On 25 May, 15:10, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > " According to the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are 'protected people' > who should not be fought ... " > > What's wrong with non - Christians and non - Jews, that actually > constitute more than half of the world population ? Why are they any > the less deserving of peace ? >
It had to do with the fact that Christians and Jews all accept 'The God of Abraham', whilst the vast majority of Hindus are polytheistic, which is anathema to monotheism. I have no doubt that The Prophet (pbuh) himself would have no problem with a Hindu that was Advaita in thought. In fact, today's Islam (in several pamphlets I've seen) defends Advaita Vedanta as being the 'correct' form of Hinduism. So, if you don't like that and find it troubling, I can find no rational basis for that. > It's precisely because of such indefensible ' tribalism ' and divisive > crap that the scripture should be rejected by all rational people of > the world ! It's a sham, to be speaking of One in the same breath. > Perhaps after reading my reason above, you'd reconsider your own viewpoint. > Pat, you should thank the mods for allowing your defense of such > irrational, divisive and inflammatory stance, on a rational forum that > Minds Eye is. > And, if you disagree with it, as any rational mind would, the > appropriate constituency to address your opposition would be found on > an Islamic forum ! > The inflammation was only your reaction, not my statement of fact. A rational mind wouldn't have allowed his 'feelings' to get involved. It's a 'fact' that these people were protected. If that (protection) upsets you, it's not my fault for bringing it to your attention, is it? > Through this post of mine, I am actually asking the mods to disallow > such regressive crap here. > Yet, the One is on my side. Yours too. We don't stand as opposed as you think sometimes, but I will be bold and shake you occassionally and you will be bold and do the same to me occassionally. It's a two- way street. As Orn might point out, had we been sitting next to one another, I doubt your inflammation would have progressed so far so fast, as we would have talked it through sooner. This medium, that allows hours to pass betewen posts, can sometimes cause more problems by letting one 'stew' on the wrong points and/or miss the point that was trying to be made. You SHOULD know me better than to think I was trying to be divisive or even derisive. > On May 25, 5:22 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 24 May, 20:46, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Your response is more obfuscating than clear. > > > > First, this is not about one person and another. It is about > > > attitudes, smallness of the heart ( the ultra importance to petty > > > rituals and marks of exclusive identity ), if you understand, and > > > world view, acceptance of diversity and ways of life ( violent > > > animosity towards ' kafirs ' ) ... that pervades whole populations > > > subscribing to that faith and religion. > > > Yes, but it's the 'teachers' of the faith that have muddied the waters > > of the text rather than the text being muddy itself. The > > 'students' (Taliban, in Arabic, if you will) have followed poor > > teachers and not learned correctly. According to the Qur'an, > > Christians and Jews are 'protected people' who should not be fought, > > but that doesn't seem to be the way the events are playing out these > > days. > > > > Secondly, the nature of the One is many, as is here and now, right > > > before us, as the universe, the creation and the creatures, you and I, > > > manifest in our ( pure ) hearts. It is Love, and numerous forms of its > > > expression and denial. There is nothing unseen, unprovable, ineffable, > > > or mystery, about that ! > > > > The One, as it is ... One, without a second or other, without the > > > least differentiation, without any nature whatsoever, is witnessed in > > > the ( flawless and subsumed ) intellect. No text is required or > > > necessary for that ! In fact, any scripture that does not deny itself > > > in deference to the One beyond all texts and religious tenets, that > > > seeks to perpetuate itself instead is a false one. That is the truth. > > > Doesn't Surah 112 (Al Ikhlas) state that fairly clearly? > > > Surah 112: Al-Ikhlas (The Oneness Of God) > > > In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful > > > 1. Say: He is God, the One and Only; > > 2. God, the Eternal, Absolute; > > 3. He does not beget, nor is He begotten; > > 4. And there is none comparable to Him. > > > It doesn't get much simpler than that and the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) > > said that that Surah was "one third of the Qur'an"; that is, one third > > in 'content of meaning'. > > > > You do not have to " also love " the Sufi tradition. I appreciate and > > > prefer it because it is focussed on Love, not on rituals, even if > > > through it, and on One, not on texts, even if through them. > > > > On May 25, 12:06 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Why would one person read scripture, and realize the text as living > > > > processes within themselves, thus becoming good, and others not? this > > > > is a very good question, and the answer may include ones ability to > > > > set aside self will (or alignment with divine will) and ego and the > > > > giving of oneself to the mystery of the unseen, unprovable, ineffable > > > > nature of the One. In doing so, all other aspects of self are also > > > > realized, none excluded. Those that bring their own agenda to the > > > > text, will simply be using the text for their own agenda. those that > > > > can begin to live the scripture move beyond the cause and effect you > > > > are looking for. > > > > > PS: I also love the Sufi tradition. > > > > > On May 24, 2:28 pm, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > What are you saying ? Is it that people, who profess and are known to > > > > > be following the scripture, may not be good, gentle and loving, but > > > > > the scripture may still