone condemns a particular religious text as being “murderous”, it seems quite appropriate for others to request actual evidence from that same text.
Now that you have given some suggestions we can consider the matter properly.

I do understand that sarabhanga. I have discussed some neutral americans and westerners who thought about converting to islam and after reading the koran backed off and joined the forums that enlighten people about koran and hadith and islam altogether.

there are also many muslims who became aware of Koran ( as many muslims did not read koran themselves ) and quit the religion.

I will provide Koranic verses when I stumble on them.

[Gill Harley]

Namste Gill,

Can you please ask the mods what they think. I'll oblige if they find it in-appropiate.
I'm not obliging to you because "I find it funny at all sorts of levels".

It is a kitty doin a "hands up" - quite a unique and funny pose for a cat. Beyond that I cannot imagine anything else. But various people see things various ways.


Hope you understand my point.

Regards,
Singhi



PS: May be mods can provide their input of what they think. I vote funny.

It looked like to me like a kitten being held up by a gun. I can't think what a picture like that would be doing on a site about a dharma.

[Namo Narayana]

Personally I thought it was funny. go to crapville.com u will find lot of funny stuff.

[ramkish42]

The Ahadith are later narrations on the Sunnah ~ please provide some evidence from the Koran itself.
I think you are not a member of this site. I would like to recommend those who share passion for Islam, kindly go through this site and see for yourself

http://www.faithfreedom.org

I never hated Islam for I find many similarities between our cult and them, but there are bullies in Islam which no one can tolerate.

It is like a cactus - as long as it is far off, it will not hurt you, the moment it is near you, you cannot safe gaurd yourself from its thorns. I can also see, flowers petals and fruit of cactus is said are sweet but they are just out show, what is real is unedible white juice which can harm you

Jai Shree Krishna - May lord shed thorns of Islam to benefit this world

[Singhi Kaya]

It looked like to me like a kitten being held up by a gun. I can't think what a picture like that would be doing on a site about a dharma.
Avatars are about ourselves. I don't choose a avatar to make others either happy or to offend them or any such stuff or even to prove that I'm dharmic. But I removed it on sarbhanga's suggestion. It is quite a trivial issue really.

[Singhi Kaya]

Personally I thought it was funny. go to crapville.com u will find lot of funny stuff.

You are a pal.:D

Btw I posted quite a few koran verses on a few topics. Till before this I was arguing just how barbaric Islam is, for I assumed the folks like sarabhanga etc who are so knowledgable about many stuff could not be ignorant about Islam. I assumed they knew Islam, but wasn't critical because of some ideology. This came as a shock that most people still know very little about Islam and are misled. We will do a great dharmic duty to post quotes and thoughts in Islam as much we can in this forum and elsewhere.

Thanks ramkrish for linking the faithfreedom site. It is also a lovely site where Islam lovers and haters can argue, lovers loose out badly.

[Singhi Kaya]

there are also many muslims who became aware of Koran ( as many muslims did not read koran themselves ) and quit the religion.

Is that possible in most cases? Viewing some post in a internet forum suggests that many educated and honest muslims are trapped because if they come out they can be killed (Islam advocates death for anyone who leaves the cult. Allah's eagerness to physically torture and molest human dignity at slightest pretext actually scares a non-muslim like me!). Leaving (or even practicing outside) the moslem cult is only possible for in a non-muslim country. Most Islamic countries have reached the peak of their barbaric history in 21st century when all else are moving in a different direction - to me it a sure sign of their eminent anihilation.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste,

From the verses provided, I shall consider only those which are actually from the Koran and which could possibly be regarded as “murderous”.

Qur’an 5:33 is only concerning “those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to make mischief in the land”, and so the sentiment is quite reasonable ~ and exactly the same idea can be found in Hindu scripture. And 5:37 is speaking of the final judgement of souls at the time of Apocalypse.

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. [5:32]

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, [5:33]

Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [5:34]

O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and seek means of nearness to Him and strive hard in His way that you may be successful. [5:35]

Surely (as for) those who disbelieve, even if they had what is in the earth, all of it, and the like of it with it, that they might ransom themselves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment. [5:36]

They would desire to go forth from the fire, and they shall not go forth from it, and they shall have a lasting punishment. [5:37]

Qur’an:8:39 is referring to those who persecute Muslims or hinder them from the Mosque (and their judgement and punishment is left to Allah).

And what (excuse) have they that Allah should not chastise them while they hinder (men) from the Sacred Mosque and they are not (fit to be) guardians of it; its guardians are only those who guard (against evil), but most of them do not know. [8:34]

And their prayer before the House is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands; taste then the chastisement, for you disbelieved. [8:35]

Surely those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (people) from the way of Allah; so they shall spend it, then it shall be to them an intense regret, then they shall be overcome; and those who disbelieve shall be driven together to hell. [8:36]

Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed. [8:38]

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do. [8:39]

Qur’an:8:65 seems only to be regarding those who have already made a covenant with the one unseen God of all Abrahamic faiths and who have since turned away from their strict agreement (especially the commandments of “no graven images” or “worshipping other gods”) and those who actually threaten Islam.

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. [8:55]

Those with whom you make an agreement, then they break their agreement every time and they do not guard (against punishment). [8:56]

Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful. [8:57]

And if you fear treachery on the part of a people, then throw back to them on terms of equality; surely Allah does not love the treacherous. [8:58]

And let not those who disbelieve think that they shall come in first; surely they will not escape. [8:59]

And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly. [8:60]

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing. [8:61]

And if they intend to deceive you ~ then surely Allah is sufficient for you; He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers. [8:62]

And united their hearts; had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise. [8:63]

O Prophet! Allah is sufficient for you and (for) such of the believers as follow you. [8:64]

O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand. [8:65]

Qur’an:8:73 is dealing with the guardianship of new lands subdued by the will of Allah, and the Prophet considered that non-Muslims should not be allowed remain as rulers of such converted or reverted territories, and that those who have admitted defeat and made a treaty with their new rulers should be treated fairly so long as they do not go back on their agreement. And 9:14 is about those who ignore the treaty and openly revile Islam.

It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. [8:67]

Were it not for an ordinance from Allah that had already gone forth, surely there would have befallen you a great chastisement for what you had taken to. [8:68]

Eat then of the lawful and good (things) which you have acquired in war, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [8:69]

O Prophet! say to those of the captives who are in your hands: If Allah knows anything good in your hearts, He will give to you better than that which has been taken away from you and will forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [8:70]

And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but He gave (you) mastery over them; and Allah is Knowing, Wise. [8:71]

Surely those who believed and fled (their homes) and struggled hard in Allah's way with their property and their souls, and those who gave shelter and helped ~ these are guardians of each other; and (as for) those who believed and did not fly, not yours is their guardianship until they fly; and if they seek aid from you in the matter of religion, aid is incumbent on you except against a people between whom and you there is a treaty, and Allah sees what you do. [8:72]

And (as for) those who disbelieve, some of them are the guardians of others; if you will not do it, there will be in the land persecution and great mischief. [8:73]

And (as for) those who believed and fled and struggled hard in Allah's way, and those who gave shelter and helped, these are the believers truly; they shall have forgiveness and honorable provision. [8:74]

And (as for) those who believed afterwards and fled and struggled hard along with you, they are of you; and the possessors of relationships are nearer to each other in the ordinance of Allah; surely Allah knows all things. [8:75]

[sarabhanga]

(This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement. [9:1]

So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers. [9:2]

And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve. [9:3]

Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfil their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). [9:4]

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [9:5]

And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know. [9:6]

How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Apostle; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). [9:7]

And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief ~ surely their oaths are nothing ~ so that they may desist. [9:12]

What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. [9:13]

Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people. [9:14]

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [9:29]

And the Jews say: Uzair is 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! [9:30]

But the Apostle and those who believe with him strive hard with their property and their persons; and these it is who shall have the good things and these it is who shall be successful. [9:88]

They who turn (to Allah), who serve (Him), who praise (Him), who fast, who bow down, who prostrate themselves, who enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, and who keep the limits of Allah; and give good news to the believers. [9:112]

The Qur’an is aggressive in the defence of Islam and Muslims, and in the propagation of the Prophet’s teaching and the expansion of Islam’s earthly dominions (within strict guidelines), but I am unconvinced that the Qur’an can reasonably be described as “murderous”.

Idolatrous Abrahamists and anyone who persecutes or interferes with Muslims in the proper performance or understanding of their faith, are the main target of Allah’s wrath. And so long as Islam has not defeated one’s sovereignty in a righteous conflict that ends in a treaty made according to Allah’s will, then it is only Christians (and anyone who dares to wage war against Islam) who should be fearful of the Qur’an.

Thus, I can understand that the US and her allies, and Christians (mainly the idolatrous Catholics), and any such person living in a majority Muslim community (remembering that with modern democracy it only requires numerical majority to claim a fair victory), should be concerned about Islam, and may well see murderous intent in the Qur’an!

When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. [8:12]

This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle, then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil). [8:13]

This ~ taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of fire. [8:14]

O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. [8:15]

[Namo Narayana]

Is that possible in most cases? Viewing some post in a internet forum suggests that many educated and honest muslims are trapped because if they come out they can be killed (Islam advocates death for anyone who leaves the cult. Allah's eagerness to physically torture and molest human dignity at slightest pretext actually scares a non-muslim like me!). Leaving (or even practicing outside) the moslem cult is only possible for in a non-muslim country. Most Islamic countries have reached the peak of their barbaric history in 21st century when all else are moving in a different direction - to me it a sure sign of their eminent anihilation.

if you go to faithfreedom.org you will see lot of apostates. killing apostates can happen even in a non muslim country like india. there should be explicit law in constitution to prevent this. i heard this bizarre news that muslim board is trying for a sharia court system in india. with congress india is sure to go into dhimmittude.

[nekozuki]

It seems to me that some Muslims misinterpret the Koran. If I'm not mistakened it says do not kill women and children during Jihad, do they follow that: nope!

[Singhi Kaya]

Dear Sarabhanga Ji,

You seem to defend murderous ayats with a logic that it is for mere defence of Islam. I don't know from where you got that idea, for the essence of Islam is to conquer the world and make the whole world muslim. We are against Islam by default. Infact the worst type - the kafirs. Muhammad spent more words of hate against jews (as expected) as people of the book were his first enemies, he knew he has legitamise his doctrine to other people of the book first.

Without going to much interpretation here are a set of ayats which seeks violence agains non-believers (aka us). There is no-provocation, no question of defence of Islam (if that word is used it means barrier to progress of Islam).



VIII/12:
When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger [1].
VIII/36:
[b]Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.[b]

Here we see straight forward violence against non-believers and as soon as we repent (meaning we accept Islam) we are free. What can be more close to bone-chilling facism? they wait till their holy month is over and start the acts of barbarism. If you note Islamic rioting history, this cycle is still followed. Case of riots increase after the holy months. That this terrorism of the past is still alaive as a respected religion cannot be more clear here.



“The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”
Qur’an:8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
Qur’an:8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’
Again, Allah's land is the whole world not Arabia. See Below

Qur’an:24:55 “Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good work that He will make them rulers of the earth. He will establish in authority their religion—the one which He has chosen for them.”



Finally all these are just quoting random verses. Their bone-chilling reality can only be understood in light of the actual events when the specific ayats were brought down from heaven. You will find that the soft and live and let-live ayats were produced when muhammad was in trouble and his life threatned. While when he was winning his speeches were merciless.


That muhammad and his men were the ones who brought upon wars and barbarism on the rest is the core setting in which qu'ran has to be read. Hadith makes this very clear. All mullahs know this very well. I'll quote from a very scolarly site in the next post.


But to understand Islam more closesly as a clinic book case of Asurik doctrine Satyananda Ji's "Who Is Allah" must be read.


But if we are pre-biased to defend the dogma, I don't think any amount of murderous history and ayats can change our mind. Unprovoked Muslim violence is so common (Aligarh last week, Muslims killed 2 hindu priests because they were using sound boxes in their ritual, yet muslim spill their namaj 5 times a day to everyone and in places where there are hardly any muslims) a fact that question should arise in the mind of a truthful hindu automatically. But we only see people spreading sarba dharma samabhava without even knowing anything on Islam.

[Singhi Kaya]

It seems to me that some Muslims misinterpret the Koran. If I'm not mistakened it says do not kill women and children during Jihad, do they follow that: nope! It's a pity they don't follow it these days (they used to in hay days), for it is worse than killing women and children. Idea is to kill the men and take the women and chilren and violate them as spoils of war and later increase the stength of the community. It is hight of animalistic lust and barbarism. I would have thought killing everyone in war is more humane and dignified. Loosing one's life is a better option than entering the harem of a pious jehadi.
Think for yourself neko before answering, which option will you prefer?:)

[nekozuki]

I think I'd rather die, that's just ummmm nasty. I would hate looking at some Islamic guy for the rest of my life.

[Singhi Kaya]

Good, you are the brave one:D.

The three worlds are for the brave, rest have to be satisfied with fragments;)

[nekozuki]

Seriously, I bet you the guy would be fat and not bath a whole lot. I would beg for death.

[Singhi Kaya]

Prelude: Islamic beheading as well see aired in arabic tele's these days sarted with the infamous massacre of the Banu Qarayza tribe of mecca. They were a small jewsish tribe who were extremely peace loving but after losts of persuation agreed to side with some meccan tribe against muhammad of medina. But as defeat become eminnet they surrendered as they were never willing to fight the apostle. Under normal civilized rule of all societies at all times surrendered enemies are treated with respect and dignity. What happen to Banu Qurayza is not only bone chilling, but a jehadi act from the earliest times of Islamic history which outshines any present day jehadi brutality at all levels. The amount Brutality and mercilessness with uncanny tactict as was shown here is rare in history. And everything was done by the great apostle by his own hands. This earth has seen monsters and satanic leaders rise to great hights in their life time, kill countless and create hell on earth. It is a natural consequence of some nerves in our head I think. But never before such a man came to be respected as a messenger of god himself - and in course of 1400 years amass 1.2b+ followers. Never before a doctrine of killing loot and plunder came to be respected as a religion by his followers and ignorant kafers alike.

I had read this in college days during my first initiation to Islam. It stunned me.

I have found this very nice and informative article on the muhammadanism website. Please read it through in your time.

To those who only want to believe authentic arabic texts only, may please do so and confirm us. I appeal to the more rational hindu's.


http://www.muhammadanism.org/Islam/islam_beheading.pdf

[Gill Harley]

Hi Singhi Kaya

I can see from the tenor of your posts that you have been deeply affected by the brutality of the Moslems, and I respect that. I've also been affected in my own small way because I have ito travel on the London Underground every day, and recent events in the UK proved that the Tube network here can never be adequately protected against suicide bombers. So I feel as if I take my life in my hands in just going to work every day.

However, everyone knows about this aspect to Islam. It's on the news every day, if one cares to listen to it, or watch it on television, or read about in the paper. So I don't think anyone on this board is ignorant of the threat of certain Moslems, or needs to be reminded of it.

It also strikes me, reading through your posts, that, possibly because of your student experience, you seem slightly obsessed by violence to the extent that you would use, as your avatar, a picture of a kitten being held up by a gun. But that's just my opinion and it is not meant to insult you.

I agree that the Koran is the most negative scripture that I've ever read - and I've read most of them. But I believe that the following view of yours is incorrect:


What happen to Banu Qurayza is not only bone chilling, but a jehadi act from the earliest times of Islamic history which outshines any present day jehadi brutality at all levels. The amount Brutality and mercilessness with uncanny tactict as was shown here is rare in history. And everything was done by the great apostle by his own hands. This earth has seen monsters and satanic leaders rise to great hights in their life time, kill countless and create hell on earth. It is a natural consequence of some nerves in our head I think. But never before such a man came to be respected as a messenger of god himself - and in course of 1400 years amass 1.2b+ followers. Never before a doctrine of killing loot and plunder came to be respected as a religion by his followers and ignorant kafers alike.



Yiou may not know much about the Christian crusades, but the historians of that time record that when the Christians knights conquered (the then Muslim) Jerusalem, the slaughter was such that they were wading in blood up to their knees.

Then there was the Spanish Inquisition, a body of men from the Vatican who seemed to take great delight in torturing and burning at the stake all women that they thought were witches, or anyone they considered a 'heretic'.

