Dear Divya,
Its going to be crazy till about 4 p.m. for me today,-I have one foot out the door but again your latest post is something I would like to think about and respond.
Thank you for your thoughts-you write as well as anyone else I may say.

Gosh, anyone who is a prolific writer that is,Divya...okay I guess I am going to be really late now..worst addiction of any kind-intent

I thought the worst Addiction was you Kavita:)). Gosh! you bring out the best humor in me Kavita. Thanks and Thanks for the second one day match. How much are you scoring here My Friend Kavita? My prediction is another century for you...while your other fellow colleagues must be wondering, it's so difficult to score double figures, she's scoring....

I think you got the Charm of Deepakji and Shekhar! I just think so!

I may just be a witness here. I've got some other imp things to focus on Kavita. Also, If one foot is out of the door...where is the other foot? near the computer and typing? Don't quite understand Kavita:)))....Sachin

In listening to Robert Temple on Coast-to-Coast he explained that the Jews, Christians and Muslims were the people who believed that all the answers of the universe were in one book. They are reductionism, which is like old style scientific thinking. He shared India, individuality in spirituality, China Confucius’s more of a creed and Taoism philosophy. I found his interview very interesting and liberating of letting go of past beliefs that are still being projected.

This is his bio from Coast to Coast:

Robert Temple is visiting professor of the history and philosophy of science at Tsinghua University in Beijing; fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society; member of the Egypt Exploration Society, Royal Historical Society, Institute of Classical Studies, and the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies; and visiting research fellow of the University of the Aegean in Greece.

He is the author of ten books that includes Oracles of the Dead. This book examines ancient methods of foretelling the future and discovering the physical location of the Greek Underworld (Hades), and explores the mysteries associated with Delphi and other oracles of the ancient world. Drawing evidence from a range of sources within orthodox scholarship, physics and biology, Robert shows how the latest developments in science may validate the system of the I Ching. The book also includes a theory of change based upon recent scientific work in a variety of fields. In addition, he wrote, produced, and presented the documentary film Descent into Hell, based upon this book, for the National Geographic Channel.

Here is a recap of his interview;

Sirius Mystery & Ancient Oracles
Author Robert Temple shared his research into the The Sirius Mystery as well as the oracles used by the Greeks and other ancients. According to anthropological studies, the Dogon Tribe of Africa developed a religion based on the Sirius star system and were aware of Sirius B (a companion star that can't be seen with the naked eye) as well as a third star in that system which wasn't confirmed by astronomers until 1995, nearly 20 years after Temple wrote about it in his book.

The Dogons believed that beings from a planet in the Sirius system came to Earth in the distant past, landing in a place where their ancestors came from (Temple suggested that this was probably Egypt). These ETs were slimy, air-breathing aquatic creatures that had fish-like tails and arms without elbows, and he noted that similar beings have also been described in ancient China, Greece, and Sumeria. The Dogons said that when the ETs were here, a new star appeared in the sky that disappeared after they left. Temple surmised that this was likely their orbiting mothership.

He also discussed his study of the ancient underground oracle that the Greeks built in Italy before the Roman Empire. It was a replica of hell, and people were taken down in drugged states, believing they were experiencing the real underworld. This oracle was sealed off by a quake in 63 BC, but Temple said he was able to crawl through some of the passages that have been narrowed to 18 inches. There were also a number of other oracle centers in ancient Greece, such as Delphi, where a "sybil" would enter a trance state and answer people's questions about the future.

love patty

What I found liberating was he shared Jews, Christians, Muslims are the book people. He is part Jewish and makes the joke that the Jewish are only 1/2 book people as they only have 1/2 of a book. love patty

Dear S.I.
A good debate will ....
Entrench viewpoints!

Nothing liberating about that.

(Yet, as Laurence wrote, it can start to make a shift happen internally, and it can start to dislodge some of the grip-like hold beliefs have on us)

Being tolerant can awaken Understanding. That is worth the experience!

Ideology is limiting and often oppressive. Within whatever form it takes. From religion, to governments, to community, to families, to the individual.

Tell me,
is there any better solution...
than
smashing
or dismantling
(take your pick)
Opinions and beliefs.

Does debate do this?

Isn't Living Fully about a kind of Freedom, that cannot be defined.

There is the question you asked me, about definition.

If you want to live freely, don't define another, do not have an opponent.

You win for yourself what is truly worthy of achieving.

Love,
~ Kate

Sub Inspector...Where are you? Have you gone in your Jeep to catch the thieves?:))) Or having someone in the Encounter? You were the one who asked Kavita So lovingly abt the Part2 blog, your encounters are here...Dear Kate has developed a fondness for you:))I like the way you bring in two sides of the coin in one post.

I may casually join in for a moment or so. I've got an imp project going on like you:))

Hello Kavita and Everyone,

What brings out the violent threats in people?

Remember the Dixie Chicks controversy? They got violent threats against their lives. Michael Schaivo, Terry's husband, got violent threats against himself, his wife, and children, from some people quoting scriptures, no less. So what makes us want to kill someone because they have a different point of view, a different opinion about anything- war, religion, abortion, etc.?

What makes people who some how believe themselves to be "good" God worshipping folk to write a threatening letter to kill someone and think it is okay? ruth

Aloha Ruth

A Course in Miracles teaches us we are never angry at the reason we think we are. It is always to ask the Holy Spirit for another view. An explanation always follows. It always takes two to get to Heaven. When we give up attack thoughts we give up being attacked. love patty

Very nice questions Ruth. Just following one's religion peacefully is a difference of opinion in principle, when your religion or path is different. Think about it, why should we meddle around with those who are practising it peacefully. Let them be happy in their world. It's only when someone pokes hard at the other in the name of religion...then the eye for an eye saga begins. Once that eye for eye saga sets in, it is a Vicious(both meanings of vicious)cycle. The other vicious of course is the Effect produced from the cause...becomes the cause again for the same effect. In plain english what they say "Hatred begets Hatred". So, it's perpetual...on and on and on.

Kavita was rt Intent is Irresistible!:))

Divya, I sat and thought about what you said separates us- To quote you “ Where we begin to differ is when I say Islam (and other ideologies) create sociological conditions that lead to depravity.” I think, some how your posts failed to indicate that it was not just Islam that you were critical of. Thanks for clarifying that now.
I have to say, I specifically asked a question since we were discussing wafa sultan and the repercussions of her interview- in one of my posts, that if Islam is a peaceful religion why does it give the impression to the contrary? I also quoted from Dr Hassabala and asked why was he defensive and tentative about Sultan and why couldn’t she have been allowed to have a healthy discussion with the clerics? For me there are no set answers..Several religious ideologies were responsible for everything negative that you mentioned, in specific time periods in history-several political ideologies- like the invasion of Iraq, the training of Taliban in the current scenario for example, led to sadism and tragedy as well as destruction.
Now I hear certain political ideologies will lead to economic pragmatism and unite nations that have been at loggerheads in recent projections--so my question again is –is it the ideology or the religion itself-ideologies are created by human beings, and religion too is the interpretation of human minds. That is why I also asked the question why is it that Afghanistan and Iran became more liberal when the king and Shah of Iran ruled the nations-why did they slide back when the clerics took over?
Is it the religion or is it the interpretation of the religion?
Again you said I took examples out of context- are you telling me these things don’t exist? Again who is to blame-hindu philosophy or the twisting of ideology by warped human minds?
I think the most interesting point that you mentioned here is that you believe “People usually get their sense of ethics from religion whether directly from the scriptures or through osmosis”.

By that token, what does Hindu philosophy teach? And do we follow everything it teaches? I don’t think so-we let our own mindset predominate over our thinking and actions, even when we are taught the scriptures directly or through osmosis.

But it’s a point that makes me want to ask all the posters here—what do they think of this comment? How many of you are who you are because of your religion? I hope you will all share your experiences including you Divya, and tell me how your religious beliefs have defined who you are and what your ethical outlook is? And how much of it is based on personal experiences and lessons learnt from them, which may not be what your religion taught you

I would love to believe that my sense of ethics came from my religious beliefs, but I don’t think it did-I think my sense of right and wrong came from life’s experiences and how I interpreted them. My parents taught me universal good values-or what were considered universal truths-and those universal truths as Divya said existed before and will exist after religion.

Perhaps the only people who can say they are defined by their religion are the ones who follow the herd mentality that I had mentioned, in an earlier post, blindly believing what they are told and following what they are asked to follow. That is why we have so many so called divine gurus and ammas the topic of another blog.
But I’m willing to learn from everyone-it would be really interesting to read your answers.
Patty, thank you for that post. I guess it says the same thing I’ve been saying-why do we make the past a barometer of the present and future, why can’t we weed out what is redundant and nurture what matters.
Divya, I don’t know what roasting you endure on other blogs, but I hope you will never stop thinking, questioning and introspecting-maybe that other strong voice will emerge to make you think and learn and teach, but if it doesnt I hope all of us will continue to strive to question, challenge and keep an open mind to absorb.
Nehru once said that if God had wanted us to look back, he would have made eyes at the back of our heads not in the front. I hope we can do that pragmatically.
Sachin, good luck with your projects. I hope you will share with us what it is that you are working on. Very good last post.
Ruth, key question-what brings out threats- is it when we or something we believe in is threatened, or is it when we are forced to question certain things about ourselves.
So another question for the posters-in the context of religion and your personal beliefs, what makes you feel threatened and how have you dealt with it? Have you changed anything as time went on in the way you deal with that threat?
I saw Schiavo’s interview today with Matt Lauer, part two is tomorrow. The man was really in the eye of the storm-it was amazing that he withstood all that-the ethics, the moral issues and the emotional issues..I wonder what kept him going?
What makes people act violently when they are supposedly god fearing? We lump them in one lot and call them crimes of passion-but there has to be more to it-is it ingrained ideological brain washing? Is it something else?
What do you all think?

Kavita...You've begun to acknowledge and appreciate me. What's wrong with you? Are you drinking too much Coffee nowaydays?:)) Yeah..it's an imp project, will let you know if it goes successful. I'm sending a Rocket to Pluto to find out if this same kind of fighting in the name of religion goes on there too which we've been witnessing on Earth for the past so many centuries.:))

Coming back to serious questions... There was one guy on ndtv who asked why is that America decides for others always?? The reasoning that they have for doing that is...they've been attacked is fine...but do they ever think what must have caused it?

Now...they want Democracy all over the world. As though...that system of Govt is the only true system of governing. In principle they are doing the same as Islam fundys. My God is the only true God, so now you better change yourself to My God i.e democracy. And democracy in America? Gotham had mentioned once..it's a Sham...what it is in India. Everything is a Sham nowadays...yeah becoz there is no Ram, there is Sham. Isn't it Kavita?:))

Truly...Sachin
PS:Do you run around with Laptop in Atlanta Kavita?

Hi Sachin,
It is strange, to look at saying .... 'My God, is the Only God'.
If at the 'highest' level of Awareness, we are One, then .... there is Only 'My' God.

My god, what a thought!
:)
love to you,
~ Kate

Spot on Kate! But as correctly said at the level of highest awareness. How many are there? Even when someone is there....you still have to be Unimposing as Jesus would say "forgive them for they know not what they are doing". Now, this may sound holier than thou in today's era.

The point is you cannot decide for the other person. Is this "American Ideals" teach you? you cannot Impose on others...but Bush thinks otherwise. Those guys are damn serious abt Iran now. My God...to me it looks like a stalemate. They will blaze at each other.

Peace..Sachin

Dear Kavita,
You have asked compelling questions!

I really don't think anyone Blindly believes anything.

I can tell you about fear, and when I first heard about my daughter's diagnosis, and told she could not recover, I felt that.

with love,
~Kate

p.s.
is it true, you are drinking too much coffee :)
If so, you are the best caffeine driven Writer, extraordinaire.
)

Read htkg by Deepak chopra...You'll get clear cut answers for your truly wonderful questions! I was just going thru' them again.

Hello Kavita and Everyone,

The only time in my life I felt like I wanted to lash out at someone, physically, was during a fight, an argument. It was a very powerful feeling and it immediately frightened me. Immediately, I realized I was in a bad situation and needed to leave it, period. I realized that I did not want to experience a feeling like that again and would never put myself in a situation where that would be a possibility. Violence is frightening, especially when you feel it within you, you know you are capable of violence but you make a conscious choice to say no to it, and that is also a powerful feeling, to face your violence and to say no to it.

Everyday you listen to the news in the MidEast, Israel and Palestine, and you want to hear that they have said no to violence, but it does not happen, they have not tired of killing, of fighting, of hating, they are powerless in changing their ways, a never ending saga of hate and destruction, they have no courage to end it. They have no power. ruth

It is quite an intersting point and a sign - at least about the commentators, if not about the sponsors and contributors - to note that one who writes rape is the law in Islam is touted as the 'powerhouse of knowledge' and a star.

It is also intersting to note that the same person has selective amnesia ('rusty memory') when some 'disturbing questions' were asked by an admirer!

If these are the kind of people who are going to save the world........

Thanks every one for your comments.
Kate and Sachin-I'm not a cofee drinker but I quite like tea-remember my blog on that cup of tea.
Sachin, and Kate both of you have made some interesting points.
RKL, I think I'm waiting to get some answers myself-your points are well taken. Again, we are all endowed with a thinking mind-I think all the posters and bloggers here can hopefully see and cut through what is crap-and at the same time acknowledge the validity of some insights-whether it is from one who is considered a powerhouse of knowledge and whatever else, or someone who isnt handed that crown.
RKL may be like life our brain power is not black and white either-may be that is why we refer to it as " gray matter".:)
I think we are who make anything seem like what we want , to suit our convenience- and we perceive it with our own eyes, interpret it as we wish to, and anything you or I or anyone else says-all of us here will take what we have to take, believe what we have to believe and that is that.
I hope that you will share your thoughts on the questions I asked. Look forward to it

Ruth,
thank you for sharing. I guess the devil and the divine resides within us. Just depends on who we allow to emerge.
love
Kavita

"to note that one who writes rape is the law in Islam is touted as the 'powerhouse of knowledge' and a star."

I'm told she always has evidence to back up her statements. I'd also be interested in seeing it for this particular statement.

BTW, lots of good contributions that I need to mull over..

Sachin, it looks like you get great pleasure out of randomly babbling about other people's posts :)). Good for you if it makes you feel better, but I'm afraid I don't have time to sift through the babble to get to some of your deep insights, so forgive me, but I'm going to skip your posts from now on..

I just read this last post by 'Sachin' to make sure I wasn't going to miss out on anything valuable. Nope.

"BTW, I thought the worst Addiction was you Kavita:)). Gosh! you bring out the best humor in me Kavita. Thanks and Thanks for the second one day match. How much are you scoring here My Friend Kavita? My prediction is another century for you...while your other fellow colleagues must be wondering, it's so difficult to score double figures, she's scoring....

I think you got the Charm of Deepakji and Shekhar! I just think so!

I may just be a witness here. I've got some other imp things to focus on Kavita. Also, If one foot is out of the door...where is the other foot? near the computer and typing? Don't quite understand Kavita:)))....Sachin"

What's wrong with you SI? You've such good Insights and debtaing skills, and you don't seem fine with my Friendly banter with Kavita or someone else from time to time. Someone like you, thinking that...I'm randomly babbling, surprises me. More than half of my posts here on the thread have...what serious meaning in it you can see it for yourself. But you were rt on target...if you don't like anything here...you got/have to skip the post, but not meddle too much with it.

I generally don't take such things seriously...I let it go, becoz I know what I'm doing and in what Intention it's being written. But had to write to you, becoz I understood your points very well before and you did mine. I was being humoros again with you addressing you as SubInspector. Maybe that put you off.

I'm the first one to love quality serious matter in the discussion, first one to encourage...don't forget that. When someone like me is being little friendly...it really shudn't matter I thought. I see things in a spectrum always...not as black and white. Most of the people here think that way..if it not white...then they go for black. A very simple concept, but missed.

Anyway...for your sake I may join in a serious discussion later perhaps...to show you how damn bloody serious I can get...when I get into that mode.

You take care now...Sachin

I was talking about this story in particular (I got the name of the woman wrong in my previous comment), but there have been other cases. Nicolas Kristoff from the NYT writes about them off and on. The stories from the Times are not available for free any more but I think he referred to this as a form of Sharia. This is the first article I found from google and it refers to a jirga. I don't know what law they use.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/157/story_15720_1.html

And I agree with RKL and SI - it is pretty ridiculous to refer to anyone as a powerhouse of knowledge, specially in these days when knowledge is available at one's fingertips.

I was re reading the comments on the main blog and a thought came over me-what I'm going to do here, is put together the comments posted by all of you in segments. The key points and at times the posts in their entirety.
I wonder how many of the questions really got answered. Please look at the following and tell me what you think. It was interesting from my own perspective when I put together all of my comments to Divya as to what all I had said and how much of it got ignored.
Starting from the top

Points made by Wafa Sultan
1.The world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.
2. The world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose. “I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings.”
3. Comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling." And “We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."
She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."
“Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."
The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

Geeta Jayaram
Hi Kavita, your blog is very timely. Thank you Kavita. Andaleeb one of our fellow bloggers had commented on another thread about how Koran was altered after the death of the Prophet. I have been curious since I have not read the Koran. I have many Muslim friends. Common sense tells me that there are the good and the bad in Islam, as in any other religion. The sad part is the bad in Islam are in influential positions in religion and politics. As quoted in the article, political leaders, holy warriors, and clerics are the ones that have a distorted view of Islam.
Dr Wafa Sultan is definitely a fresh voice of reason, with common sense and great courage. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article. God bless her and keep her safe. God bless you kavita.
Magenta
I too have wondered why Islam condones violence so readily (at least more readily than most of the other world religions). Most of the conflicts in the world right now are between extreme Islamists and everyone else (US vs. Iraq/afghan, India vs. Pakistan, and Israel vs. Palestine). notice the second country is always a Muslim majority country, and that Islam perpetually uses violence as a means to solve conflict.
that being said, I think it’s also a cultural thing bc my Muslim friends raised here (in the US) do not believe in violence at all.
hooray for dr. sultan! god bless her.
Utopian
Fareed Zakaria in his book 'Future of Freedom' higlights the conflicts within the Islam world very well. It probes deep in the lack of religious authority in Islam and how some terrorist(s)with some recognition can issue a 'fatwa' whereas it was not meant to be that way.
What Islam needs today is more political reforms in countries like UAE ,where terrorism is the second biggest import to the world.

