Pay attention…this is very important, Satveer. Have you noticed Jesus for yourself…at some moment in time, yet???
That is the advice offered to newly re-elected Minnesota state senator Satveer Chaudhary by his defeated opponent, Rae Hart Anderson, in the concession e-mail she sent him in lieu of the customary phone call. (Thanks, tipster “pardesi”!)
Minneapolis-St. Paul TV station WCCO helpfully provides verbatim text of the e-mail. A true light for Christ, Ms. Anderson proffers an odd form of congratulations before giving our heathen brother some news he can use:
I’ve enjoyed much of this race, especially the people I’ve met…even you! I see your deficits–not all of them, and your potential–but not all of it. Only your Creator knows the real potential He’s put in you. Get to know Him and know yourself…you’ll be more interesting even to you!
The race of your life is more important than this one–and it is my sincere wish that you’ll get to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He died for the sins of the world, yours and mine–and especially for those who accept His forgiveness.
The message continues in this vein, with quotes from Scripture, before ending as follows:
There’s nothing like belonging to Christ…not winning, not money, not degrees…it’s the best.
Good wishes and better wishes…until you wish for the best!
“To get a sermon is definitely a surprise,” Chaudhary told WCCO. (Perhaps he should write back: “Tat tvam asi, Rae!”) Incidentally, Chaudhary’s state senate district overlaps with the US Congress district of Keith Ellison, the nation’s first Muslim congressman, who was asked this gem of a question a couple of days ago on CNN Headline News. It seems that in Minnesota, much of the Lord’s work remains shamefully undone.
Just to throw in my $0.02 on a small part of this discussion – the attitude of the Sangh Parivar and of many “proud Hindus” (including MK Gandhi, by the way) towards conversion is an interesting and often contradictory one. On the one hand, they pride themselves on how Hinduism is a tolerant and open and catholic sort of religion that has room for all sorts of beliefs and rejects orthodoxy/textualism, etc etc, but when folks wish to adopt a new set of beliefs, they don’t seem to trust in Hinduism’s pluralism and resilience quite as much any more, and see this as a mortal insult to the faith or, as Gandhi put it, see conversion as “alienating” Hindus from their “authentic” culture. I always find this somewhat ironic – we are a tolerant, open faith that welcomes critical thinking and new ideas – but you don’t have the choice to reject our core set of beliefs.
The idea of “conversion” to Hinduism is also a fairly modern one, that started when community numbers became an important factor of political power in the late 19C/early 20C, and Hindu reformists often found themselves wooing castes/communities that would have been considered outside the caste order altogether earlier, and asking them to define themselves as Hindu.
Do not spill thy seed upon the ground dear Onan.
Al Mujahid,
No, I don’t know urdu.. didn’t you hear his explanation on how only Islam says 2+2 = 4 , and other religions say 2+2 = 3 or 2+2 = 6.. That’s the one I found funny.. It is very simple and stupid.. No, I don’t think he fits the dictionary meaning of the hypcorite. If any non-Muslim country does the same thing like preventing Muslims wearing burqa or shouting azaan early mornings, he’d proudly claim Muslims are persecuted and call for ‘jihad’.. I have no doubts on that. 🙂
Ah yes, I think pretty much every religion believes that “every sperm is sacred”…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
If you guys are so confident that no Dalit or tribal will convert from Hinduism to any other religion, why pass so many of anti-conversion laws, which is a violation of people’s fundamental rigths?Why arrange elaborate ghar-vapasi programs.
Some Hindu groups believe they are under seige from organizations with far more money, influence and power than they could ever muster. Christianity Inc studies communities right down to the village level, analyzing vulnerability between castes, the ‘weaknesses’ of caste leaders and what have you, to effect conversions. Some of us happen to believe that the missionaries are laboring for a non-existent God, which by itself is not bad, but when its coupled with a belief in “rapture” to a Christian Disney Land (as the new Christian groups in India have a tendency to do) or a hatred for the majority of their fellow citizens as heathens, we do get a little concerned 😉 I don’t think there is anything to be gained from having a supposed rational argument about someone’s religious faith–they believe because they do.