In the 15th century in the UK, Catholics were regularly beheaded or burned at the stake. Then when a Catholic queen came on to the throne, the tables were turned, and it was the Catholics turn to imprison and execute the Protestants.

And so it goes on...

I don't want to list here all the religious leaders who were violent because I think it will just feed into your obsession. But I do believe one has to take a rational, umemotional and objective view of history if one is to get anywhere near to the truth.

I used to have a Indian guru who was so badly beaten with iron bars by the Arya Samaj, in the Sixties, that he walked permanently crooked for the rest of his life. However, this hasn't put me off Hinduism or the Vedas.

So I don't see why the activities of Al Quaeda should distract me from admiring the very many spiritually-minded Moslems that I know, or from enjoying the beautiful Sufi poetry.

It just depends on which aspect you want to concentrate.

[Singhi Kaya]

Namste Gill,

We are talking about an entire religious belief and it's founder here anot an Al Quaida. We are not reffering to a few bad apples here, but an entire stock of bad apples, the root of the entire tree bing rotten. There are just a few good apples and innocent muslims who are victims of their own religion. Plus if will notice I never in a single line say anything against muslims in general. I view them with compassion for they are trapped. I generally view with suspicion muslims who claim to be spiritual. Study Islam and Shaktibad, you will know why.

But I have sent a more detailed reply vai PM.

About violence:-

If one is so much averse to violence, One should not worship Lord Ram or Hanuman Ji or Sri Krishna Or any of our Gods and Goddesses of our panthenon. One should forget about vedas which are so praising to gods for vanquishing the enemies of dharma. One should not be a hindu at all. Non-violence is a high personal quality. It's a feeling of compassion towards all life and even his enemy, but doesn't imply getting away from one's duty. The entire message of Gita which starts at this point is a waste in that case.

To me the culmination of correct non-violence is seen the character of Arjuna. EHe slays his his elders, but he shows the respect and kindness that they deserve. One may kill if one has to, but respect for another living being and their dignity separates divine from asurik violence.

[Gill Harley]

Namste Gill,

We are talking about an entire religious belief and it's founder here anot an Al Quaida. We are not reffering to a few bad apples here, but an entire stock of bad apples, the root of the entire tree bing rotten. There are just a few good apples and innocent muslims who are victims of their own religion. Plus if will notice I never in a single line say anything against muslims in general. I view them with compassion for they are trapped. I generally view with suspicion muslims who claim to be spiritual. Study Islam and Shaktibad, you will know why.

But I have sent a more detailed reply vai PM.

About violence:-

If one is so much averse to violence, One should not worship Lord Ram or Hanuman Ji or Sri Krishna Or any of our Gods and Goddesses of our panthenon. One should forget about vedas which are so praising to gods for vanquishing the enemies of dharma. One should not be a hindu at all. Non-violence is a high personal quality. It's a feeling of compassion towards all life and even his enemy, but doesn't imply getting away from one's duty. The entire message of Gita which starts at this point is a waste in that case.

Namaste Singhi Kaya

My grand daughter's name is Kaya. Just thought I'd mention that! :)

OK, I hear what you say, but doesn't that rather negate the point that you made in your last post about Mohammed being unique as a religious leader because he promoted violence?

You're absolutely right that the Hindu scriptures (or the Vedas) are full of violent leaders. What about Parasurama, for instance? Incarnation of Vishnu. He was known as ‘Rama with an axe’ for a reason. This is from the Puranic Encyclopaedia by Vettam Mani: ...an important event in Parasurma's life was the slaying of his mother at the behest of his father...The most important event of his life was the total extermination of the Ksatriya race. The Puranic belief is that he went round the world 18 times to massacre the Ksatriyas."

Then there's Krishna. I started to go through my Puranic Encyclopaedia to list all the people that Krishna is said to have killed in his lifetime, but then I realised that I'd be here all night!

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that there's far more promotion of violence in the wider Vedas than there is in the Koran.

So are we now going to say that Hindus are naturally violent because their religious teaching promotes going round killling people!:( Because, according to your criteria stated above, this means that the root of the Hindu religion is also rotten to the core? So Hindus must be all bad apples? Of course not.

Obviously, it is our duty to fight when we have to - and this is a strong message in the Gita. But it is not our duty to spend our time inciting hatred and casting slurs on a particular religious belief, and then dressing it up as "dharmic duty" which, in my view, is what you have been doing in this thread.

[Singhi Kaya]

Namste Gill,

-----------------------
About Violence Again:)
-----------------------
The question here is Justice Vs Injustice, Daivi Vs Asurik

It is not about what appears violence from outside. Is not nature in it's working inherently violent. Is not death a natural consequence of life?

Did Rama, Parasurama Or Krishna Or Arjuna kill any inoccent people. Is not all our gods known for slaying the demons and asuriks? Is it anywhere they kill because someone is not worshipping him/her - except for occational curses which we find often is related to karmic reasons. is not krishna slayed demons to remove the suffering of common villagers or bhima's fascination to slay demons anything to do with him getting pleasure out of it? Any violence you will see in Hindu history is for justice and to bring justice. They were not done to rule, to subdue or torture common people anywhere. It was spotless and pure, it was done because it was needed to save the society. Is essence of Vedas about violence? No! It is about knowledge and god and his various aspects (fighting injustice is one of them)

In contrast is not Islamic violence injustice? Is not slaying innocents and making their death look gastly inherenly makes us puke? What can justify slaying people just because they belong to a different religion, or slay mercilessly until they surrender to Islam? Behead them in public and show the consequence of a bitrayal to others, strike fear in the minds of non-bielevers as it says? Did Rama strike fear in the minds of javanas? Finally what is dharmic about this religion? It in a place says one musn't lie - but in another occation muhammad sancations lying if it involves slaying kafer. Is not lying the hall mark and betrayal in war that made moslems to conquer so much in medevial times. I know indian history is all about betrayal .

Can anyone can point be a single bit of consistent knowledge about tanscendendal and divine in Koran?? Believe me there is no spirituality there.

--------------------------
About Muhammad the rasul
--------------------------

I don't consider muhammad a dharmic leader. See Gill, how much we deny it, asurik development or anti-humanity or evil is a very common phenominan throughout history. No body in their right sense can justify Hitler or Stalin or Pol-Pot. Yet during their hay days many did. What makes us think Muhammad was any different from them?? Surely his preaching seems he was as much brutal in deeds and words than the above three. He was also clever and often assumed a mild personality. Just because he called himself God's messenger makes him different from Hitler?

Surely I can claim to be God's messenger ~ another matter no-one will listen to me. In 20th century also america has seen many perverted christian clans~whose leaders preach hatred and sometimes got engaged in as well. Most sane people regard them as non-sense or psychopathic. Only because muhammad was many times clever, but with even more deadly agenda makes him a God's messenger?

I'll tell you how muhammad started his carrier. His preaching as expected resulted in his life being threatned and he was forced to take asylm in medina. There also no one listned to him. Then one day his uncle (not sure if maternal or otherwise) who also never believed his words and thought him as mad offered him some legacy money. he also had some legacy from marrying his rich but older wife. He immediately bought a band of slaves. And asked them to become muslims. Slaves have no choice. So his first followers were bought slaves. With this band he decided to loot travellers between mecca and medina. Thhe very first mission was a huge success and he got huge wealths and 1000+ converts under the threat of death. I think (if I remember correctly) it was at this success this genious produced a divine ayat~that whole world needs to be made muslim. Nee I say more?

How much we claim we know about Islam most know little and confuse islamic terrorism as few bad apples. My aim here in this regard has been to break this myth. Ow, What can preaching the reality of Islam bring me?

[Singhi Kaya]

Finally those who find it unable to reconcile violence of our avatars (I may say they became avatars or gods mainly because they slayed demons!!!~violence is intrinsic with avtarhood, except buddha~maitrya buddha will wage war for those who don't know), our vedas, or Gita, or chaandi, Our puranas with current idea of hinduism pivoted on yoga and non-violence may study Shaktibad. Your doubts will be cleared and false external attachment to violence and non-violence should go.

Non-Violence: I'll not hurt even mentally any being in order to live my life better<>Don't kill any body.

In good old days work was divided so that only khastriyas needed to do involve in rightious violence. Now no khastriyas exist~unless we shudras take up some of the responsibility.

[nekozuki]

When I read about the avatars, I see that they are not killing innocent people. They kill demons or just really, really bad people.

[Gill Harley]

But that's my whole point, Singhi Kaya.

Every religion thinks they're justified in violence against the followers of other beliefs or religions and they justify it by saying that they're fighting against demons.

You say that Krishna and Parusharama are OK guys because they were just killing demons. Ask any suicide bomber why he is killing all those around him, and he'll give you the same reason.

When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the 10 Commandments he had all the hundreds of Israelites killed who refused to abide by his new regime or religion.

Every religion is the same. They are all just an excuse for war.

It's just a matter of birth which religion we end up in. None of them have anything to do with God, (or gods and demons, which don't exist). Religions are man made and far too finite and small and limited to fit the infinite Godhead into.

Religions are prisons that man constructs himself. The only way out is to love God by honouring his spark in our fellow man and finding his reflection in the poetry of every race's sacred lore.

[nekozuki]

I agree with you Gill on religion being manmade. God exists but we created a religion to find a way to worship him. Unfortunately, some of it gets caught up in war. But I feel a very strong connection to Hinduism and my Ishta Devata is Vishnu when I converted Shesanaga was in my dream. That serpent is huge by the way and I believe it was a sign from Lord Vishnu himself that I made the right choice for me and he was surely my Ishta Devata.

[Gill Harley]

I agree with you Gill on religion being manmade. God exists but we created a religion to find a way to worship him. Unfortunately, some of it gets caught up in war. But I feel a very strong connection to Hinduism and my Ishta Devata is Vishnu when I converted Shesanaga was in my dream. That serpent is huge by the way and I believe it was a sign from Lord Vishnu himself that I made the right choice for me and he was surely my Ishta Devata.

Sure, I can understand that. As you can see from my avatar, I also feel a strong link to Vedic characters and have had similar experiences and dreams. However, that doesn't give me the excuse to go round killing people in Vishnu's name because I think they're demons! And I believe that the amount of love and respect that I feel for others is a litmus test of how well I am progressing along the spiritual path.

[nekozuki]

There is no reason whatsoever to kill anyone in God's name. That's blasphemy right there. If any Vishnu devotee did that do you think they would be called a devotee for long or be praised by Lord Vishnu, I think not.

[Namo Narayana]

Hi Singhi Kaya

I can see from the tenor of your posts that you have been deeply affected by the brutality of the Moslems, and I respect that. I've also been affected in my own small way because I have ito travel on the London Underground every day, and recent events in the UK proved that the Tube network here can never be adequately protected against suicide bombers. So I feel as if I take my life in my hands in just going to work every day.

However, everyone knows about this aspect to Islam. It's on the news every day, if one cares to listen to it, or watch it on television, or read about in the paper. So I don't think anyone on this board is ignorant of the threat of certain Moslems, or needs to be reminded of it.

It also strikes me, reading through your posts, that, possibly because of your student experience, you seem slightly obsessed by violence to the extent that you would use, as your avatar, a picture of a kitten being held up by a gun. But that's just my opinion and it is not meant to insult you.

I agree that the Koran is the most negative scripture that I've ever read - and I've read most of them. But I believe that the following view of yours is incorrect:



Yiou may not know much about the Christian crusades, but the historians of that time record that when the Christians knights conquered (the then Muslim) Jerusalem, the slaughter was such that they were wading in blood up to their knees.

Then there was the Spanish Inquisition, a body of men from the Vatican who seemed to take great delight in torturing and burning at the stake all women that they thought were witches, or anyone they considered a 'heretic'.

In the 15th century in the UK, Catholics were regularly beheaded or burned at the stake. Then when a Catholic queen came on to the throne, the tables were turned, and it was the Catholics turn to imprison and execute the Protestants.

And so it goes on...

I don't want to list here all the religious leaders who were violent because I think it will just feed into your obsession. But I do believe one has to take a rational, umemotional and objective view of history if one is to get anywhere near to the truth.

I used to have a Indian guru who was so badly beaten with iron bars by the Arya Samaj, in the Sixties, that he walked permanently crooked for the rest of his life. However, this hasn't put me off Hinduism or the Vedas.

So I don't see why the activities of Al Quaeda should distract me from admiring the very many spiritually-minded Moslems that I know, or from enjoying the beautiful Sufi poetry.

It just depends on which aspect you want to concentrate.

Gill, in my opinion bible NT is not that violent and denouncing kafirs like Kuran is. also i believe since the christianity led to birth of Marting Luther. I dont believe right now that there is a possibility of a Martin Luther in islam. because those who can think like that Like Ali Sina, Homa parvin etc have quit islam. Because there is no need for reform. it is utter rubbish. this is my observation not my opinion.

I believe that catholics were temporarily brutal in crusades. But again we dont have background information what made them so defensive or offensive for that matter.

if christians were like muslims in brutality and madness, ******ity then there wont be any Martin luther. so i would not compare christianity and islam one to one.

regarding arya samaj, my prayers with your guruji. it is certainly an act of brutality. but is it a one-off incident ? is it worth comparing with crusades ?

i wish indians were like spanish who used sword to drive out evil islam. alas we didnt. we used bakthi movement to control but no eradication .
I hail those brave spaniards who gave their life for their future generation.

my sympathies with the catholics and protestants who lost life in england.

if we do not want to repeat such catholic / protestant massacre then we need to enlighten the people about this cult.

well let there be spiritual minded muslims. I dont want to judge them at face value that they are spiritual. by what you go in koran there is no spiritualism. well you can certainly enjoy sufi poetry. but it is hard for me to find evidence that it was islam which guided them to be such poets. i would not regard them any more than wordsworth or mahakavi bharathi .

[Namo Narayana]

But that's my whole point, Singhi Kaya.

Every religion thinks they're justified in violence against the followers of other beliefs or religions and they justify it by saying that they're fighting against demons.

You say that Krishna and Parusharama are OK guys because they were just killing demons. Ask any suicide bomber why he is killing all those around him, and he'll give you the same reason.

When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the 10 Commandments he had all the hundreds of Israelites killed who refused to abide by his new regime or religion.

Every religion is the same. They are all just an excuse for war.

It's just a matter of birth which religion we end up in. None of them have anything to do with God, (or gods and demons, which don't exist). Religions are man made and far too finite and small and limited to fit the infinite Godhead into.

Religions are prisons that man constructs himself. The only way out is to love God by honouring his spark in our fellow man and finding his reflection in the poetry of every race's sacred lore.

Gill,

what is the point in comparing Lord krishna's or lord rama's war with the demons ? they dont attack by surprise. they dont attack after dusk or before dawn. they dont attack from the back. they dont blow themselves up to kill the enemy. they dont attack ambassadors.The ancient indian warfare had a code of conduct.

If you look in dharma, there is never a word called religion. only the christians jews and islamists came up with this invention.
what has dharma got to do with it ?? it is a shame that hindus are engaging in self censure not today but for many hundred years which makes us dhimmis in our own land.

in my definition a warrior or a freedom fighter does not attack innocent people. simple as that. islamists are incapable of matching the non muslims in military might, scientific knowledge and diplomacy. that is the reason why they are engaged in this kind of warfare.

I dont want to read what moses did . it is history but are his followers following same ideology ? if yes then we have a problem. simple as that. i dont want to justify the situation on the opponent( read enemy ) way. I justify myself from my side. so I dont care what opponent calls it a freedom struggle or something else. but if it affects me ? my future generations no matter indians or the people in the west , if they are not aware of danger, then i will take it up as my duty to inform them as much as i can. this is what i am or singhi is trying to do.

Kaya has you and lucy to guide her in right path. what about an average Jill in the states ? who is going to guide her ? say she falls prey to drug addiction, goes to a rehab or goes to prison for a petty crime, she becomes target of these islamic converters.

We have done enough self censuring in India and fruits are not very sweet. so please let us switch off this habit for a few decades and switch it on when we are done with this problem.