When we break 300 plus comments into chunks and put together several posts by the same poster or blogger, it is interesting to see how much of it is relevant or repititive, or off the tangent. However these first few posts were pretty focused.

I am always of the opinion that education and family are the foundation to a person's behavior and attitude, in general. Most of the Muslims who blow themselves up are never had the benefits that education provides. Most likely, their parents never did too. Their view of the world is what is preached to them from the so-called political leaders, "holy" leaders, etc., who have their own personal agenda to resolve. Until today, none of the educated Muslims had the courage to stand up against these "teachings". But as always, with any oppression, it takes the courage and bravery of one person to stand up and show the rest of his/her people that they do not always have to be the browbeaten oppressed. Dr. Sultan is probably one of the many voices that are raising up to this challenge.

It should be clear to everybody now. If something happens in any Muslim community, it should be blamed on Islam.

The CLARITY of thought is really unimaginable!

RKL, I suggest instead of wasting your time in unecessary sarcasm, come up with something we can all learn from.
We've had enough of unnecessary stuff like that in the previous blog and there is really no point in your persisting with it.
What do you really think? I had posted Dr Hassabala's post a-what is your take on both dr sultan and him and other thoughts on the blog?
Look forward to hearing from you.

"It should be clear to everybody now. If something happens in any Muslim community, it should be blamed on Islam."

RKL:

One of the reasons for that maybe that it is ONLY the Islamic construct that any source of education or knowledge that does not include "Deeni" with the "Duniyavi" is NOT a valid source. So, basically the "Duniyavi" is held hostage to the "Deeni" interpretations. That is one of the reasons why Shariat laws are the FIRST thing implemented by a country that goes "Islamic" - like Pakistan did a few decades ago.

Now, there are some good points in that law but there are some extremely archaic ways of doing things too in that construct. for example read this story on my personal blog:
http://www.drishtikone.com/?q=node/1307

With results such as these (and if one is to read the daily news - such nonsensical stuff is getting pretty regular - like the death sentence to the Afghani convert) happening so often - one of the two things have to be there:

1. The inherent law is flawed - based on which the judgments are no better.

2. The inherent law is fair and sound - however, the interpretations are incorrect and barbaric.

If the latter is true then the question that begs the answer is WHY doesn't someone - yet to go to the authorities (NOT me NOT folks from other reigions) - the VERY authorities that are implementing "incorrect and flawed" interpretations .. and SHOW THEM the correct or the fair interpretation and INSIST that THAT is how the SHariat LAW should be implemented and NONE ELSE!!

When such things happen - then to go around saying Islamic law is fair and peaceful is neither here nor there. You and ALL those who strongly believe that SHariat is INDEED fair and peaceful NEED to catch the bull by its horns and make it see its folly.. And btw, this Bull is NOT the Jews, NOT the Christians, NOT the Hindus, NOT the West, and NOT the Sangh Parivar folks.. this BULL is ALL those clerics and religious leaders who INSIST that they know SHARIAT better than folks like you and that their version IS INDEED the correct one!

The fight in the Muslim world is with its ownself.. not with the outside world.. the trouble is that NONE of the vocal folks in the midst have understood it.. and instead have played this "Victim Mentality" far too long to even remain credible!

So, if you really believe in the fairness and obvious peaceful nature of Islamic laws and teachings... Call up Al Jazeera or write columns in the Pakistani/Islamic papers and show point by point why the cleric who is interpreting the Shariat in an inherently barbaric manner is talking from his ass!

... Until then.. please excuse those who have come to believe in the first explanation.

The fight is YOURS to fight for YOUR truth! You cannot sit idle and then blame others for mis-conceptions!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

RKL, I agree with you. Events that really have tribal and sociological reasons are constantly attributed to the sublime religion of Islam.

"One of the reasons for that maybe that it is ONLY the Islamic construct that any source of education"

should have read :

"One of the reasons for that maybe that it is ONLY IN the Islamic construct that any source of education"

"sublime religion of Islam"

SI: WHO TOLD YOU THAT???

There is NO religion that is sublime!! It is only spirituality that is sublime. So say something when you understand the basic stuff in the first place.

All religions - anything with codes and laws and a following is just gross.

Desh
Drishtikone.com

hi divya..
just to correct u a little bit on the link about "rape being the law in islam"...
i remember this story appeared in newspapers last summer, but if u notice, it says the imam himself was outraged and the president helped the girl - which means its NOT the law to gang rape!

its the same deal as sati - ppl who do it claim that its a part of hinduism.. but again its NOT the law & we know better (which is what ur argument was against, but u made a point similar to that).

Its like how in a village in India, there's a festival where people throw stones at each other and take the wounds as "prasaad" from god.. and then an outsider thinks that its the way things are in hinduism because those village people say that they are hindus.

perhaps u could talk about harems, or contract marraiges in islam which is the law in countries like Saudi Arabia, and many men take undue advantage of that but really to think rape is the law in islam is being ignorant.

Nimita - I managed to find the original Kristof article and you're right it does not say anything about Islamic law. I guess it was the heading that threw me off.

http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/staf-e/marquis/nyt2.html

Desh, sublime is a subjective term, it varies from person to person.

"perhaps u could talk about harems, or contract marraiges in islam which is the law in countries like Saudi Arabia, and many men take undue advantage of that"

But really, I find it highly arrogant of people to sit on high perches passing judgement on other societies, telling other women what is oppression and what isn't. Again, if hundreds of millions of women in Islam are perfectly at peace with their faith and their societies, why do the Divyas of the world have a problem with it? If thousands of American women are willingly converting to Islam, obviously they are finding something of value and satisfaction in the religion, and don't experience any so-called oppression.

So I ask people again to get off their imperialist high horses trying to dictate to other women what's good for them. If those societies want change, they'll bring it about themselves.

Secular Indian - I thought we were going to try and be decent. Remember you're not the only person who can shout. Why can't secular imbecile anti-feminist bigots get this simple point? Please re-read your post and see what kind of a high horse you're sitting on. From your very first post on this thread you came in screaming and frothing at the mouth like a maniac. Most of us work our way up to it - you've got to grant us that. But not you, every single post of yours is a rant. Are you utterly incapable of talking like a decent human being?

Okay, to address your points briefly - (1) Women are not happy in Islam; and (2) Islam is the fastest growing religion because (a) it outbreeds all the others; (b) It appeals to angry young men and therefore you find a high conversion rate among criminals and lowlifes; (c) it appeals to the downtrodden in the US who feel that Christianity has not done enough for them (d) people who convert to Islam in the US are still afforded the protection and liberty offered by US law (e) - and the only positive point - some (western) women like discipline and piety and Islam fulfills this gap.

"If thousands of American women are willingly converting to Islam, obviously they are finding something of value and satisfaction in the religion, and don't experience any so-called oppression."

SI: If Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Dayananda Saraswati and the Brits at that time had YOUR attitude then Widow oppression and Sati would still be commonplace today.... and btw, EVEN then it were the WOMEN who insisted that their daughter-in-law become Sati or shave her head and be packed off to some secluded spot.. and if you had asked those women... 90% of them would have responded with as much "Happiness" in being in that state as the women in Middle East do..

... On the other hand.. when these women DO COME OUT as Dr. Wafa did - shouting out against the injustice.. the MCPs like you and others in the Muslim world dismiss them as being "motivated" and NOT even Muslims anymore!

DO you have ANY freaking idea what oppression can do to your ability to even speak out???

I sure do hope you are nowhere near involved in any developmental agency doing work for the poor.. for you would be one callous person around!!

Desh
Drishtikone.com

Divya, I'm not ranting and having ranted except in my first post. My posts are made in a calm manner. If you reread them, you might realize that.

To address your points:
1. And we have *your* word for it?
2. a) Hmm, last I heard the highest birthrate belonged to the Mexicans, most of whom are devout Catholics.
b) Or it gives them the peace that has eluded them all this time. After conversion, they turn away from crime and into decent calm human beings.
c) And that's a negative point?
d) Ok. But I thought you said converting to Islam would mean they start being oppressed as women?
e) So Islam does have redeeming features, huh?

Yes Kavita....Sometimes you Get great Ideas!! Is it because of my company:)) I thought Geeta and Magenta's points were very good.

You did a terrific thing by getting those three points of Sultan's. I really love the way you discuss!!! You got one of the Best EQ's, which honestly sucks in this site unfortunately, but that's ok.

Kavita...when we are discussing, we got to take the COMPLETE PICTURE into acct, not just a small section of the full picture. Then we talk about the facets and angles of the complete picture. Generally what happens in Discussions is...two people are talking from different standpoints, and then continuously blaze at each other, end result is always a stalemate(world at large is a classic example). As is the microcosm so is the....? Kavita? You got it right...Macrocosm. If you carefully see...you'll see Intent is just that, small micro of the macro. Those who are ready to learn will learn something out of it, the rest who come with a Sole particular agenda, they stick to it. End result...by now we must have learnt something at least.

The second point of Sultan is correct in one context! But in the Broader picture, it is not entirely correct, I had got this point earlier too. CLASH OF CULTURES is Undeniable! It is staring at us in the world!! But it's true that muslims are having those internal battles which she pointed out.

The third point must be irking to the muslims. Isn't it? Reaction: How dare you bash us? Now wait, we'll bash you. Isn't it Kavita? I never mean to say when one is going violent, the other is 100% clean. No way!!

ARM was pretty good...was almost feeling as though I was reading your post Kavita. Very similar views to yours. Isn't it? Yes...with good Infrastructure in the education...there is hope for the better. But when politicians are not bothered about Education...where is the question of Infrastructre eh?

Kavita..Do you think talking about both sides of the coin is difficult?

You say to Divya...how much of your queries are not answered...what about my queries to you?

Truly...Sachin
PS: Don't drink too much herbal tea. You may suffer from Herbalaria:)))

Desh...Tum Videsh Kyun chale gaye? Kya tumein videsh mein rehkar humare pyaare Desh ki yaad nahi aathi? Is desh ko tumhare Jaise hee Politicians ki zarrorat hai! Lekin tum Videsh mein vho....:))

Uneducated Moslems carry out suicide attacks?

Let's remember the guys that flew the planes into the Twin Towers were not uneducated.

S.I. I'm sorry, we must have a different interpretation of calm.

1. That was just to counter *your* word for it. Nothing more nothing less.

2. a) The mullah from Denmark recently taunted the Danes saying that they're just going to bide their time and let demographics do its job and take over the country soon. It's on the net, look it up.

b) and c) Sorry, they sometimes turn into worse criminals. They don’t necessarily stay in Islam.

d) I said nothing of the sort. I've repeatedly talked about sociological consequences of religion. You don't flip a button and start becoming oppressed as a woman. If the U.S. were to go all Islamic, then yes, oppression of women would become the norm.

e) Many of these women get quickly disenchanted and leave. In an ideal world you should not have to join a religion in order to live a pious life.

Where to you think Wafa Sultan is coming from? And Ali Hrisi too. They've lived in Islamic society share their stories for all to read. As Desh pointed out, have you stopped to consider the consequences of living under repression?

Kavita's right, these posts are becoming awfully repetitive and beginning to produce diminishing results.

SM:

Naahak hai Gila humse;
Bewajah hai shikaayat bhi.
Hum laut ke aajaate;
Aawaaz to di hoti!

Haha just kidding.. one can make difference from any where.. until we are honest.

And if my prayers are answered, I may well return to India.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Desh..your points are rt...honesty is imp. I think now a couple of times I've mentioned this to you...You've a Very Powerful energy in you!! You don't belong in kid's playing area.

What Screwball comedy are you doing there in US?:))) Saying in light heartedness huh..don't come back at me like others.

Cheers..Sachin

Guys looks like we are going to slide back to a lot of what we don't want on the blog.
Divya I dont know how you are on more than one blog-I'm just about managing to handle this and still not being able to respond to everyone-
Well, coming to the topic at hand, may be every one is exhausted and we can discontinue the discussion here or I can do one more thing-it will take me a few hours but I can take the key points discussed through out the previous blog and post it here and have you all think about them.
S.I. I dont really know about freedom amongst Muslim women. Unfortunately much as I want to think to the contrary, I have seen the restrictions imposed on them growing up in India and Afghanistan. My brother lived in Dubai and Kuwait which are relatively modern places and things were rough there as well.
You have an important point though it wasnt written the way I'm interpreting it-you said let them make the changes if they think they need it themselves-I hope they will do so to improve the lot of women, but I wonder will the women have the freedom to bring about those changes themselves?
I remember the recent case of this saudi woman tv anchor who was beaten so brutally by her husband that she was hospitalised with massive facial and other injuries because she chose to speak up against him-she was granted a divorce but has had to deal with major long term effects-and this is a modern woman and not one behind the purdah.I remember seeing this story on abc news.
I think again it boils down to interpretations of ideologies. I am doing a story on what does it mean to be a woman of ethnic minority and while women from Pakistan and India who are muslim have spoken to me-Iranian women have refused. They appear modern but told me off record they were afraid.
I also see women like Andaleeb and Anusheh and Sadia here who are in a great place today-but I think they would have been where they are irrespective of their religious faith.
So in my mind the questions continue.

Well may be in the final analysis on both blogs, perhaps we can instead of posting here re-read stuff on our own and ask ourselves the questions and hopefully make an effort to be part of the solution.
Tell me how to proceed.
Sachin, sorry for not responding to you at length and to others..this is again crunch time for me with deadlines, and moving servers on my website is making it all quite crazy..but I appreciate every post-I know all of you know that.

Aloha Laurence

Are familiar with Schloars for 911 Truth; http://www.st911.org/ I don't think any Moslems were involved. Silverstien made 500 million of insurance and building 7 wasn't even hit and collapsed that afternoon. love patty

Kavita, I agree that ending the discussion here is best. I'll reread it in entirety and maybe whenever this subject comes up in future, I'll post with a better idea of where the others are coming from.

And thanks for being a great host. What I liked was that you were actively participating in the discussion, unlike some other bloggers who ignore all the comments and go on to post a new entry as if they are the first and last word on everything.

I hope this fierce tide of Islamophobia dies down. It's not good for minorities, both religious and racial, in general, because the right-wingers are going to use it to target *all* minorities over time. Remember the poem about "I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim"?

Sachin,

I to must state that the way you flutter in and out of these strings detracts from the conversation.

I have thought long and hard about whether to comment directly to you on this.

I have found myself irritated as I am one that reads every entry. Good or bad. Black or white. Multi colored. Whether I agree or not.

You comment about everyone yet rarely give original thought. You are irritating many more then just myself..

And for gods sake please use english. I mean full sentences and words. I am not the first to ask you to do this. Your humor is not making any of us laugh so please please stop. Please.

Patty,

Thanks for the link.

Patty & LPB, just to provide contrary evidence, check this link also:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Just SKIP..LPB! It's not a compulsion to be read.
This is the last time....I'm saying it! Any problem with me...go and report it to Mallika, because next time I'll just skip.
Thanks..Sachin

Sachin.

It's not about reporting anything. This isn't kindergarden and shouldn't be treated as such.

You use this site as if it were for your private amusement and end up pissing off more then a few people.

Just grow up and respect others.

S.I.,

Thanks for the link. By the way I don't actually subscribe to conspiracy theories. Just though some might be interested.

Laurence Peter Brown,

I am glad that you have stepped forward to say something to this nut, the super pest. Each time he says something, he thinks it is necessary for us to know how 'smart' he is.

Fools usually don't know that they are fools even when told so.

I suspect he is operating under several aliases. Just look at the frequency of the comments, the similarity, the style, and the quality of English and it is very easy to figure out.

Have a nice evening, Laurence.

I think Kavita bears some of the responsibility for perpetuating this type of behavior. I know you mean well Kavita, but if you try and please everyone you're certainly going to piss some people off. I was tempted to ask just what deep insights you found in SM's posts which you kept repeatedly praising, but decided to drop it at the time.

As LPB said, this is not kindergarten so we can't exactly go tattling to the list owners each time. But most blogs have *very* strong personalities at the helm who will instantly shoot you down for talking rubbish. Not here. Everyone's seems to be on the "I'm so sweet and loving trip". As a result we end up with all kinds of nonsense. Not only that, the bloggers will go out of their way to praise the nonsense in an all out effort to demonstrate their kind compassion. Who're you kidding? Or could it be you actually like reading garbage? In which case you can ignore my comments. I understand it takes all types.

While I'm at it, may I request you Kavita to please hit the return key to separate your paragraphs. You said that it sometimes appears I don't read what you write and it's true. But when I see things so sloppily jumbled together I don't bother to read it.

I think Divya no one is trying to be on a "I'm sweet" Trip-we wouldnt be having the kind of posts that are here right above this one, and others eleswhere. You dont have to be obnoxious to make a point do you- the same thing can be said civilly.

This is as you and Laurence have said, not a kindergarten and I'm not your teacher trying to slap you guys down-Sachin or anyone else has every right to say whatever they wish to say. I can't play refree on your behalf. All of you I think are quite well equipped to fight your own cyber battles. :)

Its futile to compare this to any other blog-because hopefully its not any other blog..

I will try and space my paragraphs more carefully in the future. Thanks for pointing it out.

S.I. the possible prejudices against minority groups seem to be there irrespective of their religion. I'm currently working on an investigative story-the operation meth merchant case where 49 people were arrested for suposedly selling more than the required quota of over the counter cold medicine which can be used to make methamphetamine. 43 out of the 49 were Indian and all 43 had the last name Patel. There has been an outcry in the community that the entire sting operation was racially motivated-and as I work on it more and more things are unravelling. And of course members of the southasian community themselves are capable of doing things that are illegal as has been found in some cases.

whatever the final story, more than religion, I think south asians need to interact more with mainstream america, something these people didn't do in this small rural predominantly white town in Georgia, according to one of the attorneys I interviewed.

And finally to answer what I found worth praising in Sachin's posts-you may want to re-read them again-hopefully his paragraphs are better spaced them mine-I think you will find some posts worht thinking about-I think there is plenty in the blogs to ignore and a lot of it doesnt belong to Sachin, does it?

