1. Kamal Das, a self declared atheist, gets infuriated when I point to discriminatory teachings in some Hindu scriptures. I don't consider him more progressive than the atheist who supports Hindutvabadi politics heart and soul. He does not understand that eating beef cannot automatically make one noncommunal.
2. Dr. Jiten Roy lives in a society in which casteism is almost absent. That's why he compares casteism to mosquito bite. He will not feel the pain the outcastes in remote Indian villages feel. An outcaste boy marrying a caste Hindu girl can be at the risk of being killed let alone the day to day humiliation the outcastes experience in remote villages.
3. Islam has castes? I don't know. Which Islamic scriptures have kept provision for castes? I am curious. Having castes in a certain Muslim society and having castes in Islam are not the same thing. Castes are religious facts in Hinduism.
4. I don't understand how Hinduism is not an organized religion. It is true that Hinduism lacks uniformity. Practice varies from area to area. Hindus enjoy huge degrees of freedom. For example, one Hindu will be vegetarian and the other one will be a meat lover. All Hindus do not have to worship the same gods and goddesses. But whatever tradition one Hindu follows, he follows it in an organized way.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
On May 5, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Exactly, Dr. Das, Islam has various castes, and so do all other religions also. I am not sure how someone, like Mr. Chakraborty, could equate caste-ism to religious communality.His extra eagerness to expose my favoritism to Hinduism by pointing out my willful omission of Hinduism from the list of organized religions made him persistent on my response. I understood his intention, and ignored his first response. I knew - he did not know what an organized religion was. He insisted on my response again, and I had to reply.Jiten Roy
From: "Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Enjoy
Contrary to common belief, even Islam ain't free from caste system. Al Barani, a contemporary of Muhammad bin Tughlaq defended it. In his time, the number of castes in Islam was a little less than four hundred. Buddhism, Christianity, and Judaism also have it. An ignoramus can put as much mud on himself as he wants. Such an idiot should follow the steps of Suman Kabir.
Sent from my iPad
On May 5, 2015, at 5:57 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:"Dr. Jiten Roy compared casteism and discrimination against women in Hinduism as a mosquito bite while the same thing in other organized religions as tiger bites."I always regret to reply to idiotic response, like this, because it's a misstatement of my comment.The format of this forum does not allow me to qualify all comments with enough details that is required for some people to understand.First, Hinduism is not an organized religion; in fact, it's the most disorganized religion on earth, which recognizes all religions, all interpretations (Mots), and all paths (ways).Second, caste-ism is not the religious communality, because - caste-ism occurs within the same religious boundary, and affects communities within the same religion only. On the contrary, religious communality occurs across the religious boundary, and affects all other religious communities.In fact, caste-ism of Hinduism helped other organized religions (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, etc.) to spread and flourish in India, instead of affecting them negatively.That why, I compared caste-ism of Hinduism to mosquito-bite, and religious communality with tiger-bite. Also, Mr. Chakraborty, this comment has nothing to do with discrimination of women in religion, which is a different topic altogether.I think - your thoughts are messed up with too many issues.Jiten Roy
From: "Subimal Chakrabarty subimal@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2015 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Enjoy
I think both Bangladesh and india have some sort of blasphemy law. He can be prosecuted if the government wants to. Having said this I must say that I do not believe in blasphemy law.Moreover, spreading hatred against women in an open forum can be taken seriously by the women's rights groups and the feminists. I claim myself to be belonging to the latter group. So logically I am justified to seek justice.In a different but related thread Dr. Jiten Roy compared casteism and discrimination against women in Hinduism as a mosquito bite while the same thing in other organized religions as tiger bites. He did not elaborate on it. It was a single liner.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 3, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Sukhamaya Bain subain1@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:If bringing to justice means punishment by a court of law or worse, Professor Chakrabarty's statement would be disappointing; as he is an otherwise rational intellectual. If the speaker committed the so-called blasphemy, even by intentional falsification (which is worse than misinterpretation) of Islam, the punishment for him should be from the proclaimed almighty, Allah, not from humans individually or collectively (society/government). The so-called Ulema and people in general could criticize/disown him, nothing more.SuBain===================================On Sunday, May 3, 2015 1:37 PM, "subimal chakrabarty subimal@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
If Prof. Majid is right (I am sure she is), the speaker is committing 'blasphemy' by mentioning a Surah which does not exist in the Koran. He should be identified, caught, and brought to justice. The entire Ulema should also protest.On Sunday, May 3, 2015 10:31 AM, "Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The trouble is - not many people has the ability to interpret the religious scriptures, and they depend on these readily available sources for understanding the religious teachings, which should be a grave concern for the society, in my view.Unfortunately, there is no accountability of any preacher, and anything can go in the name of religion. Some cunning people are taking advantage of this situation, and they have taken up the religious preaching, as a living, without knowing much about the religion, and they are passing political and personal interests as divine religious doctrines. This should not be the case.Since the society revolves around religion, Government must control these individuals through the Religious Affairs' Ministry. Otherwise, society will be polluted beyond repair. We need to remember, religious freedom only gives freedom to practice religion. Unfiltered religious propaganda is not a part of the religious freedom.Jiten Roy
From: "Farida Majid farida_majid@hotmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2015 1:28 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Enjoy
He is LYING in the name of Allah! He has uttered gobbledygook - some Arabic sounding gibberish. It is certainly not any ayah from any Surah of the Qur'an that says what he says it says. There is no Bokhari, no Muslim Hadith that say what he says they say. His audience is fooled and bullied. He should be reported to the Police for purposefully distorting Holy Scriptures in order to incite social unrest.I have forwarded the video to a member of the Law Commission asking for suggestions to curb such outrageous public bullying.
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 13:46:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Enjoy
Can we get reference? I understand it was in Dhaka, but who is the speaker? Does he belong to an Islamic political party? Has it been recorded by the speaker for public consumption or some one videoed it secretly and then put the same on YouTube?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Sitangshu Guha guhasb@gmail.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
__._,_.___
