Hindu or muslim ?
started by sara Boji 2 mnths agoFlat
Nested
Replies
I can't obviously specifically comment on belonging to the above faiths..
But, reading some of the comments makes it sound like religion (any religion) is a pain or misery.
Unless one belongs to some very, very fundamental division of any religion and has to remain against their will..what is the problem? Majority of people find their faith/religion...a great support system, which is helpful. Leaving all the dogma, doctine or theological dimension, on a basic human level...one enjoys and finds comforts in the rituals in a more peaceful and sacred environment of reverence and humility. The very fact that a President or Leader in equally a human and humbles themself is nice and the camradarie between people is nice. If one decides to get into Church politics or gossip- the same I would think applies to all religious places of worship, then it is obviously it is a club or something quite negative. One can certainly worship and enjoy the camradarie without getting caught up in the distractions or negative/hate stuff!
No matter how one feels about any religion, and certainly one could perhaps be cynical about some of the religious traditions...all religions at it's core in that atmosphere reminds one- that life itself is very temporary and doing some good on earth would be a good thing. However, people may twist that message and be manipulative...but, blaming any faith is kind of silly and disingenous.
M
>> all religions at it's core in that atmosphere reminds one- that life itself is very temporary and doing some good on earth would be a good thing
That's a good point. I agree.
However the problem is how accomodative a religion is in a multi relgious (including atheists/agnostics) society. The more tolerant it is, the better the society is.
That's a good point. I agree.
However the problem is how accomodative a religion is in a multi relgious (including atheists/agnostics) society. The more tolerant it is, the better the society is.
>>>> This is a clear case of confusion obviously, but I don't get why the three particular islamic practices were absorbed. Also, wouldn't the worship of the local gods make them unwelcome in islam?
> ... wouldn't the worship of the local gods make them unwelcome in islam?
Islam for the most part is NOT a take-it-or-leave-it deal. You can't pick and choose a bunch of practices and leave out the rest. It is very much an all-or-nothing deal. Ahmediyas accept Islamic doctrine in almost its entirety, and make but one modification to it (that Mohammad is not the absolute last prophet.) Yet they are legally considered non-Muslim by the two largest Muslim majority countries of the world! So there is no way in hell most Muslims would accept any idolaters as Muslims.
> ... why the three particular islamic practices were absorbed.
That's a fascinating question. My speculation: burial, circumcision and eating halaal food are all easy changes for a Hindu to make and still not totally violate his own religion. So in terms of Hindu-Muslim syncretism (or Hindu-Muslim synthesis as Rashmun likes to call it), these are "low-hanging fruit." In contrast, giving up worship of local gods would be much more fundamental change.
Islam for the most part is NOT a take-it-or-leave-it deal. You can't pick and choose a bunch of practices and leave out the rest. It is very much an all-or-nothing deal. Ahmediyas accept Islamic doctrine in almost its entirety, and make but one modification to it (that Mohammad is not the absolute last prophet.) Yet they are legally considered non-Muslim by the two largest Muslim majority countries of the world! So there is no way in hell most Muslims would accept any idolaters as Muslims.
> ... why the three particular islamic practices were absorbed.
That's a fascinating question. My speculation: burial, circumcision and eating halaal food are all easy changes for a Hindu to make and still not totally violate his own religion. So in terms of Hindu-Muslim syncretism (or Hindu-Muslim synthesis as Rashmun likes to call it), these are "low-hanging fruit." In contrast, giving up worship of local gods would be much more fundamental change.
Carvaka: Islam for the most part is NOT a take-it-or-leave-it deal. You can't pick and choose a bunch of practices and leave out the rest. It is very much an all-or-nothing deal. Ahmediyas accept Islamic doctrine in almost its entirety, and make but one modification to it (that Mohammad is not the absolute last prophet.) Yet they are legally considered non-Muslim by the two largest Muslim majority countries of the world! So there is no way in hell most Muslims would accept any idolaters as Muslims.
--> I don't this is correct. There is a fundamental difference between sufism and other Islamic sects on the ontological status of God. Other Islamic sects do not accept the sufi claim that one can unite with God in some kind of mystical ecstacy.
--> The primary difference between sunnis and shias is that although both accept mohammad as the last prophet sunnis hold special reverence for Ali (mohammad's son in law or nephew--not sure), abu bakr, omar and osman while shias only revere Ali and have contempt for the other three (abu bakr, omar, osman) on the ground that they were usurpers and not worthy of any respect.
--> In Islam there are some texts called hadiths which are i think analogous to our Puranas and i am pretty sure different Islamic sects claim only specific hadiths to be authentic and declare other hadiths to be erroneous/false.
--> there also exist four different schools of islamic jurisprudence.
--> I don't this is correct. There is a fundamental difference between sufism and other Islamic sects on the ontological status of God. Other Islamic sects do not accept the sufi claim that one can unite with God in some kind of mystical ecstacy.
--> The primary difference between sunnis and shias is that although both accept mohammad as the last prophet sunnis hold special reverence for Ali (mohammad's son in law or nephew--not sure), abu bakr, omar and osman while shias only revere Ali and have contempt for the other three (abu bakr, omar, osman) on the ground that they were usurpers and not worthy of any respect.
--> In Islam there are some texts called hadiths which are i think analogous to our Puranas and i am pretty sure different Islamic sects claim only specific hadiths to be authentic and declare other hadiths to be erroneous/false.
--> there also exist four different schools of islamic jurisprudence.
I am aware of all the facts that you state. I did not claim that Islam is a monolith. I claimed that Islam does not offer an a la carte option. You can get one of the set menus (Sunni/Shia), but you can't say, "I will take the Haj and the five prayers a day, but not the zakat thingie". A non-believer can embrace Sunni or Shia Islam, but he cannot take a few of the major practices within Islam and be considered a Muslim by most Muslims. A person born as a Muslim is expected to follow all the principles of Islam, not just the ones he likes. That is what I meant by the take-it-or-leave-it deal (btw, the NOT in my post was an error.)
I said "for the most part" because of sufism. Sufism had some influence in the subcontinent a while ago, but its influence is in serious decline. Besides, you cannot convert to "Sufi Islam" so most of this discussion does not apply to sufism. Sufism is more like a school of thought / philosophy within Islam, which you adopt after you become a sunni or shia Muslim.
I said "for the most part" because of sufism. Sufism had some influence in the subcontinent a while ago, but its influence is in serious decline. Besides, you cannot convert to "Sufi Islam" so most of this discussion does not apply to sufism. Sufism is more like a school of thought / philosophy within Islam, which you adopt after you become a sunni or shia Muslim.
carvaka: A person born as a Muslim is expected to follow all the principles of Islam, not just the ones he likes. That is what I meant by the take-it-or-leave-it deal (btw, the NOT in my post was an error.)
--> my understanding is that different islamic sects consider specific hadiths to be authentic while dismissing other hadiths as spurious. so it does seem that one has the ability to pick and choose to some extent. of course one cannot pick and choose from the koran.
--> also there exist four different schools of islamic jurisprudence so again one has the ability to pick and choose.
--> the question of abu bakr, omar and osman being held in great contempt by shias and by reverence by sunnis is also interesting.
Carvaka: Besides, you cannot convert to "Sufi Islam" so most of this discussion does not apply to sufism. Sufism is more like a school of thought / philosophy within Islam, which you adopt after you become a sunni or shia Muslim.
--> but in Xinjiang province of China, which is a muslim majority province, my understanding is that the vast majority of the Xinjiang muslims consider themselves to be sufi muslims.
--> my understanding is that different islamic sects consider specific hadiths to be authentic while dismissing other hadiths as spurious. so it does seem that one has the ability to pick and choose to some extent. of course one cannot pick and choose from the koran.
--> also there exist four different schools of islamic jurisprudence so again one has the ability to pick and choose.
--> the question of abu bakr, omar and osman being held in great contempt by shias and by reverence by sunnis is also interesting.
Carvaka: Besides, you cannot convert to "Sufi Islam" so most of this discussion does not apply to sufism. Sufism is more like a school of thought / philosophy within Islam, which you adopt after you become a sunni or shia Muslim.
--> but in Xinjiang province of China, which is a muslim majority province, my understanding is that the vast majority of the Xinjiang muslims consider themselves to be sufi muslims.
>>>of course one cannot pick and choose from the koran.
--> the above is from the point of view of a religious muslim adhering to a specific Islamic sect. but here again i think it is possible some sects (like sufism) may be going against at least some of mohammad's proclaimations.
--> here also, the role of the mughal emperor Akbar who had the courage to claim that muslims should use their intelligence and not blindly follow the Koran is noteworthy. there were some very specific disagreements that Akbar had with the Koran and which he openly articulated. for instance Akbar was against circumcision ('cutting off a piece of skin does not bring one closer to God') and against the prohibition of avoiding pork. there were other disagreements he had with Mohammad and which he shared with the world through his court historian Abul Fazl.
--> the above is from the point of view of a religious muslim adhering to a specific Islamic sect. but here again i think it is possible some sects (like sufism) may be going against at least some of mohammad's proclaimations.
--> here also, the role of the mughal emperor Akbar who had the courage to claim that muslims should use their intelligence and not blindly follow the Koran is noteworthy. there were some very specific disagreements that Akbar had with the Koran and which he openly articulated. for instance Akbar was against circumcision ('cutting off a piece of skin does not bring one closer to God') and against the prohibition of avoiding pork. there were other disagreements he had with Mohammad and which he shared with the world through his court historian Abul Fazl.
Historically, there were many periods when Muslims could question the Quran publicly and live. Today, unfortunately, that is not the case. This is because over time, diversity of thought has been wiped out in favor of a strict and narrow interpretation of the Quran. The decline in influence of sufism in India in general and Kashmir in particular is a classic example of what I am talking about. That is why I say in the present tense that Islam for the most part does NOT let you pick and choose what you like. It may not have been like that at some rare interludes in its long history, but as of now, it has no a la carte offering.
Carvaka: This is because over time, diversity of thought has been wiped out in favor of a strict and narrow interpretation of the Quran....That is why I say in the present tense that Islam for the most part does NOT let you pick and choose what you like. It may not have been like that at some rare interludes in its long history, but as of now, it has no a la carte offering.
--> but, with respect to India, doesn't the active presence of both the deobandis and barelvis who differ sharply with each other over islamic interpretation contradict what u say above?
--> but, with respect to India, doesn't the active presence of both the deobandis and barelvis who differ sharply with each other over islamic interpretation contradict what u say above?
No, it doesn't. My point above directly follows from what is happening in Indian Islam (and in Islam in general). Today if any prominent Muslim person were to try to "pick and choose" from Islamic doctrine, fatwas would fly fast and thick, and prizes would be set on his / her head. That's just the reality.
isn't the following an example of picking and choosing? after all, a religious muslim can claim adherence to either barelvi or deobandi sect.
Barelvi organisations such as the Jamaat Ahl-e-Sunnat represent the mainstream of popular Islam in South Asia, drawing on the work of the theologian Raza Ahmad Khan (1856-1921). In the Barelvi tradition, the Prophet is an imminent presence, not flesh [bashar] but rather light [nur]. For followers of the high traditions of the Dar-ul-Uloom seminary in Deoband, however, the Prophet is a perfect human [insan-i-kamil], but a mortal nonetheless.
In practice, Barelvis believe in intercession between humans and the divine through the medium of pirs or holy personages who are bound in a chain that reaches, eventually, to the Prophet. Barelvis venerate the tombs of pirs and holy relics. Deobandi groups, such as the West Asia-based Salafi school, argue that these practices - which include celebration of the Prophet's birthday - are heretical deviations from scripture.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl2308/stories/20060505002403800.htm
i am not very generous with my words but let me say this. you are the only secular on this forum. rest either hate islam or are too afraid to talk about it maintaining their p-sec image.
btw, i am not denying that more reforms need to take place within Islam. for starters, women's rights and women empowerment needs to become an issue. the burqa needs to be banned and the matrimonial laws which are clearly biased towards men need to be modified.
Rashmun ?
Reforms that too within Islam? I thought theologies are unammedable and are free from contradictions.
Can you show anything which is illogical in Islam? or as a matter of fact in any of the major religions?
Actually when we now have decided to override logic and pretend to be 'more" civilized these kinds of talks are a norm.
Reforms that too within Islam? I thought theologies are unammedable and are free from contradictions.
Can you show anything which is illogical in Islam? or as a matter of fact in any of the major religions?
Actually when we now have decided to override logic and pretend to be 'more" civilized these kinds of talks are a norm.
sunnis are the largest Islamic sect in India and in the world but even within them there are fundamental differences of opinion.
in uttar pradesh one finds the deobandis and also the barelvis. deobandis claim that mohammad cannot and should not be worshipped because only god is worthy of worship and worshipping mohammad would mean giving him the status of God(allah). barelvis claim that mohammad can be worshipped.
in uttar pradesh one finds the deobandis and also the barelvis. deobandis claim that mohammad cannot and should not be worshipped because only god is worthy of worship and worshipping mohammad would mean giving him the status of God(allah). barelvis claim that mohammad can be worshipped.
Correction:
The dispute lies with the following of the sunnah.Worship of mohammad is not prescribed in any sect.
you are wrongly stating things.
The dispute lies with the following of the sunnah.Worship of mohammad is not prescribed in any sect.
you are wrongly stating things.
here is a good reference:
Barelvi organisations such as the Jamaat Ahl-e-Sunnat represent the mainstream of popular Islam in South Asia, drawing on the work of the theologian Raza Ahmad Khan (1856-1921). In the Barelvi tradition, the Prophet is an imminent presence, not flesh [bashar] but rather light [nur]. For followers of the high traditions of the Dar-ul-Uloom seminary in Deoband, however, the Prophet is a perfect human [insan-i-kamil], but a mortal nonetheless.
