How can the man be a Hindu and an atheist at the same time, Professor Chakrabarty? You probably did not mean it that way.
On a more serious note, I think Dr. Roy's question of "what's the meaning of "crude bashing"" needs to be addressed, discussed and debated.
To me, an example of "crude bashing" of religion would be drawing a so-called prophet/avatar/god in a disrespectful manner, such as pig face or sexually explicit. It would serve only to provoke the believer, with no attempt to educate, and I would condemn it.
However, calling an unjust/hateful/barbaric religious teaching unjust/hateful/barbaric is not what I would call "crude bashing", although personally I would avoid doing the criticism. That is primarily because I do realize that people were less educated and less civilized when those teachings came about. There is no point in criticizing, or in trying to find the context for respecting, the ignorance/mistakes of our forefathers (the foremothers had very little power). The point really is not to follow (and not allowing to follow) any unjust/hateful/barbaric teachings, irrespective of what religion/tradition had that.
Sukhamaya Bain
=========================================
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:48 PM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have a very close friend. He is Hindu. He was a professor of a renowned university of Bangladesh. Now he lives in a America. He is an atheist. Some of the comments he makes in Facebook are nothing but crude bashing of Hindu religion. I had an opportunity to read one of his ugly comments about goddess Kali in Facebook. This is called crude bashing. This does not help us.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Subimal Chakraborty Said: "I agree with Farida apa: crude bashing of Islam and for that matter any religion is indefensible. It is not only childish, it also provokes a fanatic and leaves in their hands 'weapons' to make an attempt to stop the progress of human thoughts and ideas. Therefore, critiquing of a religion should be objective and analytical with no preconceived hatred for it in the critic's mind."Who hates who? I do not think anybody here hates anybody personally; people just put forward opinions. The above statement means some people have hatred against some other people in this forum. This is a misguided notion.Now - what's the meaning of "crude bashing?" All we have heard so far from Ms. Majid and Mr. Rahman are terms like - "Islam bashing" and "hatred for Islam," when they run out of arguments to counter criticism. To them, every criticism of their religion is out of hatred for their religion. Now, an atheist is joining that cohort; this smells like a political stand, not ideological.The fact is – criticism of one's favorite object will always hurt his/her feeling; it does not matter how objective or analytical criticism may be. Also, how can someone defend a blind faith with a sound logic? They can't. Blind faith logic will always sound ridiculous to an open minded person. Mr. Rahman thinks that he knows the authentic version of Islam. Isn't it a ridiculous claims also? How could anyone be so sure that he/she has the most authentic version of religion, unless it's his faith.
Lately, I am hearing from Mr. Rahman that judging Prophet needs proper context. To me, a noble man is always a noble man; no context or excuse is needed to evaluate a noble man.Jiten Roy
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:33 PM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:Yes, you are so right about the collapse of the Persian empire. That removed the best wall that was ever built in the western frontier in that era. Had that been intact, we would have been saved from this abysmal mediocrity.
-SD
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:05 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:Nothing is more blasphemous and moronic to think that a passionate and almighty God sent his best and last messenger to a community of desert oasis and forgot about his best creation since then. Even a blind could see that the last messenger was a failure till he adopted dacoits, blunder and mayhem of the weak Jewish communities from the hideout of Yatrib. It was the collapse of the Persian Empire due to war of succession that made Islam the winner. But again, the Ummayads, the archenemy of the Hashemites in which the Prophet belonged, was the winner. As Ms. Majid is a closet fundamentalist, she gets irritated by a correct analysis of Islamic history.
Sent from my iPadMaybe, we all should hide in a cave because the vicious mob will be angry and start killing innocents? Is that the thinking? A white flag with out a fight? We should only talk about flowers? Right?
-SD
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:04 PM, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:Your imbecile mind will not comprehend the seriousness of the political situation with the vicious Jehadists in Bangladesh -- innocent people will eventually be the victims.
But you and the troll don't care a hoot . . .
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:48:38 -0800
From: shahdeeldar@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: context needed to understnad life of prophet Muhammad PBUH
To: farida_majid@hotmail.com; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; bangladesh-progressives@googlegroups.com
If brother Shalom wants people to know the prophet and a religion better, then people have no choice but to ask some tough questions. If you do not like the heat, stay out it and be in peace. But ordering how a discussion should be moved forward is not really a Muktomona motto. You got your pet subjects and you are totally free to push forward whatever you think right for your taste. Please stop browbeating others in regards to what should be discussed and what not. That is called censorship. If I remember correct, we were equally critical about the authentic Marxism of Sankar-da when he tried to feed us with a different cool-aid.
-SD
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:00 PM, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:Please STOP posting this religious stuff in mukto-mona. We've had this crude Islam-bashing type of writings day after day, month after month, year after year.
From: subain1@yahoo.com
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 07:16:21 -0800
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: context needed to understnad life of prophet Muhammad PBUH
The talk of 'context needed to understand Mohammad' is essentially nonsense talk.There is no need to understand a man who lived on Earth some fifteen hundred years back. What the world needs to do is to see the actions of people today, and reward, stay indifferent or punish those actions, depending on the virtue, innocence and criminality, respectively, of those actions. Mohammad does not need any such reward, indifference or punishment.The problem with the soft-sellers of the Islamic doctrine is that they w
__._,_.___
****************************************************
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
