From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Marital Status (definition of Hindu)
Date: 9 Nov 1992 13:46:51 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <2439@grivel.une.edu.au>, dwright@metz.une.edu.au (Denis Wright) writes:

> [and Shakil responds:]

> >This is confusing.  You appear to be equating Hinduism with some form
> >of Indian nationalism.  What are "Indian values?"  Are they not
> >dependent to some extent on the faith which a person practices?  If
> 
> ... deletions ...
> 
> >hearing for the first time...  I would be interested in hearing
> >whether other Hindus agree with Indu's views on this.

> Not a Hindu, but someone who has been reading and writing about
> Indian culture for a long time.  I guess the simplest
> definition of a Hindu is one who believes s/he is one.  From
> the philosophical point of view, the Hindu might even say that
> we are all Hindus, except that some of us don't recognise the
> fact!  Christianity and Islam, e.g., are from the Hindu
> philosophical standpoint, bhakti yogas.  From the standpoint of
> philosophy, Hinduism does not depend on the social structure
> which was created along with it.

So you are disagreeing with the original poster, then, i.e. you don't
think that Hinduism stands for some form of Indian nationalism?  As
for what you say about Hindus stating that we are *all* Hindus, that
leads to an obvious paradox.  If we are, then all Muslims are Hindus
too, and yet their beliefs contradict the above statement that
everyone is a Hindu.

As far as Islam goes, Muslims believe that everyone is *born* a
Muslim.  How their beliefs develop after that is a function of
environment and experience.

> Problems arise only when we take an exclusive view of religion,
> and say that because *A* is right, therefore *B* must be wrong
> (or maybe to put it better, A has the fully revealed truth,
> while B's truth is limited or incomplete.)  Both Christianity
> and Islam take this viewpoint.

Clearly, if Indian nationalism is some form of prerequisite for
Hinduism, then this constitutes a rather exclusive view of things.  A
non-exclusive view on religion automatically results in paradoxes of
the nature I mention above.  

I don't particularly see a problem with what you consider the
"exclusive" view of religion.  Islam, for example, is considered to be
the full truth by Muslims, and that includes the Qur'an's famous line:

	There is no compulsion in religion.

So this means that a Muslim believes that he/she follows the truth,
but everyone else can follow whatever they want.  How does this lead
to any more problems that a "non-exclusive" view of religion which
inevitably leads to paradoxes?  It is one thing to say that *none* of
the religions are the truth.  But trying to find an all-encompassing
truth repeatedly leads to paradoxes.

> >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?>

> I'll leave the original poster to defend his position in the
> face of these questions, if he can.  The fact is that all
> religions change with time and on interaction with new
> cultures, even if their essential truths do not.  In Islam, as
> long as the principle of consensus (ijma) exists and there are
> contemporary interpreters of Islamic law, there will be
> varieties of Islamic religious expression in various parts of
> the world, based on the same original truths.

I've said this in the past, and can only repeat it.  If a religion is
believed to be the word of God, then there is no concept of "change
with time."  There cannot be.  Who are we to change what we believe is
the word of God?

It is true that some people may deviate with imaginative
interpretations and still consider themselves a part of the original
religion.  But I don't see how that is peculiar to Islam.  Are there
not arguments amongst Hindus about what Hinduism actually constitutes?
Haven't we seen different Hindus disagree over this very thread?
Aren't there big fights and debates over the issue of castes?
Christianity has a very large number of different sects, and very few
Bible editions are alike.  Why single Islam out in this respect?  And
more importantly, what does he mean by stating that Islam is in
turmoil?

-- 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
=======================================================================



Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh