same elephant - diferent part

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Dec 27, 2008 at 22:43

Mr. Bayezid writes:

"your baseless, arbitrary comments are proof of your hysteria inducing talent."
Have I induced hysteria in you? Or merely triggered a pre-existing condition?

GI wrote:

"The question was do you agree that other and older civilizations had knowledge(amongst other things) of the passage of the sun? You claim Islam was the first to make this basic observation. I gave you two well-known examples, New Grange and Stonehenge in Europe."

Bayezid replies:

"im sorry, where exactly were you when i sent you the last post explaining about the newgrang and stonehenge? "

I'm assuming I'm replying to a person with sufficient intelligence to realise members of this forum reside at various locations and time zones around the world and that cross-posting out of time sequence can and does occur.

"im sure you were here grinding your teeth at the efforts of a muslim man breathing fire all over daniel pipes here. lol ."

You obviously think tha. I do not. And no - no teeth grinding. I am quite calm in fact far calmer than you would imagine..

"all civilizations knew the sun moved. even when it was actually the earth thats moving it looks like the sun moved. thats what they saw. and thats what they said.the stonehenge and its likes served as nothing but a calender. "

Which is what I was pointing out. I think the confusion lies in that your initial statement did not make the point clear that you were tawlking about the sun's orbit around the galactic centre..

" i also mentioned how you shouldnt feel proud of your ancestors for this simple caender since we indians had it and so did the incas. no nation on earth knew that the sun moved , that it revolved around with the entire solar system along the solar apex.

I thought you were a Bangladeshi - my mistake. And I wasn't singling out 'my ancestors' for special approval from you - I mentioned other civilizations efforts at astronomic systems . I mentioned Stonehenge and New Grange because they are well-known , reasonably 'ancient' and can still be fond to be working today.

GI wrote:
"I also pointed out the Muslims seem incapable of admitting when they get it wrong. Your silence tends to prove this."

"....oh you did did you? "

Correct

"then that must mean you have awful observational skills, dosent it?"

it means you say you think I have awful observational skills.

"...till now the muslims have not said anything wrong. or maybe you imagine things. please write to me saying one wrong thing muslims said about anything."

An absurd propostion which I'm sure others will comment on - but, OK, just off the top of my head - how about a head of state suggesting to wipe another country and all its inhabitants off the map. Does that count?

>>OK, well then tell us whether Muslims claim the Bible and Torah, Rig veda and Bhagavad Gita are corrupted.
If I am ignorant on this matter and Muslms do not claim they are corrupted - then I stand corrected. But the corrolary of that is the Islam is not 'supreme'. So I expect you to come up with an explanation which somehow tries to say theses scriptures are both corrupted and not corrupted.

"the bible and rig veda and bhagavat gita are definitely corrupted. thats because they werent revealed word for word from ALLAH ,as the quran was. quran was dictated to the prophet. no other prophet had that privilege. their revelations came as ideas and words partially. but never dictated word for word. you can easily tell the difference here. in the quran, we see ALLAH talking and no one talking for him. HE is the narrator. "

Your argument is based on the statement that the Koran is a verbatim dictation from God??? That cannot be proved and most rational people, even with good intentions and awareness of Muslim sensitivities on this point - do not agree with that statement.

"in other books its the prophets and wise men talking and making prayers. ALLAH was not directly addressing people there."

So without getting too metaphysical here - and bearing in mind that some readeers of the forums hold beliefs in the non-existence of anything approaching the concept of a deity, 'God' (supreme consciousness) could not have used other people to communicate through?

Let's take a look at a few commonalities amongst the various tradtions. Nearly all of them have saints or names for enlightened beings. Here is a good definition of the same given by an anthropologist , Lawrence Babb "Who is a saint?" and responds by saying that in the symbolic infrastructure of some religions, there is the image of a certain extraordinary spiritual king's "miraculous powers", and to whom frequently a certain moral presence is attributed. These saintly figures, he asserts, are "the focal points of spiritual force-fields," exerting "powerful attractive influence on followers but touch the inner lives of others in transforming ways as well.^]"

^{Is it not possible that the deity, can communicate to individuals through whatever means it wants to?}

"whats new is you just got to know of it today. muslims have to remember god in every thing they do. everything they do they do it with a profound understanding of GOD's mercy and grace to humanity. that means everything from going to the bathroom to running a state to praying . islam is a way of life. it isnt something tucked away for a temple. it is life according to will of BUNJIL. show me another religion that claims the same. another religion that proclaims that it is a code of life."

It is totalitarianism masked as a religion. God is not a cosmic legal clerk looking through a book of rules to see when and if you are breaking unknown laws. God doesn't care how you or I use the bathroom, there are no Jinns or genies seeking to trip me or you up. Well, they are there for you if you believe it to be so.

GI wrote:

"Don't you mean atheism here? Secularism is defined as ' the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs' . This is an eminently sensible approach to governing societies. The alternatives are the ridiculous and barbaric Sharia law - and the fanaticism found in such countries as Iran - where currently 'moral police' drive around haranguing people who have western haircuts or wear dresses they consider too short.