[Namo Narayana]

I agree with you Gill on religion being manmade. God exists but we created a religion to find a way to worship him. Unfortunately, some of it gets caught up in war. But I feel a very strong connection to Hinduism and my Ishta Devata is Vishnu when I converted Shesanaga was in my dream. That serpent is huge by the way and I believe it was a sign from Lord Vishnu himself that I made the right choice for me and he was surely my Ishta Devata.
neks , you are a blessed one. I love adisesha. i have been a devout hindu for many years. But I never had my deities visit my dream. lol. but last time i went to india, lord ganesha came in my dreams two nights straight. i was sleeping facing the ganesh temple which i used to go to daily when i lived in india. i made it to visit him daily like i used to , till i stayed there for vacation.

it is just a sense of satisfaction that you are communicating with god.
people have established several signs that mean to them that god is communicating with them. one is that when a pushpam falls from the deities alankaram ( decoration ) and if you had wished something, the falling of flower means that your wish would come true.

since you brought up the topic of adisesha, I would like to narrate the story of my maternal great grandpa. he was a priest in our hereditary temple of lord lakshmi narasimha. there was a pond which belonged to the temple and the water in the pond was used for the lord. My relatives and friends of family said that there used to be a five headed sarpa ( serpent ) in the pond which allowed only my great grandpa to use the pond. he had also said to have stopped rain from falling on a particular patch when the urchava deity was in a procession around the temple.

[nekozuki]

The thing is: Muslims are attacking innocent people. Krishna and Rama killed demons, creatures that are not of the physical plane.

[nekozuki]

neks , you are a blessed one. I love adisesha. i have been a devout hindu for many years. But I never had my deities visit my dream. lol. but last time i went to india, lord ganesha came in my dreams two nights straight. i was sleeping facing the ganesh temple which i used to go to daily when i lived in india. i made it to visit him daily like i used to , till i stayed there for vacation.

it is just a sense of satisfaction that you are communicating with god.
people have established several signs that mean to them that god is communicating with them. one is that when a pushpam falls from the deities alankaram ( decoration ) and if you had wished something, the falling of flower means that your wish would come true.

since you brought up the topic of adisesha, I would like to narrate the story of my maternal great grandpa. he was a priest in our hereditary temple of lord lakshmi narasimha. there was a pond which belonged to the temple and the water in the pond was used for the lord. My relatives and friends of family said that there used to be a five headed sarpa ( serpent ) in the pond which allowed only my great grandpa to use the pond. he had also said to have stopped rain from falling on a particular patch when the urchava deity was in a procession around the temple.


Hanuman has also come into my dreams twice and within a week of each other. Krishna was in one of my dreams about a week ago, I wonder what that meant? But as of yet I have not had Vishnu in his four-armed form come to me in my dreams yet, I think right now it would be a bit overwhelming.

[Namo Narayana]

usually dreams are when you think a lot about something , it comes in dreams. but even when i had deep devotional days, the lord never came in my dreams.

[nekozuki]

Dreams are fickle sometimes. One of the dreams I had of Hanuman actually had more to do with T-Rexes chasing people ( too much Jurassic Park I guess) and then here comes Hanuman O_O The Sheshanaga dream was all about Sheshanaga, he came out of some water and rose to extreme heights and I was like "Whoa, he's huge" and then I woke up. The Krishna dream i couldn't quite make out but I do remember a blue guy lol and I heard someone say it's Krishna. I've even gotten to the point where I can point out which of my dreams are past life dreams and which ones aren't.

[satay]

usually dreams are when you think a lot about something , it comes in dreams.

usually but not always...sometimes the divine visits happen out of the blue !(so to speak)

[nekozuki]

Like Hanuman in the T-Rex dream. That was pretty out of the blue if you ask me.

[Namo Narayana]

Like Hanuman in the T-Rex dream. That was pretty out of the blue if you ask me.

what was anjaneya doing in t-rex dream ?


Satay, I agree with your point.

[nekozuki]

That's what I want to know, why is Hanuman among T-Rexes? Must like roaming with the animals of the past lol.

[Gill Harley]

Gill,

Kaya has you and lucy to guide her in right path. what about an average Jill in the states ? who is going to guide her ? say she falls prey to drug addiction, goes to a rehab or goes to prison for a petty crime, she becomes target of these islamic converters.

We have done enough self censuring in India and fruits are not very sweet. so please let us switch off this habit for a few decades and switch it on when we are done with this problem.

Namaste Namo Narayana

You cannot switch off and on dharmic action. Well, you can...but then you've walked away from the dharma. And seeing that the purpose of our human life is to fulfill the dharma and realise God, that wouldn't be a very wise thing to do.

It's not self-censoring that is needed, but self examination - or perhaps I should say, Self examination. And this practice of Self examination does not include examining and criticising the actions of others - in fact, it is a distraction from Self examination and should, therefore, be avoided at all costs.

You ask what your fictional Jill would do.. and whether she would fall under the spell of Islam converters. Well, I'd say that there's plenty of propaganda out there to convince her not to. She'd be hard put to avoid it.

Have you not heard about the 'war against terror'?

It's constantly on the radio, in the newspapers, on the tv - endless shots of aeroplanes going into the twin towers, hooded westerners being held hostage by Al Qaeda gunmen, suicide bombers in Palestine, Baghdad and London. This 'Jill' would have had to have spent the last few years on Mars not to be aware of it.

It isn't that you and Singhi Kaya et al are need to needed to spread the word about "the evils of Islam". Everyone is very well aware of what some of their members are capable of (a minority, I might add, rather like the Arya Samaj - and no, their violence towards my former guru was not a one-off occasion and it was an organised, premeditated attack at one of his rallies in Haridwar).

So imho, it is a grandiose delusion to believe that your dire warnings and bloody thirsty descriptions are performing a much needed service. All they're doing is stirring up and inciting hatred against ordinary, law abiding and spiritually-minded Moslems.

[Singhi Kaya]

But that's my whole point, Singhi Kaya.

Every religion thinks they're justified in violence against the followers of other beliefs or religions and they justify it by saying that they're fighting against demons.

You say that Krishna and Parusharama are OK guys because they were just killing demons. Ask any suicide bomber why he is killing all those around him, and he'll give you the same reason.

When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the 10 Commandments he had all the hundreds of Israelites killed who refused to abide by his new regime or religion.

Every religion is the same. They are all just an excuse for war.

It's just a matter of birth which religion we end up in. None of them have anything to do with God, (or gods and demons, which don't exist). Religions are man made and far too finite and small and limited to fit the infinite Godhead into.

Religions are prisons that man constructs himself. The only way out is to love God by honouring his spark in our fellow man and finding his reflection in the poetry of every race's sacred lore.

Gill Please study Islam and we can talk. Islamic demons are kafers. Hindu demons are defined very clearly In Gita~they are not non-hindu's. The smartic purohits who on slightest pretext outcaste peoples from vedas are also demons. It's not about any sect. It's about a mental development. It's about denying others for own's sake (or own's cults sake).

We see 2 in same light because of our mental attachment to external.
I don't think anyone in right mind can compare rama's or Parashuramas actions with muhammad's. Have you heard thing called Niti and Nyay?

I cannot make it more clear than this without going into more lengthy discoure. My experience with hinduism is perhaves less than yours, but I will say you are looking things with your glasses ~ look things in dharma's glasses, read Gita and see the asurik characters~compare them with muhammad (forget about good muslims, bad muslims at this point). Study the so called koranic spirituality and compare with any idea from hinduism. Let me know if you find any matches. Look at divine characters and compare with mordern hindu's one pointed focus on pseudo non volence and yoga. Above all don't think in personal terms and emotions.

The idea of killing only for not following the cult is alien to sanatana dharma and is the import of abrahamic faiths. We won't have so many cults from the start otherwise. Please don't confuse the two. This is what I'm trying to get to. One says my way or death, Other says many external ways (the difference is external only, spirituality is same, God is same, mind is same) are possible, but those way says my way only are evil (Krishna kills Kangsha). Plus Islam has no spirituality. I say this with conviction. Please prove otherwise from koran.

I cannot say any more.

Thanks for listening!

[Gill Harley]

It is you have misunderstood me, Singhi Kaya.

Of course I understand the difference between metaphorical characters (such as Parusharama and Krishna) and real ones.

But I was responding to the point you made that the Muslim religion had violence at it's core - in other words, in its scripture, and so then "it's not just a case of few bad apples but the whole tree is rotten", to paraphrase you.

I was pointing out that Hindus also have violent stories at the core of their religion - yet we don't accuse the Hindu tree of being rotten to the core and therefore its adherents of being irredeemably violent.

And I should add, violence is violence - whether it's 'real' or 'imagined'. Children who watch violent (fictional) films are more likely to commit violent acts on others than children who don't. This has been proved many times.

So it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, imho, that Hindu mythology is different and better because its violence is 'not real'.

[nekozuki]

No, not all Muslims are violent but there is a problem if a religion is known ONLY for violence.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Singhi,

The essence of Islam is the Qur’an, and I have been trying to clarify what it is that the Qur’an actually states ~ no more and no less.

The Qur’an is aggressive in the defence of Islam and Muslims, and in the propagation of the Prophet’s teaching and the expansion of Islam’s earthly dominions (within strict guidelines).

Idolatrous Abrahamists, and anyone who persecutes or interferes with Muslims in the proper performance or understanding of their faith, are the main target of Allah’s wrath. And so long as Islam has not defeated one’s sovereignty in a righteous conflict that ends in a treaty made according to Allah’s will, then it is only Christians (and anyone who dares to wage war against Islam) who should be fearful of the Qur’an.

Thus, I can understand that the US and her allies, and Christians (mainly the idolatrous Catholics), and any such person living in a majority Muslim community (remembering that with modern democracy it only requires numerical majority to claim a fair victory), should be concerned about Islam, and may well see murderous intent in the Qur’an!

When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. [8:12] This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle, then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil). [8:13] This ~ taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of fire. [8:14] O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. [8:15]

Allah was speaking to His Angels when He said: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve”. And it is explained that these “unbelievers” have “acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle”.

Qur’an:8:36 is referring to those who persecute Muslims or hinder them from the Mosque (and their judgement and punishment is left to Allah).

And what (excuse) have they that Allah should not chastise them while they hinder (men) from the Sacred Mosque and they are not (fit to be) guardians of it; its guardians are only those who guard (against evil), but most of them do not know. [8:34] And their prayer before the House is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands; taste then the chastisement, for you disbelieved. [8:35] Surely those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (people) from the way of Allah; so they shall spend it, then it shall be to them an intense regret, then they shall be overcome; and those who disbelieve shall be driven together to hell. [8:36] Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed. [8:38] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do. [8:39]

I am no apologist for Islam, and I condemn the violent behaviour of misguided Muslims as much as the violence perpetrated by the (supposedly spiritual) members of any religion. But I honestly doubt that the Qur’an, as it was originally spoken by Allah through His Prophet, is actually to blame for subsequent problems.

The whole text, after all, is intended to be read with the basic 10 Commandments always in mind ~ which certainly includes the command “Don’t kill (humans)!” ~ and so there must be particular conditions before any killing of humans could be considered as righteous. And I am quite sure that the mere personal non-acceptance of Islam’s message should never have been considered as reasonable grounds for the mindless dismemberment of one’s neighbours! If this has ever been the case, then I would rather blame the Mullahs who for selfish and political reasons have been promoting such unreasonable views of the Qur’an.

Chapter 8 (on “the Accessions”) is perhaps the most problematic in this matter of the treatment of “unbelievers”, and we should carefully consider the exact words that have been translated here.

[P.S. My computer is still down, but the crash happened either at the moment of turning off or at the moment of turning on, and in each case the hard drive should have been parked safely, so that (as you mentioned) if I can extract the data BEFORE rebooting my system then everything should be OK. But for now any access to many of my favorite texts and images, and all of my last 12 months of writing etc., is impossible! And I am using a borrowed computer for occasional internet contacts, so until I get this problem fixed my postings will be somewhat limited.]

[nekozuki]

That really doesn't sound like God at all if you think about it, that **** is made up.

[Singhi Kaya]

That's what I want to know, why is Hanuman among T-Rexes? Must like roaming with the animals of the past lol.

I think he wanted to wrestle some rex's.

[nekozuki]

I don't know why I dreamed of T-Rexes, I like velociraptors better. I'm sure Hanuman could take a few T-Rexes ;)

[Singhi Kaya]

Namste Gill,

When did I say it's about real and unreal? I believe ramayana and mahabharata were real. That a mega battle did happen.

I'll just mention one line. You can re-read my post in this light.

Act of killing can be divine or evil~depends on the purpose.

The moment you think then what's different with Islam~look at Islam's purpose.

But those who have inherent aversion to this, will not agree with me. Fair enough.

But at the same time~I look forward to any spirituality in Koran.

Regards,
Singhu

[Singhi Kaya]

Namaste Sarabhanga,

I'll try to refute your points at a later time when I'm in home. Just a cuple of points.


And I am quite sure that the mere personal non-acceptance of Islam’s message should never have been considered as reasonable grounds for the mindless dismemberment of one’s neighbours!
Unfortunately it has often been, and muhammad's own life is the testimony. Are you implying prophet himself didn't understand what he was saying (look at mohammadanism site and read up a few incidents from the prophets life). still happens~within India infact. It is not contrary to koran or prophets teachiings and most importantly his life story (hadith).
See one can understand few sociopaths. But violent behaviour throught its history has some more solid ground.

From my own knwoledge(real) I know how difficult it becomes within India for hindu's to stay in a majority muslim neighbourhood. A muslim can stay with 100 hindu's. The reverse becomes very difficult, it takes a minor pretext to get them killed. I have already mentioned last weeks Aligarh incident.

Ofcourse the prophet didn't say to kill all the time. He told to kill kafers in war, as much as one can till they are tatally subdued (note not even surrender will result in stop killing as per prophets teaching). Kill at slightest pretext. Then said to keep fighting to establish islam throughtout the war. Little logic makes the implication clear.

[Singhi Kaya]

I can blame the evil mullah's or I can blame the prophet and islam (which I think is much closer to truth)~quesion remains who takes the burdern? If it's the kafer's burden to bear the violence* of this sect, I think time for a return of favour is long overdue.

*asurik violence

[Singhi Kaya]

I'm sure Hanuman could take a few T-Rexes ;)
I'm sure he can. he is very powerful. But I don't think he would. He doesn't take on others to prove a point you know. He is very peace loving and devoted. Only when he see's someone like ravana extending his dirty hand to motherly figures or some such thing he becomes a raging volcano. T-Rex's are helpless animals~they do what they are built for.

[nekozuki]

T-Rexes are helpless to a certain extent. But Ravana would give a god any reason to attack him. The gods wouldn't beat up on helpless animals, just like they wouldn't beat up on helpless, innocent people. There's a major difference between a demon and a human who expresses his or her own beliefs.

[Singhi Kaya]

Namste,

I'm not in a postion to engage in a point by point refuttal of your conclusion today. Plus many people have done it many times. Your theme revolves around that muslims are blood thristy only to defend their religion. This is oviously wrong for muslims are supposed to fight continously to acquire new land for Allah. If one doesn't fight, one's entry to Islamic paradise will be uncertain, whereas for a jehadi who has killed and died in a war with infedel assures direct entry to Paradise (I just can't help to point out ovious promotion of violence just for it's sake). Waging war is a muslims burden and allah is contractually bound to award heaven to a jehadi martyr. You see Jedahi's are thus the most ideal and highest kind of muslim. Without spending my own words I will just quote from Anwar sheik and mohammadanism site. The later site has original arabic texts. Muhammad was not so ****** to directly say in one line that his mission is to kill non-muslims. There is an elaborate dogma in place which when put together means essentially the same thing.


Since Jehad is the sure means of access to paradise, the abode of choicest carnal-delights-after-death, sex and violence combine to form the basic approach of Islam to coax man into a web of salvation. This is the most effective exploitation of his natural fear and sense of uncertainty. What is Jehad? Let the Koran explain it:
a. "God has bought from the faithful theirselves and their belongings against the gift of paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill and get killed; that is a promise binding on Allah... (Repentance, 9: 110)
b. "Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden - such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book - until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled." (Repentance, 9: 25)
The above two Koranic verses delineate that Jehad is a binding contract between Allah and Muslims to the following effect:
1. Whatever a Muslim possesses, including his life, belongs to Allah in return for paradise.
2. Allah is bound by His promise to offer paradise to a Muslim provided he willingly kills and gets killed for His pleasure.
3. The Muslims must fight non-Muslims.
4. Non-Muslims are all those people, who do not believe in Islam (the religion of truth). Thus People of the Book i.e. the Jews and Christians are equally infidels like the Hindus, the Buddhists, the atheists, etc., and must be killed unless they submit before the Islamic sword and live as tributaries (zimmie) to acknowledge their humiliation through payment of Jaziyah i.e. Poll Tax.
5. Jehad automatically becomes obligatory on a Muslim when people do not practice what Allah and Muhammad have prescribed as the proper way of life.
The following are the cardinal points of Jehad and must be noted carefully for proper understanding of this discussion:
1a. Jehad is all about massacre, mutilation and misery, and not about any moral, social or humanitarian service as the Muslim divines pretend.
1b. Islam is the only true way of life: the rest is fake, foul and felonious; the People of the Book i.e. the Jews and Christians are not believers but infidels. They must be murdered or enslaved.