No one here, as far as I can tell, is condoning violence – so you are shooting at red herrings, and though I support anti-conversion by coercion laws, because I am deeply concerned about tribals being manipulated by these organizations, concerned about insurgencies arising in Christian majority areas, etc. only a fool would think they could stop conversions. Every man has his price.
Besides the hypocrisy of the Churches itself, the second reason why Christianity Inc is not getting a decent ROA is because longstanding untouchable Christians are denied reservation benefits. The Madras High Court upheld this a few days ago, when it sensibly granted reservation benefits to a Dalit Christian who reconverted to Hinduism. The Supreme Court will likely follow suit. We will have to support this because we have been told by Christians that Christianity is an egalitarian religion and caste cannot possibly exist within it. 😀
No, American Hindus are not my enemy. Actually, they form the vast majority of my friends in this country .
LOL. Do you even realize how loserish this sounds? Do you know this line is actually employed as a joke?
This looks like a new spin for saving further souls.. If a Dalit embraces other religions he/she basically says screw Hinduism (which is very fair and I completely agree) for treating him/her badly for “supposedly” past wrongs , but he/she can’t play both sides by availing of the benefits only available to Dalit Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs or people whose stories centre around India and not whose stories centre around Arabia/Middle east.. 🙂 Reservations are basically schemes to keep the Dalits in Hindu fold to save the political unity.. I see this Dalit / minorities solidariy talks in Pakistani websites.
No, I don’t know urdu.. didn’t you hear his explanation on how only Islam says 2+2 = 4 , and other religions say 2+2 = 3 or 2+2 = 6.. That’s the one I found funny.. It is very simple and stupid..
Yes and that was beyond stupid. I saw other videos of this fool on youtube and I cant decide whether he is more stupid or vile. My sources tell me that he has quite a following in India and is considered an ‘intellectual giant’.
I heard the same too. looks like there is definitely a dearth of ‘intellectuals’.. Well, in matters of religion, anything goes I think..You just have to quote from some obscure texts a thousand years back.. 🙂
I wonder what Anna thinks about this.
I have read many of her comments complaingin about how her religious affiliation is not respected by many Indians. It would be interesting to read what she feels about this situation objectively.
Truly curious.
Re conversion – This is a political matter even more than it is a religious one. Christianity believes that it is a xtian’s duty to show others the only true way. Since Hindusim holds no such belief, this naturally makes for a skewed playing field where one side can only lose ground. Under the circumstances there is nothing wrong in objecting to aggressive conversion attempts.
Secondly, Christianity is founded on anti-paganism. A study of the spiritual history of Christianity brings out this point in full force. Every important spiritual shift within Christianity was essentially based on accusing the other side of paganism. Now, Hindus are the quintessential pagans so it is out of the question that Hinduism can be respected by Christianity. Notice the use of the word “tolerance” in the common discourse instead of “respect”. Much thought and much politics has gone into the choice of the word “tolerance” since the very foundations of xtianty will begin to crumble if they admit to “respecting” other paths. I think it’s about time anti-paganism be recognized as a form of hate speech. Such talk is decidedly intolerant – and tolerance of such intolerance is about as muddled as it gets.
Naik’s argument is not logically flawed. He did not say that other religions say 2+2=3. What he said is “It’s OK that Saudi and some other Muslim countries don’t allow other religions to preach because they are SURE that Islam is correct.” He said that there is no equivalence between that and the UK/US allowing the propagation of Islam because he says “They allow it because they are not sure that their religion is right. We know so we do not allow..” He uses the math analogy to justify why such sureness would lead to such drastic action. “If it were a matter of math, would the US/UK allow people to propagate 2+2=3? No, because they are SURE of this.”
No need to twist it into something even dumber so that you can attack his point of view even more easily. It’s eminently attackable on other grounds.