Just following one's religion peacefully is a difference of opinion in principle, when your religion or path is different. Think about it, why should we meddle around with those who are practising it peacefully. Let them be happy in their world. It's only when someone pokes hard at the other in the name of religion...then the eye for an eye saga begins. Once that eye for eye saga sets in, it is a Vicious(both meanings of vicious)cycle. The other vicious of course is the Effect produced from the cause...becomes the cause again for the same effect. In plain english what they say "Hatred begets Hatred". So, it's perpetual...on and on and on.
Coming back to serious questions... There was one guy on ndtv who asked why is that America decides for others always?? The reasoning that they have for doing that is...they've been attacked is fine...but do they ever think what must have caused it?
Now...they want Democracy all over the world. As though...that system of Govt is the only true system of governing. In principle they are doing the same as Islam fundys. My God is the only true God, so now you better change yourself to My God i.e democracy. And democracy in America? Gotham had mentioned once..it's a Sham...what it is in India. Everything is a Sham nowadays...yeah becoz there is no Ram

Some how the inverted commas didnt show up in the last para-it belongs to two of sachin's posts.

Kavita...Do you engage in this rubbish? You'll go mad. Take care.

Kavita..I had not seen your earlier post before. It's called Resonance! Same frequency vibrates. I know those who vibrate to my frequency. I would guess you would know when does a person resort to those techniques. Do you?

Take care of yourself....nth time I'm telling you as a well wisher....Sachin

Kavita, I agree with you that things can always be said with civility if one likes to. This is about the only site where I put in my few thoughts, only because of the sincerity and the intelligence of the bloggers. Most blog sites end up being a means of finger-pointing and cussing, which I hope this site does not end up becoming.

Kavita, I completely agree that we need to do more to integrate ourselves into mainstream America, not stay secluded in the Indian community, however comfortable and easy that is; gotta undergo some difficult experiences. The thing is, I'm not quite sure where to start. I do volunteering, play sports, hang out with American coworkers at work, but that never translates into any deep friendships. I think it might be that our ways of interacting are just too different. Anyway, that's a topic for a whole different blog entry for the future.

I second your proposal to suspend the discussion on the current topic for now. We've all said what we had to and need time to digest the entire discussion.

Sachin, post as much as you like, dude. Others can ignore your entries if they feel the signal-to-noise is too low (I'm one of them, btw).

Divya,
I wager you expend energy in defending your positions, within the scope of your intelligent discussions, that your sometimes negative putdowns are not without effect upon yourself, as well others.

The moment words are spoken, or written - in comes analysis, interpretation, he said, she said, they said... etc.

This Blog of Intent bears witness to every form of verbal exchange.

Kavita, I appreciate your interactions with those who comment within posts. Thank you - because it really does promote discussion, reflection, willingness to grow and change, allowing for many viewpoints, and so often, honest communication and comraderie.

If sweetness is inherent in someone, No One can determine otherwise.

~ Kate

Kate - You're right. It is upsetting all round. But I'm still creeped out at SM's pimping off of other's posts specially the time he behaved like this was a dog fight. The difference is that most people acknowledge their faults. Some just pretend there aren't any faults.

Sweetness is a subjective term. I certainly didn't mean it as a compliment in this instance. Of course I find some people genuinely sweet, like Kanika or Mallika for example. But if I recall correctly, someone posted a few months back that they found Mallika's sweetness phony. Can't please 'em all and nor should one try to. And sweetness in such a context can be classified as offensive behavior just as rudeness is for some. But if many people say they have a problem with a certain person, perhaps that person should take heed. This is an interaction after all and should follow the protocol of one.

"Can't please 'em all and nor should one try to."

Divya you answered your own post! The problem becomes again of the fact that this is a free forum without any rules and regulations-and its becomes tough then to try and impose that on people. I think Mallika mentioned the reason some time back about why they prefer to keep it open like this- For three people who find a person irritating there will be three others who will like what they say. You've been the recipient of that yourself many times, along with all of us out here.

I read everything that is addressed on my blog because people take time to write it and I must respect that- plus your trash may be someone else's treasure. I ignore what I feel is irrelevant and address whatever piques my interest-and I don't look at anything as garbage-I'm smiling as I write this-remembering my mom and aunts trying to buy steel utensils with what they considered their garabage-even that had salvage value, isnt it?

Kate thank you.

S.I. we are doing some inter-ethnic outreach programs with the Jewish community for the past couple of years and it has worked very well. Culturally yes people are different. Indians tend to be more closeknit and extend themselves more-but hopefully the hate crimes will drop even if people start recognizing our faces and know who we are atleast.

Okay guys this is it for me-need to get a cup of tea-and get to work and cook for my out of town guests.
take care all

Kavita,

You have gad very nice words for me in the past so please do not see this as synical but please:

"Just following one's religion peacefully is a difference of opinion in principle, when your religion or path is different."

Please please please.

"Can't please 'em all and nor should one try to."

Except that imo that is what you do do most of the time. Nobody is suggesting that Intent impose rules and regulations. But it is important that bloggers be perceived to be fair. If 3 people say I am rude and obnoxious even I take that to be an objective fact while you try and let it slide. Similarly if 3 people say SM is obnoxious and you let that slide it does not come across as a fair assessment.

Anyway, just my opinion - and probably good to debrief after such a long discussion.

Dear Laurence,
I still have fond words for you and your adorable daughter. My interpretation of that line is- to focus on the good aspects of religion whichever religion it may be.
I'm going to re read every post again a little each day.. and see what I get from it. Maybe I'll change my interpretations:)
Glad you are back.

Divya, funny I don't see Mallika sitting there admonishing people, since you mentioned her-sachin posts extensively on most blogs, including hers since you've made an issue out of it. Anyway it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I'm frankly quite happy with the way I blog and who Iam!
Yeah glad you are debriefing-this is irrelevant stuff.

But she doesn't cheer on obnoxious behavior from the sidelines either, so there's no comparison. Anyway, this is just my opinion, and highly relevant as far as I'm concerned. How can it not be when words have an effect on all of us, or was that just a knee-jerk response? Now remember you just advised me to say things nicely and hopefully your response (if any) will reflect your own advice.

No knee jerk responses from me Divya-just having some fun with you-just to see what you will say next-I know you have a sense of humor and yes I have noticed the change in you..
Okay dear I promise to behave in future and you correct me when you think I'm being too nice(wink!)I will get my goon squad and cyber gun out!
I think Mallika is a sweetheart and I love her book btw.
okay back to cooking-dont want to burn my food..have a good evening!

Okay, kiss kiss, make up. You enjoy your dinner. I just learned to make south indian yogurt rice. It's the best.

Kavitha - Sorry for wasting the space. I would refrain from making such comments in future. But when blatant lies are said and accepted generally, I could not contain myself - which of course is a bad sign of me. I should know this is not the way to 'defend.'

I have said my opinion when I posted the link to the altmuslim article.

Desh- How do you know that I am sitting idle? Btw, what did 'she' tell you lately? Listen to her more and tell us too. That is more important and I think you will be remembered for that.

Kavita,

Thank you and you are amazing. To have such a busy schedule and then to contend with so many diverse personalities on this site and then......to think of my daughter.

You touch on the most important things.

The only reason I quoted the first sentence of that particular post is because the sentence itself, which was the opening sentence to that particular post, makes no sense to me.

It just may be that it's to enlightened for where I am. And I do not say that with any sarcasm.

Kavita...What could be so Obnoxious when humor was never addressed to them huh? In Spirituality, there is a topic called "Approval of others". In it...we're taught we never take other people's opinions about us seriously! Something which Mallika was talking a while back...how her Dad taught them, not to take people's opinions seriously. Our happiness should not be based on other's approval. The moment, one gets stuck in that....one is stuck in the ego, can never get in touch with the self. When you connect with your Higher self in you..you lose that need. This one is very interesting chapter. Deepakji talks great as usual on this topic.

Yeah...knowing your comprehension, I'm sure you must have understood what I said there. To paraphrase and elaborate..so that it becomes very clear. If someone else is following a religion other than your own....he's chosen a different track, in principle it is like a difference of opinion. When you value the principle behind any difference of opinion in democracy....why can't you do the same when someone else is following a path different from yours.

Also Kavita...If 2 people think I'm sweet and 4 think I'm not. What do I become? Gosh!! I become nothing...I'm the same as who I'm. They are just perceptions of others....those who like me will always think I'm sweet, those who don't you know....Had it not been Kavita the contributor of this blog, I would have cared two hoots.

Take care..Sachin:))

Sachin: I heard Wayne Dyer condense your post into a one-liner: Why does no one ever approve of an approval-seeker? Interesting question!

I've been enjoying Dr. Dyer's new PBS special, "Inspiration," to the tune of having watched it five times through now (it's four hours).

I found it interesting that Dr. Dyer referred to an old friend of his, Jack, who loved butterflies for their amazing capacities at flying 4,300 miles each way, for their migrations, all with "toilet-paper" for wings, and then find not only the same tree they came from, but the same branch--with a pin-sized brain at that!

Dr. Dyer mentions taking his friend Jack, who had contracted cancer throughout his back, to his friend Deepak Chopra's Ayurvedic Center in Massachusetts--I find it interesting, that after all these years, Dr. Dyer still associates Deepak as being something of the founder for Ayurvedic Medicine in the West!

Deepak has probably done more than any other "premier voice," to open the doors for Ayurveda, and all other forms of Alternative Medicine, in this country (and many others). Dave

Wayne Dyer is Awesome David!! No wonder he's a close Pal of Deepak. Don't they say..Birds of Same feather Flock together! How True!!

Yes, I agree like The Wonderful Wayne and many others that Dear Deepak has been the Premier voice in contributing so much to the world, Especially America!! It was the time magazine which recognized him as the top 100 Icons of the century, he's been fondly but truly called Poet Prophet of Alternative medicine! Coming from a similar medical background...I'm just amazed at his Understanding of the subject and then to present it lucidly is all the more. Then, going a step higher..his Understanding of Spirituality, of the many schools of philosophy leaves you Breathless.

It's good to see that you've an Inclination and a good understanding of these subjects and the masters in this field.

Truly..Sachin:)

Kavita,

Just read your earlier comment of two days ago asking a few questions, and I was astonished at how much I empathised with your comments and questions.

In answering the basic gist of your queries I need to express how I look at religion and that in essence is actually based on my take on religious books itself. I had expressed something similar when I first came to this site. In the main I think most religions are similar in concept. They ask and expect people to accept some basic tenets - goodness, kindness, compassion and tolerance. Where religious books come in is to then go further and actually spell out how this is to be done and thats where I switch off. In my opinion this has led to people then comparing what one book says against another and in some cases there are those who even say that unless something is done in a specific way it is not corerect, I refuse to believe that there is only one right way and the rest are wrong. On the contrary I think there could be many correct ways and the trick is in avoiding the few that may be wrong. I was once told by someone who is deeply religious, 'it is not enough to lead a good life - salvation lies in following the teachings as given in the book implicitly.' This I find is what causes upheaval between different faiths. Actually there is far more commonality than difference between religions, somehow we as human beings don't actually think it worthwhile to concentrate on the commonality and prefer to simply accentuate the differences. Thats is why I feel that most discussions, like this one has been, even though they are extremely interesting and have lessons to imbibe, really end up in a sort of stalemate. Seldom is it conclusive.

And Sachin: I adore your self-entitled description as "The Laughing Bat!"

I can't help but think of that image without feeling good--sooo....for all those that are irritated by the flapping of those bat-wings, their sound and distraction from the more "weightier gravity" of so many points-of-human-anguish; well,.....the presence of "those wings" lifts me higher as well! Dave

Dara: You've extrapolated on the meaning of the saying: The Spirit of the Law, not the Letter of the Law."--That is to me, the spiritual meaning behind all great religious teachings. Dave

Hi Kavita--busy setting Intentblog "records-for-most-hits," are we!!!! Dave

Thank you everyone-the next few days will be very hectic work wise so please excuse me if I dont respond as often or quickly or address each one of you.

I was watching the today show and an interesting segment that while 80 percent of the teens say they need religion and faith in their lives, they dont know how to connect with religion, and are looking for unconventional ways to connect with God! So now there are several websites-mypraize.com among many that lets them download say services on their ipod(talk of modern technology taking over divinity!)..There are skiing trips by the local pastor and kids, and much more.
Dont know if it serves the purpose but I guess anything goes these days.

Sachin and David, your posts inter-connect. Interestingly everyone is saying the same thing here-you can't please every body-lets hope we take that message and move on!

I guess this blog was supposed to end with my-"lets absorb what we read in the previous one"-but seems to have taken on a life of its own.

Dara, Laurence thank you-Divya what is that recipe? I love yoghurt rice.Please do post it on the open thread for today if you can. I will definitely try it.

RKL, I can sense your sadness and frustration,but again I request you, please dont take it personally, you can question whatever it is that you dont like and be armed with facts to prove it wrong. Also a request-could you please post the entire piece and not the links in future-even though it may be long-very often people don't bother to go the link if they are rushed -at times the links dont work..it will also show us what it is that you are trying to say.

And finally, and I think my cyber voice has gone hoarse saying this-take what you need to take-and leave the rest behind..
got to run

Excellent article by Amartya Sen. He talks about the absurdity of identifying people based on religion. This supports my position that it makes no sense for people to say "I know some very nice Muslims" etc. This line, in fact, is what most people base their entire arguments on. If you go over this whole thread, you will notice that almost every person on the other side from me has used this line in one way or another. Do take the time to read this article. Sen does not, however, address the issue of ideology which is the foundation for my side of the argument.

http://www.slate.com/id/2138731/

David...Most of the things are Self entitled only at blogs....But I realize there was gross misunderstanding, that's the problem with net communication. Those were exclusively addressed to Kavita. Actually the fun there was (with Due respect to Hassaballa)...In hindi, which Kavita definitely must have understood...Hassa means...Laugh and Balla in hindi means Cricket Bat, the wooden bat with which you strike the ball, becoz Indians are fanatic about cricket they would get it straight. So it becomes laughing bat...but I'm sure it must have sounded as you said. See..the translation part takes so long, but I never addressed it to Everyone in that post. and you know how muslims for everything associated with their Islam resort to Fatwa(Death threat)...I was just mocking at that, especially to Kavita...just teasing her. She's a sport btw...I know for sure.

Well...what can I say....there are 101 drawbacks more of this net communication..the downside of it. There are 101 things I don't like about what people say and do here, and am aure there must 101 people more feeling the same way about 101 people more. So... Generally speaking you've to go by what Mallika and Chopras right say...free site and if at all anything is displeasing just ignore and skip. I do that for so many things here, now do I go on say it. No way. Focus has to be on imp tracks.

Anway...

Kavita...your Cyber voice has always been very beautiful to me. You always say people put in so much effort and I always see you as a Contributor puts in So much effort...no damn bloody contributor does that to the Intentbloggers like Kavita. I think I told you this long time back, what Differentiates others from Kavita is this, but again it has a big downside to it. You got to be Emotionally Very sound...to handle that. In the end..it's always that person's decision, but my suggestions to you have always been with a Good Intention to protect you from the nastiness you get into becoz of these trivial things and mind you this is just a pattern...it's bound to repeat!!! Writing on the wall!!!

Now my Rocket is on the end stages to take off...once it reaches Pluto and does all the exploration there,and if things turn out rt, I'll get back to you Dear Kavita, if not I may well lose up myself in Pluto. I don't like the Earth much anyway.

Take care and wish me good luck...Sachin

Sachin,

If I may I'd like to offer you good luck and gods speed.

Thanks for being a mirror here.

The lesson for me today as I moved through the world was tolerance. And you were on my mind much today.

Divya,
the page seem to have moved..could you be kind enough to post the article here if you can as I asked RKL-that way every one can read it at leisure.
Sachin, I understand-Laurence thank you for having the grace and the ability to look beyond yourself.
Take care-it has been an all day interviewing lawyers affair..and now after a short break there will be more.

What Clash of Civilizations?

Why religious identity isn't destiny.

By Amartya Sen
Posted Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 6:02 AM ET

This essay is adapted from the new book Identity and Violence, published by Norton.

That some barbed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed could generate turmoil in so many countries tells us some rather important things about the contemporary world. Among other issues, it points up the intense sensitivity of many Muslims about representation and derision of the prophet in the Western press (and the ridiculing of Muslim religious beliefs that is taken to go with it) and the evident power of determined agitators to generate the kind of anger that leads immediately to violence. But stereotyped representations of this kind do another sort of damage as well, by making huge groups of people in the world to look peculiarly narrow and unreal.

The portrayal of the prophet with a bomb in the form of a hat is obviously a figment of imagination and cannot be judged literally, and the relevance of that representation cannot be dissociated from the way the followers of the prophet may be seen. What we ought to take very seriously is the way Islamic identity, in this sort of depiction, is assumed to drown, if only implicitly, all other affiliations, priorities, and pursuits that a Muslim person may have. A person belongs to many different groups, of which a religious affiliation is only one. To see, for example, a mathematician who happens to be a Muslim by religion mainly in terms of Islamic identity would be to hide more than it reveals. Even today, when a modern mathematician at, say, MIT or Princeton invokes an "algorithm" to solve a difficult computational problem, he or she helps to commemorate the contributions of the ninth-century Muslim mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, from whose name the term algorithm is derived (the term "algebra" comes from the title of his Arabic mathematical treatise "Al Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah"). To concentrate only on Al-Khwarizmi's Islamic identity over his identity as a mathematician would be extremely misleading, and yet he clearly was also a Muslim. Similarly, to give an automatic priority to the Islamic identity of a Muslim person in order to understand his or her role in the civil society, or in the literary world, or in creative work in arts and science, can result in profound misunderstanding.

The increasing tendency to overlook the many identities that any human being has and to try to classify individuals according to a single allegedly pre-eminent religious identity is an intellectual confusion that can animate dangerous divisiveness. An Islamist instigator of violence against infidels may want Muslims to forget that they have any identity other than being Islamic. What is surprising is that those who would like to quell that violence promote, in effect, the same intellectual disorientation by seeing Muslims primarily as members of an Islamic world. The world is made much more incendiary by the advocacy and popularity of single-dimensional categorization of human beings, which combines haziness of vision with increased scope for the exploitation of that haze by the champions of violence.