In practice, Barelvis believe in intercession between humans and the divine through the medium of pirs or holy personages who are bound in a chain that reaches, eventually, to the Prophet. Barelvis venerate the tombs of pirs and holy relics. Deobandi groups, such as the West Asia-based Salafi school, argue that these practices - which include celebration of the Prophet's birthday - are heretical deviations from scripture.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl2308/stories/20060505002403800.htmHindus becoming Muslims is a one way traffic. Whether it is due to confusion, marriage, force, money, fraud.. doesn't matter.
The only way this can stop is when Hindus allow those converted Muslims (and others) to come back home & live as normal Hindus. Think of it more like a Army deputation when you HAD to follow what was forced on you.. now you are back to be free.
The only way this can stop is when Hindus allow those converted Muslims (and others) to come back home & live as normal Hindus. Think of it more like a Army deputation when you HAD to follow what was forced on you.. now you are back to be free.
Yes.... When people desert an army in large numbers one should investigate the underlying problems and welcome back those who want to return.
Hindus (theoretically) shutting the door to outsiders and those who leave is a way to maintain their ethnicity-caste. In that they should at least welcome back those who want to return.
VHP and Arya Samaj do that since the 80s, although strict hindu "leaders" don't approve of the reconversion. Judaism is similar in not allowing outsiders but that has also changed in the last century when they were under threat and their numbers dwindled fast.
Hindus (theoretically) shutting the door to outsiders and those who leave is a way to maintain their ethnicity-caste. In that they should at least welcome back those who want to return.
VHP and Arya Samaj do that since the 80s, although strict hindu "leaders" don't approve of the reconversion. Judaism is similar in not allowing outsiders but that has also changed in the last century when they were under threat and their numbers dwindled fast.
hindus have 10,000 systems. hundreds of them like Kabir panth, kriya yoga, Ram dayal -Radh Swamis, arya samaj, Sikhs have no problem with anybody wanting to convert to their creed - they dont want to openly convert people but folks wanting to know more about their creeds find enthusiatic reception and help in answering all their questions and converting if they want.
Orthodox Hindus , like temple priests prefer no conversion because learning temple traditions, rituals etc. is best leart from childhood and it needs to be kept pure for effectiveness- like one spoon of shit is not tolerable in 100 kg of paysam offered in a temple.
Same stuff is healthy enough for a party.
Highest paths of hinduism, like, Gyan Marga, Sri Vidya, Yoga, Nama Japa is open to all qualified aspirants- Mahrishi Ramana, Yogananda, and many many yogis have provided instructions and help to thousands of western disciples without even requiring change in their Christianity or name.
In Kali Yuga it is the mantra Yoga is the only effective yoga and rituals are quite often contaminated by inadequate purity of performer and materials.
Orthodox Hindus , like temple priests prefer no conversion because learning temple traditions, rituals etc. is best leart from childhood and it needs to be kept pure for effectiveness- like one spoon of shit is not tolerable in 100 kg of paysam offered in a temple.
Same stuff is healthy enough for a party.
Highest paths of hinduism, like, Gyan Marga, Sri Vidya, Yoga, Nama Japa is open to all qualified aspirants- Mahrishi Ramana, Yogananda, and many many yogis have provided instructions and help to thousands of western disciples without even requiring change in their Christianity or name.
In Kali Yuga it is the mantra Yoga is the only effective yoga and rituals are quite often contaminated by inadequate purity of performer and materials.
Hindus are going to dwindle even faster at least in terms of ideas, with the aggressive dollars and soul-savers pouring in, unless they do a fast upgrade-
A quick Hinduism 101- with a set of do', don'ts, what it has to offer- for the common man, emphasis in people allowing to do their own thing within certain broad parameters and a mechanism to convert/ reconvert who want to come into the fold.
What will lose the war is caste-ism, tradition for the sake of tradition-
No matter how much others may be doing this, they have economics on their side and can afford to be arrogant. A community where the poor are substantial + lofty, abstract ideas which the common man is not aware of + hodge-podge unquestioned traditionalism is a recipe for failure.
A quick Hinduism 101- with a set of do', don'ts, what it has to offer- for the common man, emphasis in people allowing to do their own thing within certain broad parameters and a mechanism to convert/ reconvert who want to come into the fold.