It doesn’t bother him that by his taking stances like this, he presents an extreme view that endangers Muslims everywhere. The fact that “Islam is right” is only his opinion and others don’t share it doesn’t bother him. My guess is that he is totally fine with non-Muslim nations not allowing Islam to be practiced. All prospects of peaceful coexistence be damned. He’ll probably respect their religions more because they are sure. He’s not the kind of person who believes in everyone benefitting from exchange and interaction. He’d be fine if everyone just retreated into their respective enclaves in the world and practiced their own religions with great fervor.
Are you not over-emhasizing the importance of sanyasa to hindu thought? Yes, hinduism has an ascetic stream of thought and it is important, but it is hardly mainstream hinduism. A man was supposed to go out into the world when he turned twenty, and spend the next forty years of his in the pursuit of dhan(wealth) and kama(pleasure). Perhaps the only religious book taken seriously by most hindus is the Bhagvad Gita, and it strongly emphasizes the doctrine of karma. Sanyas or asceticism is the final stage, but I do not see how that implies it is the best stage.
At the same time, you are de-emphasizing what you yourself noted in #38, that hindus ‘don’t hold your own inherited religous beliefs strongly or don’t care much about the varied theologies’. Essentially, hinduism has never been particular about doctrine, and hindus don’t see any point in debating it. Just talking to twenty hindus at random will tell you that. And the polytheistic aspect of hinduism ensures there is always space for one more god.
You do realize that this is a strong argument against any religion that tries to govern the day-to-day life of its followers, such as Islam? You implied earlier that there was no space for political centralization in hinduism. Is that not a good thing? I do not see why people’s religious beliefs should be dictated ‘from above’.
Yes, hinduism is tolerant because there is no clergy from above forcing their viewpoints, religious and political, on everyone, telling them it is the only correct interpretation. That is also the reason why it is more open to change.
This certainly does not explain that the two heavily monastic faiths, Buddhism and Jainism, arose and flourished largely during the stable and prosperous Mauryan period, and fell from favor afterwards. And secular political life was horrible all over the world till around two hundred years ago. Or do you think the Indian rajas were particularly disgusting?
Yes, I agree. Hinduism has a LOT to be ashamed of. The caste system cannot be condoned – it is most disgusting. I am just trying to give credit where it is due.
And again, the argument is not plurality by itself, but tolerance of different spiritual viewpoints. Tolerance of Jews, Parsis, christians in the midst of hindus had nothing to do with the caste system.
This is counter-intutive. Oppressive political circumstances have a way of killing all debate. And again you make the argument that the political circumstances in India were special. I am still not sure in what way.
He said that there is no equivalence between that and the UK/US allowing the propagation of Islam because he says “They allow it because they are not sure that their religion is right. We know so we do not allow..”
I dont believe he claims that the others allow propogation of Islam because they are not sure about whether their religion is right. He asserts that it doesnt matter what the others think because only Muslims have the truth aka Islam.
Anna:
I second Post 113. Let us know your views too.
Pooniyan-I’m sorry, I’m not understanding what I said has to do with what Zakir Naik said.If you could elaborate please.
mastervk-Well it seems like youre saying two things.
Hinduism is more an ethnicity, than a religion similar to Judaism’s relationship to Jews. Many Jews say you could be athiest and be a Jew. There are some religous Jews who contest this claim. I’m sure there are Hindus who contest this claim as well. Also, any attempt at defining Hinduism become pointless. Since even your claim is but one of many claims it has no definitive power over other claims.
Also, if Hinduism can be everything, then at the same time its nothing. Can you understand why someone could see it like that?
Razib: I take your argument and agree. But remember sakshi mentioned Inquisition which was not done by ascetics but by an centralised organized bureacratic religous power:The Catholic Church. An organization that involved itself heavily with politics for centuries. There was no equivalent of that India. All rulers had to do was promise to uphold the caste system and establish temples and alms. The religion in India didnt have that mobilizing force in warfare because of a lack of centralised political structure. So asceticism was prominent yes but there was a reason the Reformation happened right? Pope is the Anti-Christ and all that.
Also, could you link me the website or wherever you got that question about “eating food from a non-Muslim.” I tried doing some research but couldnt find anything.