A remarkable use of imagined singularity can be found in Samuel Huntington's influential 1998 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. The difficulty with Huntington's approach begins with his system of unique categorization, well before the issue of a clash—or not—is even raised. Indeed, the thesis of a civilizational clash is conceptually parasitic on the commanding power of a unique categorization along so-called civilizational lines, which closely follow religious divisions to which singular attention is paid. Huntington contrasts Western civilization with "Islamic civilization," "Hindu civilization," "Buddhist civilization," and so on. The alleged confrontations of religious differences are incorporated into a sharply carpentered vision of hardened divisiveness.

In fact, of course, the people of the world can be classified according to many other partitions, each of which has some—often far-reaching—relevance in our lives: nationalities, locations, classes, occupations, social status, languages, politics, and many others. While religious categories have received much airing in recent years, they cannot be presumed to obliterate other distinctions, and even less can they be seen as the only relevant system of classifying people across the globe. In partitioning the population of the world into those belonging to "the Islamic world," "the Western world," "the Hindu world," "the Buddhist world," the divisive power of classificatory priority is implicitly used to place people firmly inside a unique set of rigid boxes. Other divisions (say, between the rich and the poor, between members of different classes and occupations, between people of different politics, between distinct nationalities and residential locations, between language groups, etc.) are all submerged by this allegedly primal way of seeing the differences between people.

The difficulty with the clash of civilizations thesis begins with the presumption of the unique relevance of a singular classification. Indeed, the question "Do civilizations clash?" is founded on the presumption that humanity can be pre-eminently classified into distinct and discrete civilizations, and that the relations between different human beings can somehow be seen, without serious loss of understanding, in terms of relations between different civilizations.

This reductionist view is typically combined, I am afraid, with a rather foggy perception of world history that overlooks, first, the extent of internal diversities within these civilizational categories, and second, the reach and influence of interactions—intellectual as well as material—that go right across the regional borders of so-called civilizations. And its power to befuddle can trap not only those who would like to support the thesis of a clash (varying from Western chauvinists to Islamic fundamentalists), but also those who would like to dispute it and yet try to respond within the straitjacket of its prespecified terms of reference.

The limitations of such civilization-based thinking can prove just as treacherous for programs of "dialogue among civilizations" (much in vogue these days) as they are for theories of a clash of civilizations. The noble and elevating search for amity among people seen as amity between civilizations speedily reduces many-sided human beings to one dimension each and muzzles the variety of involvements that have provided rich and diverse grounds for cross-border interactions over many centuries, including the arts, literature, science, mathematics, games, trade, politics, and other arenas of shared human interest. Well-meaning attempts at pursuing global peace can have very counterproductive consequences when these attempts are founded on a fundamentally illusory understanding of the world of human beings.

Increasing reliance on religion-based classification of the people of the world also tends to make the Western response to global terrorism and conflict peculiarly ham-handed. Respect for "other people" is shown by praising their religious books, rather than by taking note of the many-sided involvements and achievements, in nonreligious as well as religious fields, of different people in a globally interactive world. In confronting what is called "Islamic terrorism" in the muddled vocabulary of contemporary global politics, the intellectual force of Western policy is aimed quite substantially at trying to define—or redefine—Islam.

To focus just on the grand religious classification is not only to miss other significant concerns and ideas that move people. It also has the effect of generally magnifying the voice of religious authority. The Muslim clerics, for example, are then treated as the ex officio spokesmen for the so-called Islamic world, even though a great many people who happen to be Muslim by religion have profound differences with what is proposed by one mullah or another. Despite our diverse diversities, the world is suddenly seen not as a collection of people, but as a federation of religions and civilizations. In Britain, a confounded view of what a multiethnic society must do has led to encouraging the development of state-financed Muslim schools, Hindu schools, Sikh schools, etc., to supplement pre-existing state-supported Christian schools. Under this system, young children are placed in the domain of singular affiliations well before they have the ability to reason about different systems of identification that may compete for their attention. Earlier on, state-run denominational schools in Northern Ireland had fed the political distancing of Catholics and Protestants along one line of divisive categorization assigned at infancy. Now the same predetermination of "discovered" identities is now being allowed and, in effect encouraged, to sow even more alienation among a different part of the British population.

Religious or civilizational classification can be a source of belligerent distortion as well. It can, for example, take the form of crude beliefs well exemplified by U.S. Lt. Gen. William Boykin's blaring—and by now well-known—remark describing his battle against Muslims with disarming coarseness: "I knew that my God was bigger than his," and that the Christian God "was a real God, and [the Muslim's] was an idol." The idiocy of such bigotry is easy to diagnose, so there is comparatively limited danger in the uncouth hurling of such unguided missiles. There is, in contrast, a much more serious problem in the use in Western public policy of intellectual "guided missiles" that present a superficially nobler vision to woo Muslim activists away from opposition through the apparently benign strategy of defining Islam appropriately. They try to wrench Islamic terrorists from violence by insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, and that a "true Muslim" must be a tolerant individual ("so come off it and be peaceful"). The rejection of a confrontational view of Islam is certainly appropriate and extremely important at this time, but we must ask whether it is necessary or useful, or even possible, to try to define in largely political terms what a "true Muslim" must be like.

******

A person's religion need not be his or her all-encompassing and exclusive identity. Islam, as a religion, does not obliterate responsible choice for Muslims in many spheres of life. Indeed, it is possible for one Muslim to take a confrontational view and another to be thoroughly tolerant of heterodoxy without either of them ceasing to be a Muslim for that reason alone.

The response to Islamic fundamentalism and to the terrorism linked with it also becomes particularly confused when there is a general failure to distinguish between Islamic history and the history of Muslim people. Muslims, like all other people in the world, have many different pursuits, and not all their priorities and values need be placed within their singular identity of being Islamic. It is, of course, not surprising at all that the champions of Islamic fundamentalism would like to suppress all other identities of Muslims in favor of being only Islamic. But it is extremely odd that those who want to overcome the tensions and conflicts linked with Islamic fundamentalism also seem unable to see Muslim people in any form other than their being just Islamic.

People see themselves—and have reason to see themselves—in many different ways. For example, a Bangladeshi Muslim is not only a Muslim but also a Bengali and a Bangladeshi, typically quite proud of the Bengali language, literature, and music, not to mention the other identities he or she may have connected with class, gender, occupation, politics, aesthetic taste, and so on. Bangladesh's separation from Pakistan was not based on religion at all, since a Muslim identity was shared by the bulk of the population in the two wings of undivided Pakistan. The separatist issues related to language, literature, and politics.

Similarly, there is no empirical reason at all why champions of the Muslim past, or for that matter of the Arab heritage, have to concentrate specifically on religious beliefs only and not also on science and mathematics, to which Arab and Muslim societies have contributed so much, and which can also be part of a Muslim or an Arab identity. Despite the importance of this heritage, crude classifications have tended to put science and mathematics in the basket of "Western science," leaving other people to mine their pride in religious depths. If the disaffected Arab activist today can take pride only in the purity of Islam, rather than in the many-sided richness of Arab history, the unique prioritization of religion, shared by warriors on both sides, plays a major part in incarcerating people within the enclosure of a singular identity.

Even the frantic Western search for "the moderate Muslim" confounds moderation in political beliefs with moderateness of religious faith. A person can have strong religious faith—Islamic or any other—along with tolerant politics. Emperor Saladin, who fought valiantly for Islam in the Crusades in the 12th century, could offer, without any contradiction, an honored place in his Egyptian royal court to Maimonides as that distinguished Jewish philosopher fled an intolerant Europe. When, at the turn of the 16th century, the heretic Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in Campo dei Fiori in Rome, the Great Mughal emperor Akbar (who was born a Muslim and died a Muslim) had just finished, in Agra, his large project of legally codifying minority rights, including religious freedom for all.

The point that needs particular attention is that while Akbar was free to pursue his liberal politics without ceasing to be a Muslim, that liberality was in no way ordained—nor of course prohibited—by Islam. Another Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb, could deny minority rights and persecute non-Muslims without, for that reason, failing to be a Muslim, in exactly the same way that Akbar did not terminate being a Muslim because of his tolerantly pluralist politics.

The insistence, if only implicitly, on a choiceless singularity of human identity not only diminishes us all, it also makes the world much more flammable. The alternative to the divisiveness of one pre-eminent categorization is not any unreal claim that we are all much the same. Rather, the main hope of harmony in our troubled world lies in the plurality of our identities, which cut across each other and work against sharp divisions around one single hardened line of vehement division that allegedly cannot be resisted. Our shared humanity gets savagely challenged when our differences are narrowed into one devised system of uniquely powerful categorization.

Perhaps the worst impairment comes from the neglect—and denial—of the roles of reasoning and choice, which follow from the recognition of our plural identities. The illusion of unique identity is much more divisive than the universe of plural and diverse classifications that characterize the world in which we actually live. The descriptive weakness of choiceless singularity has the effect of momentously impoverishing the power and reach of our social and political reasoning. The illusion of destiny exacts a remarkably heavy price.

Amartya Sen is the Lamont University Professor at Harvard and the winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics. Adapted from Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, by Amartya Sen. Copyright 2006 by Amartya Sen. With permission of the publisher, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. This material may not be reproduced, rewritten, or redistributed.

I have been following this long debate. I did not feel smart enough to engage in the discussion. Having read Sen's essay I could not resist the temptation.
Generally, I agree with Divya's line of reasoning. Just the fact that One knows many good muslims does not necessarily mean Islam is a great religion. On the other hand, I am not quite sure whether I agree with Sen's thinking. If we go back to Koran, it is Moammed who divides the world in two groups; believers and non beleivers. For Muslims, when chips are down that division is one which counts. And the rest of the world has started to accept this. For instance, we have conferences and meetings of islamic countries and no one thinks twice about it. I do not believe world will accept a meeting of christian countries. Almost all muslimm countries are Islamic republics. May be there is a christian. I do not know.
If Akbar was a great ruler, still he saw himself as muslim wanting to be kind to non muslim and Aurangzeb the opposite. For them too, it was believers and non believers. Sure there are muslim scientists, artists, doctors and what not but that division has entirely different role which one can play without diminishing the islamhood.
Morris

Sachin: Thank you for the interesting twist about the "cricket bat," vs. my interpretation of the flying mammal!

Your explanation now has my mind fashioning a new kind of baseball bat--it's own version of the infamous actor/director/producer Robert Redford's equivalent then, of a cricket bat, except for American baseball, as seen in the movie "The Natural."

In this movie, his character shapes and hones a baseball bat out of a tree limb that was struck by lightning; as a boy, he took this bat and used a wood-burner to carve in a lightning bolt, and the inscription, "Wonder Boy," surrounding the lightning bolt--he knocked 'em outta the park with that bat.

Interesting to note that Robert Redford himself started his young adult life out heading for a baseball career, as he played for a short time at the University of Colorado, in Boulder.

I know I'm rambling Sachin, but.....you took the time to explain the cross-translation of cultural variances--and I appreciate it--learning "new stuff" is the most fun thing. Dave

Morris – Sen generally doesn’t like to ruffle any feathers. Notice he didn’t touch upon ideology at all. Surely he’s smart enough to know it plays a role in all of this. I still liked the article because somebody needed to make the point he made and he makes it well.

It isn’t just Islam that divides the world in two. Christianity does it too. This is the major flaw of monotheism – it is intolerant by definition. As for grouping together for conferences and political rallies, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that per se. It’s nice for people to hang out with like-minded people. Where these meetings start to get dangerous is when they talk about killing the infidels. I know Germany has a political party called the Christian Democrats or something and U.S. politics is completely mixed up with religion too. I don’t just mean as a vote bank, but that religious doctrine plays a big role in US policy.

You say:

“If we go back to Koran, it is Moammed who divides the world in two groups; believers and non beleivers. For Muslims, when chips are down that division is one which counts.”

Isn’t this the same as blaming all Americans for the faults of Bush, Cheney and gang? Most people are just too busy getting drunk and watching TV and generally making it from one day to the next. But US policy is definitely designed to screw the world. It’s the same with Islam. Most muslims are not culpable. But the objective of the religion is very much to take over the world. Ditto with Christianity and it pretty much has succeeded in doing so.

What Sen’s article completely (and deliberately) misses is the long term effect of religious ideology on people and politics.

I know this is a particularly parochial way to put things - but I have no other way to put it in the most effective manner. I believe that there are two paradigms to see the world and one's own place and issues thereof:

1. Bengali paradigm= The World should be so! If it aint so, it is a monumental mistake!

2. Punjabi paradigm= The World IS SO! I dont give a damn - lets deal with it as it is!

It is fairly obvious where Sen's stuff falls in - it is quite possible he has been frequenting the "addas" a little more often these days!

The fact of multiplicity of dimensions in a personality is VERY TRUE at the INDIVIDUAL level. But it quickly and has empirically FADED away in groups! Otherwise the kind of violence that was witnessed during partition would have NEVER ocurred! Neither would have the kind of response that one saw in the Cartoon Controversy...

I have a poll on my blog @ drishtikone.com - asking the readers if Clash of Civilization is real or not. Till now, 91% of the readers believe it is. And from the stats I know that a fair number of readers of my blog are from Mid East!

RKL: Thanks for remembering my "She" - she does say stuff frequently. :-) On the other times I remain on this plain of a human being :-) In all honesty - this "She" has even made me question some of MY beliefs and "iconic" stuff within the "popular" Hindu thought.. and I believe THAT is the way to get clear of any cobwebs. The problem is that most Gurus, Prophets, Saints etc require faith of you.. and in my personal assessment "Faith" is THE MOST damaging element to one's spiritual progress. Skepticism is probably the best companion.

I am not a particularly well-read person - but from what few books I have read I have found Gita to be the most profound - which doesnt say much about the Gita though :-) However, all those in the Hindu or Spiritual paradigm who insist on "Faith" run directly counter to the MOST BASIC inherent message of Gita. That Skepticism IS THE WAY!

Why?

Because it took Krishna 17 chapters - with umpteen questions to convince - partially - Arjun that Karma was the right way and why he said this! And the reason I say "partially" is because it was not until Krishna actually showed his "Viraat Roop" that the doubt in Arjun's mind was distilled out!

Here was this guy Arjun - who knew the Soul he was asking question of.. and still he kept on arguing (or questionning) at every point and not taking Krishna's word - in person - as gospel! So wouldn't it be fairly nonsensical for me to take Gita's word as "Gospel" without careful and thorough scrutiny and skepticism?

Then why is it so very difficult for a Muslim to do so of Quran? Or a Christian of a Bible? In any case both these books (God knows if even Gita is true or not) are NOT dictated by the fountainheads of the "Faith" - they are basically recollections of OTHER people.. in some cases of people who were AT LEAST - if not more - 100 years AFTER the Prophet or Jesus!

By saying so - and applying the standards to other faiths that I use for Gita as well (for example the reason I said 17 chapters and NOT 18 chapters - which Gita has - is because I am CONVINCED beyond any shadow of doubt that the person who wrote the first 17 was not the person who wrote the 18th! Why? one needs to read all 18 in one flow in a very deliberate and careful manner and the contradictions in "principle" and rigor of spiritual discourse is apparent!)?

I am not sure what "She" says about this.... but I can tell you from what I have heard "Her" whisper... and gently slide past me.. that she wont be too disappointed with the way I am picking up "Her" cues. :-)

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Another interesting article on the effect of indoctrination on cultures.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=13§ion=0&article=79830&d=27&m=3&y=2006

“If we go back to Koran, it is Moammed who divides the world in two groups; believers and non believers” – Morris

To speak the truth, Islam bothered me to the core when I thought of women in Saudi Arabia, the veil, the promise of 72 virgins in heaven, polygamy & contract marriages, behavior towards infidels, not questioning the word of God and many more things...but not anymore...

There is one thing that we all forget (or perhaps don't think about)...

Islam was started at a time & place when Arab world was very uncivilized and tribal. It was a *very forward* form of religion for its time & place. It was a time when Christians didn't consider that women had souls and the world in general was convinced that women had lower intelligence than men and many thought that they were comparable to animals. That is the reason a lot of *rules* were laid out the way they are in Islam.

Mohammed wanted to instill positive values for those times. When he said believers - he didn’t mean Muslims but believers in God. Polygamy and the veil actually were meant to give shelter and respect to the women who were considered sex slaves and child producing machines by Arabs in general. And many more things can be explained.

In my opinion, Mohammed intended well, but left a lot of loopholes. Perhaps he never thought that times would change to this extent when women will be considered equal to men. ( He was human after all - there is no evidence in history of Mohammed being enlightened to the extent of displaying magical powers- please correct me if I am wrong).

The problem is that much of Islam doesn't fit in today's world. The more you follow it by the book, and take it literally, the more you go away from reality. For e.g. Saudi Arabia has the most oppressed women and its where they follow Wahabi Islam - which doesn't permit interpretations of the Koran. The truth is whenever we read something; we do make our own interpretations because of our own conditioning. I would blame the clerics and extremists to follow today, something that is so ancient without any *humane* interpretations. Islam itself was a very positive thing when it came about but now times have changed. Now women are given respect in the other parts of the world but Islamic nations, which is so not what Mohammed intended, which is so not what Islam was started for.

Desh,
Its a good point you brought up...
In hinduism( and other eastern religions) dialogue and questioning is encouraged. In fact, hinduism is a product of many different scriptures, many of which outsprung from the previous ones because of questioning and reinterpretations. For e.g. the Shankara's Upanishads.

Also, these books are so ancient, makes it highly risky to follow something literally as yes it could have been changed by egoistic preachers in the past for their benefit or they might be suited only for those times. I read that Bible had a chapter on reincarnation which was deliberately removed by one of the kings.

"Islam was started at a time & place when Arab world was very uncivilized and tribal. It was a *very forward* form of religion for its time & place."

Not true in the least. Arab culture was very highly sophisticated. Mesopotamia was one of the oldest and most advanced civilizations. It was wealthy and had a flourishing society. That was around the time of the 1001 nights. That's about the only cultural relic from those days now. That's because stories are relayed by word of mouth and manage to survive. All the rest was systematically destroyed. Many a great civilization has fallen to barbarians and Islam was one such form of barbarianism that reduced Arabia to what it is now.

And Islam was never a positive thing as you assert. It wreaked death, destruction and subjugation all round and was thus able to carve out its empire through sheer force and terror. Islamic history is very well recorded (by Islamic scholars themselves) and easy to verify.

Islam did not start the concept of violence, it was already there in the culture which Mohammed grew up in. The only thing it didn't do was stop or change that.

