M. Rahman Said: Time and again I find words like civilized version, civilized world, modern civilized human beings etc. being used emphatically to draw a line between, I would say, the Muslims and the non Muslims. It is quite interesting to see a well educated man, like Mr. M. Rahman, cannot understand what a civilized human-being stands for, and what civilized culture means. Mr. Rahman, nobody is using these words to define entire Muslim Ummah, only some Muslims, like yourself, who want to go back to the 5th century prehistoric life-style. There are plenty of Hindus who would like to live in the Vedic era, when Gods and Goddesses would physically appear in front of them when they would seek their help. There was a time when Hindus would burn women in the pyre of their husbands. There was a time when people used to sacrifice human lives to please God. Those times are long gone, and no civilized Hindus would like to go back to those days. Better yet, even if some of them may want to go back they can't. If people cannot make these distinctions, I would say, they are uncivilized. How come being a well educated man you have so much trouble sorting these things out? Have you lost your mind? Mr. Rahman, before you talk about 'Parda' for women, can you wear 'Borqua' for one year, as suggested by S. Bain, because women get aroused from under the veils when they see you wearing shorts or T-shirts? Yes, eating with 'spoon' is healthier than eating with 'hand.' You could not figure this out also. You said: "The basis of Islam is faith in the unseen Allah….Bangladesh slowly but surely, the Muslims are being drawn away from this belief and the country is being flooded with statues and replicas where they are being enticed to bow down, show reverence etc. For example laying wreaths in front of flames, pictures, monuments, graves, sculptures etc. All these have been prohibited by Islam. ..BUT if Muslims make such structures or statues and start worshiping them, then other Muslims SHOULD break them." You cannot make a distinction between monuments and sculptures from idols of gods and goddesses. You cannot make a distinction between commemorations of historical events and loved ones from worshiping God. Can you? Your brain is full of nothingness. You want to destroy everything that is beautiful around you. You want to live in the desert. You really need help. You Said: "A Muslim should NOT break the idols which people of other beliefs worship." This is the only thing you said that is "civilized." Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Jiten Roy
--- On Fri, 2/24/12, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, February 24, 2012, 10:51 PM
Mr. Mustafizur Rahman has raised two important points. One: The line between civilized and uncivilized human beings. Is it between non-Muslims and Muslims? Certainly not; Mr. Rahman's conjecture is unfounded. There are many different aspects of life that can be called civilized or uncivilized; and not all of them are related to religions. For example, to me, hatred, atrocity and criminality are most uncivilized, whether they come from religion or non-religion. On the issue of bikinis and head-to-toe coverings, in my opinion, too much of body exposure is a mild form of incivility, since it does not harm anyone; good people can simply ignore it. Covering oneself head-to-toe is not only too backward, it can be used to hide oneself to commit crimes, which should be seriously objectionable especially when done under the holiness of religion. Forcing women to cover themselves up head-to-toe so that they would not cause undue sexual attraction by men is an oppression of women, which would be in the category of injustice and hatred. It surely makes women lead an inferior life compared to men. To me, a civilized system would demand that men would control their undue sexuality, as opposed to demanding head-to-toe covering for women. Why should women be required to sacrifice their comfort for the reckless minds of men? Before suggesting that head-to-toe covering is not uncomfortable, men should try it for a few hundred hours over a period of three months in the hot and humid weather (April-June) of Bangladesh; no need for the overly brainwashed victims to testify on this. Two: Islam has prohibited worshiping idols. I am glad that Mr. Rahman has highlighted, "FOR THE MUSLIMS." I also appreciate his statement, "A Muslim should NOT break the idols which people of other beliefs worship." However, I see a big problem in statements like "BUT if Muslims make such structures or statues and start worshiping them, then other Muslims SHOULD break them." Let us look at Mr. Rahman's point on the Shaheed Minars, statues, replicas, flames, pictures, monuments, graves, sculptures, etc. Mr. Rahman has implied that saluting them is the same as worshiping them, which most sensible people would not agree with. Most people who are saluting them in Bangladesh identify themselves as Muslims. Those Muslims are doing it out of their own feelings, not because of any kind of pressure from non-Muslims. If Mr. Rahman's interpretations are strictly Islamic, those people are not strict Muslims. However, do the strict followers of Islam have a right to force or intimidate other Muslims to follow the religion strictly? Shouldn't they just leave it up to their almighty to punish the inexact followers and non-followers of their religion? Again, I would say that people who claim to be believers do not really believe the almightiness of their almighty if they think he needs their help in keeping his wishes going on this Earth. Besides, if religions were about the truth of life and after-life, why should one's religion depend on one's birth? For the most part, religions have been proven to be mostly like clanships. If they were about anything like the truth about the so-called almighty, all knowing, and merciful God, we would have seen a lot more voluntary conversions by people who are old enough and can make mature judgments. What we see in reality are too many human beings who show too much of the signs of brainwashing while they were in their mother's womb and during the early and immature stages of their life on Earth? Having said the above, I would like to see comments from people who have opened the religious books with neutrality, and with no favoritism or malice; and tried to read as much as they could handle. Thanks, Sukhamaya Bain
From: MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN <mustafiz84@hotmail.com>
To: Mukto-mona Mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:13 PM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
Time and again I find words like civilized version, civilized world, modern civilized human beings etc. being used emphatically to draw a line between, I would say, the Muslims and the non Muslims. Some Members use these words in a manner to demean the other opinion holders. Thus they want to show their superiority complex! Where does one draw the line on the global map to differentiate the 'civilized world' from the 'uncivilized'? People wearing bikinis are civilized and those adopting purda are not? Those eating with their hands and licking their fingers after eating are uncivilized and those eating with spoons and forks are civilized?