Al Mujahid, I watched the “math” video again. I never heard him say that it doesn’t matter what non-Muslims think and he does talk about being 100% “confirmed that our religion is right”. He also explicitly says that if the Western countries/religions were sure, they WOULD take similarly harsh stances.
But of course, it is implied that it doesn’t matter that others don’t agree. But that’s the next level in the chain of logic – one based on practicality. Otherwise, isn’t that a “principled” stance to take – once you have removed absolutely all traces of doubt from your mind, you could follow your way regardless of what others think. i.e. in his distorted view of reality, this is not a silly argument. IMO, it is this lack of concern for the practical difficulties arising from different people having different “truths” that makes him a loon, not his little 2+2 argument.
Could someone clarify this for me – Are there Muslim countries other than Saudi where construction of places of worship by other religions is totally prohibited?
Also, could you link me the website or wherever you got that question about “eating food from a non-Muslim.” I tried doing some research but couldnt find anything.
e.g., bohra dawadi ismailis can’t take food from idolaters (xtians & jews are ok). personal communication.
Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery,
i takfir your ass. you’ve got 3 months to repent for your ridda before some righteous believer puts a cap in your ass!
ALM and Ponniyin,
Last night Ponniyin’s link to Doctor Shahib’s youtube led to me an hour of “bahut khub” (excellent) viewing of similar youtubes. Today, I am sounding like one of them.
Gazali’s tone is so supremist that it freightens me. On another note, the link Siddhartha put had Glenn Beck asking Rep. Keith Ellison, “[W]hat I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies’ “
Is is just me or this Glenn Beck guy extremely creepy looking. I get totally creeped out just looking at him. Now I find out that he is a nut too. Not to mention how offensive it is to ask an elected rep this question? In the Daily show tradition … I would ask him : “Glenn prove to me that you are not a creepy child molester”. :-))
Sakshi:
Tolerance of Jews, Parsis, christians in the midst of hindus had nothing to do with the caste system. \
I disagree. Jews in other non-Abrahamic cultures, viz. China, assimilated out of existence. The caste system allowed them to maintain a distinct communal identity of their own. Those here so enamored of Indian philosphy and consider its schools superior to Christianity should keep in mind that caste – despite all its shortcomings as a social system in this egalitarian zeitgeist – played a part in preventing a large scale conversion of the subcontinent. There is a reason India is not Persia or Indonesia – and why Prester John remained in the realm of myth.
Zakir Naik sounds marathi in his Urdu accent. But If you ask him he would be offended if you said that you sound “marathi” 🙂 I dont have to mention how stupid he sounds.
Kush, That link of Dr. Israr Ahmed was good too. But that guy was preety blunt. ( “Din hamara hoga, nahi to talvar le lo aur faisla kar dete hai maidan-e-jung me”.)
It would be very interesting to know how many people actually subscribe to this type of views? Anyone??
sakshi:
I feel that you are not understanding me and we are simpy talking past each other. I am simply making the statement, that you agreed with, that what people call “Hinduism” is not really a “religion” but a “civilization.” So therefore, the “tolerance” of diverse religious beleifs in “Hindu civilization” should be compared to the tolerance of “Western civilization” for example, not with “Christianity” which is a contending truth claim within Western civilization.
Also, the alienation/seperation of dharma from secular political power in India was more pronounced than in Europe or the Middle East. However, this is not necessarily tolerance but the fact that religius groups were scattered and could not pose a strong political movement. Also, all rajas had to do was uphold the caste system to keep the Brahmins and entrenched interests happy and give money for temples and alms. This is not a VALUE-STATMENT. I’m not saying this is good o bad, Im saying this is what happened and it accounts for certain differences, not something inherent in “Hinduism” or “Christianity” .
Basically, when it came to warfare, people in India historically rallied around their kingdom, their ethnicity and not their religion. It doesnt make it that religion was more tolerant, it just wasnt central to day to day life other than rituals. In the Christian and Muslim worlds religion was a bigger part of identity and provided a framework for politics that was lacking in India. That is all. No one was better or worse. Like my man said way at the beginning “Comprehendo?”
