Only a stupid would believe that Bhagwan himself instigated Arjun to kill his cousins and even Guru Dronacharya. These stupids also believe that Ramakrishna is the best of avatars, Valmiki wrote Ramayana sixty thousand years before the birth of Rama, in the satyayuga, men were fourteen units(length of his own hand) tall. The list of such stupidities is really long. Mind of that stupid may be too small to comprehend Muhammad's atrocities. Having the mindset of a Mongolian idiot, these people can not and should not fathom that of others.
I have said before that many things written in Gita are nonsensical to me, and one such major point you have already mentioned in your post. The premise of the war is unacceptable to me even though it is supposedly instigated by ShreeKrishna.
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2012, 10:27 PM
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Burqa banning after RAJUK, now Syedpur's Lions school and college: Minority Islam in Muslim majority Bangladesh
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Thanks for speaking the truth. I will follow your advice. I will ignore personal attacks and say whatever I believe to be right. I personally know and you me. We both are too old to be able to be awakened from our sleep. Over the years we have consolidated our mindset and conviction which seem to be almost unchangeable. Now every one in the forum knows our directions of thought. We are on two different planes and we will never meet. But we we will definitely know each other.If you do not agree with Rabindranath you can say any thing you want to say against him as Das I'd now doing. I just wanted to explain why RN said so even though supposedly he must have not supported every thing Muhammad did in his personal life. Our mind is too little to comprehend him. We are neo intellectuals trying to use our leisure time as we have nothing else to do. We are all kind of parasites which we hardly realize.You have read the Geeta and you have seen Bhagwan himself, not even a sage, is instigating Arjuna to kill his own cousins and other close relatives to reinstate Dharma.
Sent from my iPhone
Here we go again. I have a suggestion for Kamal Das, and that is – he needs to let go the thread after one rebuttal; he keeps following the thread at no end without realizing where he is heading. It seems like he is trying to wake up someone who is pretending to sleep. There is a point when you have to realize that you cannot change the mind of your opponent no matter how much information you pile up in front of him/her. That's when you stop.
By now every one of us should have an idea about the intellectual aptitudes, philosophical, political, and religious views of all regular contributors to this forum. As a result, there is no need to prove anything. Just tell what your views are on the subject. That's it. You should always expect that, based on someone's intellectual aptitude, philosophical, political, and religious views, he/she will either agree or disagree with your views. I learned this truth from my own observations.
Now, about the 'Maharishi' attribute to Muhammad by Rabindra Nath, I do not know the pretext of the attribution, and it really does not matter to me. I like to judge everything on my own. I do not know any Maharishi ever instructed his followers to kill all non-believers of his views wherever they can find them. I do not know any Maharishi who told his followers to kill all male non-believers and distribute all female non-believers to his followers as booty after capturing them. I know it was in the context of a war, but – still does not make sense to me. Therefore, it will not make an iota of difference in my judgment even if God-almighty tells me that it was the right thing to do. I know – millions will disagree with me, and that's fine with me. I do not want to change anyone's mind; I just want to express my own feelings on the subject.
I know some people draw conclusion about a subject based on views of others, and some draw conclusions to please others. I do not do so; I collect information and then pass that through my own filter(s) to draw a conclusion of my own. The bottom line is – just because some famous people mentioned about something does not make it a truth. I remember Professor Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, visited Bangladesh sometime in 2001, just after the election and the worst ever communal pogrom in Bangladesh. Khaleda Zia gave him a reception, and during his speech Amartya Sen said that - Bagladesh was a perfect example of communal harmony. I am sure he knew that he was lying through his teeth just to promote his NGO program in Bangladesh. I hope I made my case.
Jiten Roy
--- On Sat, 3/17/12, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Burqa banning after RAJUK, now Syedpur's Lions school and college: Minority Islam in Muslim majority Bangladesh
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2012, 5:17 PM
My responses are inserted below.From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Burqa banning after RAJUK, now Syedpur's Lions school and college: Minority Islam in Muslim majority Bangladesh
1. Only an incorrigible fool of your variety would not know that Tagore had all kinds of mistakes. He also plagiarized a lot. Consult with any Professor of Bengali if he is available in Arlington or wherever you live.-----The way you "cuss out" reflects what you are. Can you please stop it and come to business directly? Rabindranath had all kinds of mistakes and he plagiarized a lot! So? Let scholars do research on it. We will have opportunities to learn more about him. Does this dwarf the wise Rabindranath?
2. Nirad C. Chauddhuri was hired by Oxford University to write on Hinduism. Bhaduri may be more reliable to you who has absolutely no knowledge on anything. I had been reading N. P. Bhadhuri since he started writing. He is nothing more than a Hindu Mollah. You may write him to learn Hinduism from me if he can't find a better teacher.-----If you say Bhaduri is a Hindu mollah, I must say you have not read him properly or you have not understood it. If you have really read N.C. Chowdhui, you must have many points on which you cannnot agree with him. To me it does not matter. Why do you have an extreme view about every thing or everybody? I am just wondering. PLease enlighten me with your view on Bhaduri. Please be specific.
3. Einstein was a modern sage? His wives and secretaries did not think so.-----Looks like you are a Hindu fundamentalist. Looks like to you a sage is a "godly" man. To me a sage means a wise (original thinker) man. Remember that Manu, Vatsayana, and Kautilya are known as rishis. In ancient times there were a limited number of them. Now we have many. All of them had human limitations.