And secularism is quite appropriate for attempts by the West to accommodate the concept of so-called 'multiculturalism'. In fact Islam has benefitted from 'secularism' Imagine if England or the US was ruled by the Church of England or the Southern Baptists. Do you think there would be as many mosques as these countries so graciously allow there now? Unlike the totally intolerant and hypocrical Sharia-controlled Saudis - not allowing churches in their country.

no i mean secularism. they say, ' the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs' . i ask, according to who? why should religion be seperated? religion was never meant to be seperated. religion is commad of GOD. the very idea of religion is that it is meant to fuse all activities of man into that one set of duties which is subservient to the will of god."

This gets down to the question of sharia and fatwas. I asked another Muslim poster on here to explain how two opposing fatwas can be issued by different Imams (or other fatwa issuers). Either one of them is right or neither of them is right. As an example - say your Sunni imam issued a fatwa on me saying I should be killed for saying Mohammed was not a prophet. And say another imam in Lebanon - a Shia - issued a fatwa saying I should not be killed because I do not believe Mohammed was a prophet. One or both of them thought their ideas agreed with what Allah wanted them to do. Otherwise they would be acting against the interests of allah (which we won't even consider, as they are good, devout Muslims.)

So who is right and who is wrong? It is a totally aribitrary system and an example of why religion SHOULD be kept separate from the operations of government.

"we live life for god. so our lives are to be governed as per his will. without this, religion cant be called religion. seperating religion from everyday life would mean religion tucked away as a mere showpiece.which in tun woud mean being arrogant and taking god lightly. now why would any right thinking individual want to do that ? you may call this progress. we call it blasphemy."

We live life according to our current state of awareness and our realisation of what it true, moment to moment.

. the bahais seek to attain peace according to their own man made program. truth is peace cannot be attained without the mindset ALLAH wants all people to have. so it can be said that the bahais are being arrogant here thinking they can get something that only god can give without doing what god told them to do.. i have explained to you this before and i only wonder if youve been reading them or not.

But you have not explained which of their tenets you do not like - which is what I have asked several times.

You seem to be fixated on the idea that people who hold beliefs that are even quite similar to your own, can't possibly be true. Is this because you have not sincerely stood outside of yourself so to speak - and tried to understand what it is they are really saying? Bahai is an offshoot of Islam. As is Sufism. What do you think of Sufism? What do they say that you disagree with?

GI wrote:

"A bit of a Freudian slip there from you - and reveals a lot. While Islam might seek to program man true religion guides man to the real goal - which is gnosis.

".......your idea of the real goal is actually a bored librarians version of hell."

I have no idea what you mean here - what has this to do with librarians?

"......gnosis, or knowledge, shows you things."

The understatement of the millenia

"things you should do and places you should go to. knowledge is merely the tool that leads one to the goal and not the goal itself "

You've missed the point. You've misunderstood the concept of 'Gnosis'. Look it up.

"knowlesge is only as good as you making use of it. so according to you, the real goal is not a goal at all, it is only awareness to do more. and why? when does this struggle end? "

What struggle?? Knowledge of the truth of one's real self is not a struggle.

"where indeed is the real goal and what is it? it is BUNJIL. our maker. the source from whom all came. it is a return to the source. where all struggle ends. where the purpose is fulfilled and there is no more to prove. it is completion"

I agree - but where is the source? Where have all the real prophets ALWAYS said it was?

GI wrote:

"that's a not so subtle way of saying you won't admit you were wrong on many previous points?'

".....I think we all know which is the wrtong one among us, dont we ."

yes, I think we all do.

GI wrote:

"True religion seeks to still the mind calm the emotions and connect consciousness to its Source.'

ok, so what is your problem with islam. BUNJIL, the source, says that mens hearts indeed find rest at the remebrance of god. it is what BUNJIL said in the quran."

Where is the God you're seeking? Hindu saints knew the answer to this - why have Muslims missed the point so badly? The probem with Islam is that the kabaah, Mohammed, how you conduct bodily ablutions, Jins, genies, buraks, jihad and the book of rules you call the Koran are totally unecessary. Muslims may think it is necessary but it is not. I do not need them to experience true peace. Neither does someone living in Finland or South Africa or Japan. It is very simple. Peace is already inside every one of us - waiting to be tapped into. If we tap into it - we are automatically in harmony with everything.

Your (Muslim) insistence that it is your formula that brings peace is absolutely incorrect.

Was it Ghandi who said for the forest to be green - each of the trees has to be green? You can't shove 'peace' down anyone's throat. It's a state of mind. That's why Jihad will ultimately fail.

>> O SERVANT, where dost thou seek Me?
Lo! I am beside thee.
I am neither in temple nor in mosque: I am neither in Kaaba nor in Kailash:
Neither am I in rites and ceremonies, nor in Yoga and renunciation.
If thou art a true seeker, thou shalt at once see Me: thou shalt meet Me in a moment of time.
Kabîr says, "O Sadhu! God is the breath of all breath."

"beautiful. but kabir was simply a romantic. his owrks arent meant to be taken as dogma. and besides we arent taking about god's nearness nd absoluteness here. those things are absolute taken for granted. religion is concerned with duties to the same god kabir wrote a poem about. if indeed you love god that you wish to be near to him, it would behoove you to at least listen to hjim, no? that is religion. god's message to us. if we seek harness to him, im sure listening to him and obeying him would be a start."

again - where is the God you seek?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".