Mesopotamia is known as one of the "oldest" civilizations. Thousand years BC it was at a high point compared to other civilizations of the world. But just before 500-600AD when Islam begun to be established, Arabs still lived a tribal and nomadic life - which was no way civilized compared to the indian society or even the roman empire (which is considered barbaric by many). Arab tribes already fought among each other to gain power. That was the way society was at that time. They did not have a commmon religion, they worshipped many Gods of the Pagan world.

"And Islam was never a positive thing as you assert. It wreaked death, destruction and subjugation all round and was thus able to carve out its empire through sheer force and terror." - Divya

Then how do you think Christianity conquered the world?
Violence was in the culture already! you cannot say Christ and his teachings were negative.

Nimita:

Agree with you. Its not that popular "Hinduism" is free from the claims of "this book is the final word!" - for we have all heard the priests in the temple make that claim about the Vedas. However, such claims are only made by ignorant and fools.. for if Vedas was indeed the "final word" then what prompted the creation of Upnishads.. or the Gita? Surely the Vedas were to be "improved" upon - if not in terms of content.. at least in terms of explanation!

Another thing - Vivekananda said in one of his lectures that the BASIC difference between Christianity & Islam vs Hinduism is that the Icons of the former two GIVE sanctity to the very construct of those reigions. That is, if today it was proved that Jesus was no more than a liar and a lecherous person - the VERY basis of his discourse can be called to question and every that emanated from it. However, in "Hinduism" the icons GET their sanctity from the very substance of the philosophy. Krishna gets his sanctity from having "summarized" and delivered what the Vedas and Upnishads had said earlier. If there was NO Krishna - still the basic construct of the Philosophy would remain intact.

Now, this is not something that I wanted to say for "one-up-manship" against other religions .. this simple fact has PROFOUND consequences.. because the entire population of followers are then closed in a box.. never to venture out.. and if someone does venture out he/she is instantly an "opponent of the pack". This is a trend that we have seen repeated over and over again in the two - Christianity and Islam.

The point I want to make is.. to open up and accept the other streams as your own is important for the basic sanity of one's message.. otherwise it loses its relevance after sometime. No wonder different sects - like Arya Samaj etc... have ended up as mere fads!

Scrutiny and Skepticism, therefore, is the BASIS of an open and humane thought and philosophy. Those who either cannot or would not entertain such essential interventions are inherently being hypocritical.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishitkone.com

Divya....If my wife ever throws me out...will you marry me?? :)

Norm

PS....we'll have some hellacious arguments!!

Nimita - I did not say Islam started the concept of violence. Human beings are violent by nature, always have been and always will be. It takes a lot of laws, and sanctions and civilizing and schooling to cultivate a human being.

There are still nomadic tribes in Arabia. That’s to be expected in a desert. That doesn't mean there was not also a great civilization in existence. And while we're on the topic of civilization, Persia too was one of the most exquisite civilizations of the time. Not to mention Afghanistan. It was renowned for its universities of such mega-wattage that people not only from all parts of India but even from China and the far east came and studied there. Look at them now.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with paganism with its 100 different religions. In fact it is the default state of affairs that people would fall into if religion wasn't propped up by all kinds of means. Religions can only be united by one method and that is by terror and dictatorship. That is precisely what Islam did. Ditto for Christianity. The great Roman civilization that you talk about was snuffed out by Christianity and what followed was a thousand years of darkness. A full thousand years. It is called the Dark Ages in European History. Please read the history of both these religions and you will see what I'm talking about.

Yes the Romans and Indians carved out empires too and used violent means to do so. But they did not stifle intellectual life. That is what brings about the death of a civilization.

Why, thank you Norm. Deeply flattered. But since you are enticed by the potential for juicy arguments I have to offer this advisory:

There are two schools of thought on successful relationships. (1) The Opposites Attract school and (2) The Like Attracts Like school. I belong squarely in the latter. Not sure I can handle hellacious arguments without turning homicidal. Just warning ya. Although I do share your contempt for Liberals, so there's hope yet.

Also Divya,
I am not sure if Mesopotamian civilization can be directly linked to the Arabs. The Udaits and Arabs did interact, but Mesopotamia was on the north east side of Arabian peninsula. The place where Islam started was IN the Arabian peninsula. Mohammed lived in Mecca, which is on the western side. Its common knowledge that he grew up in a nomadic and tribal lifestyle.
Mesopotamia and rest of middle east was however taken over by Islam later on.

"Religions can only be united by one method and that is by terror and dictatorship"- Divya

yes I agree (although thats not the ONLY method nowadays). But what I said was that its not the preacher or the teachings that are wrong, but the people who use it to promote terror and dictatorship.

"The great Roman civilization that you talk about was snuffed out by Christianity and what followed was a thousand years of darkness." - Divya

It was not snuffed out by Christianity, it was snuffed out by the priests and Kings who used religion as a tool to oppress innocent people. They were infact very 'non-christian', because they used cruel means, and Jesus never taught anyone to be cruel.

Nimita - Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus. As Nietszche put it - The last Christian died on the Cross.

As for Mohammad, he was not a good man (being polite).

Desh,
very true.
This makes Hinduism different from buddhism, sikhism or Jainism too then. Its one of the oldest religion after all and no one can trace who started it.

Nimita,

If I may.

Let's remove the word "ONLY".

I'll take the liberty of rewording Divya's statement. (Hope ya don't mind Divya).

Religions unite by the method of terror and dictatorship.

You see on the most basic level I am united with my christian "brethren" (which by the way is already an alienating term) by the terror of going to hell.

The pope (read the pastor, priest, minister, preacher etc.) is my only channel and so I am the member of a dictatorial organization. My freedom (read salvation) is dictated to me.

Right or wrong the preacher is the one perpetrating the wrong.

And the teaching is suspect.

Actually it is very much Christianity that is the fault of so much death and destruction.

One can no longer even equate Christianity with Jesus (if he even existed).

If there was a Jesus, and if even a portion of the new testament are words he spoke, then one can see he, much like the Buddha, vehemently opposed organized religion.

Jesus himself was no Christian. Buddha was not a Buddhist.

It is mere rhetoric to say Christianity did not snuff out the Roman empire. It was the very tool that was used.

My first venturing here today because of work load.
I have pasted all the posts in a folder and keep looking at all the information..re-reading I realize a lot makes sense and then just as I think I have a grip on things I read something else and start thinking again.
Thank you all for taking so much time to write, discuss, post articles and links-for me the most gratifying thing has not only been the discussion but the emails I have received from some muslim readers that this blog made them look and study their own religion with fresh new eyes...and gave us all much to think about, question and debate.

A prominent sikh attorney and public speaker said to me thathis was the best way to learn-he was asked so many questions about his religion when he went to school in Canada that he had to go back, delve deeper, study more and come up with answers to some very tough questions.

I realize each day that my ignorance and lack of knowledge about so much far surpasses all that I have learnt and there is so much still to study, and so little time-but discussions like these make me feel as if maybe I'm a little closer to finding an elusive little piece of the puzzle, that may just fit somewhere.

Divya, I agree with what you said. But I think you are a little too harsh on christianity. I do agree that monotheist religions have played havocs in the past. But I do not believe violence by christianity was and perhaps is as blatant as by islam. Former was motivated more by economics than by religion.

The problem with islam is that their founder was a warrior and a politician and the followers are doing what he did taking his message to their hearts. And the message is not that clear. When he said he was the last prophet, Mohammed put an end to the evolutionary thinking. You can interpret and reinterpret until the cows come, but for some muslims his words would remain final and if they are not fighting with non believers, they will fight among themselves. Some people like Rushdie is talking about reforming islam, I do not think that is possible. My two cents worth.
Morris

"If there was a Jesus, and if even a portion of the new testament are words he spoke, then one can see he, much like the Buddha, vehemently opposed organized religion." -LPB

yes LPB. I agree. I think we are talking the same thing but you and I have a little different definition of Christianity itself. I think Christianity is the teaching that came out of Jesus's mouth. Exactly those kinda teachings that vehemently oppose organized religion.(infact before your post I was gonna say I am not sure if Jesus ever intended to start an organized religion). Bible has been changed a lot for the priests to gain power, so yea cannot say if what they follow today is christianity at all. Its always the people who use religion to gain control and power and oppress other people. If not their version of christianity they would have found something else. But my point is, did Jesus intend to oppress people? If so, then his teachings can be blamed. If not, then its people who twisted the words over the centuries to gain power & control. (considering that jesus existed)
The reason this subtle difference matters is because there are STILL people who understand what Jesus actually said although very very few.(like you saw that jesus opposed organized religion).

Morris,

"I am the light and the way. No man cometh onto the father but by me."

~Jesus

Mohammed said last prophet (according to some).

Jesus said he is god (according to some).

Which one brings more finality of conviction?

In the 1960's, in America, people burned crosses on the lawns of black people and killed black people in the name of their Christian belief.

If someone posted today that Jesus was an anarchist I wouldn't feel the need to rebuke this belief.. (Again we have no firm evidence that there was a Jesus).

Anarchist, terrorist, warrior? Decide which is more worthy.

Nimita

I like what you say.

And I agree.

Our difference may be, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe Jesus may be a myth.

I think you really believe he existed and was the son of god.

"I do agree that monotheist religions have played havocs in the past." - Morris..

Just a little correction. Its not the monotheistic aspect of religion that caused havoc though. Its the missionary aspect. Sikhism is the counter example.

Aloha Morris

I disagree I believe the one book people are reductionist by believing the one book answers all the questions of the universe. The are: Jews, Christians and Muslims. Science said always matter never mind, the one book people said always mind never matter. Today we have to be the change. We have to be open minded and teachable. Bush and the Saudi's have been sleeping together for Decades....Oil. Check out House of Bush House of Saud by Craig Unger.

Tiffany asked on open thread if anyone saw Deepak on Nancy Grace?

I found this link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/29/ng.01.html

Here is some of the transcript.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Church of Christ is a relatively new church. It was started about 150 years ago by Alexander Campbell, and it`s unfortunately a very legalistic sect, and they tend to use methods of intimidation and pressure tactics.

They claim that they are the only ones going to heaven and all other people are condemned to hell. It kind of is a borderline cult, unfortunately. I don`t want to make it out to be some kind of a Hare Krishna group, but it has cult-like characteristics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Is the Church of Christ a cult? Is it cult-like? Did that play into this murder in any way?

With us, Dr. Ruble Shelly, professor of philosophy and religion at Rochester College. He`s a Church of Christ minister. He knows the Winkler family. Let`s take a look.

Single leader, cult-like qualities, trying to isolate members, members happy and enthusiastic -- I don`t think that`s a bad thing -- experimental rather than logical, hide what they teach, say they`re the only true group.

Dr. Shelly, response?

DR. RUBLE SHELLY, CHURCH OF CHRIST, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY: It certainly doesn`t fit the criteria you just gave. We certainly have never created those charismatic personalities. We`re a network of independent, local churches.

And your guests so far, I`m the only one who has to plead guilty to being a member of the Church of Christ. And Churches of Christ certainly are not cultic in any of that classic sense.

We`re a conservative, religious group in the Christian tradition. You`d ask one of our members, and we`d say we jump right off the pages of the New Testament. Historically, we come out of what`s called the American Restoration movement, but the cultic label -- I can`t imagine anyone sticking that label.

GRACE: Dr. Shelly, what is the role of women in the Church of Christ?

SHELLY: Well, we believe that God created the human race male and female in his image and that Paul said there is no male or female in Christ. There are some male leadership options, in terms of elders of churches, and most preaching ministries that are reserved to males, but that`s not a cultic fact.

GRACE: Why? Why?

SHELLY: Well, that`s because of a biblical interpretation issue that Southern Baptists and many other groups share in common with Churches of Christ about male leadership in local churches. Churches of Christ are a conservative religious group.

GRACE: OK, wait, wait, wait. Dr. Shelly, no offense, by why, why only male leadership? Does anybody remember Mary Magdalene, ding ding?

SHELLY: Well, Mary Magdalene was not an apostle. All of the apostles were, in fact...

GRACE: Well, Judas was, and that certainly isn`t saying very much.

SHELLY: Well, we don`t want to quarrel with gender issues, with regard to salvation. And probably, I`m more broad-minded and a bit more liberal in terms of things that I would affirm that women have a right to do in church leadership than some of the people in our churches, but generally...

GRACE: OK. Dr. Shelly, let me move on, because I agree with you.

SHELLY: No, you asked the question as to where it came from.

GRACE: Yes, and I`d love an answer.

SHELLY: First, Timothy 2:11 and 2:12 talks about male leadership in churches. And that text has a great deal hung on it by religious conservatives to say that fathers in homes and elders in churches as male leadership, protective leadership, not abusive leadership.

GRACE: Dr. Shelly, do members of the Church of Christ church believe that that is the only way to heaven?

SHELLY: No. Churches of Christ began in an historical movement whose slogan was, "Christians only, not the only Christians"...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: No, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, don`t need a history lesson, as much as I appreciate it. We`re only an hour long. Do you believe that Jews and Muslims...

SHELLY: Well, you asked the question. The answer is no, because our slogan is...

GRACE: ... will also go to heaven?

SHELLY: Christians only, not the only Christians. We don`t believe we`re the only Christians or the only ones going to heaven.

GRACE: OK, now, you know...

SHELLY: There may be individuals who do.

GRACE: You have got a great sense of career as a lawyer.

SHELLY: Churches of Christ are a loose network of independent churches. And I suspect you could find someone who believes most anything on your scale.

GRACE: Reverend, yes, no, do you believes that Jews or Muslims can go to heaven?

SHELLY: I believe that Jews and Muslims are to be shared the gospel of Christ. Now, that`s a much larger issue.

GRACE: Gotcha, OK. All right. I get it.

SHELLY: I do believe that Jesus is the only path to heaven, of course. Conservative Christians believe that.

GRACE: Deepak Chopra, response?

CHOPRA: You know, when I listen to these debates, I can`t help but think that religion has become divisive, quarrelsome, and sometimes even idiotic.

I think it`s based on very tribal views that go back to an ancient past. And perhaps we should see a future where religion has no relevance anymore, but a true universal spirituality, which is not based on dogma or...

GRACE: OK. I can`t decide whether to agree with you or clobber you...

CHOPRA: So don`t.

GRACE: ... so let me just think about that just for a few moments, as we go to the phones.

CHOPRA: It`s tribal. It`s tribal.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: To Jan in Arizona. Welcome, Jan.

CALLER: Hi, Nancy.

GRACE: Hi, dear.

CALLER: I`m your number-one fan.

GRACE: Thank you.

CALLER: Why is the minister`s wife getting all the hand-wringing and, "Oh, my goodness, why did she do it?" Women all over the country are sitting in prison for life for killing their husbands. They go to jail; they`re guilty. She`s confessed. She`s guilty. I don`t get all the hand- wringing and special attention on the religious community.

GRACE: You know what? That is an excellent question, Jan in Arizona.

Let me say good-bye to Dr. Chopra. Thank you, sir. He`s on his way to Bahrain for world peace. Good luck.

_________

LPB,
Jesus could very well be a myth, I never met him so far :)

I would like to believe that Jesus existed though, or anyone who wrote those few good words in the Bible. I don't believe he was the son of God or anything (If God exists that is ;) ) If he did exist, then he was an elevated soul and thats it.

And I say that because if the story goes he was crucified and he still said things like "lord forgive them because they don't know what they are doing" - then these words don't come out of the mouth of a normal human being because human nature is to fight for survival. And many more examples of the sort.

If he didnt exist, then someone must have said those words, then that person is pretty elevated.

Personally LPB, I am not a christian or a muslim or a hindu. I am not even sure if I believe in God. But I can see some few good i.e. humane teachings in every religion.

As a child I often asked my grandmother-if God is within us and God is one, why do we fight so much over religion?
I dont think I ever got an answer that satisfied me.
And I think Deepak is right when he says religion has become quarrelsome, divisive and tribal.
So what do you think? If a child was to ask you that very question today? If all paths supposedly lead to the same divine source, then why so much strife and struggle?
Desh I found your explanation very interesting about the Gita, especially the difference between the last chapter and the ones before it.
And another question-what if we disregarded all the books and formed our own path-what would that path be from a religious and spiritual perspective?

Desh – Was busy for the last two days.

I would skip your questions specific to Islam as you have been saying all along that it is to muslims we should be addressing and not to the folks from other religions. Don’t you think it is a bit unfair for you to say so while you ‘decide’ what is Islam?

To say that sole purpose of religions is to instill moral values is lessening the role or importance of it. Though we should acknowledge that religions did teach people such aspects of life, it is plain clear that we do not need religion for that purpose alone.

I would be interested to know what exactly you meant by ‘spiritual progress’ and how faith is detrimental to it. As per my understanding, when certain discipline and thought patterns are maintained, a deep and profound change occurs in the consciousness or as they say the veil is removed. In the beginning, a change has to take place outwardly. The effect of such changes will impart certain qualities inwardly. Which when ‘acted upon’, leads to greater wisdom and transcends mind to a realm where nothing exits, as Prophet (pbuh) said “there is a stage where nothing exist between, no angels nor prophets nor religions.

Religions define or try to define these discipline regimes. It also provides a mean to keep the spiritual lineage through which the spark of divine consciousness is passed from generation to generation and to show and feel the gratitude. Religions are often envisioned as circles. On the circumference, these disciplines are given. Once the circumference is crossed, the travel towards the centre begins, where the truth is.

Religions do ask for faith. But faith and the process of seeking and are not mutually exclusive. In order to tread on a path, a certain belief is needed that it will lead you to somewhere. That does not mean that you will not evaluate the ‘correctness’ of the path or will not try to grasp the meaning of promises or obstacles or traps that might be encountered as one passes on different stages or milestones. If the questioning or rather the process of seeking stops, one may find himself at the same place where he was supposed to start from or at the point at which the seeking ceased. As one continues to seek and progress on the path, further sharpening of the faith happens and certain aspects of faith will become irrelevant and the labels become useless. According to certain Islamic traditions, once certain stages are traversed, even the prayer is prohibited.

I am not exactly enticed or convinced with ‘my own’ path or freedom. Is there such a thing as my own path or my own freedom? That is too much to claim. Then how could Jesus (pbuh) claim “I am the way, truth and life” or Mohamed (pbuh) say “I am the last prophet”. It is because they epitomize the quintessential nature of the path or the journey.