To continue with the thread of discussion, Islam has strictly prohibited worshiping idols. The basis of Islam is faith in the unseen Allah. But in Bangladesh, very cunningly this basis of faith is being diluted. By erecting a Shaheed Minar and putting flowers at its base to show respect to an action of 1952, Muslims are been pulled away from this edict of Islam. Islam strictly prohibits such acts. Muslims are taught to seek blessings for such acts or sacrifices in mosques or at home in specific ways shown by the Prophet of Islam (PBUH). But in Bangladesh slowly but surely, the Muslims are being drawn away from this belief and the country is being flooded with statues and replicas where they are being enticed to bow down, show reverence etc. For example laying wreaths in front of flames, pictures, monuments, graves, sculptures etc. All these have been prohibited by Islam.
If this continues, a time will when the younger generation of today will forget tomorrow the difference between idol worshiping and showing respect or reverence. In the schools of Bangladesh young children are shrewdly being brought to stone structures in barefoot with flowers in their hands to show respect. All in the name of culture or tradition!! It has been strictly prohibited by the Prophet of Islam FOR THE MUSLIMS.
A Muslim should NOT break the idols which people of other beliefs worship. BUT if Muslims make such structures or statues and start worshiping them, then other Muslims SHOULD break them.
Mustafizur Rahman
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com From: subain1@yahoo.com Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:51:14 -0800 Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly I also thank Mr. Rahman and many Muslims in Bangladesh who support ensuring safety and security for 'idol worshiping'. However, the idea of providing protection is not adequate, the proof of which we have seen numerous times in Bangladesh. Depending on which party is in power and on which individuals make up the protecting police team, the safety and security of 'idol worshiping' get breached. I think the real issue is the fact that the Islamic prohibition of 'idol worshiping' has caused too much criminality and enormous undue sufferings for too many innocent people in the world. Modern civilized human beings need to reject the criminal mindset itself. The way I see it, honorable societies and countries would not care why and in what context an act of hatred was endorsed by a religion, they would just reject the hatred, following the religion or not. Modern developed countries of the world have largely succeeded on this. For example, in the USA, Hindu temples do not need any special protection by the police; they can function as safely as Christian churches. Now, see how much protection the average Hindu temple needs in Bangladesh compared to the average Muslim mosque! For the specific issue of 'idol worshiping', I think the Muslims should have total freedom of not doing it. However, they do not have any right to force or intimidate a Hindu to stop doing it in his home or temple. For a more civilized version, they have no right to force even a person who was born in a Muslim family to not do it. If the Muslims of Bangladesh were as enlightened as that, there would be no need for any special protection of 'idol worshiping'. Well, that is all for now, Sukhamaya Bain
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
I have thanked Mr. Kamal Das also for enlighteneing us with Koranic knowledge. Not only Islam, other religions including "nirakarbadee" Hindus do not worship idols. I am not very sure what kind of comment you want. Asking for security at any place which is potentially in danger from any kind of lawlessness situation is a legitimate right. If Mr. Rahman is asking for it for the Hindus, I must thank him for good feelings for his fellow Hindu citizens. Have I answered your question? Please let me know.
