- First let me add a point to what Dr. Bain has said: a hindu's eating beaf or a muslim's eating pork is not the acid test for concluding that the person under consideration is a good human being. This only tells us that by using reason he has acquired enough to courage break the norm, and this person deserves my salutation.
- Mr. Q. Rahman's arguments are not tenable. Let me explain why I think so. I was born and raised in a communally mixed society. In my childhood I was exposed to both middle-class hindu and muslim cultures in a mufassil town. I have noticed that during the childhood both hindu and muslim kids are taught with equal emphasis that it is extremely sinful to eat the "forbidden" meat. It has nothing to do with what gods or goddesses a hindu worships.
- I also agree with Bain that proportionately Bengali muslims living in western countries outnumber Bengali hindus living in western countries in strictly following this childhood teaching. One explanation is that in general fear instilled in the mind during the childhood is more deep-rooted in case of a muslim. Also, historically Bengali hindus (particularly Calcutta based) have pioneered in showing the light to the rest of Bengal, nay, the the rest of India.
- I personally believe in the principle of freedom of thinking and speech. I will respectfully disagree with some one, but will never be so intolerant that I will hire/instigate/encourage some one to act violently against a person who has "insulted" a personality whom I hold high. Not only that, I will oppose and discourage such action. I never paired up with those who threatened Fida out of India for painting nude Saraswati. To me, this is civilized behavior.
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
Thus, insulting him would be no joke according to the fundamentals of Hinduism. But the Hindus do it anyway; no one gets death threats for doing it. To me, that is a sign that Hindus are progressing faster toward a rational Human identity.
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for making an important point about religion and how religious people react to certain actions.
You are correct that, most Hindus (Many does!!) don't get mad if someone says something bad about god Krishna. Then the point was made about how Muslims react.
Here member Bain compared Islam and Hinduism as two comparable religions. I want to ask are they?
Islam is a very structured religion. It covers almost all aspects of our lives, philosophy, laws, values etc.
As I discussed earlier that, Hinduism is not even a name of a religion. According to Hindu scholars the name should be "Shanatan Dharma". If you ask around the sub-continent among followers of this dharma that, how many gods do you pray to? You will get many different answers. Some will say one, some will say three and some will go around 330 million gods!!
Among Bangla speaking people "Durga puja" is most important but other parts of India "Hanuman" is more important and to some "Diwali" is most important. So what we call "Hinduism" is more of a "Tradition" than a structured religion. It varies FUNDAMENTALLY among followers. Albeit those Hindus who are fortunate to read Vedas and other scriptures, they will talk about one God too. Most Hindus don't agree with that focus. So you are not going to get an united reaction from Hindu community.
You will not see such "Fundamental diversity" among Muslims. Pretty much all Muslims agree on "Fundamentals of Islam". No Muslim can say he/she prays to more than one God. No Muslim can say he/she denies prophet Muhammad or prophet Adam (PBUT). So when distortion of truth takes place, when insults takes place global Muslim population take note. Most of them (99.99%) do not react to such filth but we love our prophet SO MUCH that, for some it is not possible to take these filth without "Answering". I wished that was not the case but for 0.01% Muslims want to "Respond" to such provocations.
I bet if someone insults Mahatma Gandhi in Greece or Germany, India will react violently to it. Because of his compassion , his values, his love, his devotion demands respect. Similarly prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was a real person. His love, compassion, mercy, ideals, devotion reached an amazing level. It is coward and obscene to insult a man who died over 1400 years ago. Since he cannot react to any of these provocations, some of his followers (Who love him very much) it is unfair to allow people to do that to a such a kind man.
I think tolerating constructive criticism deserves credit but I respectfully disagree to the assumption that, tolerating insults of Khrisna made Hindus more progressive!!
If someone says something ugly about our mothers (Or even motherland!), we react or hold our anger. Why people expect that, the most admirable person in human history should NOT get the same reaction?
Allow me to share some of the words said by some well known non-Muslims about Muhammad (PBUH).
You are correct that, most Hindus (Many does!!) don't get mad if someone says something bad about god Krishna. Then the point was made about how Muslims react.
Here member Bain compared Islam and Hinduism as two comparable religions. I want to ask are they?
Islam is a very structured religion. It covers almost all aspects of our lives, philosophy, laws, values etc.
As I discussed earlier that, Hinduism is not even a name of a religion. According to Hindu scholars the name should be "Shanatan Dharma". If you ask around the sub-continent among followers of this dharma that, how many gods do you pray to? You will get many different answers. Some will say one, some will say three and some will go around 330 million gods!!
Among Bangla speaking people "Durga puja" is most important but other parts of India "Hanuman" is more important and to some "Diwali" is most important. So what we call "Hinduism" is more of a "Tradition" than a structured religion. It varies FUNDAMENTALLY among followers. Albeit those Hindus who are fortunate to read Vedas and other scriptures, they will talk about one God too. Most Hindus don't agree with that focus. So you are not going to get an united reaction from Hindu community.
You will not see such "Fundamental diversity" among Muslims. Pretty much all Muslims agree on "Fundamentals of Islam". No Muslim can say he/she prays to more than one God. No Muslim can say he/she denies prophet Muhammad or prophet Adam (PBUT). So when distortion of truth takes place, when insults takes place global Muslim population take note. Most of them (99.99%) do not react to such filth but we love our prophet SO MUCH that, for some it is not possible to take these filth without "Answering". I wished that was not the case but for 0.01% Muslims want to "Respond" to such provocations.
I bet if someone insults Mahatma Gandhi in Greece or Germany, India will react violently to it. Because of his compassion , his values, his love, his devotion demands respect. Similarly prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was a real person. His love, compassion, mercy, ideals, devotion reached an amazing level. It is coward and obscene to insult a man who died over 1400 years ago. Since he cannot react to any of these provocations, some of his followers (Who love him very much) it is unfair to allow people to do that to a such a kind man.