[Singhi Kaya]

http://www.muhammadanism.org/Terrorism/Terrorist_Mind.htm



The Mind of an Islamic Terrorist

"The gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords."
The mind of an Islamic terrorist is difficult for a Western person to comprehend. What could lead a person to cause his or her own violent death is a question that is frequently raised. It is contrary to every human emotion that we have. Yet, we know there are hundreds of Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to kill and be killed for Allah.
An important reason is the promise that the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. During Muhammad's life, like today, there were many individuals who eagerly anticipated killing and dying in the Cause of Allah. The following is an account from the ancient classic Islamic text by Imam Muslim.
The tradition has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Qais. He heard it from his father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. A man in a shabby condition got up and said; Abu Musa, did you hear the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say this? He said: Yes. (The narrator said): He returned to his friends and said: I greet you (a farewell greeting). Then he broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards the enemy and fought (them) with it until he was slain. Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4681 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/020.smt.html#020.4681)
This quotation from the Sahih Muslim hadith afford us a look into the mindset of a person who desired his own death in Allah's Cause.
He trusted the words of Muhammad implicitly.
He was motivated by a promise of an eternal heavenly Paradise.
He reassured himself that he heard correctly by asking Abu Musa. We see that he was very careful not to make a mistake, since his own life and eternal destiny were at risk. He wanted to make sure that Paradise would be achieved.
He said his final farewell greeting to his friends. He did not rush to death, because he had no friends. He had friends who understood his motivation.
He unsheathed his sword and threw the sheath away, because he was resolved not to return from the battle alive. He chose to die in battle as a martyr in Allah's Cause. Casting aside his sword's sheath strengthened his resolve to bring about his own martyrdom.
He fought the enemy fearlessly until he was slain.
Finally, we see that Muhammad's objectives were achieved, because his followers were utterly fearless with their lives in Allah's Cause. This fearlessness struck terror in the hearts of those they attacked.Muhammad taught that the gates of Heaven were under the shadow of the swords, meaning that death for Allah’s sake assures entry into Paradise. The revulsion of the bloody sword of death is in juxtaposition to the blessedness of the gates of eternal joy. So, if a Muslim were to approach directly Paradise’s gate of eternal delight, then he must know that it is found under the shadows of the sharp, glistening swords of a martyr’s death in Allah’s Jihad against unbelievers.
Personally, spiritually, politically, intellectually and emotionally, the questions that an Islamic fundamentalist faces are stark indeed. Personally, he asks himself if he loves Allah more than his own life? Spiritually, he asks whether or not he is willing to sacrifice himself in Allah's Cause against Shaytan's power and the infidel's military forces? Politically, he divides the nations of the world into two warring camps. The nations under Islamic rule are termed, the Land of Peace (dar al-Islam) while the remaining nations are called, the Land of War (dar al-Harb). He asks himself if he should participate in bringing Allah's rule over the infidels and hypocrites. Intellectually, the answers to those questions are crystal clear to him. Emotionally, his only hurdle to overcome is the fear of death. Once this emotional fear is conquered, the person joyfully takes up the sword to kill and be killed in Allah's Cause, anticipating his entrance into the gates of heavenly Paradise.
Martyrdom is the only assured path to Paradise. Other pathways don’t guarantee acceptance into the gardens of sensual delights. A person may do many kind deeds during his life, but he may only hope that his deeds will be sufficient to merit entry into heaven, but they don’t guarantee success like martyrdom in the Cause of Allah. The Qur’an notes that one who strives in Allah’s cause belongs to the highest rank, and they are assured salvation.
Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah's cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: they are the people who will achieve (salvation). al-Tawbah 9:20 (Yusuf Ali's translation)
The Sahih al-Bukhari states,
Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid in Allah's Cause—and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause—is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty." Volume 4, Book 52, Number 46 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.046)
On the other hand, the Qur’an teaches that a Muslim’s good deeds are put into a balance (scale) to be weighed against his evil deeds. They must await the final day of Judgment to learn the outcome of their encounter with Allah’s balance.
Then those whose balance (of good deeds) is heavy,- they will attain salvation: But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls, in Hell will they abide. 23:102-102 (Yusuf Ali’s translation) Also, see Sura 101:6-8.
We shall set up scales of justice for the Day of Judgment, so that not a soul will be dealt with unjustly in the least, and if there be (no more than) the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it (to account): and enough are We to take account. Sura 21:47
Hence, martyrdom makes sense from an Islamic fundamentalist’s perspective. They know that death is the common lot of humanity. It is inescapable. So, rather than desperately clinging to life, they view martyrdom as an ultimate expression of their submission to Allah and Allah’s cause. They sacrifice their lives, because they love Allah, Muhammad, and eternal Paradise more than a few additional years on earth.
Muhammad invoked Allah's name to encourage his followers to murder those who did not submit to his claims. Yet today, Western Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. This was not the Islam of Muhammad.
Allah's Apostle said, "... I have been made victorious with terror ...

[Singhi Kaya]

I studied Islam when I was in college quite some years back. I studied from many books and in a historical context. It left me no doubt that the religion had nothing to do with spirituality and muhammad was the original terrorist.

I humbly request those who view Islam as a religion with few bad apples to devote some time in completely studying the religin. Koran and the Hadith~Muhammad's life story. For without hadith many verses in Koran are meaningless. Please not Muhammad was not a fiction character~he lived no too many years ago and what he did is more revealing than just what he said~which is quite interesting too.

I say this because it ovious from replies of some that they hvent read the quotes in context and in many cases haven't bothered to read up the reference and just speak out what he/she flet in his/her heart as true ("Only a minority in Islam are bad etc"). Question here is NOT whether and what fraction of muslims is bad~it is about Islam and doctrine of Muhammad. And I'm convinced a honest reading cannot leave anyone with doubt about the sinsterness of the doctrine.

To those who harbour that there ay be or is spirituality in Islam, please quote from Koran with context. I'll be happy to go back to my college days (given the time constarint may not be easily possible).
While paths to got are many from an external stand point the nature of the absolute is same. He is not a sectarian demigod who wants favours from his people and in return gives favours of pleasure/ Such idea is contrary to any sect of the sanatana dharma or any of it's associated dharmas(buddhism, jainism,,,). So if you can find anything which remotely looks spiritual (with proper context) in koran, please post here. Everybody will benefit~and I'll be happy to deal with them.
If you find nothing, then for the sake of truth I'll request not to spread the poison of spirituality in Islam and cover the truth for what it actually stands. We have come up long in terms of pages of writing, but the argument hasn't yet been scolastic and of high quality~because we have been busy speaking our minds (including myself) and not talk with reason and evidence. Hope we have a better run from now on.

Also in point by point refutals, which may happen it's better to restrict to one point.

My above two posts claim that fighting others without provocation is the most sacred thing for a muslim to do. Hence Sarabhanga's logic of "self defence" doesn't work, nor are jehadis illegitimate~jehadis are the best muslims if muhammad doctrine is to be believed~whether we like it or not.

Regards,
Singhi

[nekozuki]

From what I'm observing I think Muhammed was a bit on the psychotic side if you ask me and he was smart enough to lead people into believing him through the power of speech much like Hitler.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Singhi,

You will try to refute my points and rebut my conclusions?

The only points that were conclusively made in my last post (which basically summarized the preceding ones) are the following. And it would appear that you have missed all of them!

1. The root of Islam is the Qur’an.

2. The Qur’an is aggressive in the defence of Islam and Muslims.

3. The Qur’an is aggressive in the propagation of the Prophet’s teaching and the expansion of Islam’s earthly dominions (within strict guidelines).

4. Idolatrous Abrahamists, and anyone who persecutes or interferes with Muslims in the proper performance or understanding of their faith, are the main target of Allah’s wrath.

5. Those whose sovereignty has been won in a righteous conflict that ends in a treaty made according to Allah’s will should be fearful of Islam.

6. Christians should be fearful of Islam.

7. Anyone who dares to wage war against Islam or Muslims should be fearful of Islam. And today, the US and her Allies should be very concerned!

8. Allah was speaking to His Angels when He said: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve”.

9. Qur’an:8:36 is referring to those who persecute Muslims or hinder them from the Mosque (and their judgement and punishment is left to Allah).

10. I condemn the violent behaviour of misguided Muslims

11. The Qur’an was intended to be read with the basic moral Precepts always in mind ~ which certainly includes the commandment “Do not kill (humans)” ~ and so there must be particular conditions before any killing of humans could be considered as righteous.

[Gill Harley]

Namste Gill,

When did I say it's about real and unreal? I believe ramayana and mahabharata were real. That a mega battle did happen.

I'll just mention one line. You can re-read my post in this light.

Act of killing can be divine or evil~depends on the purpose.

The moment you think then what's different with Islam~look at Islam's purpose.

But those who have inherent aversion to this, will not agree with me. Fair enough.

But at the same time~I look forward to any spirituality in Koran.

Regards,
Singhu

Namaste Singhi Kaya

With respect, I disagree with you that the stories of the Ramayana and Srimad Bhagavatham depict real life events with real people.

I refer you to my previous post on the subject:

On the nature of the stories, the type of teaching that I'm referring to is not much to do with morals. If you just want morals, you can use the 10 Commandments. The laws in that are very similar to those written by Manu.

No, I'm referring to the stories that gurus use to take their disciples from darkness to light, from being trapped in body consciousness to being released into God consciousness. The archetypal images that they contain operate on a subconscious, rather than conscious level. The words are planted like seeds and then they grow into a tree of god realisation. This has been my own personal experience.

It's true that God is in our imagination, but that's ony because he's (I use 'he', but obviously God has no gender) all pervasive or omnipresent. In other words, he is everywhere, so therefore, how he not be in our imagination? However, for a tiny drop of water (us) to merge into the Ocean (God), it has to lose its resistance. The stories are part of the journey that the guru takes us on in order for us to merge into the Ocean of Bliss.

These stories are constructed in a very specific way. They're not just random tales. The skeleton of them always has a very specific plotline - that of the Godhead descending to rescue the fallen Goddess from the demons/Panis in their cave/underworld. These stories, starting from Indra in the Rig-veda rescuing Sarama from the cave of the Panis in the Rig-veda, spread out of India and right across Mesopotamia and also into Greece.

In the Greek stories, you have Persephone having to be rescued from the Underworld, and Orpheus trying and failing to rescue Eurydice, because he looked back.

In the Sumerian/Babylonian stories you have Ishtar being rescued from the Underworld by Tammuz, and also Enkidu rescued from the Underworld by Gilgamesh.This theme also penetrated the Celtic sacred lore and so you can see it the Irish stories, and the Welsh Mabinogian.

The Underworld is also sometimes referred to as 'south'. In the Ramayana, you have first Hanuman and then Rama going 'south' to rescue Sita in 'Ceylon'. And Krishna rescued so many 'goddesses' that he had to marry them all and ended up with 16,108 wives!

These are all the same story but told differently according to the locality in which they were told. The story tellers, or kavis, or bards, would change the details to suit the local surroundings and often they would give the rescuing hero the name of a local king, most probably to flatter him but also so that it would be a character recognisable to their audience In the Srimad Bhagavatham, Sukdeva Goswami is the storyteller, the sage, and he used the name of local king of that time to enrich his story - and the local king's name was Krishna.

To explain a llittle further how this allegorical form of teaching works, I thought it might be helpful to show an analysis in this respect of one of the Indian sacred stories. So here is Sathya Sai Baba's interpretation of the Ramayana.

Rama is the Indweller in every Body. He is the Atma-Rama, the Rama (Source of Bliss) in every individual. His blessings upsurging from that Inner Spring can confer Peace and Bliss. He is the very embodiment of Dharma of all the Codes of Morality that hold mankind together in Love and Unity.

The Ramayana, the Rama Story, teaches two lessons: the value of detachment, and the need to become aware of the Divine in every being. Faith in God and detachment from objective pursuits are the keys for human liberation. Give up sense objects; you gain Rama.

Sita gave up the luxuries of Ayodha and so, she could be with Rama, in the period of ‘exile’. When she cast longing eyes on the golden deer and craved for it, she lost the Presence of Rama. Renunciation leads to joy; attachment brings about grief. Be in the world, but not of it.

The brothers, comrades, companions and collaborators of Rama are each of them examples of persons saturated with Dharma.

Dasaratha is the representative of the merely physical, with the ten senses.

The three Gunas – Sathwa, Rajas and Thamas – are the three Queens.

The Four Goals of Life – the Purusharthas – are the four sons.

Lakshmana is the Intellect; Sagriva is Viveka or Discrimination. Vali is Despair.

Hanuman is the embodiment of Courage. The Bridge is built over the Ocean of Delusion.

The three Rakshasa chiefs are personifications of the Rajasic (Ravana), Thamasic (Kumbhakarna) and the Sathwic qualities (Vibhishana).

Sita is Brahmajnana or the Awareness of the Universal Absolute, which the Individual must acquire and regain undergoing travails in the crucible of Life [the Underworld].

Make your heart pure and strong, contemplating the grandeur of the Ramayana. Be established in the faith that Rama is the Reality of your existence.


The stories are called myths and if you click on this post, you will see Sharabhanga's definition of the word 'myth'.


http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=131&page=4

[Singhi Kaya]

Namaste,


1. The root of Islam is the Qur’an.
ANS: True. But it is also sunnah i.e hadith. What was told by muhammad can be best understood by what he did. This is how 1.2b interpret Islam and live their life~wear skull caps, pray to allah in the way they do, wage jehad.

2. The Qur’an is aggressive in the defence of Islam and Muslims.
ANS: Yes. It's also clear about waging war with Infidels and increase the land for Allah. That itself is just a fascist idea, very un-spiritual. Somehow you choose to ignore it~you point it indirectly later 3

3. The Qur’an is aggressive in the propagation of the Prophet’s teaching and the expansion of Islam’s earthly dominions (within strict guidelines).
ANS:True. And in a violent way. I have given enough evidence to that. they are suppose to terrorise until infedels completely submit.
2 & 3 Together imply much of what I'm saying. But I'm also pointing to the exact nature of this violence.

4. Idolatrous Abrahamists, and anyone who persecutes or interferes with Muslims in the proper performance or understanding of their faith, are the main target of Allah’s wrath.
ANS: Interfares means little when one doesn't explain what interfares me. In Dar-ul-islam interfares means one cannot publicly practice anything else other than islam and all people are judged by sunnah. In Dar-ul-harb~perpetual jehad! What justice!!! It is not difficult to deduce who is interfaring. also 2 & 3 means something else.

5. Those whose sovereignty has been won in a righteous conflict that ends in a treaty made according to Allah’s will should be fearful of Islam.
ANS: Wrong. "Righteous" conflict is non-existence as per prophets own behaviour, or its meaning is not what we think. Please read the banu Qurazya incident. One can murder infidels who have surrendered and acquire grace points to get more virgins in heaven. yes after a through killing and terrorising infidels, those who survive live by paying a tax (zimmi) for being infidel. This an early racist concept. Plus they live under constant terror, and slight deviation from sunnah in public life can get them killed. No wonder in practical terms non-muslims dry out pretty quickly in an Dar-ul-Islam~the land of peace. Please do a some study on plight of non-muslims in Islamic countries.

6. Christians should be fearful of Islam.
ANS: Everybody should be fearful of Islam. When there is Islam, they will fight for more~that's their dharma. It's death and slavery or freedom.

7. Anyone who dares to wage war against Islam or Muslims should be fearful of Islam. And today, the US and her Allies should be very concerned!
ANS: Sorry as I said, they generally start the war, holy duty. So either fight or win or loose OR surrender (then also they will kill as muhammad showed them striking fear in the infidels heart is necessary) and perish slowly.