What will lose the war is caste-ism, tradition for the sake of tradition-
No matter how much others may be doing this, they have economics on their side and can afford to be arrogant. A community where the poor are substantial + lofty, abstract ideas which the common man is not aware of + hodge-podge unquestioned traditionalism is a recipe for failure.
>>A quick Hinduism 101- with a set of do', don'ts, what it has to offer- for the common man, emphasis in people allowing to do their own thing within certain broad parameters and a mechanism to convert/ reconvert who want to come into the fold.
Good idea. However, that's precisely what is called as making a 'way of life' Hinduism into an organized religion like the semetic ones. Don'no if it would be acceptable to all sects of Hindus.
Good idea. However, that's precisely what is called as making a 'way of life' Hinduism into an organized religion like the semetic ones. Don'no if it would be acceptable to all sects of Hindus.
In comparison to Judaism, Hindu numbers have grown leaps and bounds. Maybe that's why these 'outcastes' aren't that welcome at present.
Things may change when Hindus dip below 50% of India. Then they will realize that by not welcoming those who want to come back (it's quite possible that the initial money/power/equality promised in other religions was actually worse), they are actually creating a worse problem in terms of demographics.
Things may change when Hindus dip below 50% of India. Then they will realize that by not welcoming those who want to come back (it's quite possible that the initial money/power/equality promised in other religions was actually worse), they are actually creating a worse problem in terms of demographics.
I would like to know where all these normal hindus live as they certainly do not frequent this board.
Religion is something forced on everyone by ones parents, family etc.
One could argue that yas a child you were forced to do something and as an adult you are free to choose whatever you want to believe in. Personally people should let these people live with their ways rather than forcing them to conform to any set of rules.
Gowser,
language, culture are also forced on you by your parents. Or they can be said to be passed on by your upbringing.
Similarly Country of origin, relatives, your genes are passed onto you with out your choice.
As you grow up, you as an individual have to look around and make choices to change your self.
language, culture are also forced on you by your parents. Or they can be said to be passed on by your upbringing.
Similarly Country of origin, relatives, your genes are passed onto you with out your choice.
As you grow up, you as an individual have to look around and make choices to change your self.
I don't think in India or US at least, anyone is forcing a religion on an adult. The very fact that we have so many openly atheistic viewed people around, shows that the society is tolerant.
I was talking about the reluctance of Hindus to accept anyone who wants to become a Hindu back, after a generation or two in another religion due to circumstances.
I was talking about the reluctance of Hindus to accept anyone who wants to become a Hindu back, after a generation or two in another religion due to circumstances.
Well in a sense between religious groups that is what they are making the people in this particular area do. Choose one particular religion and follow it in a certain way by telling them that they are confused and their way of life is wrong. Whatever the historical reasons they seem quite happy with how they live people should leave them to it.
The hindu's not accepting converts just shows the small mindedness of the people involved. They don't even need to think of it as army deputation. If someone else decides they want to believe what hinduism teaches for whatever reason people should let them be.
I would like to know where all these normal hindus live as they certainly do not frequent this board.
___________
I shall not comment:-) Sometimes this board can make anyone wonder...what and who is normal!
But, let me assure you as a Christian...I have met plenty of Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists and even Atheists... in my lifetime, who have their own deep religious faith, but are quite normal and don't impose their views on others or criticize others for their faith(s) or lack of it!
Most people do like their faith....and enjoy being part of it...like, I said pehaps because the camradarie is nice and feel a certain comfort in familiar surroundings..I see nothing wrong with it.
M
___________
I shall not comment:-) Sometimes this board can make anyone wonder...what and who is normal!
But, let me assure you as a Christian...I have met plenty of Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists and even Atheists... in my lifetime, who have their own deep religious faith, but are quite normal and don't impose their views on others or criticize others for their faith(s) or lack of it!
Most people do like their faith....and enjoy being part of it...like, I said pehaps because the camradarie is nice and feel a certain comfort in familiar surroundings..I see nothing wrong with it.
M
There is huge financial transformation that is taking place that may impact changes in Muslim world.
There are some people suggesting that reform may take place in muslim world.
If it happens, good for Islamic world. I was looking for signs of that.
However, more than trillion dollars (some say 1.6 trillion dollars) have moved to middle east. Largest quantity of that sum went to oil sheiks in Saudi, Kuwait, and other oil rich countries. Among these beneficiaries are many staunch Wahabi supporters. The world will have to watch how these small group of individuals use their enormous money clout in future?
If they decide to fund madaras, kashmir struggle and Talibvan, we may see a very negative impact. If they tone down on these extra curricular activities, and focus on women's education and infrastructure development, it would open a new world for msulim world.