There are about sixteen different forms of Christianity, and they are all registered as different religions in the West. There is no such religion as Hinduism; though there are Shaivas, Saktas, Vaisnavas, even the followers of Ramkrishna want their cult registered as separate religion. You might have noticed that The Hare Krishna society(ISKCON) has no Durga Puja festival. Muhammad and Ali were imposed on the Shias after the conquest of Persia by the Arabs. Persians and Arabs don't have the same legacy. The Arabs don't even have much of a history before the seventh century. The Persians fell due to the war of succession that ensued after the poisoning of Amir Khosroe, and the Arabs rose. In spite of having conquered a large empire, Islam needed about seven hundred years to reach it's most coveted outpost of Constantinople. The conquest was not unabated however. Islam was pushed out of Spain in another fifty years. Religion is always associated with politics. Politics being dependent on geography, religious faith is not independent of it either. No matter what any Islamist may believe, Islam has also different factions which would be at peace with each other if recognized as different religions. Islam was never one nation, it never would be. A whirling dervish has most of it's roots in the cult of Sophia than in the Bedouin culture that predominates in Islam.
If the Shiite and Sunni faiths were accepted as completely different faiths as you are proposing, the mindless killings would have stopped. But practically that is not going to happen as both the groups claim basically the same legacy. Don't you think that the various sects in Hinduism are also very different from one a other?
Sent from my iPhoneThe difference is not small in my opinion. These can even be called different religions under one broad name.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
My assertion was based on the little knowledge I have about Islamic history. The issue seems to have been the selection of the first caliph. There was a feeling that Ali being the closet relative of the prophet, he was the most appropriate candidate. But their person of choice had to wait for three caliphate terms. Conspiracy started from the very beginning. It grew over time. Religiously I see very small difference. I think in some of the prayers the Shiites have added the name of Ali. I think politics and power politics have brought the issue almost to a point of no return.
Sent from my iPhoneThe Shiites were originally the followers of Zarathusthra. After the fall of Persia during the Caliphate of Umar bin Khattab, they accepted Islam with Ali bin Abu Talib as their Caliph. While the Sunnis accept all four Caliphs as 'rightly guided', the Shiites accept only one. "It looks like fighting over small things."- Not so, age old differences in faith and nationality are hidden it. For example, the Sufis originally belonged to the cult of Sophia till the Arabian conquest of them. Let the factions fight each other to the end of nonsensical religious influence of human society.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:If loudness of screaming were the deciding factor, the world would have been safer. Rather it is the ego and the resulting fanatical militancy that is creating havoc. Shiite mosques, processions and gatherings are frequently being bombarded even in Shiite majority countries in the name of ensuring purity of Islam. What a madness! To me it looks like fighting over small things.
Sent from my iPhoneBrother, it basically boils down to who can scream louder. Even Shias might not be considered as true Muslims according to some idiots and hence, they can be legitimate target for elimination. Look, Islam has taken a totally wrong path. It wants to purify itself from something that might not be even pure? Sad to say that it has totally failed to deliver anything to its followers in its own backyards. Muslims are migrating in droves to the West that they hate so much. Isn't it paradoxical?
-SD"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] : Shah Abdul Hannan--রামু, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা ---Ramu, Communalism and Noncommunalism
Mr. RahmanInteresting. So Ahmadiyaas do not recite or believe in "La ilaha illalahu .,,,,."! I know I messed up. But you know which sura I am talking about.
Sent from my iPhoneWe have discussed the Ahmedi issue before. I think this issue has very simple solution. As citizens of this country, they deserve full protection of the state in practicing their faith. As far as if they are Muslims or not, it is not very important to me (At personal level). HOWEVER, do understand that, there are some fundamental differences between mainstream "Islamic ideology" and what is preached and practiced by Ahmedi groups.
Like member Shubimal, I know people from this group and have no personal issues with them. As Muslims it is a per-condition to have faith in "One unseen God" and His "Last messenger Muhammad (PBUH)". This is part of our "Shahada" and fundamental issue of the faith.
Ahmedi followers do agree with One God but they also feel like there are other messengers after "The last messenger of God". They have some different narrative about how Jesus left this world and how they perform Namaz.
I strongly believe in freedom of picking any faith of our choices and Ahmedi group should be protected by this value from any violence. If someone has an issue with them claiming "Muslim", they can file a case against it to examine the claim.
My personal feeling is, we can have a win-win solution by calling them "Ahmedi-Muslim". That way rest of the world would know what they stand for and will not confuse them with "Islam preached by prophet Muhammad (PBUH)" and they will retain the right to have a claim as "Muslims".
Once upon a time, I have a very detail discussion/debate on the issue with one of their members and he agreed with my point of view. Since there are "Fundamental" differences between "Islam practiced by 1.7 billion Muslims" and what "Ahmedi" group follows and preaches.
A simple "Truth in labeling" concept can satisfy both parties and I strongly oppose any violence against such groups. This attitude of picking up laws in our own hands is NOT an Islamic concept. We have media, we have cyberspace and we have court system to sort it out. NO need to attack any places of worship or any followers of that group.
Since we do have many "Common grounds", we can work as "Partners" like we do with Christians, Hindus, Jews, etc.
Those from non-Muslim back ground probably do not know these finer details and violence (Pakistani style) does not help it either.
There are some merit to those who question of Ahmedi followers should be considered as Muslims or not, however there is NO reason to resort to violence over it.
It is counter productive and UN-Islamic. All differences should be settled by discussing the problem.
Shalom!
-----Original Message-----
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 16, 2012 10:39 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] : Shah Abdul Hannan--রামু, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা ---Ramu, Communalism and Noncommunalism
The father of Jamaat Islami Mowdudi was tried for instigating anti-Ahmadi riot in Pakistan. Several years ago there were troubles in Bangladesh too. The State of Pakistan declared the Ahmadies non-Muslims. I am sure Jamaat Islami and other so called Islam Pasand parties gave strong support to the move by the Pakistani govt. Denial of Jamaat Islami involvement on this will be big lie. I have Muslim friends belonging to the Ahmadi sect. I know how much proud they are to be identified as Muslims. Why should the State, Islamic clerics and Jamaat Islami decide their religious identity? Any way with the kind of ideological belief and mindset you have you guys will make life of these people unsafe.A secular and democratic country tries to allow maximum individual rights. It also includes all the great and universal teachings from all religions and cultures. A State does not need to be religious explicitly. A religious State I'd divisive which is not good for world peace and progress.I will be looking forward to hearing from you more on this issue.
Sent from my iPhoneAhmadies are non-Muslims whether they are declared to be so by the state or not..Jamaat Islami has nothing on Ahmadi issue in the manifesto of theirs.I think basic Hindu code is what Bed has taught. As for Christians, it is the moral lessons preached by Jesus found in four gospels.Shah Abdul Hannan
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Subimal Chakrabarty
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:41 PM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Cc: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] : Shah Abdul Hannan--রামু, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা ---Ramu, Communalism and Noncommunalism
__._,_.___
****************************************************
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
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
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
__,_._,___