8. Allah was speaking to His Angels when He said: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve”.
9. Qur’an:8:36 is referring to those who persecute Muslims or hinder them from the Mosque (and their judgement and punishment is left to Allah).
ANS: Allah cast terror into heart of those who disbelieve. aka who don't believe in Allah~all infedels. Nothing new here~christians bilieve that infidels will burn in hell~in Islam context(if you read the context) muhammad says this words to give courage to his fighting madmen so that they can slaughter with wraith.

10. I condemn the violent behaviour of misguided Muslims
ANS: I salute them for being true to their faith alebit for the lust of virgins in heaven.

11. The Qur’an was intended to be read with the basic moral Precepts always in mind ~ which certainly includes the commandment “Do not kill (humans)” ~ and so there must be particular conditions before any killing of humans could be considered as righteous.
ANS: That applies to moslems only. Infedels can be killed in Dar-ul-Harb (ofcourse not like that, but those conditons are always present)~Dar-ul-Islam generally has little or no infedels.


Note: Moslems divide the whole world into 2 parts
1. Dar-ul-Islam~land of peace where sunnah determins life of all people. Non muslims may not worship allah, but they must follow the rule set by allah in public. Allah will take care of them in hell. Please study sunnah to know what are the rights of infidels in Dar-ul-Islam. In short death and slavery. I regard both quite the same. Most free people would.
2. Dar-ul-harb~land of fighting. Here Sunnah has not yet been establish it's rule. All muslims holy duty is to conquer Dar-ul-Harb's to Dar-ul-Islam. Allah doesn't make it mandotory for all muslims to kill infidels in Dar-ul-Harb~that would be a bit ******. But he promises great rewards ~ an immediate pass to higest heavens with most number of virgins allocated to such a fighter if he dies in doing so. There are also rewards for winning a dar-ul-harb for Islam. Putting the idea of God aside this is most blatant fascism of the worst kind. It asks for martyrs in reward of lust.

It's saddning that in such circumstances we see so called "men of dharma" trying to produce their own interpretations (wrong when looked with context and completenes, also individual murerous ayats are quite disturbing, but I think torah has some too) to a handful of ayats. We can interpret anything anyway we want. Some moslems prove by bizzare arguments that Gita says to say namaz to Allah and follow Islam. Do we believe it is correct? We know it's wrong.

Buttom-Line here is what 1.2b people believe, how muhammad himself lived and believed, how in last 1400 years moslems have behaved ....

My original intention here was not to argue with an individual's misinterpretations. My aim was to expose Islam As It Is. And hence I pointed to articles and hadith and Qu'ran~for individuals to study and decide for themselves against their own experience and knowledge of history.

[Singhi Kaya]

Namste Gill,

The responce below is my personal understanding and directed to everyone and not you. So don't take any word personally. I say what I have to say~things can be itterly wrong:-

I don't want to get into personal interpretations of Ramayana or Mahabharata.

My master said in context of Gita~that it will be highly unjust to assume that this dialog between krishna and arjuna did not happen. It is invenstion of those who think our scriptures are work of fiction. Our rishi's wer not authors of fiction by supremely realized sould, so were our hero's.

For me it brings pride and a sense of reality to the tales of our scriptures. I think actual incidents are all real~they have been made more interseting with imagination. But I don't assume it was a total work of fiction. Some can for whatever reason they want to justify such an assumption, but don't think it is correct.

As I said hinduism (ironically Islam too) is a way of life and not a religion or compartmentalized spirituality. So it's natural dharma has consequences in life and politics. When there are some men always ready to snach away your rights~there needs to be someone to protect them. If one see both acts with same eyes~(s)he hasn't yet understood what dharma is.

[Singhi Kaya]

From what I'm observing I think Muhammed was a bit on the psychotic side if you ask me and he was smart enough to lead people into believing him through the power of speech much like Hitler.

He was much smarter than Hitler;).
Hitler ruined himself with some bad moves.

But there are indeed similarities between all asurik men.
It's a level of mental development which is quite high up~even many highly spiritual and advanced souls can fall victim to asurik development
One needs to understand our mythology for this~Asuras had great tapas to start with.

[Gill Harley]

Of course, there are two schools of thought as to whether the stories in the Vedas are literally true.

But it should be noted that there is no archaeological evidence that a battle took place at Kurukshetra in the 3rd millennium BC and, despite looking for it, no trace of any radioactive fallout has been discovered from Arjuna's brahmashastra weapon (which should still be present). There is also very good evidence to suggest that chariots, as such, were not invented before 1500 BC. In addition, no skeletons of horses strong enough to pull chariots have been discovered which date earlier than around 1,000 BC.

[nekozuki]

Actually Gill there is a certain town that needs questioning,they think they may have found radioactive material in these ancient ruins........but I'm skeptical on that. You're also thinking about what someone translated. Everyone says there is evidence of nuclear warfare in the Mahabharata, but that could be someone's interpretation. What about that sunken city off of South India? Isn't that the city that was predicted to sink into the ocean in the Mahabharata. I haven't had the opportunity to read the Mahabharata, since I can't find it anywhere. But I hear that sunken city that the tsunami uncovered is being investigated.

[Namo Narayana]

neko, there was a city called kavaeri poompattinam which was taken over by tsunami in somewhere 7th century or before. lot of south india south of cape kumari and beside srilanka were once above water. they have been sunken into water. but the dwaraka itself is under water today. it might reveal some clues.

[nekozuki]

And no one can forget the theories that Krishna battled the Atlanteans, but I'm skeptical on that too since Atlantis would've been 12,000 years ago and Krishna 5,000 years ago. So it's all up to interpretation.

[Arjuna]

But it should be noted that there is no archaeological evidence that a battle took place at Kurukshetra in the 3rd millennium BC and, despite looking for it, no trace of any radioactive fallout has been discovered from Arjuna's brahmashastra weapon (which should still be present). There is also very good evidence to suggest that chariots, as such, were not invented before 1500 BC. In addition, no skeletons of horses strong enough to pull chariots have been discovered which date earlier than around 1,000 BC.

I think there is no reason to take seriously traditional Hindu chronology, since there is no proof of it and it is obviously mythological.

[Gill Harley]

What about that sunken city off of South India? Isn't that the city that was predicted to sink into the ocean in the Mahabharata. I haven't had the opportunity to read the Mahabharata, since I can't find it anywhere. But I hear that sunken city that the tsunami uncovered is being investigated.

Are you talking about Mahabalipuram, just south of Chennai? This is not mentioned (as far as I can remember, and I have read it) in the Mahabharata, but the story of it disappearing under a tsunami is told in the Srimad Bhagavatham.

It is told that the great-grandson of Prahlaad annoyed the gods by building his city (Mahabalipuram) to be as beautiful as heaven. The gods, according the SB, became jealous and sent a tsunami and the city disappeared under the waves.

UP until about 200 years ago, the local Brahmins would say that, on low tide days, you could see the pagodas of the sunken golden temples poking up above waves. Then last year's tsunami actually uncovered what looks like a sunken city, and it is still being investigated.

So it looks as though there is a sunken city off Mahabalipuram. But whether it sunk as a result of the fury of the gods' is as uncertain as whether last year's tsunami can also be attributed to the same cause. :)

Anyway, I would be grateful if you could tell me more about this town where they think they've found radioactivity. I'm in constant contact with people who work in this area, and they haven't mentioned it to me.

[Singhi Kaya]

Sorry , I'm not that imaginative to literally belive (or not simple enough to admit that I believe such stuff;)) that Arjuna had pasupat which is like a neuclear weapen or they flew through air and launched missiles. Those can be real, may not be. But I was just saying that the plot may not have been cooked from thin air, that battles did happened (what's so much there not to believe that anceints fought out in war~man has been fighting thorughout his history). That Ramayana or mahabharat are not some strange allegories to describe some yoga only. We have direct and technical treatises for yoga. That dharma is not just yoga and consiquences and learnings are in every sphere of life including social life and polictics (which holds higher place than individual spirituality when addressing an entire culture). That's all.

If suddenly we do discover radiocative fields from 5000 years back~nothing like it. Pasupat by all means may not have been a nuclear weapon. A sanskrit expert may be able to shed some light~I knew it has to do with the element mercury.

[Singhi Kaya]

Muhammed just doesn't sound right in the head to me. He really did have some mental issues.
No he doesn't sound right~infact very wrong. From understanding of God to means of propagation (making others to live by his rules) to methods of torture and terror to what social system he created to everything. Even casual observer of an Islamic state can figure out many important human virtues are subdued and people are made live a life like .......

Glad that you can understand this. Not difficult if you want to.

The most concerning thing is the concept of God. In itself doen't mean much, many people have strange ideas of God and unless one knocks the doors of ancient teachings God will remain an object of emotional hysteria. But combined with the one pointed goal of forcing others to submit to this hysteria by direct violene is unique and worst type of fascism I could see in human history.

But really what has concerned me even more is that those who claim to know god in Sanatana Dharma find no difficulty in equating the impersonal, trigunatita brahma who is spotless and beyond any work with the personal Godling Allah, who is wraithful, physically want's to torture his creations, provokes his followers to kill in reward of 72 virgins in a heaven where wine flows like river (though wine is banned in earth life), who want's to judge over dead souls and torture them eternally in a burning hell. I would have understood if they had equated Allah or Jeovah to Jamaraja of hindu mythology~but jamaraja is much more rational in giving reward and punishment. I was in my early college days very scared of hindu baba's, and I'm still now.

[satay]

I haven't read the whole thread but I think that on this site at least, we can be better hosts to muslims...don't you guys agree?

Let's keep our cool. It's not the muslims that we have any problem with after all is said and done...we are all people and have to live together!

[Singhi Kaya]

No my problem is with Islam only.(ofcoures in real world muslims come into picture in abig way)

I have pointed enough material on the topic~time to take to sannyasa

[satay]

I am the first one to say that "denoucing of intolerance is not intolerance" and if we put with adharmic, asuric forces then we are just being cowards and not following our dharma as instructed by Bhagwan himself. Having said that though, we can still be better hosts...

just my 2 cents.

[nekozuki]

Let me put it this way. The only detailed information we have of Jesus is in the Gospels. There are little or no historical records of Jesus, does this mean he did not exist? No. Or there wouldn't be Christianity. If the Mahabharata actually does mention nuclear warfare, then we have a problem on our hands don't we? I have questions about vimanas also. If they're talking about things that have just now been invented then I don't think they're making up stories. The Mahabharata and Ramayana is history told through a story, like most ancients did.

[satay]

some believe that vimanas and all that technology of treta yuga was real but destroyed in the mahabharat war.

[nekozuki]

It's a possibility, it really is. I can see flying machines, even the Library of Alexandria had blueprints of flying machines. It's really not a new concept. Though the ancient Indians knew of atoms and molecules, nuclear war is possible but should be taken with skepticism. I do believe though that human civilization has been around much longer than what they say and at one time we were advanced, but somehow it all got destroyed. Look at the Atlantis thread if you want to know more. :) Anatomically modern humans have been around for 200,000 years now some even suspect 2 million, shouldn't we be much more advanced? Did something happen to bring it all down to where we had to build up technology again possibly.

[Namo Narayana]

someone told me that yugas are mantra tantra yantra. we achieved flight thru mantra, men moved like faxes or on pushpak viman.

achieved flight thru tantra

yantra or machinery flight is achieved thru machinery.

the viman was last demonstrated according to sage bharadwaj's manual by a marati guy in 1896. 10 yr before wright brothers. there was a rediff article on it.
my friend runs a blog on bharatiya. i will paste a link from there.

[nekozuki]

People want evidence of vimanas but where are you going to find the evidence if it was made from metal and its eroded already?

[sarabhanga]

When I read about the avatars, I see that they are not killing innocent people. They kill demons or just really, really bad people.
What about Parashurama?
He was determined to exterminate all Kshatriyas, and he attempted his axe-wielding slaughter as many as 21 times! :eek:

[Singhi Kaya]

... and he was stopped and defeated by Rama, for this was not correct thing to do~taking revenge on all for injustice of one. So moral of the story is not to seek out on personal vengience~though parashuram is an avatar too for he took just revenge.

[Gill Harley]

... and he was stopped and defeated by Rama, for this was not correct thing to do~taking revenge on all for injustice of one. So moral of the story is not to seek out on personal vengience~though parashuram is an avatar too for he took just revenge.

I've just been reading about the origin of Judaism and about how it is based on the mythical Canaanite god El (pre Yahweh) goes into battle at the drop of a hat! :)

[elijah115]

the quick post reply function doesnt work.


anyway, i thought this thread was supposed to be about islam.

[Singhi Kaya]

the quick post reply function doesnt work.

Nope it doesn't. Please post in the feedback:)



anyway, i thought this thread was supposed to be about islam.

It was in the begining:rolleyes:
But I don't to worked up on Islam in this forum unless someone provokes me:)

[Gill Harley]

the quick post reply function doesnt work.


anyway, i thought this thread was supposed to be about islam.

Elijah - you are late to this discussion and therefore may not realise that we are dealing with the issue of whether Islam is more intrinsically violent than any other religion.

And, after examining the root mythology of other major religions, like Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism,we are seeming to be coming to the conclusion that it isn't...and that the mythological stories contained within those religions are equally violent.

I think the only difference is that we are more sure that Mohammed was a real person who lived in a human body and drew breath, than we are about any of the characters in the other aforementioned religions. Therefore, what can be construed as a metaphysical fight between the forces of darkness and the forces of light in other religions, became a real fight with real people in the case of Mohammed...and it's still continuing today.

Of course, the Christians had a similar story with their Crusades, which we know really happened.

The Jews also were no strangers to violence, for example: even apart from the wars the Israelites fought to eject the Canaanites from the 'land of milk and honey' (and they are still fighting those wars today), there is also the matter of Moses who had more than 3,000 Israelites slaughtered because they would not accept the 10 Commandments. Thus, Moses used exactly the same rationale for killing people as Mohammed did, or certainly hard line Moslems do anyway. That rationale is: 'if they don't believe in what we believe in, they'd be better off dead.'

That said, some believe, (myself included) that Moses is a mythological figure and I also think that about Jesus. But then, does it really matter in terms of this discussion about members of a religion tending more to violence who have violent stories in their religion?

Many studies have proved that children who watch violent films are more likely to be violent themselves. It doesn't matter whether those films are fictional (which they mainly are) or factual documentries. In fact, there's an argument for saying that fictionalised violence can make an even more powerful impression on a youngster because it glamorises something that in reality, is anything but glamorous.

So I think this has turned into a interesting discussion about how a person's religion influences their thinking and actions....especially, as it turns out, we're all 'tarred with the same brush'! :)

[elijah115]

I think that you are certainly an eloquent chap and you've made quite a reasonably fancy argument. My problem is that you don't seem too well versed in either the Quran or the bible so I'm trying to judge whether you'll appreciate a deeper critical discussion of Islam, let alone christianity. Now this is not to suggest that I am far more knowledge, because that would be disrespectfully egotistical. Rather I am able to make that assessment because I have read both the Quran and the bible myself, and in contrast to the way I view both religious texts, you seem to be making comments on a superficial level.

I think you made a good point about the irrelevance of historicity to the effect of indoctrination. Whilst I would be curious to know your method for determining historicity, I think it's more paramount to wonder if violence in Islam is based on the Quran itself, the sayings of Mohammed, the actions of Mohammed, or more so on the traditions of Islam. In my view, I think it based on all these factors to varying degrees. More importantly, I think it based on selfish ambition combined with naivity. Most muslims haven't fully read their religious texts, like followers of other religions, and are spoon fed. However the more versed adherents are presented with a choice of ignoring the violent teachings, obeying them, or philosophising these teachings to ineffect. The war-mongering romanticist adherents tend to opt for a private jihad.

[Singhi Kaya]

Jill,

I was never contending the violence content of religions. Such comparisons would be naive and flawed. "Violence" means nothing in Hindu-Dharma. I would be completely out of mind to compare "violently killing innocent civilians" with "Rama slaying ravana". Not because of one is mythology, but because they are 2 different things. Perhaves I need to clarify this in another thread as this is a fully hindu topic.

Ofcourse even then mythology cannot be compared to reality~but I never did the above as well. Also Jill your conclusion is fully your's, not all (not just me) agreed if you re-read the posts.


My claim was much different and my posts were finally not replied.

