From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Marital Status (definition of Hindu)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 18:43:47 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <1992Nov10.144230.27800@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>,
indu@iss700.Columbia.NCR.COM () writes:

I'm not sure whether you really believe half the stuff you write, or
whether you're just trying to provoke.  At any rate, I'll give this
one more shot just in case you really are misled.

> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu writes:
> >In .. indu@iss700.Columbia.NCR.COM () writes:
> 
> >> Actually speaking HINDU is  an  UMBRELLA  like  phenomena.  As  a
> >> matter  of  fact,  there  is  no  definition  of  Hindu either In
> >This is confusing.  You appear to be equating Hinduism with some form
> >of Indian nationalism.  What are "Indian values?"  Are they not
> 
>  Not exactly nationalism. But being faithful to all that has given 
>  us this vision. If I were born in India it  would equate to Indian 
>  nationalism. If I were born else where, then it  means Viewing these with 
>  respect and Honor. 

So "being faithful" to India is not nationalism?

> >dependent to some extent on the faith which a person practices?  If
> >so, then what is "Indian" about them?  More importantly, are you
> >implying that *any* Hindu has to believe in Indian customs and values,
> 
>  I am not just implying,  but saying it CLEARLY. The HINDU values are NOT 
>  faith dependant. Like for example, respecting  woman, respecting cow, 
>  ones freedom of faith in pursuing the Ultimate truth (MOKSHA), ones duties
>  (not only Religious, but towards society, Man kind etc,). So even whether
>  one is Vaishnavite or Shivite or an Athiest if he subscribes to these 
>  he is a HINDU.  The Indian-ness is attributed to them because,
>  these VALUES were practiced by Indians initially.

Why is it relevant who practiced these values initially?  If the
values are well-defined, anyone should be able to pursue them
anywhere.  What has believing in Bharat got to do with it?

>    A canadian Eskimo can also become Hindu. He can remain a Hindu, and 
>    remain committed to integrity of Bharat. I DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU FIND
>    CONTRADICTION IN THESE. How will his Canadian interests clash with his 
>    Hindu interests of "sarve jana sukhino bhavanthu, sarve  santhu
>    .." ? 

But why should an Eskimo be committed to the integrity of Bharat?  If
Canada were to get into a conflict with India, would that mean his
religious beliefs would force him to identify with India over Canada,
or over fellow Eskimos?  Why?  Are you then implying that a Hindu is
by default, an Indian?  Would the Indian government give citizenship
to anyone who declares him/herself to be Hindu?  How is this
consistent with the people of many other faiths who are Indian?
Should they not be Indian?  Is Indianness an exclusively Hindu quality?

>    As for your hearing for the first time this interpretation, HOW can I be 
>    held responsible. As for Hinduism being coinsidered as a religion, that 
>    shows that you did not have the right orientation from where-ever you learnt 
>    (in case you had) Hinduism. The basic mistake most of the contemporary 
>    writers make is to consider HINDUism as a religion. HINDUISM 
>    is NOT A RELIGION. It is a way of life.  There are religions with in 
>    Hinduism, which  lead this way  of life, with their RELIGIOUS
>    variations. 

That's fine.  And this "way of life" includes a particular loyalty to
a country, right?  Why is it that other Hindus disagree with you?  How
do you feel about the fact that Muslims consider Islam a way of life?
Does that change the fact that it is still a religion?  Doesn't
Hinduism include the concept of God(s)?  So doesn't that make religion
a subset of this way of life?  How is this different from the Islamic
perspective?

> >A couple of questions: First, I would like to see justification for
> >why you find it necessary to say "Especially Islam" in this context.
> >What aspects of Islam distinguish it from Christianity in this
> >context.
> 
>    I said, especially Islam because - ISLAM rules out every thing else. 
>    It does not accept the multiple views and beliefs which makes it diffucult
>    for others to accept. And the more important point is, IT OVER
>    RIDES others right. I do not know what is written in Books, but
>    in action it has happened and been happening  in the  name of
>    Islam.

Clearly, you are ruling out Islam.  So how does that make your
standpoint any different?  Any attempts to construct an
all-encompassing religion will lead to inevitable paradoxes.  As for
overriding other peoples' rights, I suggest you examine the following
verses in the Qur'an:

In 109:1-6, we are told:

     In the name of Allah, the Beneficent,
        the Merciful,

     Say: O you disbelievers,
     I worship not that which you worship,
     Nor do you worship that which I worship,
     Nor will I be wont to worship that
        which you worship,
     To you be your way, and to me mine.

In 2:256:

     There is no compulsion in religion.

Clearly, then, your statement that you don't know what is in the
scriptures is quite correct.  What amazes me is that you have the
audacity to make such bold statements in spite of that!

>    Though Christianity too will  not accept other views, it lets others remain.
>    And tries to convert them by passive  means, (rather than VIOLENT ISLAMIC
>    CRUSADE type of stuff). So others who do not support Christainity, have
>    the facility to continue in their faith .  

The Islamic crusades?  I think you have your history wrong.  It was
Christians who called it a crusade and a brief look at history books
will convince you very quickly who was more aggressive and violent.
Who was behind the Spanish Inquisition?  What happened in South
America?  In North America?  What is happening in Northern Ireland
today?  Have you forgotten history?

>    This forcible suppression of third party views by Islam, makes it  more
>    "special".

You have yet to provide any evidence of these allegations.

> >Second, I would request you to elaborate on what you mean by saying
> >"today we find Islam in such a turmoil."  I was not aware that Islam
> >is in turmoil and would be very interested in hearing what you have to
> >say.
> 
>    Islam in turmoil, is not just my view. People are saying that
>    too.

Like who?

>    Even you can find the turmoil in all the Islamic countries.  

As opposed to other countries which don't have turmoil?  Please, the
question is, "How is Islam in turmoil?"  Please answer the question.

>    As for 
>    those countries which remain peaceful now (like Saudi Arabia etc,) it 
>    is still their PETROL which is saving them.  The effect of  Islam is, 
>    it has rejected every other faith and cannot co-exist with
>    others.

Then how come it has done so historically and continues to do so?

>    So, you are slowly finding these Bunch of Islamic countries getting 
>    excluded from the world body. This may not appear immediately, but 
>    I foresee that. Their inclusion into WORLD BODY today is based on the PETRO
>    dollars.  Today Somalia is one of the Examples of those Islamic states
>    where the Cushion of Petro dollars is not available.

So Islamic countries are being *excluded* from the "world body?"  What
is this "world body?"  And when were Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Brunei, the Maledives, Egypt, etc. etc. excluded from this amazing
"world body?"  Or does Bangladesh have lots of "petro-dollars" that we
are unaware of?

> >Third, in stating that "Hindu society has withstood many attacks on
> >itself," you imply that the other two religions have not.  What
> >attacks on Islam have caused Islam to change, and how has that
> >affected Islam?
> 
>    How do I know where and How Islam  has changed, and who has caused it.
>    By the way, Has Islam changed? If yes, then  I would like to more
>    in detail about that.

Great.  So you don't know whether it has changed, and yet you imply
that it has not withstood the test of time.  Please explain yourself.

-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science     INTERNET: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station   BITNET  : ahmed-shakil@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158      UUCP    : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================

Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:5790 soc.culture.pakistan:16547 soc.culture.indian:36660