As pointed out here, religions have also been used as a tool for destruction, as is the case with any other human venture. It can be seen that the reason is in the human nature rather than in religion. It is rather superficial to say Christianity is responsible for demise of Roman empire. A car is used for transportation but it can also be used to murder somebody. Would somebody say that car or Henry Ford is guilty? If there was no Christianity, someone who was more ambitious and powerful would fought with Romans and destroyed it eventually. How sure we are that Roman civilization would have continued ceaselessly, if there was no Christianity or later Islam.

Though many wars have started because of religions, it is also important to note that not all wars started out of religions. A careful study of human nature will reveal that even without religions, human history would not be much different.

Hello All

Am struck by the 3 digit numbers that this post is going into, and why. Islam is controversial, people have strong opinions about it, it's not all about peace and good will and a quiet innocuous flowing of the spirit and hence the unending raging debate. IMO for a start that is pretty powerful writing on the wall and calling people bigots, muslim-bashers, quoting the Hadith and numerous ayats will just not wipe it clean I'm afraid.

Kavita felt like answering some of your questions. On your last question on 'following your own path' here are insights which are also based on my own experience. As someone who belonged and searched for God within a hegemonious construct like Islam for many years (largely because i was a muslim, lived in a theocratic state, muslims were all I knew, and 'our' God reigned everyhwere) and then moving to a path of defining Self I have some interesting insights. Primarily I think when you step out of religion (especially so monetheistic religions) you step out of dogma, and that itself is a remarkable uniqueness. For the longest time your mind is a bit shell-shocked at the inversion, that YOU and not some old-patriarch with a flowing beard in the sky (and in our case probably wearing a skull cap) is eye-balling you.

Its a tough one I have to say. just the idea unleashes what I feel is my most critical realization. Human beings are filled to the brim with all kinds of real and imagined fears. society, childhood, mileu, aspirations and most of all religions actually feed, nurture and fan our fears. Religion is the greatest opium for that one resounding reason. It soothes our fears and says finally 'Grandad in the sky can/will make it all okay..well at least some day.' Add death and mortality to that as a primal, intrinsic fear and you have the simplest reason why religion continues to offer such a mesmerising succour.

The Path called the Self in effect catapults you to a new level of self-referral hence at one level, peaks your fear in unimaginable ways and yet in doing so forces you to cut the crap, stare straight at your delusional construct of God/death/ego and if you make it through, well truly you then 'deserve' to fell like you are the centre of your universe. How else would you even imagine grasping a concept like Aham Brahmasmi?

So what i am trying to say is that the reason 'religious' people are so 'emotional' about defending their books, beliefs and messiahs is only because they are couching their own fears. Stripped of this 'protection' they would be alone in the eye of the Self they have to face and embrace and that is just plain scary.

So 'finding your own Truth' has to lie outside religion for frankly they are apples and oranges. One offers the arbour of safety (NOT TRUTH) and hence has nothing to do with truth for A God in heaven is their trump card. The other is truly the 'spiritual' path for it engages you in the DISCOVERING the real 'spirit'- yours. It requires a DIY discovery of what lies within you, a hands-on if you will reclaiming of that self, arduous, engaging, scientific, experiential, with no space for anyone else's parroting of what the most significant aspects of your life -birth, death, immortality, soul, God-mean.

So naturally it requires immense courage, (especially as muslims to face the wrath of God for turning Kafir) passion, focus and largely a spirit of adventure. Religion requires none of that. Bowing, dulling your mind, seeking security in flocks(the larger the better), being part of howling crowds beseeching some (deaf??) God, is all that religiousty demands. So where's the mystery that religion is populist and skilled at whipping frenzy, hysteria and rage?

My Two Bits.

Thank you Anusheh,
I think it requires tremendous courage and panache to march to the beat of your own drummer. I think I exasperated my parents enough from childhood onwards questioning everything and finally doing what I felt right-I have to give them a lot of credit for letting me go my way, even though it was often not their way necessarily.
I think fear is perhaps the greatest driver-fear and love-so we do what we do for the love of God,or for the fear of God..whiever that God may be
I have often stumbled upon writings by men who may not have been God's direct descendants and yet the clarity of their vision-Vivekananda, Satyajit Ray, Rabindranth Tagore-moved me as deeply as an intense religious/ spiritual experience would-humanity, the ability to go against tenets that divide, is what makes for true religion for me.Its not an easy road as we can see here, when you question idealogies held dear by millions-and the result-is that for some, its like the layers of an onion, peeling away so much that has clogged their understanding and they come out shining through the fire and others remain in the darkness. And yet we all choose our own paths and are responsible for the outcome.
am a little sleep deprived-thank you RKL..will look at the rest of the posts tomorrow

As an afterthought, I feel that the division between those who want to stay Christian, Muslim etc. and those who don't is somewhere like the debate between Western Medicine and Ayurveda. We use valium, prozac etc. not to cure the root but as placebos to cope. Ayurveda says look into your body, it has a science, understand it, follow it and you will cure all dis-ease. Pranayam says breath is life, a fact every living human being can relate to. If you focus on how you breathe you connect to life in a wholesome way. And yet millions of people choose to pop pills, fill their bodies with steroids and toxins, knowing this much at least today, that they are not touching the root of the problem but just playing with it's symptom.

I feel therefore that all debates between those who defend religion and those who stand outside it are inconclusive precisely for this reason. One has to disbelieve the idea of a placebo, free oneself from the fear of desiring it and only then can one shed the idea of a religion. Only then is one convinced that there is an essence within which is worthy of discovery and seductive in its call. This cannot be done just as a posit. I feel it requires courage and the ability to have faith in yourself above all others as the key to divinity.

Upon reading about monotheistic religions, I am tempted to say something abou it. It seems to me that this classification is baseless.

In Islam, which is considered as a ‘monotheistic’ religion, God is said to have 99 names. Each of this is an attribute of God and when God said “humans are created in my form’ it meant that man is capable of manifesting each of these attributes and not that God, like humans, has a flowing beard and is also capable of wearing a skull cap or purdah. In a ‘polytheistic system’ such as Hinduism, these attributes are conceptualized as devatas or gods. The difference thus is only in conceptualization.

But what exactly is God, with regards to a person? It is the most preciously held idea in one’s mind. If it is money, which is most important to him, his God is money. If it is power, then his God is power. In order to move forward, you need to keep one idea as the most important. Otherwise you will end up having so many shallow wells and will not find any water. This does not mean one is not supposed to have many interests or one who has multiple interests are on the way to perils. What I am saying is that if money is super most important, then he will be or even should be ready to sacrifice anything, any of his interest or belief, for the sake of money.

We have seen people who are in pursuit of money beyond there need. Once they get rich, they will start to move in the direction of gaining approval from society. Since they have a new God, they will be ready to spend any money to get what they want and will be neglectful of the money matters. This could lead to the draining of the wealth. In this way, polytheism in its practical aspect and not in religious sense could be said as dangerous.

So the classification of polytheism and monotheism in the religious sense is not scientific. One identifies a supreme idea as one’s God and recognizes that it has many attributes or can be conceptualized as different gods, who are the deputies. And still there is no categorization. In its application in the practical life, if you are seeking social approval after getting rich, you can consider it as an attribute of the God of money, whom you are still serving and continue to be conscious of its importance too.

Felt like posting a story of Mullah Nasrudhien.

For a period, he acted as a local judge and heard the pleas. One day, a plaintiff came forward and argued his case well. Impressed, Nasrudhien said 'yes, you are right'. The defendant not agreeing started to put forth his points. After hearing his arguments, Mullah said 'yes, you are right'.

His wife intervened at this moment and questioned him. How could the both the parties be right?
Mullah said 'yes, you are also right!'

RKL:

Thanks for your detailed post. Your question on how can I be a judge of Islam is a fair one. How can I be a judge of anything? That makes sense to me. That is why I had said that GIVEN the consequences of some really absurd actions on part of clerics and repeated ones at that throughout the history - without nary an opposition EXCEPT from the Sufis - it was fairly obvious that one of the two things were happening:

1. The edifice was flawed
2. The edifice was fine but the interpretations were incorrect.

When there HAS been no effective challenge out in the open it stands to reason that outsiders may start believing in the first hypothesis.

Now, this is NOT a judgment but a hypothesis that requires to be proven incorrect - which has not yet happened.

Faith and Spirituality: In my view Spirituality starts where every distinction ends. Where you finally realize the significance of the quote from Jesus:

- The Kingdom of God is within "you" -

My interpretation is that if Kingdom is within me - then King cannot be roaming outside! He needs to be within me! The next question is who is this "you"??? The followers to whom Jesus said this? White Christians? All Christians? All Humans? All animates? or All Creation?

If this King is the "God" (the Father) then it may stand to reason that this "you" in the above quote is ALL creation!

Now, the next question that I have is - if King is "in" me.. then WHO AM I? Body? Flesh? King? or My thoughts? Also, the next question is When I die.. what really dies? Body? It is still there as morbid remains. King? By definition there is NO place that "He" is not. So its not as if He can obliterate from part of the creation.. He is flowing within that morbid body too... WHAT IS GONE? Probably the Thoughts + Desires - which may have been "potential energy"??

When we say "Soul" that isnt perfect - in all probability THAT "veil" of Potential ENergy that is characterised by Desires and Thoughts is what most learned talk about.

If that is so.. that "something" (it could be some other form of energy that I cannot pinpoint maybe) - it is the "cause" for this creation. Otherwise, the King is everywhere.. and body is useless anyways. So, this potential energy keeps changing from Kinetic (when embodied) to Potential (when not)... and keeps oscillating. This is got to be relative as it wanes and gets active.

If This world is nothing but a bunch of floating "Potential/Kinetic Energies" that are thoughts (more than one mystics have said that when they experienced the "Oneness" they saw thoughts to be clouding everything in the Universe) - then most of what we experience is RELATIVE!!

In this midst - when you bring in Faith & Codes - All you are doing is changing the ENTROPY of the relative. You are NOT making the relative as absolute.

Absolute is where Relative is NOT!

If God is infinite - then don't you think it is rather a contradiction to say that you will experience "It" once you "box" or limit/discipline yourself into codes??

Moreover, Codes on which Faiths are based - are THEMSELVES relative! What is Moral for a Danish - was Immoral for a Saudi! We have seen that.

That is why in one of my post of my blog I had surmised (actually a question for which I dont have an answer) - that While Buddha and Jesus have presented Violence as a Moral (Thou SHALL Not Kill).. Krishna presented it in the context of Duty (Arjun, You CANNOT Kill!). That made me question - is "Moral" the core of the way forward or something else?

If the absolute variable was Jesus' King and all else relative - then in an equation where we are solving for the Absolute Variable - then do you think we can get an answer by simply re-arranging the Relative Variables on the other side of the equation? If I am driving on a road - with steep precipice on both sides.. and start looking at the depths below - where do you think I am headed?

Faith closes a mind. It makes me see nothing else!

Lastly I will narrate you an incident from my journey that will explain my point the best.

I was college when I first read Gita. It was also the first time when I started reciting "Ganpati Stotram" (Prayer to Lord Ganpati). In Gita, Krishna says that Arjun, you can worship or pray to any Devta and can get what you desire. But as far as salvation (Moksha) is concerned - that you will ONLY achieve when you pray to Me, the Sachidananda-ghan-Parmbrahm-Parmeshwar. So far so good. However, Ganpati Stotram also says "Putrarti labte Putran, Mosharthi labhte Gatim" (those who want a son will get a son.. and those who want Moksha will get Moksha - when they recite this prayer).

Now, in my mind, one of the two were WRONG! Fair enough. For almost 14-15 years I had that question in my mind - not answered by anyone - Priests included that I would ask. Ultimately, two years back I was glancing through an Interpretation of Gita in Barnes & Noble - where the writer said in one paragraph - that NAME & FORM is NOT important. What is important is the "Characteristics" that you associate with your object of concentration when you pray. "it could be Jesus, Krishna, or cockroach.. the result is the same!"

That is when the significance of "Me as in Sachidananda-ghan-Parmbrahm=parmeshwar" in Gita came to me.. Krishna COULD have very well said "Me as in Krishna" .. but he did not! And in that sense Ganpati Stotram was right too! If you can associate the characteristics of Universal love with an Elephant figure - the result will be the same!

Now, if I had faithfully read Gita and Ganpati Stotram - as most of us keep doing.. this more profound distinction and understanding would have eluded me! There are many I have met - including the folks over at Hare Krishna - who seem to believe that Krishna IS the only answer. The fact is that He was the answer - when He was equated to the Universal Love... as was Jesus. Otherwise not! And when they were posited as teachers - then their word HAD to be scrutinized - which at least Arjun did well to engage in!

Kavita: Thanks for your good words! :-)

Cheers,
Desh
Drishitkone.com

Kavita:

Missed your question"And another question-what if we disregarded all the books and formed our own path-what would that path be from a religious and spiritual perspective?"

I believe that EVERYONE's path is his/her own. However, after enough thought I still agree with Krishna in Gita that there are basically the three main generic Topologies through ALL the paths run - Bhakti (of Love), Jnana (of Knowledge - as Divya said in one post - through logic and inference), and Karma (through Duty).

All the Saints/Enlightened charted a path on at least one of these Topologies.

Instead of looking at a "New" Path - it is better to think in terms of "a" path. Because there is no such thing as "new". Many Prophets, Saints, Gurus have created more mess and more distinctions while promising a "new" path! And when you look at those "paths" you immediately know that they are old wine in new bottle...

.. however, what they have achieved in doing is .. create more egos and distinctions - earlier there was a human being.. then Jew, Christian, Muslim, and Hindu .. . then came along a Buddhist, a Sikh, an Ahmediya, a Bahai.. etc.. as if the distinction of Human Being wasn't enough!!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Dear Kavita,

What a genie you have released! This debate continues on and on. Such wonderful posts, especially the one by Desh, Divya, Nimita and others. In the past I have seen such debates on islamic forums and typically it is totally one-sided there, as perhaps it is here.

Here is my take on Christ and Muhammad's role in Bible and Quoran respectively. I am not an islamic scholar, and what follows is for your entertainment purposes only :).

As somebody pointed out, Christ did not set out to write this book called new testament. It was compiled after his death by his followers and many others. He did bring a breath of fresh air to the Judaism's teachings. Old testament is full of violence, threats and anger. New testament is a lot more humane. But I don't believe it came about spontaneously. It must have been a collective effort by the intellectuals of the time, a cabal. Some people must have thought it is time for change and they used Jesus to their ends. These so-called Abrahamic religions are big time believers in prophets, so Jesus was a convenient stooge for them. There are speculations as to the source of his unusual wisdom; some people even he went all the way to India to acquire some spiritual guidance.

Probably a similar thing happened in the seventh century Arabia as well. The jewish minority populations were economically dominating the the majority pagans, and some people must have thought we must have our local version of christianity. So they liberally borrowed from old and new testaments, and used their own stooge, Muhammad. In fact, Muhammad does not even claim any knowledge of his own, he was illiterate. Lots of stories in hadiths must have been stories planted by this group of people who were bent upon seizing power by any means. They also used the prophet concept, but they want to put an end to future prophethood altogether. So they made the claim that Muhammad was to be the last prophet and made every one swear by it. The anti jewish venom one sees in Quoran and hadiths, is a reflection of their need to overcome the powerful jewish communities in the region of the time.

Quoran claims to have wisdom for all aspects of life; not just spiritual. That is the strength of Quoran and Islam. It does not allow its followers to question the basic tenets of the religion. Muhammad was the last prophet, sorry no more communication with God. God has said his final word, and better believe it or else! That has also been the downfall of Islam as well, because clearly God speaks to people even today, individually, especially those who open their hearts to him. Staunch muslims have closed their hearts; they have frozen their line of communication with him, all because of this cabal that sat in the seventh century and sealed the hearts and fates of millions to follow them. If you want God's audience, you will have to wait until the judgement day. Even then, the first claim on God's ear stays with Abraham and Muhammad; Muhammad says this in one of the hadiths.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

After reading my post above, a friend of mine admonished me for being too crude and asked me to post the following quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "Self Reliance". Google it you will find the full essay.

...

"Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say 'I think,' 'I am,' but quotes some saint or sage. He is ashamed before the blade of grass or the blowing rose. These roses under my window make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are; they exist with God to-day. There is no time to them. There is simply the rose; it is perfect in every moment of its existence. Before a leaf-bud has burst, its whole life acts; in the full-blown flower there is no more; in the leafless root there is no less. Its nature is satisfied, and it satisfies nature, in all moments alike. But man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time.

This should be plain enough. Yet see what strong intellects dare not yet hear God himself, unless he speak the phraseology of I know not what David, or Jeremiah, or Paul. We shall not always set so great a price on a few texts, on a few lives. We are like children who repeat by rote the sentences of grandames and tutors, and, as they grow older, of the men of talents and character they chance to see, — painfully recollecting the exact words they spoke; afterwards, when they come into the point of view which those had who uttered these sayings, they understand them, and are willing to let the words go; for, at any time, they can use words as good when occasion comes. If we live truly, we shall see truly. It is as easy for the strong man to be strong, as it is for the weak to be weak. When we have new perception, we shall gladly disburden the memory of its hoarded treasures as old rubbish. When a man lives with God, his voice shall be as sweet as the murmur of the brook and the rustle of the corn. "

...

Regards,

Ravi

Ravi: Outstanding reminder from you, and Mr. Emerson!

I sat at a Starbucks this afternoon, reading away from the last volume of "The Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East," and realize I must have missed most of their true teachings.

Why? Because as I was reading, I kept having my attention drawn to some brilliant yellow Tulips "waving" in the breeze, just at the right side of my peripheral vision.

It seems that the true message from "those books," from "those Masters," would have been to realize, in those instants of glancing at the flowers, to put the book down, instead of discarding the flowers from my "important focus"; and instead focus on the living message of "the Master's 'Truths,'" that were right there in the very flowers that were "waving" at me.

Again, thank you Ravi, for the reminder of "where to look, what to look at, and 'when' to look," ie. right here, right now.

Now I only need to suspend my conscious mind enough and let the flowers teach me "how" to look--and then see! Dave

Desh - Generally, in agreement with you.

What remains is the most preciously held ideal or as you said "What is important is the "Characteristics" that you associate with your object of concentration when you pray". As someone said your religion is what remains after your death. Without this, as Anusheh said, it becomes just bowing, dulling your mind.