Anyway I now find it great wastage of time to argue over Islam in a virtual forum and share our predijices where just a week back 35 hindus gets masscared in jammu, one engineer gets beheaded in Afganisthan, and moslems ('normal' ones not terrorists) go barsek in baroda for civil authorities trying to bring down an illegal dargah (not to say 40+ temples were bought down under the same operation:rolleyes: ). A month before rioting muslims (again 'normal' ones) kill 2 hindus for doing puja with megaphones (Dar-ul-Islam??). If I can't do personally anything to take a just revenge of 1000 years of barbarism against hindu's - shouting in a virtual hindu forum is of little help.

[Gill Harley]

Hi Elijah

I totally agree with your last paragraph.

On your first paragraph: Firstly, I'm a woman, but you couldn't be expected to know that. :)

Secondly, one can only deal in a superficial way with complex issues on this forum as there is a very broad cross section of readers with different agendas and backgrounds.

Finally, I've been a student of religion and mythology for the past 30 years. I have read and know the Bible and Koran very well. I know much of the Vedas equally well. On top of that, I've studied the Sumerian and Greek myths, and most of the Celtic ones too. In addition, I'm rapidly becoming a bit of an expert on the sacred stories of the American Indian tribes.

But knowing the scriptures or mythology of different cultures is only half the story - otherwise, my thinking on them would be no more reliable than that of a blinkered religious zealot. I also keep up with latest archaeological findings and historical thinking on these scriptures and only agree with it when it matches my own research, which is considerable, and conclusions.

If you're genuinely interested in digging a little deeper into what they Bible says and why, I can recommend the following two books: Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic by Frank Moore Cross, who is Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages at Harvard, and The Bible With Sources Revealed by Richard Elliott Friedman who is Professor of Hebrew and Comparitive Literature at the University of California.

[Singhi Kaya]

post deleted

[satay]

the quick post reply function doesnt work.


namaste elijah,
The quick reply button seems to be working fine. What the exact problem you had?
This is what I did:
Clicked on the quick reply button beside the 'quote' button.
the page took me to the quick reply box located at the bottom of the page.
I could have then enter some text there and hit submit reply. I have tested this on another forum so it seems to work fine for me...

Did it just hang the page for you (timed out?) or ?

Let me know...I know there are performance problems with the site and we are working with the hosting company to fix these. I am not impressed with them at all...but that's a story for another thread...

[Singhi Kaya]

Ok in most forums one can diretly type on the quick reply box...never occured to me that the curious-nameless little button besides the "Quote" buttom could have some purpose:rolleyes: . I think E thought the same.


Thanks Satay for clarifying

[Gill Harley]

As I have been accused of viewing these texts on a superficial level, I thought I'd better show the evidence for my view that the roots of Judaism are as violent as that of Islam:

Here are some extracts from the Bible:

“And the Lord said to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho: ‘Say to the people of Israel, when you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places; and you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it’……” (Numbers 33.50-53).


“‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. And I will do to you as I thought to do to them’…” (Numbers 34.55-56).


“And when the Lord your God brings you into the land which he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you great and goodly cities which you did not build, and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and cisterns hewn out which you did not hew, and vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and when you eat and are full…” (Deuteronomy 6.10-11).


“When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clear away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves, and when the Lord gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them, you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.” (Deuteronomy 7.1-2). [my bolding]


“When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace, and it opens to you then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes but shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as your Lord the God has commanded” (Deuteronomy 20.10-17).

“And the Lord our God gave him over to us, and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children; we left none remaining; only the cattle we took as spoil for ourselves, with the booty of the cities which we captured” (Deuteronomy 2.33-35).

“And we took all his cities at that time - there was not a city which we did not take from them - sixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bachan. All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars, besides very many unwalled villages. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, destroying every city, men, women and children. But all the cattle and the spoil of the cities we took as our booty” (Deuteronomy 3.4-7).


I rest my case. :)

[elijah115]

namaste elijah,
The quick reply button seems to be working fine. What the exact problem you had?
This is what I did:
Clicked on the quick reply button beside the 'quote' button.
the page took me to the quick reply box located at the bottom of the page.
I could have then enter some text there and hit submit reply. I have tested this on another forum so it seems to work fine for me...

Did it just hang the page for you (timed out?) or ?

Let me know...I know there are performance problems with the site and we are working with the hosting company to fix these. I am not impressed with them at all...but that's a story for another thread...

your suggestion worked find - maybe put in on the FAQ page so that other less intuitive users like me can see the tip. But I doubt people will go to the FAQ page because that would be like a cave man using a manual - very unlikely.

[satay]

your suggestion worked find - maybe put in on the FAQ page so that other less intuitive users like me can see the tip. But I doubt people will go to the FAQ page because that would be like a cave man using a manual - very unlikely.

What I will do is this: I will remove the need to have the user click on the 'quick reply' button and have the quick reply box just open ready for replies...that should work fine...I am pretty sure there is a feature like that...

[elijah115]

Gill I am aware of these examples, and more, obviously. The point I am making is this, would a non-Hindu be justified in reading the Vedas completely literally ignoring the lessons? I suspect the answer is No. When I say superficially, I mean that you are aware of the stories, but you aren't concerned with meaning. It's like the difference between saying "Cain killed Abel. Look violence!" and "Cain was jealous of Abel and that is why he killed Abel. God was more pleased with Abel because He offered not only life but his best harvest. Cain was wrong to kill Abel." One commentary is more bland than the other. Can you understand how I view the bible and the Quran. There's no point in quoting what I've read if I don't understand the spirit of these texts. If there was a point in doing that, I could argue about violence in for example the mahabaratha, literally.

[willie]

I don't see where all this talk in going. Sure some academic bean counters may come up with some theory about where all the major religions originated from. But so what?

Look at any of the major religions, there are many different ideas within it and ideas have caused wars and are still causing wars. So all of them comming from one idea or source will not solve any problems and only provide fodder for more academic debate.

It might be time to get back to the discussion of islam.

[Gill Harley]

Elijah, I've read your last post three times and I honestly don't understand what you mean. I'm not trying to be difficult...it's just that as a piece of communication, it just doesn't work for me.

My point is that violence is in all the texts of all the major world religions - and violence is violence - there isn't a good kind and a bad kind. In addition, the texts from the Old Testament of the Bible that I put up here showed that the Jews were just as ruthless and murderous to the Canaanites as the Moslems were when they invaded India.

Yes, I know there is an issue about literalism versus mythology ...and that there is no archaeological or historical evidence that the Jews were ever in Egypt, let alone escaped and then wrought havoc across Palestine in order to clear the Canaanites out of their 'promised land'. In fact, all the historical evidence points to the opposite conclusion.

But, as discussed before, factual violence is no better or worse than fictional violence when it comes to the effects that it has on peoples' psyches as they, and their ancestors before them, sit in churches, temples and mosques day after day being brainwashed by a particular ideology.

None of the major world religions can guarantee - or even offer - a direct experience of God, yet they don't hesitate to recount to their unwitting and impressionable listeners all about the wars they've fought on behalf of their God.

Has there ever been a time in the last few thousand years when man hasn't been at war? Not across Mesopotamia and the Middle East, that's for so sure, the cradle of three of the world's major religions - and every single one of those combatants will tell you that they have God on their side.

So to answer Willie, yes I believe there is a point to discovering the commonalities between religions. Because if ever people could realise that there is a practical direct experience of God that people once had, that all these religions stemmed from, and that these religions are all just corrupted versions of that original pristine truth - then maybe we could have a humanity that wouldn't keep feeling that they had to go to war against each other.

In order to achieve that, the first thing we have to do is stop pointing the finger at other cultures' religions or, to paraphrase Jesus, "remove the beam in our own eye before commenting on the mote in anothers.'

All this may sound unrealistically utopian to some...but I can't think of anything else worth working for.

[Arjuna]

What about Parashurama?
He was determined to exterminate all Kshatriyas, and he attempted his axe-wielding slaughter as many as 21 times! :eek:

Krishna also killed people in Mahabharata war, and even at times rather cunningly.

[Arjuna]

I was never contending the violence content of religions. Such comparisons would be naive and flawed. "Violence" means nothing in Hindu-Dharma. I would be completely out of mind to compare "violently killing innocent civilians" with "Rama slaying ravana". Not because of one is mythology, but because they are 2 different things. Perhaves I need to clarify this in another thread as this is a fully hindu topic.
Anyway I now find it great wastage of time to argue over Islam in a virtual forum and share our predijices where just a week back 35 hindus gets masscared in jammu, one engineer gets beheaded in Afganisthan, and moslems ('normal' ones not terrorists) go barsek in baroda for civil authorities trying to bring down an illegal dargah (not to say 40+ temples were bought down under the same operation:rolleyes: ). A month before rioting muslims (again 'normal' ones) kill 2 hindus for doing puja with megaphones (Dar-ul-Islam??). If I can't do personally anything to take a just revenge of 1000 years of barbarism against hindu's - shouting in a virtual hindu forum is of little help.

There are enough examples of hindus acting violently, killing people of other faiths as well as of their own.
Historical examples are the stories of Tamil Nayanars, several of which acted with utter cruelty. Another example is a case of Lingayata marriage of shudra and brahmana which was performed by Shri Basavanna — hindu crowd got angry at this "adharma" and killed both newly-weds.
Modern examples are numerous. Recently a family of a christian missionary was burnt alive in a car in Assam by hindus.
No need to compare with mythology! Muslims are not the only to be killing innocent people, though presently they may kill more.

[willie]

Some where there seem to have arisen this idea that in the past there was some pure spritual experience the people had. Well not really.

If a person looks the some of the more primitive people around the world they find the most of there religions are developled out of fear of the unkown or on getting something special.

One of the more interesting ones is the cargo cult in what I believe is borneo. Seem that during WWII some supply planes crashed in the natives assumed the god must have sent then. After all the stuff was items the no native had ever seen. So the natives made crude replicas of planes out of sticks and hoped that god would send more of them.

Only because of history can we look back and see the mistakes of the past and , hopefully, not repeat them.

In the case of islam , judism has a strong influence on it. As a lot of the stories in the old testament are in the quran. And islam is set up something like early judism, in that they have certain meat, like kosher meat, and they pray 5 times a day while jews are suppose to pray 3 times per day. Also jew in the early day did not allow people who here not jewish into the temple and islam does not allow that to this day. Similary in more orthodox judism men and women pray in seperate areas like in islam.

Just too bad we cannot get a look at the speeches of mohammad that the quran was compiled from. And if these were translated it would give a better look at the man.

[satay]

There are enough examples of hindus acting violently, killing people of other faiths as well as of their own.

Well, if they acted "violently" then they weren't really hindus now were they?;)

[Arjuna]

Well, if they acted "violently" then they weren't really hindus now were they?;)

It is a problem. There were fanatical devotees of Shiva and seemingly had very little Jnana. I cannot say "they were not Hindus," it isn't possible to judge like this. But i don't believe those people were saints as South Indian Shaiva tradition holds.

In a same way, those "muslims" who kill innocent people are going agaisnt Islam and cannot be considered Muslims proper.

[Gill Harley]

If a person looks the some of the more primitive people around the world they find the most of there religions are developed out of fear of the unkown or on getting something special.


This sounds like the old "ignorant and primitive savage dancing around campfire worshipping the Sun" idea. But as people begin to study and understand more the ancient scriptures, like the Rig-veda, this idea is gaining less currency. You can see from studying the Vedas that the ancient rishis were incredbly advanced in their scientific knowledge and they were not alone in this.

This idea of the fearful savage also doesn't work on a logical basis. Today there are just as many people who are fearful of the unknown - it's just that "the unknown" reveals itself in a more sophisticated and so-called civilised arena. However, despite the modern-day neuroses that people undergo these days, you don't see alongside it a sudden upsurge in belief in God - quite the contrary, in fact.



Only because of history can we look back and see the mistakes of the past and , hopefully, not repeat them.

In the case of islam , judism has a strong influence on it. As a lot of the stories in the old testament are in the quran. And islam is set up something like early judism, in that they have certain meat, like kosher meat, and they pray 5 times a day while jews are suppose to pray 3 times per day. Also jew in the early day did not allow people who here not jewish into the temple and islam does not allow that to this day. Similary in more orthodox judism men and women pray in seperate areas like in islam.

Just too bad we cannot get a look at the speeches of mohammad that the quran was compiled from. And if these were translated it would give a better look at the man.


I agree. It would be good to see those speeches. But an increasing number of scholars of religion and mythology ( people who research across all religions, not just one) are discovering more and more about the mythological roots of Islam. This is a very interesting article the so-called 'pagan' statues found in the Ka'bah:

Bob Trubshaw's article on the Black Stone of Mecca (http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/edge/blstone.htm) was of great interest to myself, as I had already seen Rufus Camphausen's original article on The Ka'bah at Mecca, and already had something of an interest in the subject. Camphausen, and now Bob Trubshaw, have done us all a great service by bringing this material to our attention in an accessible form, and presenting what is basically a strong and coherent case for the original pagan context of the Black Stone; but it is also apparent that there is a good deal more that could be said on the subject. Indeed, there are a number of points that really must be made, particularly with regard to the goddess Al'Lat, whose identity - and those of her old Meccan companions, Al'Uzza and Manat - is perhaps not as clear-cut as Rufus Camphausen has asserted, and as Bob Trubshaw has reported. There are more connections to be made, and these show the goddess of the Black Stone in a rather different light.

Of especial interest is the explanation of the Beni Shaybah, the imams who attend the sacred structure, as 'Sons of the Old Woman', the old lady in question supposedly being the Queen of Sheba. Any connection with an authentic, historical Queen of Sheba is debatable, but in view of the tradition it is worth pointing out that the Hebrew sheba' can mean either 'seven' or 'oath'. The Biblical place-name Beer-sheba is literally 'the well of seven', the well in question being dug by Abraham and where he made a peace-treaty with Abimelech. Abraham gave seven ewe-lambs to seal the pact, and the place was named to commemorate the event. The well is said to have been reopened by Isaac, who renamed it Shibah, which just happens to be the feminine form of the numeral sheba'. Interestingly, the site is now said to have seven wells. The name given by Abraham thus seems to have been a play on the Hebrew words for 'seven' and 'oath'.

The sacred complex at Mecca has the holy well Zamzam, of course.
That the Semitic tribes associated oath-taking with the number seven is confirmed by Herodotus, writing in the fifth century BCE, who reports that Arabs solemnised oaths between two men by enlisting the services of a third, who 'stands between them and with a sharp stone cuts the palms of their hands...then he takes a little tuft of wool from their clothes, dips it in the blood and smears the blood on seven stones which lie between them, invoking as he does so, the names of Dionysus and Urania'. Herodotus identifies the latter as Alilat, who is undoubtedly the same goddess formerly venerated at Mecca as Al'Lat [1].

It seems relevant that the sanctity of treaties made at the Ka'bah is stressed in the Koran [9:6], where even covenants made with infidels are to be honoured: 'God and His apostle repose no trust in idolaters, save those with whom you have made treaties at the Sacred Mosque. So long as they keep faith with you, keep faith with them. God loves the righteous.'

There were, in pagan times, seven priestesses at site of the Black Stone, who circled it seven times, naked. Today, the tawaf, the sevenfold counterclockwise circuit of the Ka'bah, is a memory of that ancient practice. But the older practice is itself a strong echo of the descent of the Sumerian goddess Inanna (and her Babylonian equivalent Ishtar) through the seven gates of the underworld, the gatekeepers demanding the removal of a garment at each gate until she stands naked before her elder sister Ereshkigal, 'Queen of the Great Earth', the goddess of death and the underworld. Another name for Ereshkigal is Allatu, 'the goddess', which is clearly an earlier form of Al'Lat/Alilat.

This suggests that, far from being a moon-goddess, Al'Lat is actually the goddess of the underworld, who could indeed be fittingly described as the 'Old Woman'. I do not myself subscribe to the idea of three-phase moon goddesses of the maiden-mother-hag model popularised by the likes of Robert Graves [2], but in the case of Al'Lat and her sisters there is a definite argument against it - although the reported evidence is contradictory and confusing.

In his introduction to the Penguin edition of the Koran, translator N.J. Dawood says that Al'Lat, Al'Uzza, and Manat 'represented the Sun, Venus, and Fortune respectively' [3] - but I have also seen Allat described as a representation of Venus [4], and she once had a temple in the precinct devoted to the sun-god Shamash in Hatra, Iraq [5]. In early Mesopotamian art, the only heavenly bodies regularly shown as a group were the triad of Sun, Moon, and Venus, the three most important celestial lights; and in Sumer and early Babylon the sun and moon were represented mainly by a male divinity, though elsewhere in the Semitic world the moon was usually regarded as feminine.