4. Did Tagore really call Muhammad a Maharshi? If even he did so, he might not have read any Islamic literature. Muhamad committed eighty nine brigandages in about eight years of his sojourn in Yatrib, uprooted all Jewish enclaves, and put a whole community of Jewish tribe of about a thousand members to sword on a single day. Tell that to your 'RN' if you have a hotline with him. Not even tell any Jew nearby that Muhamad was a 'great sage' by mistake. You may end up with the fate of Guru Rajneesh being thrown out of the land and job together. Read that damned biography of the prophet by Ms. Armstrong carefully. The earlier posting on muktomona by Mohammad Asghar that I pasted recently might also be helpful. Though he conquered Hejaj with the help of mercenaries, he did not dare to stay there. Afterwards, the Umayyads simply ruined his grand children. No angel prevented the ignominious death of Imam Hussain. What do you know of the Maharshis? Maharshi Trailanga Swami, along the modern ones, ate his own defecation all life long.-----Yes, he (RN) did call Muhammad a maha rishi. I am sure he read history as a common but serious and critical reader (not like you who looks for only the negatives). I am sure he was not unaware about what Muhammad did to spread Islam and I am sure he did not approve them as I also do not definitely. I am also sure he was aware about the limitations Muhammad had as a human being. But he had the broadness of mind (which you do not have) to recognize Muhammad's great teachings that have changed the world. Were our ancient rishis all flawless and without human passions? Ask yourself. I have read Asghar. It is good compilation from good sources. However, his concluding paragraph is incomplete. He has not seen any thing good in Islam and Muhammed. In my opinion it has been due to his overreaction to what is happening in the contemporary world with jihad, Islamic militancy, fundamentalism, muslim communalism, and fanaticism. The account could be complete by mentioning how Islamic (muslim) thinkers made (and are still making) huge contribution to the advancement of civilization. Goutam Roy in a recent review (Anandabazaar internet version, March 3, 2012) of a book titled "Confluence: Forgotten Histories from East and West" by Ilija Trojanow and Ranjit Hoskote has summarized how Al-Kindi, Al-Raji, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Ibne Rushd have influenced the European rennaissance. Anyway, this history is now well established and have been narrated in amny authentic books.
Please stop bleating around and read books if a good library is available nearby. "Satadhauten ...malitwam na muchyate'------Please stop being full of yourself. Read with open mind. Don't read to prove that you really are desperate to prove. Finally learn to disagree with respect which is a slogan of Mukto-mona.
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
1. Nrisinhaprasad Bhaduri, an authority on Indian epics, should be more reliable than Nirad C. Chowdhury with regard to time line.2. Marhaba. You have smelled grammatical mistakes in RN's writings. The circle is now full: Bankim, Vivekananda, RN reduced to nothing.3. To me Einstein is also a modern sage. I am not surprised that RN called Muhammad a Maharishi.
Sent from my iPhone
1.Vyas Deva is a person of seventh century of the common era according to the Encarta Encyclopaedia. Hinduism may not really be as old as some think. One should read Nirad Chaudhury to get an idea. According to him, no Hindu scripture is older than sixth century C. E.
2. Muhammad may be a total myth as proposed by Prof. Kallisch of Islamic studies at a German University. He might have been called a 'Maharishi' by Rabindranath Tagore. He also compared Islam and Christianity with Bolshevism due to their intolerance to other faiths. Even he would be amused, had he been alive, to learn that someone considers him an authority on Islam(more than Imam Bukhari!). 'No evidence has been cited to prove him faltu'??? Such statements prove that he is ignorant of Tagore as well. After he earned a Nobel, Calcutta University usually picked his compositions to quote in question papers and asked students to discuss grammatical and spelling mistakes.
An ignoramus of Mr. Chakrabarty's level should stay off from blogging.
3. If we have to judge people on the ability to change the world, the modern scientists are way ahead of those preachers of religions who brought about dark age and perpetrated atrocities on those who disagreed with them. Read Voltaire to get a flavor of what I mean.
3. The way 'Maharshi Muhammad' slaughtered the people who gave them shelter in Madina, he should be compared with Macbeth instead.
4. I am sick of discussing serious matters with these 'wise' men as Chakrabarty and Rahman. I would appreciate if these men ignore my postings. In any case, I would do it henceforth to whatever they post here.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
1. I am not alone. There are more as I have mentioned before. Read (don't have to agree) analytical posts of Bain, Roy, Q. Rahman, and some others.2. Ranindranath is lucky! No evidence has been cited to prove him to be 'faltu' even though he called Muhmed a Maharishi!3. Was RN not aware of Islamic history? Definitely he was. Was he wrong? My analysis is given below:RN knew well about ancient sages. He knew about their human limitations and passions. But he could not ignore their great teachings. Vyasdev said through goddess Saraswati,'Nothing is truer than man, and nothing is above him. ' Chandidas echoed it after 2000 years. You can give a lot of examples. He saw Muhammed as nothing more than a man. He saw him as a great sage who was a seer of the past, present, and the future. He had the spirit to overlook theHuman limitations.4. My concern about the accuracy of the historical accounts born out of oral traditions has not yet been addressed. I hope some one will give his valued comment on it.5. RN bashers question his moral values (his affairs with women including the wife of his elder brother) and use those to measure and discard him. These people should not be out role models. We need to learn small things and recognize big things. We must do this when we make judgment about personalities who have changed the world.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Kamal Das <kamalc
__._,_.___
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"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
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___