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 the Human 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 Mr. Chakrabarty is a self claimed analytical man, though he forgot to spell it properly. Some 'divine revelation' to some 'maharshi' is the 'holy book' on Islam. Not even citations from the 'holy book' are enough to these 'anlytical' men to convince that the 'maharshi' was what was called 'a roving bandit' by Prof. Mancur Olson. The Surah I cited is a small one, but enough to prove the point that the 'revelations' always served the whims of the 'maharshi' Fortunately, in those days even Muslims could be critical of their Prophet and their companions, now they can't.
Of course, nobody should expect an iota of common sense who considers totally illiterate fools as 'avatars' and 'maharshis.' May be the followers of such avatars and maharshis would soon reveal the truth by going into trance(samadhi). A small dose of 'somerasha' may help to bring about 'samadhi' soon.
"We expect more civility." Who is this 'we'? If these 'we' consisted of any moderator, my postings would be forbidden by now. I don't have to learn 'civility' from functional illiterates. I do not write here for the consumption for persons lacking even minimum 'anlytical' abilty.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:29 PM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote: 1. Again the same typical "school-masterly" temper! This is not your pathsala. We expect more civility. By this time you should have recognized (a man full of himself will never do that any way) that this forum is visited by anlytical and informed people with broadness of mind. You ridiculed Vivekananda as he praised Islam and ridiculed Bankim also as he praised Muslim rulers. Now it is Rabindanath's turn. It has been revealed that he called Muhammad the maharishi of Islam. Probably you will ridicule him soon. That's your choice. I will not stoop as low as you do. Can you please directly go to your arguments without insulting a blogger? Thanks. 2. We have been discussing the veiling of women according to Islam. All of a sudden you have quoted a Sura (Verse CHI) without any relevance. I do not what you are trying to prove. 3. I read the juicy descriptions that you sent as quotes from well known references. It all sounded like myth to me. They were in such details. I simply questioned the reliability. (Let 100 percent muslims accept these as facts. I do not care. I am an analytical man. I love to go into the depths of the matter.) I did a little research and found that these accounts are not accepted by a big percentage of the readers. There are reasons. Muhammad lived during 570-632, Ibn Ishaq 704-766 (or 761?), and Bukhari during 810-870. About four genrations passed before Ishaq started recording the history and minimum eight generations passed before Bukhari strated his project. We have to take note of the fact that these accounts are not based on written documents. These are based on oral traditions. Traditions have been told and retold again and again. Volumes of traditions both Ishaq and Bukhari collected were so huge that they themselves had to use their own judgements to discard many of them. We also need to understand that when the narration of a fact travels from mouth to mouth over genrations it easily gets distorted. We the blind believers take any thing to be infallible and absolute if it comes from a revered author. We are afraid to challenge him. Only a brave inquiring mind is able to reveal further truths.
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Burqa banning after RAJUK, now Syedpur's Lions school and college: Minority Islam in Muslim majority Bangladesh
Ahadith by Bukhari is the most acceptable there is. Any half wit not appreciating Bukhari, Tabari, Waquidi, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir etc. should read the gibberish 'holy verses' and try to interpret in his own way. Read the verse CXI. It is a short one. "Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!/ .... He shall roast at a flaming fire/ and his wife,..., upon her neck a rope of palm-fiber." Abu Lahab was an uncle of the prophet, and two of his sons were married to two of the prophets daughters before the advent of Islam. On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote: In this account from WikiIslam the prophet (maharishi in Ranindranath's term) has been shown to be most open minded. This account even seems to be dubious. I did a little google search to discover that the account by Ibn Ishak who on time scale was closest to prophet as a biographer has not been ununimously accepted. Acceptance of Bukhari seems to be less. It is really almost impossible to come up with the real truth. Research should continue.
Sent from my iPhone The holy Koran has 'revelations' from earlier sources as well, e.g., Oracles of Delphi and other temples, the Old and New Testaments etc. Other literature on Islam cites to Umar being proud on receiving the revelation on hijab before the Prophet.
Now, may I add from WikiIslam,
"The reason that Muslim women wear the hijab today is not a spiritual one, nor is it a matter of piety. Covering the hair/face cannot be considered an act of modesty because Muslim men are not required to cover theirs. The sole reason they do it is because Umar bin Al-Khattab, a companion of Muhammad, wished that Muhammad would reveal verses from Allah requiring women to wear it. When Muhammad did not oblige, Umar did not pray to Allah for assistance. Umar knew he had to make it personal for Muhammad himself in order to bring the revelation down. He followed Muhammad's wives out when they went to go to the toilet and made his presence known. When Muhammad heard of this, the revelation that Umar had so wanted was sent down from Allah. Umar knew where these revelations were really coming from, which is why he pestered Muhammad and harassed his wives instead of asking Allah. Although the revelational circumstances for the hijab were ridiculous, the consequences that we can see to this day, are not. The requirement for the hijab has had the effect of placing full responsibility for Muslim-male self control onto the females - freeing the men of responsibility for their actions if they see an unveiled woman. Lack of self control is not an inherent attribute to men, because men in non-Islamic societies do not have such self control issues; when it is rare to see a woman covered so in these societies. The hijab's purpose, as revealed and to this day, is designed to protect Muslim females from the now acceptable behavior of Muslim males; behavior which has been deemed socially acceptable precisely because of the requirement of Muslim females to wear the hijab." One may notice that the Prophet did not prevent Umar from stalking his wives even to the place of defecation. It might so happen that he actually instructed to spy on them.
Thank you for sharing the source of your post. We can learn from it as well.
However do note that, ALL revelations in the holy Qur'an were revealed to prophet Muhammad (PBUH) NOT anyone else. Hazrat Omar (RA) might have wished for the clearer direction about the level of modesty required and that is acceptable to me. Revelations only came to messengers of Allah (SWT) not to anyone else. It would be a mistake to think Allah revealed any verse to Omar (RA).
A complete body cover excluding the eyes
Also note that, the covering the whole body but eyes is not part of the revelation. It is an assumption and there are differences of opinions among scholars of Islam. Generally some scholars feel women are required to cover whole body ( Including face except eyes) but majority of Islamic scholars feel just covering head and rest of the body is required. So you may see Muslim women with face veil (Niqaab) and others cover their heads and body (Hijab). So there are differences of opinions about "Levels of modesty" among scholars.
|