"Indeed, in this [Quran] is notification for a worshiping people. And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds."
Source: (Quran: 21:106-107)
Source: (Quran: 21:106-107)
I think tolerating constructive criticism deserves credit but I respectfully disagree to the assumption that, tolerating insults of Khrisna made Hindus more progressive!!
If someone says something ugly about our mothers (Or even motherland!), we react or hold our anger. Why people expect that, the most admirable person in human history should NOT get the same reaction?
Allow me to share some of the words said by some well known non-Muslims about Muhammad (PBUH).
Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
Arthur Glyn Leonard in 'Islam, Her Moral and Spiritual Values'
It was the genius of Muhammad, the spirit that he breathed into the Arabs through the soul of Islam that exalted them. That raised them out of the lethargy and low level of tribal stagnation up to the high watermark of national unity and empire. It was in the sublimity of Muhammad's deism, the simplicity, the sobriety and purity it inculcated the fidelity of its founder to his own tenets, that acted on their moral and intellectual fiber with all the magnetism of true inspiration.Hope this will help you understand PARTS of the central question. If you have other concerns, feel free to share.
James Michener in 'Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,' Reader's Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.
"No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur'an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.""Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God's word sensing his own inadequacy. But the Angel commanded 'Read'. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: "There is one God".""In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred and rumors of God 's personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, 'An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being'.""At Muhammad's own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: 'If there are any among you who worshiped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you Worshiped, He lives for ever'."Lawrence E. Browne in 'The Prospects of Islam,' 1944
Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.K. S. Ramakrishna Rao in 'Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,' 1989
My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that "there is no compulsion in religion" is well known.
Shalom!
-----Original Message-----
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 3, 2012 7:01 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 3, 2012 7:01 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
So, there was no response to my question from any other Muslim but Mr. Q. A. Rahman. The question was, "is it enough for a civilized world to treat the slaves fairly, to consider freeing a slave to be good deed, and to provide some rewards for freeing a slave?" It would have been refreshing to hear from genuinely religious Muslims something like "the reality of the sixth century did not allow Mohammad or Islam to abolish slavery, but their way of treating slaves was very progressive at that time; over a period of 1400 years we could certainly extrapolate that progress to the point of abolishing slavery in the 20th century."
That would have been honest and rational, while showing a lot of respect for Mohammad and Islam. However, I am disappointed that we did not have such honest and rational Muslims in this forum. Of course, that rationality would have made Mohammad and Islam inadequate for our time and for the future.
The problem I see with the average Muslims is that they have been too much in the irrational territory from their very childhood. I actually feel sorry for them; it must be very difficult to develop rational thinking while growing up in an environment of praying five times a day.
While I criticize the stupidities of the Hindu caste system and the way they used to treat women, one thing I like about the contemporary educated Hindus is that most of them eat beef, and most of them do not mind if one calls Krishna a characterless womanizer.
If one looks at eating beef by the Hindus and eating pork by the Muslims, eating beef by a Hindu can be reasonably argued to be a bigger sin than eating pork by a Muslim. Muslims do not eat pork because Mohammad called it dirty; Hindus do not eat beef because bull was the carrier of the high god Shiva; thus, like a god.
If one looks at the fundamentals of the two religions, Krishna is supposed to be more revered by the Hindus than how much reverence Muslims are to show Mohammad. According to Hinduism, Krishna is God in the form of a human; he is not just a messenger of God. Thus, insulting him would be no joke according to the fundamentals of Hinduism. But the Hinds do it anyway; no one gets death threats for doing it. To me, that is a sign that Hindus are progressing faster toward a rational Human identity.
In any case, I suppose, I should not expect much rationalism from seriously religious people.
So long for now,
Sukhamaya Bain
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
Mr. A. Q. Rahman thinks that his religion is perfect is spite of the fact that it does not abolish or condemn slavery.
Now let me ask the same question to everyone who identifies himself/herself as a Muslim: is it enough for a civilized world to treat the slaves fairly, to consider freeing a slave to be good deed, and to provide some rewards for freeing a slave?
Hopefully, I will comment more on the subject after hearing from some other Muslims.
Sukhamaya Bain
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
.......................
QAR quotes SB: But do not claim it to be perfect, as you should be able to see from this particular example.
>>And QAR comments: So far my religion has been "Perfect" for me. ........................
-----Original Message-----
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 27, 2012 7:30 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 27, 2012 7:30 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly
I had already read these two verses, and a few more, in the Koran, and commented that "the religion asks its followers to treat slaves with fairness, and considers freeing a slave to be a good deed." Mr. Q. A. Rahman said the same thing below, diluting it in a full page of gibberish.
Let me comment here on Mr. Mustafizur Rahman's statement also. He wrote "Rewards for freeing a slave are numerous in Hadith." Let me just trust that he read the Hadith and knows this for a fact.
Having agreed with both the Rahmans, let me ask them; is it adequate for a civilized world to treat the slaves fairly, to consider freeing a slave to be good deed, and to provide some rewards for freeing a slave?
To me, there is no such thing as "treating a slave fairly." Once you brand someone as a slave, you are already too unfair to him/her. Reward and praise for freeing a slave is not enough for a decent world; we needed abolition of slavery. Today slavery is prohibited in all the respectable societies and countries of the world. As the human civilization progresses, I have no doubt, more and more of the unfairness and injustices will be gone from the world.
As for religions, the bottom line is, if an honest reading of your religious books allows you to respect the religion, please do so. But do not claim it to be perfect, as you should be able to see from this particular example.
Sukhamaya Bain
******************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
__._,_.___