Razib- Okay, thanks. But your statement then seems a bit disengenous. To take the statement from a subsect within a sect within a sect and then to take it from a personal communication from one person within this whole thing,and then generalise it upon Muslims altogether don’t seem right to me. If I were to make the claim “Yes Muslims also beleive that the white race was created by a big headed scientist named Yaqoub” simply because one person whose a 5 Percenter, an offshoot of Nation of Islam which is itself an offshoot of Islam told me so, wouldnt you find that a bit inaccurate?
ghazali,
i come from a long line of ulams who work within the hanafi framework. the same concerns about purity re: idolaters has cropped up in conversation (who of my uncles is a tableeghi who never tires of discussing the finer points of such things with the ulams in my family). i have heard muslims express attitudes about ‘cleanliness’ of non-muslims which are remiscient of hindus many times. i think the sentiment is the same as hindus, only the demarcation point is between believers and non-believers, instead of caste. go to islamonline and enter ‘kuffar food’ into the search box. though the responses tend to assert it is OK to take food from kuffars/unbelievers so long as it is halal, it is clear that many muslims are unaware of this and live under the impression it is not.
The caste system allowed them to maintain a distinct communal identity of their own.
re: jews in india, it is more complex than that. the jews of kaifeng in india were far away from connections with the rest of the diaspora. though they started as rabbnical jews (perhaps derived from the persian community via the silk road) they simply lost their rabbis and a slow but inexorable process of attrition occurred as promising young men entered the mandarinate instead of the rabbinical profession. the situation in india is very different because the jewish community in kerala remained in contact with the middle eastern communities, and there were even german jews who fled pogroms in the rhineland who eventually made the journey to india and replenished the local community. the idea that caste helped the jews maintain continuity is correct in my opinion, but it was not sufficient, as the taboos between jews and non-jews mixing were strong in china because of the dietary differences (pork). muslims in china persevered in part because a constant number of immigrants replenished the community (there are parts of south china where muslims have clearly been totally assimilated into the native substrate). in any case, the jews of india, excluding the recent baghdadi jewish communities, have intermarried, which would add a twist into the ‘caste preserves’ narrative (for the record, the jewish communities the world over show the genetic signature of native women marrying in).
Razib- I’ve heard Muslims call Hindus “kaffirs” which is a very strong (and has certain conditions for use) word but unfortunately is very common. But the term doesnt imply any “physical inherent impurity” upon the Hindu.Muslims don’t walk the other way when a Hindu comes in Bangladesh for example. I guess what Im comparing it to is that Hindus have a “ritual impurity” aspect where lower castes or non-Hindus physical contact could be labeled as “defilement.” For example, during my grandfathers time pre-partition Bengal, one complaint that Muslims would level at their Hindu neighbors was that whenever a Muslim stepped foot in a Hindu home, a Hindu would smear cow dung over the ground the Muslim stepped on to mark it as defiled. This has no paralell in any ritual sense with Muslims.Yes, Muslims look down on Hindus, for worshiping idols and for being “pagans” in general, but Hindus do look down on Muslims as lower on the cultural scale and as almost physically corrupting. Think about it, them Hindutva cats always concerned with Muslim dudes allegedly raping and defiling their “pure” maidens. There is a difference that is not being accounted for in your analogy.
Also, the Muslims that you;ve encountered that think that Hindus are dirty I’m willing to bet were desi Muslims. You would have take into culture.My black muslim friends have never heard of such an idea. Maybe they are simply emulating a cultural model of looking at the “other”that is prominent in South Asia. I mean there is no official caste system in Bangladesh today, but it doesnt stop Muslims from looking down at other people for being so and so profession. The Prophet shared food and ate with his servants. Imagine doing that in Bangladesh. (I did when I was younger, it was a scene). So theres alot to say for culture.
ghazali, a few points
1) i don’t deny that hindus have issues with purity. a branch of my own family are recent converts from hinduism. when my father was young and he visited friends of the family who were traditionally socially close to the hindu side of my family and remained he resented the purity obsessions they had. in fact, my grandmother who was born a hindu (though her father converted when she was a toddler, so he does not remember being hindu) unconsciously perpetuates caste “cleanliness” behaviors. my father and his siblings picked up on these habits from their mother, and so even though they are all muslims of genuine piety they preserve hindu customs (my grandfather was an ulam, and unlike most bengali muslims none of his children had bengali ‘dhak’ names, only ‘muslim’ ones).