Al'Uzza and Manat are less easily traced to a more archaic source. Their names - 'the Strong' and 'Destiny' respectively - suggest abstract forces rather than natural objects. If the three 'daughters of Allah' [6] are personifications of any natural phenomena, then one is surely the Earth (Al'Lat = Allatu = Ereshkigal); the others are of uncertain pedigree. But there is also a strong chance that their form and function were influenced by the banat, the three daughters of Baal, the supreme deity of the Canaanites. They symbolised light, rain, and earth [7].

You can read the full article here: http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/edge/blston2.htm

My own view is that Ailat (or A-ILA-T) could derive from the important Rig-vedic goddess, Ila and I have set up a thread on that here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=250

[willie]

More jumping and shouting about some scholars work. But the middle east gave birth to 3 world class religions and the first was judism. About all it did was say that there was only one god and that it ran everything. Then to be different for judism others grew up and divided into the current crop of religions in the area.

Soon the infighting began between them and among their different branches.

It seem to me that all religions split up as time goes on , mainly due , I think , power ideas that come along. Some adopt the ideas and others say with the old ways. Then there are the splits because of power struggles withing the organization itself.

Christanity had them with the reformation , Jews broke across the divide between the orthodox and the more liberal arm and islam between the sunni and the shia. It seems that no religion with any age on it has not had schisms and this will probably go on and on.

But in the end all the talk about history will not put any of then back together again. The only thing that could do that is the development of new ways of looking at religion and spirituality.

Scholars may write interesting books and make brilliant agruments but these things will not affect the past, for it it over. Only the current winds of change can affect the future.

In some analysis their are no religions that have not been hijacked to a great extent but some of these hijackings have brought about real change that was needed. On the other hand, some have taken over and held captive the spirtiuality that was present in the religion.

Even hinduism has been hijacked to some extent, I don't recall krishna being mentioned by name in the vedas.

[satay]

In a same way, those "muslims" who kill innocent people are going agaisnt Islam and cannot be considered Muslims proper.

yes, and that was point exactly which I was trying to make in tongue-in-cheek way.

[Arjuna]

Interesting point about Islam:
“According to the Manthanabhairava-tantra, the demon Ravana incarnated in this Age of Darkness (Kaliyuga) and descended onto the bank of the Indus, thus initiating the tyranny of the heathens’ rule that extended its sway throughout the world.” (M. Dyczkowsky in “The Canon of the Saivagama,” p. 12).
I would note that Ravana was a great devotee of Shiva, and composed one of the most beautiful hymns to Him. According to Adhyatma-ramayana, Sita finally took a form of Kali and killed Ravana, thus giving him Mukti.

[Gill Harley]

Even hinduism has been hijacked to some extent, I don't recall krishna being mentioned by name in the vedas.

No, you're right Willie, he isn't. He's not mentioned until the Srimad Bhagavatham, the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita which are a later part of the wider Vedas (the original earlier Vedas just being the four books, the Rig, the Atharva, the Yajur and the Sama.)

Actually, I've just been reading a very interesting e-book, The Rig-veda, A Historical Analysis by Skrikant G Talageri, and it makes a lot of sense to me - not least because it steers a cool and rational course between the flimsy and bigoted theories of Western 'Indologists' like Michael Weisner and those of the nationalist hotheads from Hindutva.

Anyway, Talageri puts forward a very sound hypothesis for the case that most of the early Rig-veda (Books 1-9) was written by the Angirasa family of rishis. Then it appears that another arya family arrives on the scene, the Bhrigus, who start off being considered "beyond the pale" (dharmically-speaking) by the Angirasa family, but then who end up, because they invented the fire ceremony, by taking over the whole shooting match and being responsible for Book 10 of the Rig-veda and then much of the rest of the wider Vedas after that, including the Ramayana (Valmiki was a Bhrigu), the Mahabharata and so on. So, according to that hypothesis, Krishna would be a later invention of the Bhrigus.

If you'd like to read more on this, the e-book is here: http://voi.org/books/rig/index.htm

[pratardana]

Namaskar,
with regard to the discussion on islam and its workings:
see i dont know whether islam is inherently good or bad whether christianity is better than islam or sanatana dharma, for i have not read as much as you guys seem to have done, but i kind of share singhi's point of view regarding islam because of knowledge of their actual working in the unbeliever land that is india. in particular "Purvanchal" i.e the north-east part of india, and the souhtern state of kerela. and if people think that christianity is a little better than islam in terms dealing with the unbelievers than i beg to differ again here i would like to point to the above examples. the only difference that i see between the 2 is that christiannity per se is far more subtle and clever than islam which is more in you face.
both of them are however joined together in the quest of establishing their own creed over anyothers, now it may be that this is not scriptually prescribed or not according to the actual message of these religions, my question is does it really matter, as long as the opposion is destroyed.
and for those who would like to refute the christian standpoint regarding other religions would like to refer them to the workings of the american baptists and other such groups in india.
also singhvi sir would like to know on what basis did you reach the conclusion that islam is on its final leg.

[willie]

In the case of islam the shia seperated from the sunni based on who should be the leader afte muhammad died, his son or uncle. But some would say that the seperation was because the iranians wanted the get the conquering arabs out of iran. So a somewhat different branch of islam was created to get this task accomplished.

This would suggest that the past is remembered too well and is still causing problems for future generations.

Additionally, most all of religion has been hijacked but some of the hijackers moved the religion into the modern world and others moved it back to the dark ages.

[Sudarshan]

Islam is always funny to discuss.

I once registered on a muslim site and just posted a single question - "If I accept Lord Vishnu as the supreme diety, and muslims accept Allah to be so, shall we accept that our Gods are one and the same, or atleast related?"

There was not a single member from among the 1000 members on the site who came anywhere near that, or was even willing to consider a remotest compromise. On the contrary, there were atleast 20 replies, some of them quite rude. One of the members was willing to accept the Sikh God to be Allah because it is strictly monotheistic. I tried arguing that Vaishnavism was purely monotheistic, and especially Sri Vaishnavism is monotheistic to the core, and yet the answer was in the negative. An idol worshipping Kaffir I remained. I think Islam is totally close minded. Disagreement with others or classifying others as inferior are reasonably acceptable, but calling everybody else other than your own as some agent of Satan is itself devilish.

And oh, yeah, I have nice muslims friends but I never open the topic of religion with them - I know that would be disastrous. Only one of them have ever shown even a semblance of acceptance in these matters.

On the Christin Forums, I beleive some of the other Hindus here and myself had some debates with some muslims and after a brief discussion, I was frank and dismissed the book of quran as a trash. Acording to the quran and most interpretations of it, vedas are idolatory and from the Satan. I used this logic and told a mulsim that since quran negated the vedas, I hold quran to be junk. Since accepting its validity amounted to self negation of the vedas. You must have seen the reaction of these muslims and none of them even utter a word against such logic. But they were certainly offended which I dont care - they have no problems when calling other scriptures as Satanic, but they dont like the taste of thier own medicine.

[Gill Harley]

Hello Sudarshan

That's a very interesting post.

Thing is, though, I'm sure you could have got the same reaction from just about any Literalist religious site, be it Christian, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and so on....maybe even Shinto!

In my opinion, the religious world is divided into Literalists and Gnostics.

The Literalists believe that every word of their scripture is the Word of God, that the stories in it really happened and that the characters in it really exists, and that every other religion is completely wrong, if not evil. Literalists see differences between all the religions and it's usually the Literalists that cause wars.

The Gnostics, on the other hand, see all religions as the same. They see the similarities and commonalities in all the stories and characters and realise that every religion is talking about the same thing but with just small, local variations according to cultural tastes. They understand that these stories are metaphyical allegories that point to a greater truth. The Gnostics always try to see the point of view of other religions, are equally happy worshipping and praising God in a temple, mosgue, church, synagogue, pagan tree grove, on a mountain, by the sea, in the countryside, in the middle of city.....they see God everywhere.

That's my view anyway.

[Sudarshan]

Interesting point about Islam:
“According to the Manthanabhairava-tantra, the demon Ravana incarnated in this Age of Darkness (Kaliyuga) and descended onto the bank of the Indus, thus initiating the tyranny of the heathens’ rule that extended its sway throughout the world.” (M. Dyczkowsky in “The Canon of the Saivagama,” p. 12).
I would note that Ravana was a great devotee of Shiva, and composed one of the most beautiful hymns to Him. According to Adhyatma-ramayana, Sita finally took a form of Kali and killed Ravana, thus giving him Mukti.

Ravana and Kumbhakarna are just incarnations of Jaya and Vijaya of Vaikunta due to their curse, and Ravana did not get mukti then. In Krita Yuga they were born as Hiranyakashipu and Hiranyaksha, in Treta Yuga as Ravana and Kumbakarna, and in Dvapara as Shishupala and Dantavakra. They were killed by Vishnu in each of these births, and in their final birth as Shisupala and Dantavakra, the curse ended and both of them obtained mukti. There is absolutely no question of Ravana incarnating again as a demon in Kali Yuga. If at all he did so, it was the incarnation of Jaya, the great soul of Vaikunta. I doubt if it could be Muhammed especially since they have nothing in common.

[Sudarshan]

Hello Sudarshan

That's a very interesting post.

Thing is, though, I'm sure you could have got the same reaction from just about any Literalist religious site, be it Christian, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and so on....maybe even Shinto!

In my opinion, the religious world is divided into Literalists and Gnostics.

The Literalists believe that every word of their scripture is the Word of God, that the stories in it really happened and that the characters in it really exists, and that every other religion is completely wrong, if not evil. Literalists see differences between all the religions and it's usually the Literalists that cause wars.

The Gnostics, on the other hand, see all religions as the same. They see the similarities and commonalities in all the stories and characters and realise that every religion is talking about the same thing but with just small, local variations according to cultural tastes. They understand that these stories are metaphyical allegories that point to a greater truth. The Gnostics always try to see the point of view of other religions, are equally happy worshipping and praising God in a temple, mosgue, church, synagogue, pagan tree grove, on a mountain, by the sea, in the countryside, in the middle of city.....they see God everywhere.

That's my view anyway.

I remember a discourse on Ramayana by a swamiji in my native place. The swamiji was talking a lot about metaphors, and denied the historicity of avatars. One of the person hearing the discourse, walked up to the swamiji and asked rudely - "Are you saying that our beloved Rama and Krishna are just myth?". The swamiji replied in the affirmative and got a resounding slap on his face. Some people also threw stones. The team had to flee.

It is one thing if the puranas and itihasas are metaphors or just stories. But that is the backbone of the faith of the common man. No sensible swamiji will preach such ideas to the common man. The elite group maybe willing to explore such meanings and perhaps even appreciate them. Our Achrayas knew these things and rarely opposed the prevailing beleifs. If you suddenly say that all our scripture is just metaphor the beleifs of many people may vapourize too. The common man or even most Hindus have strong beleif in Rama and Krishna and it is the basis of their faiths and also devotion. Faith and devotion and much more important than secularism, or even the truth. If truth may prove harmful, dont say it. Christianity is strong because of such a central figure who is also historical - Jesus. Even though they fight amongst themselves, they are still able to reconcile due to such a powerful common denominator.

I think scriptures have both - real in part and metaphor in part. They might be exaggarated accounts of reality, and this distortion might be related to preaching the metaphor supposed to be understood only by a few.

[Arjuna]

Ravana and Kumbhakarna are just incarnations of Jaya and Vijaya of Vaikunta due to their curse, and Ravana did not get mukti then. In Krita Yuga they were born as Hiranyakashipu and Hiranyaksha, in Treta Yuga as Ravana and Kumbakarna, and in Dvapara as Shishupala and Dantavakra. They were killed by Vishnu in each of these births, and in their final birth as Shisupala and Dantavakra, the curse ended and both of them obtained mukti. There is absolutely no question of Ravana incarnating again as a demon in Kali Yuga. If at all he did so, it was the incarnation of Jaya, the great soul of Vaikunta. I doubt if it could be Muhammed especially since they have nothing in common.

I have heard this story, but it is specific to some Puranic texts (i guess Vaishnava version of Bhagavata) and may not be accepted by other.

However i have no wish to argue, for this is irrelevant. I merely told what i have read and thought it may be interesting.
Historically i doubt any Ravana did exist, and verily he never existed as a ten-headed monster :). Mythology is symbolic.

[sarabhanga]

Krishna was a son of Devaki, a student of Ghora Angirasa, and one of the authors of the Rigveda:


अयं वां कृष्णोऽश्विना हवते वाजिनीवसू । मध्वः सोमस्य पीतये ॥
शृणुतं जरितुर्हवं कृष्णस्य स्तुवतो नरा । मध्वः सोमस्य पीतये ॥

ayaṁ vāṁ kṛṣṇo'śvinā havate vājinīvasū | madhvaḥ somasya pītaye |8.85.3|
śṛṇutaṁ jariturhavaṁ kṛṣṇasya stuvato narā | madhvaḥ somasya pītaye |8.85.4|


Here Krsna is invoking you, O Asvins, Lords of ample wealth.

To drink the savoury Soma juice.
List, Heroes, to the singer's call, the call of Krsna lauding you,

To drink the savoury Soma juice.

[Gill Harley]

One of the person hearing the discourse, walked up to the swamiji and asked rudely - "Are you saying that our beloved Rama and Krishna are just myth?". The swamiji replied in the affirmative and got a resounding slap on his face. Some people also threw stones. The team had to flee.

.... If you suddenly say that all our scripture is just metaphor the beleifs of many people may vapourize too. The common man or even most Hindus have strong beleif in Rama and Krishna and it is the basis of their faiths and also devotion. Faith and devotion and much more important than secularism, or even the truth....

Namaste Sudarshan

I disagree that faith and devotion are more important than truth (and secularism has nothing to do with this topic). You can have faith in your priests...and at the end of your life, realise that you wasted it in trusting in others because you didn't have the courage to follow your own conviction and intuition.

I also think there is a misunderstanding here in the use of your phrase "just a metaphor" (my bolding). The metaphor , according to my understanding, isn't "just" a metaphor. It would be "just" a metaphor if it represented , say, what some anthropologists think - that is that the Vedic stories of the battle between light and darkness are about the sun disappearing at the end of the day, and reappearing in the morning. The use of the word "just" before the word metaphor in that case would be justified. But the Vedic texts are not about that.

According to my understand, in the case of the story (or under story) of the Vedic texts, the metaphor is about something far more important than the sun disappearing. It's also about something far more vital to human beings than whether a character actually lived a human life on planet earth - or anywhere else - or not. It speaks to a much deeper and profound truth than whether a blue-skinned incarnation of God actually drove a chariot into an actual battle. Therefore, it is a glorious metaphor, not "just a metaphor".

My other feeling is that if people are using violence against someone whose beliefs cut across their own, then it doesn't follow that the truth should then be denied, or suppressed. The world has always been this way. Those trapped in maya cannot bear to hear the truth, especially those who have a vested interest in persauding others to follow their false religions, and so they become violent when they are faced with it. Their false egos are so tied up with their religious beliefs that they take anything that contradicts it as a personal affront. In my opinion, it's only a few more steps up from that to the suicide bomber, or the Christian crusader, or the Spanish Inquisition. I believe that that's the kind of religion that causes war.

[willie]

As I read the post I don't see anything about islam.

[Sudarshan]

I disagree that faith and devotion are more important than truth (and secularism has nothing to do with this topic). You can have faith in your priests...and at the end of your life, realise that you wasted it in trusting in others because you didn't have the courage to follow your own conviction and intuition.


That is not quite right. For most people faith is more important than truth. What is the point in teaching the truth if the aspirant is not prepared or ready to understand it? If a person cannot understand he might rebel and even become an atheist.

Just imagine: We know God is beyond human understanding and beyond name, form, speech and mind. Hinduism says this very strongly. Yet, most of the Acharyas have not tried to present this way at all. Why? Because it makes God something inaccessible to man and the role of a such a God in salvation or any personal benefit is questionable.