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
SC: "Meat eaters will slaughter animals. That should be O.K. Let us do it in a civilized manner." SB: Amen to what Mr. Chakrabarty wrote. Now, let me ask Mr. Chakrabarty to comment on the following comment by Q. A. Rahman, whom he has thanked on a different thread for 'enlightening us with the Koranic knowledge': "For example, Islam is totally against "Idol worshiping" but out of respect to many Hindus in Bangladesh, our government keep extra security to ensure a safe and joyous festivals for Hindus. I strongly support such steps to ensure safety and security." I wanted to provide some guidance, but let me refrain from that. I will comment, if necessary after comments from Mr. Chakrabarty, and from anyone else who may do it. Sukhamaya Bain From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
Animals are killed. They are killed in the name of religion, nutrition, and vanity (omuk mia this time bought a cow at Tk. 5 lac, or omuk babu scrificed ten pathas.) They are mostly done publicly in our subcontinent. You are not allowed to do it publicly in an advanced country. If you do it, you will be accused of committing cruelty to animals. Even you cannot show slaughter/sacrifice in images. This is civilized behavior. I have heard complaints about the way cows are slaughtered in the public areas. The mess made is unhygeinic. Meat eaters will slaughter animals. That should be O.K. Let us do it in a civilized manner.
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
This probably would be my last comments on Q. A. Rahman's posts, at least for a while. Let me go point by point. QAR: "In theory everything is possible. BUT this also means you are "Proposing" to impose your values on others!!" SB: I was not proposing to impose anything on anyone. I was just trying to put some sense into the heads of people who are too brainwashed to find any imperfection, let alone faults, in the religion that they inherited from their parents. I probably should admit, how foolish of me to get into trying an unattainable goal! I am not sure what Mr. Rahman means by "your values." But I would certainly claim to have a superior value system than the average ignorant religious person of any kind. QAR: "There are places in India where Muslims are not "Allowed" to slaughter cow. Last time I checked Bangladesh is not part of India." SB: Good point! Some people in the world do sensible things voluntarily, some people are sensible because they are not allowed to act on their insensibility. QAR: "Still ALL religious sentiments have to be considered. NOT just for one community for long term peace here." SB: How is killing cow a religious sentiment for the Muslims? Their religious books certainly did not ask them to slaughter cow. So, is the sentiment like, "To prove that I am a Muslim, I have to show that I kill, with a lot of fanfare, the animal that the Hindus treat like a god?" QAR: "The fundamental DIFFERENCE in Muslim and Hindu narrative is unlike Hindu tradition God of Abraham (Allah-SWT) did NOT want human's to be sacrificed. While many Hindu gods (According to the tradition) do accept such "Sacrifices"." SB: I do not think a thoroughly brainwashed religious Muslim is in a position to judge the differences between Islam and any other religion. There are differences. Some differences would make Islam better; some differences would make Islam worse. Seriously religious people are too biased to see the faults in their own religion. Unfortunately, I do not have much time to talk about what I call "the primitive wisdoms" in the religions. Sukhamaya Bain From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
I'll become crazy if I keep getting such big doses of 'knowledge'.
>>>> ![;-)]()
< From member Bain>
Muslims could certainly give up the extra 15% similarity
> out of respect for their neighbors, and out of caring for a harmonious
> coexistence with the neighbors, while following their own religious
> tradition.
>>>>>>>>>> In theory everything is possible. BUT this also means you are "Proposing" to impose your values on others!!
I can understand if the request is to hide the animal from public eye as a good neighbor. But your are actually "Bold" enough the propose this on the whole country.
During my university days, I had a Roommate (Still very good friends) who came from Hindu tradition. I never cooked beef in front of him albeit he gave me permission. That is courtesy and I understand that. But your proposal is only good for mindless debate in this forum but not a "Practical" solution for a whole country.
There are places in India where Muslims are not "Allowed" to slaughter cow. Last time I checked Bangladesh is not part of India. So I think more "Practical" solution can be reached. Otherwise our people would think a minority values have been imposed on us. Also beef is cheaper in Bangladesh (Because Indian Hindus have no problem selling cows to Muslims who would make beef curry out of it!) and a good source of protein. It would deprive many poor people from getting their protein intake. Still ALL religious sentiments have to be considered. NOT just for one community for long term peace here.
As far as I know, the pre-Islamic prophet Ibrahim
> was ready to sacrifice his son Ishmail to express his true devotion to God.
> The Hindus used to sacrifice little children to please their God by offering
> the purest/most sinless thing. Of course, this kind of human sacrifices
> would be seriously prosecuted in today's world, because we are civilized
> enough to realize that the person that is to be offered/sacrificed has a
> right to this world, which even his/her father can not take away; devotion
> to God or not.
>>>>>>>>> This is a good point. The fundamental DIFFERENCE in Muslim and Hindu narrative is unlike Hindu tradition God of Abraham (Allah-SWT) did NOT want human's to be sacrificed. While many Hindu gods (According to the tradition) do accept such "Sacrifices".
The Muslim story shows us Allah (SWT) want our love and devotion towards Him but NOT our sons!!
Again NOT here to criticize other views here BUT need to point out this FUNDAMENTAL difference in narratives.
Hope this will be some help those who seek to understand different point of views.
Shalom!
![Yahoo! Groups]() . ![]()
|