2) i have observed the same fixations with purity from saudi students that i have met here in the united states in their attitudes toward non-muslims. a muslim of turkish ethnicity who grew up in germany commented that germans were ‘unclean, because they are what they eat’ (i.e., pork). so i don’t think it is just limited to brown muslims, though these issues of purity and status are accentuated among brownz because of their cultural background.
3) i can believe that recent converts have none of these hang ups. religion is not derived, in my opinion, from just a set of axioms or a text, it is a living thing that emerges from a cultural matrix.
4) Think about it, them Hindutva cats always concerned with Muslim dudes allegedly raping and defiling their “pure” maidens. and yet customary muslim law does not allow muslim women to marry non-muslim men. why? because religion is assumed to pass through the patriline. in contrast, muslim males may marry non-muslim females. certainly hindutva have issues with muslim males marrying hindu women, but i dare to contend that muslims would not object to hindu males marrying muslim females (the cases i know where this has occured tends to elicit negative comment and concern).
5) my point is not that hindus or muslims have more or less of a fixation on purity. i think it is plausible to say that hindus have a fixation on caste purity and ritual cleanliness and uncleanliness, but this is not a hindu monopoly. jewish obsession with kosher is pretty analogous, and also interpersonal contact with gentiles. there was a 19th century mockery of religious jews by secular jews which lampooned how religious jews behaved which went like so: the cossacks pillage jewish villages and rape the women. the first thing that the jewish men of the village do is go to the rabbi and ask, “rabbi, my wife, permissible or impermissible?” (in regards to whether the marriage was still viable or not) the issue here is that rape made the women unclean, at least in perception. my own contention is that some muslims have the same attitudes toward non-muslims. this is not something that is necessarily a function of religious indoctrination, i think it is a function of psychological hardwiring which becomes manifest within a cultural matrix. e.g., see paul bloom’s idea of “innnate dualism” and “theory of contagion.” medieval christian statutes show the same tendency toward perceiving muslims and jews as “unclean.”
Yes, hindu civilization should be compared to western civilization. But the various ‘truth-claims’ within hinduism, such as samkhya, mimamsa, vedanta, etc, also do not make an exclusive claims to the knowledge of the truth, nor do they recommend persecution or conversion of people who do not agree with them.
So every explanation makes sense, except tolerance? All I can say is that all this is very conjectural but you are entitled to your viewpoint.
It doesnt make it that religion was more tolerant, it just wasnt central to day to day life other than rituals. In the Christian and Muslim worlds religion was a bigger part of identity and provided a framework for politics that was lacking in India.
there are lots of problems with these assertions. many of your comments are difficult to parse, how do you determine how “central” religion is to someone’s life? did medieval christians spend a lot more time thinking about god than medieval hindus? your initial comment was problematic in my opinion. my experience is that many muslims are not particularly steeped in the theology and doctrine of their own religion, they can repeat the basic mantras, so to speak. same with hindus. the main difference seems to be that american hindus tend to be a generally secular lot vis-a-vis american muslims (the jewish analogy). you say you are exploring indian religion and hinduism, and i would just suggest that you do more exploring before engaging in broad stroke generalizations since you admit to knowing more about islam than hinduism.
Razib: But the Jews in Kerala are just one part of the Jewish diaspora which includes Bene Israel Jews, Bhagdad Jews, etc., so the record shows multiple Jewish communities emerging in the modern period disctinct. Yes I agree, caste is not the whole story, but you seem to agree that it was contributory,, which is more beneficience than would be allowed by most.