On the other hand, when the common man is told that God looks like a man, he has all the feelings of man, he always moves along with the devotee, he is all merciful etc - the common man develops love and deep desire for such a God. You cannot achieve that by saying the truth that God is incomprehensible by both mind and the senses. A slight misunderstanding of this concept will lead a person sometimes to the brink of atheism or indifference to the very concept of God. Never preach a truth that may prove harmful - atleast this is what most Acharyas found.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

"The truth will set you free." It is important to have faith in things we believe are the truth even if not proven as truth yet. However, blind faith is usually not good especially if it seems to be in something that is the opposite of truth. Truth can be absolute as well as relative at least in my opinion. In the end, it is truth that is more important than faith because if you don't have faith in truth, your faith cannot be worth much. Besides, almost everything our society takes as truth today is actually illusion. The more one can call a spade a spade, the more likely he is to not become duped like the rest of the masses and the more likely he is to progress spiritually because the myths and luncacies of society will become increasingly less important. When one is in deep prayer or meditation regardless of religion or tradition, for that brief moment of time, the meditator or devotee is no longer concerned about the half-baked "truths" of the material world because he has already gotten a glimpse of the real truth. ~BYS~

[Singhi Kaya]

"The truth will set you free." It is important to have faith in things we believe are the truth even if not proven as truth yet. However, blind faith is usually not good especially if it seems to be in something that is the opposite of truth. Truth can be absolute as well as relative at least in my opinion. In the end, it is truth that is more important than faith because if you don't have faith in truth, your faith cannot be worth much. Besides, almost everything our society takes as truth today is actually illusion. The more one can call a spade a spade, the more likely he is to not become duped like the rest of the masses and the more likely he is to progress spiritually because the myths and luncacies of society will become increasingly less important. When one is in deep prayer or meditation regardless of religion or tradition, for that brief moment of time, the meditator or devotee is no longer concerned about the half-baked "truths" of the material world because he has already gotten a glimpse of the real truth. ~BYS~

Nicely said. Being able to call spade a spade is the important divine attribute of "abhay" no-fear.

[Singhi Kaya]

In our days of glory (http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html#historical)
Now centuries past
The kingdom of Islam (http://markhumphrys.com/islam.html)
Stood mighty and vast
Then we failed our faith
And watched your power grow (http://markhumphrys.com/west.universal.html)
But soon our greatness will return
And this is how we know ..
Because it's in the Koran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/)
It's written in the Koran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html)
A world united under Allah is
The future of man
How could it not be so
When most opposing us panic
And surrender once a few of them have bled (http://markhumphrys.com/europe.america.html#madrid).
We're happy to torture
We're eager to rape (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15206)
We savor your last screams
On videotape (http://markhumphrys.com/iraqi.resistance.html#berg)
We massacre children (http://markhumphrys.com/islamist.war.html#beslan)
We ransack a shrine (http://markhumphrys.com/israel.html#palestine.tyranny)
And all our acts are sanctified
By Suras 2 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm) through 9 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/9/index.htm)
Because it's in the Koran
It's written in the Koran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html)
That we should fight and slay the infidels (http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html)
However we can
We'll blow ourselves to bits (http://markhumphrys.com/israel.conflict.html#children)
If that gives us an advantage
Or we'll slit your throats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Algerian_massacres_of_the_1990s) while you're asleep in bed.
Those heathens who scold us
Are wasting their breath
Over the millions we've butchered (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)
And starved (http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html#modern)
We're men who would let girls
Be trampled to death (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=100&safe=off&q=saudi+%22religious+police%22+girls+fire+2002)
Rather than see them in public
Unscarved
So don't look for mercy
When you're at our feet
The justice we'll give you
Is harsh and complete
We danced in delight (http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.world.html#celebrate.911)
When your Twin Towers (http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.fascism.html#9.11) fell
And you'll weep with your slaughtered
As you burn with them in Hell
Because it's in the Koran,
It's written in the Koran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/inj/long.html)
Your fate was settled long before
This latest battle began
We've found our holy purpose
And we'll never abandon it
As long as there's a sinner to behead .. In other words we won't rest (http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.fascism.html)
Till everyone in the West
Is a slave (http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html#slavery), a Muslim or dead.

[Gill Harley]

This latest battle began
We've found our holy purpose
And we'll never abandon it
As long as there's a sinner to behead .. In other words we won't rest (http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.fascism.html)
Till everyone in the West
Is a slave (http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html#slavery), a Muslim or dead.


and, Singhi Kaya, I don't believe that you will rest until you teach everyone on this forum to hate Moslems, because the hatred you hold for them is eating you up alive.

However, SK, most of us here understand that hating Moslems will not achieve anything, and so you will never move us. Give up this sick practice.

[Singhi Kaya]

One point:-

Can you please point where exactly in the song the author is advocating violence or hared against Muslims??

I think he is just pointing out muslim violence and Kornic support for the same ~ and strangely to you it appears as hatred towards Islam!!!

Open challenge to anyone ~ in which sentence does the author advocates hatred towards Muslims??? Or Is it that we have become so much self-delutionary to accept simple truth.:rolleyes:

Finally we each have our beliefs, but in a discussion forum we either support/refute the claim or stay away.

[Gill Harley]

Singhi Kaya

Are you deliberately missing the point?

It is you, not the author, whom I'm "accusing", as you say.

[Singhi Kaya]

To All,

This is the only thread in this site about political Islam. Lets keep post with regards to the topic. This thread have lately become discussion on everything else than Islam. Hence I was forced to re-iterate my observations of Islam. Please refute or support but don't post unrealted stuff or ethics of hatred etc. We can discuss that elsewhere. Hopefully I'm trying to keep things in-topic this time.

[Singhi Kaya]

namaste Gill,

I have not missed your point ~ see last line of my post.

Thank you for your observation, but I refrain from making personal comment on anyone's philosophy or ideal or mentality.

I have only pointed out the nature of Islam, everything else is projection of your thought on which I refuse to indulge.


Regards
S

[willie]

Islam seems to mostly be a danger to itself. For the past 400 years or so Islam seen mostly fighting between the different sects.

Even not in iraq most of the people killed are civilian who happen by when an ied goes off. Even bin laden has says that the killing of moslem civilians it giving his group a bad name and reputation among the local population.

But to some extent you have to lay some blame on the civilians because someone it giving money to fund the death squads, and keep the sectarian violence going.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Nicely said. Being able to call spade a spade is the important divine attribute of "abhay" no-fear.

Of course I'm not always that good at it and we have to be careful and check-and-balance ourselves to make sure that we really are pointing out the facts. Ironically in today's world, it is often the minority who is right and the majority who is wrong in many matters. Of course this age is not known as the age of wisdom but I still have faith that the truth is out there somewhere waiting to be found. ~BYS~

[satay]

Admin Note
Please keep the thread on topic. Many of the posts here are simply trolling and flaming...and I will be cleaning this up. Please think about the time wasted of everyone in these types of junk posts.

[willie]

There could be some hope for islam. In france the government it trying to form a branch of islam that is exceptable to modern society and that still adheres to islamic principles. A cleric from morroco has been choosen as the expert and says that he is sure that such a sect can be formed.

It seems that islam has imported some real old ideas into france and most of the people including a lot of moslems are tired to these idea and want to live like the rest of the french people.

[Gill Harley]

I wonder, though, when you're talking about those Moslems who've come to "Western civilisation" whether they are ones who want Western secular values more than those who stayed in predominantly Moslem countries. So, say, French Muslims would feel the way that Willie described.

My view is that for a true reform, it has to be a spiritual reform, not a political one, and it has to come from the grass roots.

[Singhi Kaya]

There could be some hope for islam. In france the government it trying to form a branch of islam that is exceptable to modern society and that still adheres to islamic principles. A cleric from morroco has been choosen as the expert and says that he is sure that such a sect can be formed.

It seems that islam has imported some real old ideas into france and most of the people including a lot of moslems are tired to these idea and want to live like the rest of the french people.

There are a few moslem sects who are quite moderate as far as I know.
In Pakisthan (i.e old India) there are the adhmadiyas. In Iran the baha-i is also basically an offshoot of Islam. Sufis depending on the version can be moderate ~ or they keep a moderate disguise at least.

Irony is baha-i's are regarded as herectics in Iran after the revolution and are very much persecuted. Admadiyas are also tortured in Pakisthan as far as know.

We can create any sect from any sect ~ it's a matter of throwing a few things and adding a few things. Problem is will it be accepted, will power crazy mullahs allow any change in the structure and laws of Islam?? Also would such change be honest??

[satay]

Holland Issue
What do you guys think of Holland gov't making laws against wearing a 'burka'? I don't know the whole story just a tid-bid I heard on the news (canadian) that holland is 'banning' it?

I think for a a muslim that is outrageous and as an indo/canadian I don't see the value of doing this. It is purely racism!! but they argue that it is good for the muslim women because right now the culture there is such that as soon as they see a 'burka' woman she doesn't get a job!

amazing! muslims have it too easy in canada and India (where they are only ones that can legally marry several women and keep producing!)

[Singhi Kaya]

I don't like lies and hypocracy.

If holland fears islamic fundamentalism and fears it growing muslim population who want to keep their islamic ways ~ they should make that clear.

Banning someone from following their religion cannot be justified from any ground. If you think there are problems with islam and growing muslim populations, say so!. Trying to impose your law on mulims based on flimsy justifications (which is indeed racism) is ridiculous.

[Sudarshan]

I don't like lies and hypocracy.

If holland fears islamic fundamentalism and fears it growing muslim population who want to keep their islamic ways ~ they should make that clear.

Banning someone from following their religion cannot be justified from any ground. If you think there are problems with islam and growing muslim populations, say so!. Trying to impose your law on mulims based on flimsy justifications (which is indeed racism) is ridiculous.

No one has the guts to say this in public. So Islam will be sidelined only indirectly. Even to call a terrorist a terorist, you need to look all around you for support.

[Singhi Kaya]

No one has the guts to say this in public. So Islam will be sidelined only indirectly. Even to call a terrorist a terorist, you need to look all around you for support.

No one can win the battle against Islam if they remain coward. Islam is backed by the planet Rahu, and Rahu gives ample courage. Rahu is brave.

No doubt Islamicists are often much braver than their opponents ~ this has been historically true.

[Sudarshan]

No one can win the battle against Islam if they remain coward. Islam is backed by the planet Rahu, and Rahu gives ample courage. Rahu is brave.

No doubt Islamicists are often much braver than their opponents ~ this has been historically true.

The problem with non muslims is they have been too kind to muslims. Muslim invaders must have been nipped in the bud everywhere they went. The stupid Pritviraj allowed Ghori to get away 17 times before he himself lost and was killed. They say - yajna shesham and shatru sesham must never be left - Hindu princes always were too kiind to these silly invaders even when they won battles. When you win, wipe them - must have been the motto against muslims. It was too late before we could see through their devils.
Hinduism preached too much Ahimsa and paid a big price in the form of these two Adharmic religions.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Banning the hijab or niqaab is quite discriminatory and indeed wrong. No Hindu should support it as the same thing could happen to us in other ways. My general attitude is that people should have the freedom to live their lives the way they see fit and the only time the people or the government should get involved is when their lifestyle is directly impacting others in a negative way. As unusual as it may sound I have always been somewhat fond of these Muslim women for wearing the clothes that they wear because in the Western society it is definitely something that is an alternative to what we usually see women wearing. Regardless of what my opinions are on this dress, these women should always have a choice in the matter in what they choose to wear or not wear. ~BYS~

[Gill Harley]

We can create any sect from any sect ~ it's a matter of throwing a few things and adding a few things. Problem is will it be accepted, will power crazy mullahs allow any change in the structure and laws of Islam?? Also would such change be honest??

This sounds like creating a political party. We cannot create others' religions for them. That would be patronising and wrong-headed.

Religions spring from a genuine spiritual inspiration of a God-realised soul, who probably, in the first place, had no intention (and would seriously recommend against!) forming a religion. These leaders, or avatars, offer a practical experience of God that is beyond any religion, sect, cult or belief. Understanding God, as they do, they know that God is far too huge (in fact, infinite) to fit into such a tiny man-made thing like a religion. However, when these leaders die, the original inspiration gets lost and that's when more politically-minded people turn the avatar's words into dogma to form a religion. And empty vessels make the loudest noise.

We don't need more religions. We need more God.

[satay]

The problem with non muslims is they have been too kind to muslims. Muslim invaders must have been nipped in the bud everywhere they went. The stupid Pritviraj allowed Ghori to get away 17 times before he himself lost and was killed. They say - yajna shesham and shatru sesham must never be left - Hindu princes always were too kiind to these silly invaders even when they won battles. When you win, wipe them - must have been the motto against muslims. It was too late before we could see through their devils.
Hinduism preached too much Ahimsa and paid a big price in the form of these two Adharmic religions.

Ahimsa has been wrongly understood by hindus (as is the case with us indian hindus most of the time!)...the type of Ahimsa we understand today has been taught to us by the buddhists and not sanatana dharma!

Sanatana dharma is very 'practical' compared to the buddhist version of ahimsa that we have adopted today when in talking in terms of 'when the rubber hits the road kind of way'!

But then again this is a topic for antoher thread perhaps and perhaps I should not even give my opinion on it as my blood starts boiling when I think about this 'Ahimsa'

Sanatana Dharma is about being practical...if someone is rapping your daughter you are not going to sit there and preach Ahimsa!

okay...I better stop now...:)

[sarabhanga]

Sanatana Dharma has two ancient streams: autochthonous “Brahmism”, and diasporic “Abrahmism”.

Brahma-vidya and Abrahma-vidya begin with exactly the same instructions:

Noah received the eternal commandment “Do not cause Bloodshed!”.
Moses received the eternal commandment “Do not commit Murder!”
The foundation of Christianity is “Do not Kill!”
The Athenian Solon (c. 600 BC) declared “Do Good!”
And Patanjali repeats the original (and most general) formulation Ahimsa ~ “Without Harm”.

All Dharma MUST be understood with “Harmlessness” as a fundamental assumption; and all Hindus, all Jews, all Christians, and all Muslims, MUST interpret their scriptures and limit their actions in accordance with this basic principle of civilized humanity.

Ahimsa is Dharma; and Himsa is Adharma. The rule is as simple as that!

[Singhi Kaya]

Harmless in personal context is same as harmless in socital context???

Killing by a soilder to save his culture and doing his duty == killing by a thug who want's the loot money???

I think when society is not goverend according to dharma and dharmic 'danda niti', these things cannot be generalized. We may be just confusing things and slaughtering other divinely attributes of duty, abhay, teja and truth (or dharma itself) at the alter of misunderstood ahimsha.

Himsha at some levels is so natural that one must be non-existent to be an ahmishak. I think only the jinas taught such total ahimsha.

Ahimsha=Harmlessness is a very good defn, but must be interpreted in the context and not alone.

IMHO

[jaggin]

Harmless in personal context is same as harmless in socital context???

Killing by a soilder to save his culture and doing his duty == killing by a thug who want's the loot money???

I think when society is not goverend according to dharma and dharmic 'danda niti', these things cannot be generalized. We may be just confusing things and slaughtering other divinely attributes of duty, abhay, teja and truth (or dharma itself) at the alter of misunderstood ahimsha.

Himsha at some levels is so natural that one must be non-existent to be an ahmishak. I think only the jinas taught such total ahimsha.

Ahimsha=Harmlessness is a very good defn, but must be interpreted in the context and not alone.

IMHO

As I remember the Baghavad Gita Krishnu an avowed incarnation of God was encouraging the king to fight his relative as a matter of duty.

The Abrahamic tradition is replete with God stepping in to aid in a war that was a just cause or self defense. This is what Islam is supposed to follow also but there are always those willing to justify themselves whether God is with them or not.

This is where Bush is. As a Christian there is the injuntion to love our enenmies but his duty requires him to defend the country from terrorism.

[satay]

Namaskar Satay Ji,

Is letting the blood boil OK by Sanatana Dharma? Taking the risk of temperature further rising in this charged emotional environment, I note a few points.

It is Guna bound mind that binds. And it is one's karma alone that places one either in an unfriendly universe where blood may boil or in a pleasant universe. Letting the blood boil is anathema to sanatana dharma.

At a more profound level: ALL THAT ONE SEES IS one's own CONSCIOUSNESS ALONE. Finding out who the seer of all these is, will reform the whole perspective.

At the same time there is definitely no place for cowardice in sanatana dharma. I wonder, if God decided enough is enough and decreed us to join a dharma battle wherein death would be inevitable, how many would not have trepidation?

This has nothing to do with Muslim vs Hindu etc.

Om Namah Shivayya

Namaste Bhiaya,

Let's discuss this on the ahimsa thread. I will move your post there.