be ideal, without flaws ? > > > > > > If that is indeed what you are saying, then I would view that as a > > > > > belief that is incorrect, and patently wrong. Because the proof of any > > > > > thing lies in the effects it causes, the consequences it germinates, > > > > > which effects and consequences are empirical and serve as evidence in > > > > > rational terms. > > > > > > The holders of such beliefs are usually the ones who subscribe to > > > > > feelings of ' holiness,' and are therefore too hamstrung to challenge > > > > > beliefs for the merit they actually have, rather than that they are > > > > > supposed to have. > > > > > > Islam has great virtues of brotherhood, in practice, but little else > > > > > because much of it is temporal pertaining to values and ways of life > > > > > as relevant and suited to 6th Century Arab world. That's why their > > > > > adherents, values and way of life, are such oddities in 21st Century ! > > > > > > The Sufis, on the other hand, who are focussed on Love ( in the > > > > > heart ) and the One ( in intellect ), soon outgrow all things temporal > > > > > in the Quran. Their humanism is universal and inclusive of all > > > > > diversity, all faiths, all faithless too, all colour, all cultures, > > > > > all ways of life. > > > > > > I'd dismiss and reject Islam only on the way it has ostracised and > > > > > persecuted the Sufis, the way Sunnis do to Shias, and Shias do to > > > > > Parsis and Bahais, and all do to Ismailis ... that same train of > > > > > exclusivity. What merit does such a religion in the 21st Century have, > > > > > that practises such ostracism, persecution and exclusivity ? > > > > > > On May 24, 9:35 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I suppose with any faith, we can site followers who can live in love > > > > > > and peace after coming to the scripture, and those that cannot. > > > > > > Reading the scripture and living the scripture are two different > > > > > > things. Islam is no exception. This does not mean the scripture is > > > > > > flawed, although that seems to be argued ad naseum, but rather goes > > > > > > back to the conversation of mistakes and forgiveness. > > > > > > > On May 24, 12:11 pm, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > And that is, I repeat, the only hallmark of a true messiah ... > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > his word leads people to being good, gentle and loving. The Jewish > > > > > > > temple means little, and the number of adherents is really > > > > > > > irrelevant, > > > > > > > when the merit of thought and speech is to be considered. > > > > > > > > We've discussed Quran forthrightly with the participation of a > > > > > > > Muslim > > > > > > > member a couple of years ago, with all its interpretive flaws and > > > > > > > consequent crap temporals, that has resulted in such behaviour > > > > > > > among > > > > > > > its adherents as we witness today. Such certainties as it mouths > > > > > > > is of > > > > > > > no merit in itself, if it does lead people to being good, gentle > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > loving. > > > > > > > > I'd much prefer the less certain, if it results otherwise ! > > > > > > > > On May 24, 7:44 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I see your point, although all of the people that I know that > > > > > > > > consider > > > > > > > > themselves of the Baha'i faith are good, gentle, loving people. > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > that end, I would say he was successful. > > > > > > > > > On May 24, 9:55 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 24 May, 14:21, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I have not read this, and lots of other stuff. My reading > > > > > > > > > > has become > > > > > > > > > > quite narrow in scope, but that may change again in my > > > > > > > > > > life. I now > > > > > > > > > > read what comes to me that has a ring of truth to me, and > > > > > > > > > > it always > > > > > > > > > > validates my latest realizations. Quite a wonderful > > > > > > > > > > process, really. > > > > > > > > > > I would some day like to get back to literature...so much > > > > > > > > > > of it is > > > > > > > > > > beautiful. So little time, so much to read...that is, if > > > > > > > > > > you include > > > > > > > > > > time in your reality... > > > > > > > > > > Well, it's not so much as to whether or not I include it, > > > > > > > > > it's whether > > > > > > > > > or not it is actually included. It is. Otherwise, you could > > > > > > > > > read > > > > > > > > > this before I wrote it. Only the One that has access to all > > > > > > > > > time at > > > > > > > > > once can do that. And, thus, knew, millenia ago, that this > > > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > > > post was a vital part of the whole. I wouldn't bother > > > > > > > > > reading "The > > > > > > > > > Book of Certitude". It was/is, more or less, an attempt from > > > > > > > > > a person > > > > > > > > > raised within Shi'a Islam, to make the claim of being the > > > > > > > > > return of > > > > > > > > > the Hidden (12th) Imam in a very subtle way, i.e., do > > > > > > > > > everything but > > > > > > > > > actually state it. Unfortunately, the book, when contrasted > > > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > clarity of The Qur'an, is a mishmash of ideas that are NOT > > > > > > > > > internally > > > > > > > > > consistent and, thus, do not add clarity or certitude but, > > > > > > > > > rather, > > > > > > > > > detract from the Qur'an that it was intending to comment > > > > > > > > > upon. It's > > > > > > > > > an attempt to sway both Christians and Muslims into accepting > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > author's 'way forward', wich, although admirable, the way > > > > > > > > > outlined is > > > > > > > > > too muddled to see, in my opinion. In short, it was another > > > > > > > > > attempt > > > > > > > > > to be 'the Gospel of the Next Messiah' written before said > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