As for discussing about and judging Islam, I am afraid you got me wrong. You have all the freedom to critisize it and I do not need to say that too. What I was saying is when someone tries to answer you in the way they understand, do not tell them that they are addressing wrong audience and go and tell their fellow muslims. Anyway, that is a small matter.

You have also put it in a better way about the path. I should not have said there does not exist one's own path. I should have phrased it, as you, there is no new path. Then people will not feel hurt. However, if there is no new path, how can one have his own path?

Ravi - Emerson should not have published this book. By doing so he had given you a chance to quote his lines which is against the very spirit of his writing!

It is an amazing experience to remain in this moment and be delighted in the beauty of the rose. In the next moment, one can also think of the seed, of the plant which produced the seed, think of the hand that watered and nurtured it. And show the gratitude for the delight we derive from it. In that moment of gratitude, one gets connected.

While on the way, there are some lampposts, spreading light for the travellers. On some junctions, there are sign boards. On other occasions, you may not be able to traverse alone and there are helpers waiting to help you cross the hurdles. The 'saints and quotes' are nothing more than these lampposts and sign boards.

Let us say we remain at a spot and do not move forward. These lampposts and sign boards become totally useless. One need to make a conscious effort to make a walk or gain wisdom to utilise these. And as you know we can only bring the horse to the pond. To drink or not, is up to it. It is upto the traveller.

As an Arab proverb says "believe in Allah but do not forget to tether the camel"

Let me first say that I really admire people like Ravi, Desh and many others who are on more than one blog-(Desh has his own)- and still find time to write such indepth posts here. I'm just scrambling to handle my blogs apart from my other work and it is very time consuming.
I'm glad though that I'm not on any others. Whatever little I've seen of other blogs-this one is really the best-it encompasses a wide gamut of topics and discussions.
Just this blog -1 and 2- has many stellar posts, and a lot of what is here I can identify with-the stuff that doesnt jell with me still makes me think mainly because people who write it feel so passionately about what they believe in.
Ravi you are right-what a genie out of a cyber blog. All I do is write one blog and I'm done it seems now for many weeks, while others are scrambling to think topics and write 2-3 in a week.
Thank you again everyone for all the time you've spent in research, rearranging your thoughts and enriching this space.
I'm very grateful to you all.

Kavita:

Thanks for the praise... I guess I am compulsive blogger - I write on 3 others apart from Intent and Drishtikone.com :-)(sapprofessionals.org, businessmusings.com and desicritics.com)

I write here because I become a better person everytime. I learn from others who are far more learned and well read than I am. To me this is my refuge in times when I am down... because I can read a Shekhar Kapur blog and feel introspective.. or a Kavita Chibber blog and discuss issues at length with other passionate folks or a Gotham blog and laugh and get out of my mental downtime.

My own blog is my chronicle.. .of my times and thoughts as I grow up in these years. That will be for my kids so they could read the story of these times.. from my eyes. to me that is an important legacy to leave to them... my vulnerabilities... and my beliefs as I applied them and failed so often.

cheers,
desh
drishtikone.com

Desh - About judgment. If I come and rape half your village and slaughter the other half are you going to quibble about your right to judgment? The Bible tells people not to judge. This notion has reached mainstream society in a secularized form (believers and non-believers alike) and people consider it to be a measure of their wisdom or openness if they say they are non-judgmental. In truth, like most of the stuff that comes from the Bible, this is a nonsense concept. A human being will not get through even one day of his life if s/he did not constantly use their faculty of judgment. The Indian traditions on the contrary claim judgment to be one of the highest achievements of a human being. It is called Viveka in Sanskrit and needs to be constantly honed. Please do not allow yourself to go on the defensive by a challenge to your right to judgment.

I too had a similar experience to the one you recounted about which god is the best in the Hindu pantheon. If you read various different stotras, they all claim that they are the best. The good part is that hindus believe in all of them at the same time! As you say, name and form are not important.

Ravi - Did you know Emerson studied Hinduism for many years and that he was a Sanskrit scholar? He was thrown out of Harvard by the Christians for his involvement with Hinduism. Recently when they had Emerson's centenary Harvard University went to great lengths to eradicate all traces of Hindu influence on Emerson's thought from all their write-ups. How's this as an example for Christian intolerance for all of the apologists out there. They'd rather die than admit that one of their spiritualists was influenced by pagan thought.

RKL - You have to be careful about imposing your interpretations on other religions. Muslims do not interpret their notion of God to take on any of the forms you describe. Similarly, it is bizarre when Hindus come up with vedantic explanations of Christianity. When the tradition itself does not talk about itself in that manner, it makes no sense for another to do so. A vedantic explanation of Christianity, is a description of Vedanta and not Christianity. Your description of God is straight out of your head and not recognizable by the Muslims. Remember these are religions with vasts amount of scholarship and an army of mullahs and priests to tell you exactly what it is.

Divya:

By presenting the two hypothesis I think I made clear that there is something wrong with the scenario. I believe that I cannot make judgment on Islamic scriptures. However, I can scrutinize the edifice BASED on the consequences that it has brought on to outsiders - which have been tremendous. That is why in my thought, I will go with the first hypothesis till the second is proven wrong... because in my estimation - in the last 1300 years despite enough time and opportuntiies the "believers" never really could prove it incorrect.

Thanks,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Okay - just re-read it. I think I was thrown off by your opening lines and further misinterpreted this sentence: "Now, this is NOT a judgment but a hypothesis that requires to be proven incorrect - which has not yet happened."

I thought you said that the hypothesis that still needs to be proven is that the edifice is flawed and not the other way round.

You folks are great.
I should not even try to understand all that what you are saying. But it is fun.

"That is why in my thought, I will go with the first hypothesis till the second is proven wrong... because in my estimation - in the last 1300 years despite enough time and opportuntiies the "believers" never really could prove it incorrect."
Please help I am not sure what you are saying. Would you be kind enough to elaborate.
Morris

DIE BEFORE YOU DIE

Ironic, but one of the most intimate acts
of our body is death.

So beautiful appeared my death – knowing who then I would kiss,
I died a thousand times before I died.

“Die before you die,” said the Prophet
Muhammad.

Have wings that feared ever
touched the Sun?

I was born when all I once
feared – I could
love.

- By Radia (May God sanctify her secret)

ok guys, just one more poem. by Rumi..

THIS ROAD DEMANDS COURAGE AND STAMINA, YET IT'S FULL OF FOOTPRINTS!

"The way is full of genuine sacrifice.
The thickets blocking your path are anything
that keeps you from that, any fear that you may be broken into bits like a glass bottle.

This road demands courage and stamina, yet it's full of footprints!
Who are these companions?
They are rungs in your ladder. Use them!
With company you quicken your ascent.
You may be happy enough going along, but with others you'll get farther, and faster.

Someone who goes cheerfully by himself to the customs house
to pay his traveler's tax will go even more lightheartedly when friends are with him.

Every prophet sought out companions.
A wall standing alone is useless, but put three or four wallstogether,
and they'll support a roof and keep grain dry
and safe.

When ink joins with a pen, then the blank paper can say something.
Rushes and reeds must be woven to be useful as a mat. If they weren't interlaced;
the wind would blow them away.

Like that, God paired up creatures, and gave them friendship."

This is how the fowler and the bird were arguing
about hermitic living and Islam.

It’s a prolonged debate. Husam shorten their controversy.
Make the Mathnawi more nimble and less lumbering.
Agile sounds are more appealing to the heart’s ear.

Divya - Thanks for the concern about my safety.

You may want to read Amartya Sen's article once again and realise that there are different forces at work in every human being. So that you can avoid the error of blaming anything that happens in a Muslim community on Islam blindly.

Anusheh - Quoting "I feel that the division between those who want to stay Christian, Muslim etc .....". It is not about remaining as Muslims, Christians or Hindus. It is about 'converting eventually' to Islam ie Surrender (to Allah, God or Divinity or whatever you call), regardless of the path one chooses. Do you think we really have a choice here?

Desh - I missed the point about the faith. Faith operates in different (I would not say in heirarchial manner)planes or dimensions. When you came across the seeming contradiction, in fact you had two choice.

You could have thrown both the books out, exhausted, saying it is full of contradiction and crap. But you chose to keep the question alive in your mind and kept on knocking the doors. Why ?

A pinch of curiosity, a bit of the believe that you may be missing something or that the authors could not be wrong. In traditional parlance the first choice will be called as lack of faith and the second, the manifestation of faith. Anyway, this interpretation does not matter much, as long as one finds the truth.

It must also be said that another might read the texts with devotion and not notice the contradiction. That would not make much differece in the end, provided the devotion is deep, sincere and felt.

"You may want to read Amartya Sen's article once again and realise that there are different forces at work in every human being. So that you can avoid the error of blaming anything that happens in a Muslim community on Islam blindly."
-RKL

this is a good one!

"It is about 'converting eventually' to Islam ie Surrender (to Allah, God or Divinity or whatever you call), regardless of the path one chooses. Do you think we really have a choice here?"
-RKL

man! I don't wanna surrender! I wanna be friends with God ;) we'll both work together :)
(God being zero point energy or vacuum fluctuations or whatever)

Nimita - May your wish be granted! Surrender or Submission is the closest translation we can have in English. The idea is to relinquish everything you have – including your wishes - to the Beloved and become One.

You can be friends, if you still wish so even after meeting the Beloved

Nimita and RKL: Have much admired some of your ongoing posts, so I have it is not an infringement here to suggest something about what Nimita touches upon here.

I was just having a discussion last evening with another "Intentblogger" about the notion that "Seventh Heaven," of the highest experience to be actualized, is that of the Super-Conscious remembrance, or genuine experience, of being completely immersed again in "The Void," or Zero-Point, as it were.

It is my understanding that the one gift we can never really relinquish is that of free-will choice; and rather than sacrificing, submitting, or surrending to some controlling Supreme Will, we are in fact only releasing our mind's habitual grip on beliefs that once served our growth at a certain stage of experience, but that we are really only letting "loose" of mental/emotional paradigms that are preventing us from accepting greater realities, greater perceptions and experiences yet-to-come, greater freedoms--not less.

It is only our entrenched beliefs of right and wrong, good and bad, etc. etc. that cause us to feel we are sacrificing, or submitting against our own will, to a force that demands we be "less of what we currently experience ourselves to be," especially as we see material as not being spiritual--and ultimately, we gain more of what we truly want, uncondtional love and freedom, rather than less--of anthing and everything that the "soul could possibly desire" on any level.

Very much enjoying learning "new stuff" from your posts RKL--Thank You! Dave

RKL:

Excellent stuff frm you man!! The poems and your posts are fantastic!

I do understand what you mean by faith in the context of my predicament. In this case, however, I was convinced that Gita seemed more correct - based on my own reasoning. However, you are right at some plane there was an implicit faith. Maybe that is why I havent been able to get to the final truth as yet. otherwise if I had the irreverence of a Buddha or Guru Nanak I would have wandered off and searched for it in isolation and probably found it... :-)

The poem by Rumi was good.. the other one I want to say was good but I did not understand it - it went over my head :-) It is beautifully written so if you get a little time do pls elaborate.... shouldnt miss to understand something that well written....

cheers,
desh
drishtikone.com

RKL - You misunderstood. That was not a concern about your safety. "Careful" in that context is meant to relate to your argument to prevent it from being rendered invalid on account of factual error.

I'm the one who posted the Sen article so your advice is quite redundant. This has nothing to do with individual Muslims. The point, which may not have come through clearly enough in the last post, is that Islam has an official interpretation and your local Muslim neighbor does not have the freedom to come up with his own interpretation. Please go to your local mullah and ask him if God can be interpreted to be money, or rocks or trees. Let us know how it goes. And if you insist on defining God to be the clouds and the rain and money then it is not Islam you are talking about but something that you've pulled out of your own head. There's a word for these loose interpreations and it is called paganism. Paganism is taboo and the worst sin in Islam and Christianity. The official version is what counts.

I miss KRISH..... unless he has returned under the guise of SECULAR INDIAN..... a close second but not the same prose.
There comes a time when a defenceless position can no longer be debated. "Moderate" muslims should be given their due praise for investing in language and finding the courage to venture out of their darkness and repression through the 'safe' forum of the BLOG.....BUT 'spin' can only go so far as to fool a few people about the tenets of Islam.
When afforded the rights and security of the West, they debate and demand their religious freedoms and apologies for being offended but the ENTIRE UMMAH remains deafeningly silent when the BUDDHA STATUES are blasted by their bretheren or , meekly return to abstinence of opinion/protest/speech when asked about the absolute banning of mere display of a CROSS or a STAR OF DAVID at the seat of their 'most peaceful' birth-place of Islam.....Saudi Arabia.
Those brave few souls who base their existence on the ethical tenets of the basic dignity and equality of humanity and find themselves suffocated and repressed by the Islam under which they were born must be respected and applauded for their efforts to bring about change in their religion for the betterment of their communities.
Hats off to Wafa, Sadia and Anusheh.

Thank you every one. This is turning out to be a hectic weekend for me scrambling for two new stories and catching people to interview along with my usual deadlines, and unexpected guests coming over for dinner..in between cooking lamb and my favorite black chickpeas, I'm stirring the pots and sat down to see what's cooking here.

I have to say Sen hasnt said anything that we didnt know earlier, and much of it has been said here by many of you, who write as well.-He has played it safe on some issues.

Why should one aspect of someone's life be the sum of one's personal identity-he says- yes why should it? Be it religion, or sexuality or gender-look at the number of biases we face or carry within ourselves on every aspect as we go through life.

Divya made a very valid point..we say we are open minded but we do judge..even when we say I'm not being judgemental, we still have an opinion and we still base that on our judgement.

Life is a personal, at times a very lonely, soul searching journey, and I see many people go through life not having grown at all and others completely different from who they were from the beginning to the end.

I just interviewed a young Indian American leader who said to me-its tough to take a stance for long because I see so much thrown at me that changes my thinking each day-he was a huge supporter of the death penalty until his high school teacher called him on it and asked him to research-he realized so much goes into making a person and why someone killed, that today after much soul searching he is totally against the death penalty.

I think the bottom line is we all have to discover our own truths-there are people who will help us along the way with their wisdom and understanding-we will often stumble, but I know that while my truth may not be the truth of someone else, the journey that led me to that truth was hopefully worthwhile.

The only permanent thing in life is change, and it is time to make that change in the way we use or look at religion.
Thank you Desh and RKL and Nimita and David, Divya and Sidharth and so many others here..I'm still thinking and still learning.

Dear RKL,

I enjoy your posts. Please keep writing.

You say:

"It is an amazing experience to remain in this moment and be delighted in the beauty of the rose. In the next moment, one can also think of the seed, of the plant which produced the seed, think of the hand that watered and nurtured it. And show the gratitude for the delight we derive from it. In that moment of gratitude, one gets connected."

There are different schools of thought in Hinduism. One of them is the Bhakti or devotion path. I think for the most part Islam other religions of the Book follow that path. I happen to believe in Karmayoga path; do your stuff, enjoy the present; God will take care of himself. But all paths are valid.

"While on the way, there are some lampposts, spreading light for the travellers. On some junctions, there are sign boards. On other occasions, you may not be able to traverse alone and there are helpers waiting to help you cross the hurdles. The 'saints and quotes' are nothing more than these lampposts and sign boards."

I agree totally. We all need teachers and helpers along our quest to reach our goals. Bhagavadgita teaches us that it is the path that matters not the goal itself. So one could choose from an infinite number of goals. Choose a path, stay on it, enjoy it and you will reach a goal.

However, beware of those who say there is ONLY one path and one goal. Beware of one who says he has the most authoritative information about the path, and he is the last teacher or helper along your path; you are not to trust anyone who comes farther along the way; and worse, most travelers haven't even met him.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Dear RKL,

Few questions for you.

Do you believe

1. that Muhammad actually met Angel Gabriel and Quoran is the word of God?

2. Muhammad was the last prophet?

3. God prefers Muslims to others?

4. that one has to pray otherwise God will reduce your status?

I am asking these questions to understand where you stand with respect to your faith. To be fair, you may ask me any questions.

Regards,

Ravi

Dave, Desh – Thanks for the good words. I am still in a kind of darkness about the poem by Rabia (It is not Radia) May be later we can discuss about it.

Divya – Quoting “Islam has an official interpretation….” – I would like to know more about this official version. Can you tell me what is exactly the official interpretation? Who is the authority that issues it? Who did give them the authority?

Quoting “……Muslim neighbor does not have the freedom to come up with his own interpretation” – Who are you to say so? Who did tell you so? Any link to some NYT article?

Quoting “Please go to your local mullah…” – Who are you to suggest so? On what basis?

Quoting “….if God can be interpreted to be money, or rocks or trees” – Nobody, as far as I read interpreted God as money etc in this blog. Definitely I did not.

Quoting” …if you insist on defining God to be the clouds and the rain and money….” – I did not even say God is money or cloud, let alone insisting.

Quoting “Paganism is taboo and the worst sin in Islam and Christianity…..” – According to one Hadith Qudsi ‘I am as My servant think of Me and I am with him when he remembers Me” Ibn Arabi interpreted it as follows: an ordinary worshiper worships God in an image he himself projects. God, in His mercy accepts to be present in the image.

Ravi – I am honored.

Quoting “I am asking these questions to understand where you stand with respect to your faith” – Why are you interested ?

Quoting “that Muhammad actually met Angel Gabriel and Quoran is the word of God?” – What exactly do you mean by 'met' in this context?

Quoting "Muhammad was the last prophet" - Yes. Disappointing, eh?

Quoting “God prefers Muslims to others?” – How do you define Muslims?

Quoting” that one has to pray otherwise God will reduce your status” – God has billions of galaxies to take care of. Why should he be bothered to reduce someone’s status?

RKL = Pls see your post of March 30 at 7:51 p.m. You come up with various interpretations of God which are totally pagan. Paganism is taboo in Islam. This is a basic, foundational fact.

I had no idea you drew a total blank on this one, but Islam happens to be organized around the authority of the word of God (Koran) which is interpreted by the mullahs. And most definitely there are constraints on interpretation. Of course you can lie on your pillow and imagine anything, but if you begin to spread your interpretation to the public, the mullahs do have the authority to give you 40 lashes for your thoughts, if not worse.