Ghazali:
Also, the alienation/seperation of dharma from secular political power in India was more pronounced than in Europe or the Middle East. However, this is not necessarily tolerance but the fact that religius groups were scattered and could not pose a strong political movement.
Yes the Brahmin and the Ksatriya occupations were always distinct; there were no “God-kings” etc. But this division springs from the Vedic view itself; from the various dharmashastras that are puported to follow the Vedas and from general practice. Basically, when it came to warfare, people in India historically rallied around their kingdom, their ethnicity and not their religion. It doesnt make it that religion was more tolerant, it just wasnt central to day to day life other than rituals.
This makes no sense. If religious identity wasn’t central (in the sense that people would not go out and kill for religion), then the dharmic framework WOULD be tolerant, now wouldn’t it?! You say this is civilizational, but would it hold up individually, among the competing schools? Can you name a particular sect within the dharma framework – Shaiva, Vaishnava, Bauddha, Jaina, Lokayata – that has a long and sustained history of killing for Truth?
Take a look at Gupta archaeological remains. In the allegedly classical “Hindu” resurgence, you have Buddhist viharas and Jain temples side by side with Vaishnava and Shaiva temples. Hindu rajas in Kerala donated land and space to Churches in the 7th century, as the Kotayyam plates demonstrate; there are hundreds of examples.
You claim that Christianity is only “one of the competing truth claims” in Western civilization. I agree with you, if your time frame is post 16th century. But you have a difficult time recognizing the possibility that plurality might be a truth claim in itself, and dismiss it as “postmodernism” 🙂
You actually find his equating muslims faith in Islam with mathematical certainty, logical???
Why should it bother him to say what he “knows” is as true as 2+2=4? The “extreme” view of Islam that these dangerous fundamentalists preach is the Islam as practiced by Mohammad and his companions. In other words, this is the true, pure Islam. If you reject this Islam you are in effect rejecting Mohammad’s claim to be the “last prophet”.
I found both your and Zakir Naik’s tones the same.. the 2+2=4 logic.. that’s it..
Kush, thanks for the link.. I’d bookmark it and see whenever I need bouts of laughter.. 🙂
Little bit more on caste and Jews, from a review of KASHRUT, CASTE AND KABBALAH — The Religious Life of the Jews of Cochin, which I have not read, but would like to:
The authors maintain that in every culture the Jewish worship resembles the host country. They believe that Hindu symbols and behaviours of priestly purity were adapted in Cochin Pesach and minhang. The important question at this level raised by them is that of Jewish observances of the Cochin Jews and the caste status established by them through their rituals. They further opine that one of the most important ways in which they emulated the caste behaviour is by proliferating into endogamous sub-groups. This separation was maintained through dietary restrictions. Their endogamy and Kashruth set them apart from each other.
Ghazali:
Also, the Muslims that you;ve encountered that think that Hindus are dirty I’m willing to bet were desi Muslims. You would have take into culture.My black muslim friends have never heard of such an idea. Maybe they are simply emulating a cultural model of looking at the “other”that is prominent in South Asia. I mean there is no official caste system in Bangladesh today, but it doesnt stop Muslims from looking down at other people for being so and so profession.
Oh come Gazali, Brown islam was rife with caste. Looking out to an allegedly purer form of Islam among “Black Muslims” is culturally defeating.
There were Sunni and Shia castes of professions – weavers, scribes, butchers, slaves; and ‘racial’ categorizations, turks, persians, mixed race, tribal etc. Even within locality, they were internally segregated by caste divion; caste loyalty could transcend religious loyalty. To allege that Hindus and Muslims did not share the same worldview (of which caste was central)until the colonial period would be a reengineering of history.
BTW the Bangladeshi scholar Rafiuddin Ahmed is one of the leading defenders of Brown Islam vis a vis Arab “purity.”
Well done, pantheist. Well done. My bigotry and extremism can surely not be hidden from you for long. Now, go and read my post #115.
Who are you, dude? Captain Obvious?
“Pagans/kafirs/heathens” need to grow a spine and confront these asinine abrahamists head on. Besides buddhism, hinduism, taoism, confucianism, sikhism, jainism, shamanism etc, greek philosophy too is pagan. The very foundation of modernity, Reason and Science, is pagan.
Christianity was kicked off its pedestal by the rational Enlightenment philosophers and kings who much preferred the pagan Greek Philosophers (and Confucius) over the Church and its prophets. The shamanic/pagan Mongol warriors came pretty close to wiping out Islam in the 13th century. Similar drastic actions will eventually have to be taken against this current abrahamic menace.
kurma, educate yourself! pantheist is offended, insulted even. that’s who patheist is 🙂
Anyone who thinks that everything=nothing needs his head examined.
i’ve only read your statement and do not know the full context in theological terms – however just for the sake of completion – in measure theory the notion you mock isnt far fetched. The impulse is measurably non-zero on a support of measure zero. i’ll present this another way. a layperson interprets the impulse as having a magnitude of infinity at a single point on R – but with measure 1. the single point of course is the support with measure 0. g’nite.
i suppose that’s why the hindus put a tilak on their forehed – it’s the representation of the dirac delta function. oy vey! apu’s really smart.
Looks like we have an apologist for the caste system here. Apologists for slavery, nazism etc, manage to find plenty of “beneficence” in their own particular ideologies as well.
uh, not to go off topic, seeming that this comment thread has turned into religion 101, but here’s an article from today’s star trib that gives more insight into chaudary’s good natured response to the “congratulation” email letter:
http://www.startribune.com/357/story/820037.html
it’s the representation of the dirac delta function
A dirac delta function (a spontaneous response for just an instance) in one domain is white noise (covers the entire the width) in another domain. That is one of the most profound thought by Paul Dirac of 20th century, and even includes Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (fineness in one domain becomes extremely crude in another). Therefore, everything clear in one domain = nothing resolvable in another domain.
Maybe, Hindu thinkers were on something. I thought the concept of shuniya touches that. This means that a hair splitting discussion on comment board like SM means nothing to masses.
Edumacated! Hairy_D, are you a physicist/Engineer by training? My top guess would be physicist/chemist.
Looks like we have an apologist for the caste system here.
Oh you nailed me macacaroach. BTW everyone who has married within caste, is, in a sense, an apologist for the caste system. I would much prefer to be a caste apologist than a banned troll who resurfaces under a different identity.
Apologists for slavery, nazism etc, manage to find plenty of “beneficence” in their own particular ideologies as well.
LOL 🙂 Godwin’s Law Alert.
LOL. Talk about far-fetched. How can a mathematical function that involves infinitesimal narrowness be everything? Methinks Apu isnt nearly as smart as he thinks he is:
http://cnx.org/content/m10059/latest/
“The Dirac Delta function, often referred to as the unit impulse or delta function, is the function that defines the idea of a unit impulse. This function is one that is infinitesimally narrow, infinitely tall, yet integrates to unity”
Kush, Hairy,
Dil khush kar diya yaar! Measure theory, Fourier transform – this is headed in the right direction 🙂
LOL. Talk about far-fetched. How can a mathematical function that involves infinitesimal narrowness be everything
just take a fourier transform of dirac delta function, and see what happens. hairy_d is not talking nonsense. Dirac bhai, that definition means more than you and I can even understand.
please read white noise, and its relationship to dirac delta function.
Of course he is. A mathematical concept that involves infinitesimal width, infinite height and unit area is neither nothing, nor everything. Get it?
If you two think that the Dirac Delta Function means nothing can be everything then you have not understood it at all.
…brown…nerdz.
ad hominem?
“uh, not to go off topic, seeming that this comment thread has turned into religion 101, but here’s an article from today’s star trib that gives more insight into chaudary’s good natured response to the “congratulation” email letter:
http://www.startribune.com/357/story/820037.html“
Thanks whatevs 🙂
Seems like Satveer Chaudhary has handled himself pretty well in response to the email. From the article:
Indeed he does.
Hehe… nice one 🙂