By way of counter-example, Hinduism does not have any such authoritative body and there are no constraints on interpretation. You are free to say that Shiva is a monkey. But since Hinduism also has a tradition of intellectual discourse you will have to logically convince people why you think Shiva is a monkey, or appeal to some traditon that holds that Shiva is a monkey. Failure to do so will make your interpretation of Shiva as a monkey invalid. You interpretation will merely fall to the wayside. But in no way will it be considered a sin or a heresy or a crime. Therein lies the difference between being official and unofficial.

The fact that there is a word for this type of crime (heresy) alone indicates that certain thoughts are taboo. It has been used throughout history by priests and mullahs to get rid of people who they had a grudge against. Only the JC traditions have such a word, by the way.

Recently, someone posted a dialog between Deepak and some Christian organization on a TV show. The lady was trying to get the Christian representative to say that paths other than the Jesus-centered ones can lead to salvation. Now, Christianity forbids this line of thought. Only Jesus can save. No Christian authority has publicly said that any other path to salvation is valid. This comes through so clearly in the dialog where the person kept twisting and turning in order to not acknowlege this fact.

Similarly, Islam too forbids anyone to believe that any path other than Islam is valid. This is the official interpretation. If you don't agree with this, and if you go public with this type of speech, in an Islamic country you will be severely punished. And if you genuinely believe that other paths are valid you are violating a central tenet of Islam. This is how Islam is taught and for all practical purposes this is what has consequences for the "other" of Islam.

As for some of your quotes of me such as: Quoting “Please go to your local mullah…” – Who are you to suggest so? On what basis?"

I can only hope you will not inflict your tantrums on me again. If read in the proper context the above is perfectly clear. Of course I could play the same game and go "who are you to quote me. On what basis?" (This is just rhetorical by the way, in case you take it seriously and begin a response). If you have genuine problems with what I write, by all means do bring them up. By throwing unnecessary tantrums like the one above you only take away from anything else of substance that you write.

Divya - You got it entirely wrong about that post.

A person can claim to be a Muslim, Christian or whatever. But what really matters is the ideal held as the most precious in his mind or as Desh put it the characteristic of concentration in the prayer. For example, if he is very inclined towards money, then when he encounters a chance to make money, an excitement arises in his mind, all the cells in his body awaken. Like a crow which had find a pray. If such an excitement does not occur in his mind, when he say prayers or in any other actions, then it is almost useless. The sole purpose of prayer is to influence the heart.

This is hardly my interpretation and I am sure if I say this in any Islamic country, nothing will happen (you have to try something else). According to Islamic tradition, one of the questions asked is "Man Rabbukka" (What is your God?) If money is what excited him most in his life, then the answer will be money. If it was God, then the answer will be God. This does not, at all, mean that I interpreted God as money or rain.

Quoting "....which is interpreted by the mullahs"
I will quote your lines as the answer too. "you can lie on your pillow and imagine anything"

Quoting "slam too forbids anyone to believe that any path other than Islam is valid." Again you can imagine anything, as you like. Islam as we see it now started with Prophet Mohamed. But it acknowledges that there were prophets in every community. Then what do you mean when you say Islam says it is the only way? Please refrain from making sweeping statements about which you do not know much beyond what you are fed by the media or the kind of ‘knowledge’ you can find at the ‘finger tips’

Please stop deciding for me what to do or where to go, literally and figuratively. Then you will not get questions like who are you to suggest etc. It is that simple. And please confine the discussion with me. Or if you are interested in mullahs, please go find one.

RKL - What is sharia? Where does it come from? Is there an authority to interpret it? Is their word law? Who do they claim to be speaking on behalf of? Do they wish for the entire world to be subject to this law?

Of course I would have no problem if the reality were as you describe it. In fact there would be no need for this conversation at all. The truth is that certain figures of authority shove their version of the truth down everyone's throats. This happens to have trickle down consequences for all people. And I am not lying on my pillow and imagining this. Proof of this is the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh to take just one example. Unless you claim religion had nothing to do with it! And Kashmir? The thought police is very much in control and we can see the result of that unfold day by day. You see it makes absolutely no difference what most people figure in their personal spiritual lives. The official truth is the powerful dyanmic force.

And as I have said to others, dishonesty in a dialog is totally not cool. If you interpret my statement to go to the local mullah as a literal order rather than an illustration of where the authority comes from and how a dialog with the mullah will probably play out, then all I can say is you are being dishonest. Or you're throwing a tantrum. Either way, it's not a fruitful exercise.

Dear RKL,

"“I am asking these questions to understand where you stand with respect to your faith” – Why are you interested ?"

When I engage in a debate I try to make my philosophy very clear to others. Similarly I would like to know where they come from. If we don't know the basis, then it is very likely that I may misinterpret what they say which is not conducive to an objective dialog. My observation about your posts have been that, though you show all the signs of being a rational and reasoned debater, you often resort to sarcasm and flippancy. I do not know if it is because, a) you don't know what you are talking about, b) you feel somehow intellectually superior to others on the blog that you seem to imply what is so obvious to you isn't to others c) you engage in intellectual dishonesty in that you know your stand is untenable but you find a way out through sarcasm because it gives you a superior aura. By stating clearly where you stand on crucial issues surrounding a dialog you eliminate such misunderstanding and you can always refer back to your principles to clarify a point. So I hope you will take it seriously and answer my questions. Pardon me if you are not serious about this debate.

"“that Muhammad actually met Angel Gabriel and Quoran is the word of God?” – What exactly do you mean by 'met' in this context?"

You probably understand what I mean, but let me clarify. From my understanding of the Qur'an, Gabriel (Gibreel?) communicated the word of God to Muhammad. In order to do so, he must appeared in person, or in his dreams or in some other form. So the question is, do you believe that to be true? Please answer the second part as well.

"Muhammad was the last prophet - Yes. Disappointing, eh?"

Indeed. I am disappointed that a large population of the world has to live with the knowledge that all the wisdom in the infinite universe has already been conveyed in a tiny book and there is nothing else to look forward to. It is heartrending to know that my muslim brothers and sisters in India and Pakistan (and elsewhere) have to live a hopeless life because God will never speak to them again until the proverbial judgement day, and who knows when that will arrive. It is an ultimate tragedy that a third of the humanity has to live in darkness, when God chooses to speak to us through so many good kind, hearted people even today; like Mother Theresa of India, like Dalai Lama of Tibet; Dr. Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh (Grameen bank fame) and countless others. Is this hopelessness which causes some muslims think nothing of wasting their lives by killing a number of others in a suicide attack. Disappointed indeed!

"“God prefers Muslims to others?” – How do you define Muslims?"

In any manner or form you choose. And if such a profile that you define exists, please let us know if people who fit that profile exist today, with a few examples.

"” that one has to pray otherwise God will reduce your status” – God has billions of galaxies to take care of. Why should he be bothered to reduce someone’s status?”"

That's exactly my question. There are 100s of billions of galaxies with each of them containing trillions of stars. Why would God spend his valuable time to talk to people on a tiny speck of a planet in an insignificant solar system contained in an extraordinarily ordinary galaxy? Hmmm, makes me wonder.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Dear Ravi - Sorry if I have offended you. I was mentally disturbed yesterday. A friend of mine died in an accident yesterday.

Why I asked about your interest is because you have stated elsewhere that what Muslims deserve is nothing but sympathy. This, to me, is a sign of superiority complex, born out of largely of sedation from own sense of perfection and then ignorance. In order for us to engage in a meaningful discussion, you will need to throw away this prejudice. As you yourself have described earlier, try to live in this moment and do not carry the luggage of prejudice with you always. As for sympathy, I do not need anybody's sympathy. Even in their thought. That is disturbing for me. As long as there is oxygen and water, I will live here without any human beings' sympathy but help, of course I will accept.

As for sarcasm, some of your posts reek of the megalomania in you. For example "...most travelers haven't even met him." How could you say that? How many travelers do you know? And if you know many, that should be the contemporary ones only. Definitely, you do not know about those billions who had already passed away before you were born. How could then you say most travelers never met him, whomsoever you meant by him? Again, how do you know who met who? Did they list you all the people whom they met? Do you think there are saints who are standing on the way showing a name plate so that the travelers will recognize them and report back to people like me and you? Again, as you yourself have said there are many paths. And it is only logical to conclude that each path will have its own set of 'lamp posts and signboards' Why do you expect every traveler to see every sign board or lamp posts? Do you know the total number of travelers ever since the beginning of the world and the number of the travelers who had actually met ‘him’? Did you then do the arithmetic and found that the most did not? Can you tell us the numbers and how did you collect this data? If not, how do you justify the sentence? Don’t you think that some how - without any base-, the thought that I know most the travelers crept into your mind? Does not that show the megalomania in you? There are many such sentences in your posts. Sorry, some how I can’t stand this. Anyway, I promised Kavitha that I will refrain from making such comments and I think I have mostly kept my promise.

I do not engage in a discussion to show that my ideology is above than all or any other. Similarly, i do not approach an ideology with the pre-disposition that I need to prove it wrong or this has to be wrong because it does not fit into the ideology which I think is the truth. I find it a waste of time. That does not mean that i am unwilling to listen to or analyze any seeming shortfalls or not ready to learn about many other ideologies. However, I restrict such kind of discussion with my peers. You should know the concept of Paramahamsa. This swan is supposed to be capable of separating milk from water before it drinks.

Question of meeting – You restrict the meaning of meeting to the level of the meeting between say Ravi and RKL. I will just tell you one story which I know personally. In my town there is this guy, called Shamshad. One day he saw in his dream a Sanyasi. The next day, the same Sanyasi appeared in his house and blessed him. Few years after, Shamshad felt like the Sanyasi calling him. He went to Himalayas and found the Sanyasi there. Upon seeing Shamshd, he said “welcome, I know you are coming”

I am sure that meeting and communication is possible in other dimensions too, which is not very familiar to us. So I believe that there was a communication between Prophet and God.

Question of ‘Last’ – My dear friend, your disappointment is wasted. Nobody said anywhere that with Mohamed, the communication is de-linked. For example, some muslims believe in 12 Imams, who still communicate with God and there are ‘auliyas’ which most of the muslims accept. So do not worry, it is still very much alive and do not waste time by unnecessarily lamenting about one-third of the population. And don’t you think you are taking too much responsibility, when you start to talk about one third of the global population?

My dear friend, I find it odd that you lament about this perceived de-linking, when you yourself is not concerned about the God. You said that you happen to choose karmayoga and do your stuff and God will take care of himself. You can think in the same way about the one-third of the population. They do their stuff and God will take care of himself. Why you insist that God must communicate with them, if you are not worried about your own communication with God?

Anyway, the concept of last prophet is something else. It is not about de-linking.

Then about the tiny book containing all the wisdom. This Book does not contain all the wisdom. It does not tell you how a rocket works or how to make French toast. These topics are also considered as a part of human wisdom.

Question of who is preferred: It is only fair to ask the person to elaborate clearly if it is not clear. Pls explain what is muslim meant to you? Those who deserve only sympathy?

Question of reducing the status: God does not reduce the status of me or you. It is me and you who lower or up our status.

I find it odd again when I read that “Why would God spend his valuable time to talk to people on a tiny speck of a planet in an insignificant solar system contained in an extraordinarily ordinary galaxy”. Here you wonder about the ‘valuable time’ of God and the apparent wastage, if he chooses to talk to the people of earth. But a few paragraphs above, you get disappointed about the muslims who lead a hopeless life just because God has stopped communicating with them. Decide first which you want. If you think God is wasting his time, then do not get disappointed about muslim who can’t talk to God anymore, you should find relief that God is not wasting his time. If you think Muslims must have communication with God, then do not say God is wasting his time. Do not put God in a dilemma.

Dear RKL,

My sincere condolences to you; may your friend rest in peace.

No, I am not offended, it is not easy to offend me. You sure sound offended in your post, let me apologize instead. That was never my intent.

When I said Muslims deserve our sympathy, you must consider the context in which it was said. In general, there is a perception in the world that Muslims are the root cause of a lot of violence (I know it to be an exaggeration, most deaths are caused by American defense forces). In general people think that Muslims are an intolerant lot, mistreat their women etc (there is some truth to it). In that light, if they deserve anything, it is sympathy. I also expressed sympathy for their lot because of their misplaced faith in Qur'an; I admit to a high-pulpit here; I am not perfect.

I thought it was clear from the context who I meant when I referred to the one who claims to know the ONLY RIGHT path. I was obviously referring to Muhammad. I think, considering the fact that, world population has grown substantially over the last few centuries, it would be obvious that the majority of the people who have traveled since Muhammad's time haven't met him (I would wager something like 99.999999% of the people if not more, correct if I am wrong). Even if your are speaking metaphorically, I am not sure your point is valid. I never knew Islam had the concept of re-incarnation or communication with dead people (whatever that's called). If there is, please educate me on that one. In other words, unless Muhammad found a way to communicate personally with those travelers after he died, you are not talking much sense my friend. As for megalomania, I try to be humble, but fail miserably sometimes. I guess one more thing for me to learn.

I did not remember about paramahamsa. It is an interesting concept. I do not (always) engage in a debate to show superiority of my path versus the others'. However, I would like to point out a critical difference. When I say all paths are valid, I am only referring to spiritual paths. From what little I know about Islam, spiritual guidance is scant. There are the five pillars of Islam and there is a good amount of emphasis on them. In my opinion religion should restrict itself to providing spiritual guidance; I know that majority of the organized religions stray from this path when they add lots of unnecessary baggage of rituals. Please tell me if my assertion about Islam is wrong.

Regarding twelve imams, I think you are skating on thin ice. Even if we accept that these twelve imams were legitimate successors of Muhammad, the last of them passed away in the 10 century at the most (Muhammad Ali Mahdi). Their role and importance to Islam is a source of major controversy. So even if they did communicate with God, majority of Muslims are still left with no further channels with God open. I did not know about Aulia Allah (friends of God), thank you for pointing that out. I am here to learn. I am not sure there are many aulias around today. I would love to learn more about Sufism. I sure love their music (S D Berman comes to mind, if you know what I mean). Some muslims think Sufism does not belong within Islamic fold.

As for restricting debate to your peers, your presence here seems contradictory. If you are here and you choose to comment on this topic, then do it with full heart; otherwise you are only making background noise, not much sense.

That I follow karmayoga does not mean that I hold bhakti path to be invalid, and I believe that's what Islam is all about: submission to God. My quarrel (if that) with Islam is not on spiritual guidance but other unnecessary additions. So, there is no contradiction in what I am saying. If you choose to believe in bhakti path, then a direct communication with God is essential; otherwise you are corrupting concept of bhakti altogether. Middlemen do not add value.

Please explain the concept of the last prophet. I thought prophets are messengers from God; they are supposed to communicate God's message to people to aid in their salvation.

If God does not reduce my status then please explain the concept of hellfire for non-believers. The quid pro quo in any religious text is nauseating; Qur'an takes it to absurd proportions.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

O My God. What a discussion! What a mumbo jumbo!
I am confused more than ever. Please end it. Kavita, please end this blog now. Or can you?
Morris

Ravi – Thanks for the prayers for my friend.

I think this will be my last post with you in this blog. It seems you have learned some essentials about the three paths from books and made a checklist based on your understanding of the topic so that you can qualify if other ideologies are fit to be called what they are called. You then set out to examine them to see the followers deserve sympathy or scorn. When you encountered Islam, you go thru an initial round of examination to check, as per your conditioning, which path it belongs to and opt for bakti path. With this ‘little knowledge,’ you take the checklist out of your pocket and go thru each question. To your dismay, you find that it does not qualify to be called bhakti yoga as per your checklist What a pity!

You need to understand that if you wish to learn a new ideology which is different in many aspects from what you have so far absorbed and is not in tune with your conditioning, you will need to go thru a phase of ‘de-conditioning’ or unlearning. Otherwise not just 15 years, even after 150 years, you will continue to bewail about the one third of the global population and stay in the glass house and waste your valuable time. Until you show signs that you are going thru such a phase, it seems futile to me to answer your questions one by one, as it can continue endlessly. But still I will touch on some of your remarks.

It is true my commenting here, not my presence, is contradictory.

There is still a contradiction in your position. Your complaint is that Islam is a failed bakti path as there is no live link with God after Mohamed. Then if you acknowledge that bakti path is a valid path and that in that path communication with God is necessary, - for a moment don’t think if muslims still keep the link or not – then you should not talk about God wasting his time by talking to the people on earth. Since you think that in Bakti path communication is necessary, you will have to find an answer to yourself why God is wasting time. There are few such contradictions in your post. I would skip that.

Regarding the Imams, the point of discussion was not about their role or whether they are rightful successors. It was to show that it was not broken, as you propagate. If it continued up to 10th century, it could easily continue to infinity. And do not worry, there are still aulias in muslim world. Unlike others, they do not use certain ‘techniques’ for manipulating the crowds for their ends and migrate to West for more popularity and money. See you somewhere else later

Morris – Sorry, this is the last from me!

hi my name is fuhad i love to see genii.plese cell me 1646-249-0556.i live usa newyork.i am from bangladesh.

hi my name is fuhad .from bangladesh i live usa newyork.plese give your phone number i need help.plese cell me 1646-249-0556

hi my name is fuhad .from bangladesh i live usa newyork.plese give your phone number i need help.plese cell me 1646-249-0556

hi my name is fuhad .from bangladesh i live usa newyork.plese give your phone number i need help.plese cell me 1646-249-0556

hi my name is fuhad .from bangladesh i live usa newyork.plese give your phone number i need help.plese cell me 1646-249-0556

hi my name is fuhad my eamil is Fuhad26@hotmail.com

hi my name is fuhad my eamil is Fuhad26@hotmail.com

hi my name is fuhad .my eamil is Fuhad26@hotmail.com

Hi, My name is Ahamed, I am a follower of Prophet Muhammed(peace be up on him). It is very wrong to hurt others physicaly or by emotinaly as per our Nabi's teaching and his practises.
War was allowed during our prophet time frame only for defence with strict war rules.

I know the presnt terrorism is way out when compared to our prophet's teachings. But because of that Wafa sultan cannot question Islamic teachings. I certainly feel she is wrong in questioning the basic tents of Quranic verses.

Instead, if she would have pointed out that the present terrorism is wrong, I would have agreed to her views. I guess this is a long thread going on for quite some time. I would recommend the open minded folks here to read the quranic translation with open mind and conclude by yourself about Islam and our Prophet Muhammed(peace be up on him).

Salams(Peace)
Ahamed