From: f43703a@nucc.cc.nagoya-u.ac.jp (SUPRATIC GUPTA)
Subject: Ignorance of muslim elite people
Organization: Nagoya University Computation Center, Nagoya, Japan.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:21:00 GMT

I only write with the format 
GUPTA>

all paragraphs without it belongs to the original poster
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Article: 2078 of soc.culture.pakistan
From: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)

rroy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Raja R Roy) writes:

>   I don't know about others, but this fellow does not give any informa-
>tion to anyone. All he knows is to act like a parrot and say after every
>line that Islam is perfect, Quran is word of God, hence perfect, hence
>proved. Wish he could argue better than monkeys, and more, wish he could
>think . I mean he is so stupid to say that lightly beating women is OK.

(Raja means Shakil by "this fellow")

Shakil believes that the Quran is word of God, thus by definition perfect,
consistent, timeless and comprehensive (Shakil, correct me if I am
misstating your position).  It is a matter of belief and thus not open
to argument or in need of any proof.  Within this framework of belief,
he attempts to provide rationale for various Islamic rules and
regulations.  If you have any disagreements, you have to argue within
this context.

He and others have cited some evidence for validity of their beliefs,
which to them is convincing.  Here is what I remember:

1. The Prophet was illiterate.  How could he have produced something
   of great beauty like the Quran?

GUPTA> I accept your logic. Prophet was illiterate. May be he became
literate after he got the massage. But why do we take him as always
correct/ Only path of following quran? I mean why should we copy sunas?
Why should we follow hadeets? Can we take the interpretation of Prayer
as KARMA (deed) as preached in Hinduisim and Budha. Budha was not illiterate.
But his history was simillar of mohamad. He also got enlitment. Only
difference that he preached Karma as the main form of prayer. I will
wish to tell you that the concept of KARMA doesnot contradict quran.
It contradicts Mohamad though. Any way Mohamad was the best example,
still limited. He was not God. Do you agree? I know you can't.

2. There are no contradictions in the Quran and is consistent with
   all the known scientific facts and theories.  Furthermore, the
   Quran, with proper interpretation could be shown to have
   anticipated some modern scientific facts and theories.

GUPTA> Yes it doesnot have any contradiction with scientific facts. But
strangely, so does Budhisim. Budhisim does not contradict with Quran even
in broader sence(I know Question will come on the meaning of broader
sence, read, I can't expain) , but does with Mohamad's interpretation
of Quran. Is budhisim acceptable to you then?

GUPTA> I am not asking you to accept Budhisim, but consider them the people
of the book by default. Don't disallow marriage between Muslims and Buddhists.

3. A challenge by the Prophet to produce a single verse matching the
   literary beauty and grandeur of the Quran remains unanswered for
   the past 1400 years.

GUPTA> Read GITA, Don't make big sentences without reading anytthing.
Ignore the outer meanings. Try to read the inner meanings. Try to read
about Budha's preachings. Budha was much before Mohamad. You don't have
to search future, search past. GITA and BUDHA. .

4. When other religions and nations were busy discriminating on the
   basis of race, gender and class (or caste), Islam asserted the
   equality of all the human beings and gave significant rights
   to women.  Rest of the world is catching up only now with what
   Islam said 1400 years ago.

nly religion that has caste system is Hinduisim. I am ashamed
of it. But don't make such big sentences. Even Budhisim preaches
equality.

5. The rapid spread of Islam after the Prophet (when Islam was
   practiced in its pure form), the meteoric rise of the Islamic
   civilization and its primacy for hundreds of years are indicative
   of its divine nature.

GUPTA> So did Budhisim. There was a difference. Even previlaged
people coinverted to Budhisim. But budhisim is a very simple religion.
It does not preach violence even for self protection. But Islam does.
I think it is correct in part of Islam. So only the deprived in the
society converted. It was a blesing in disguise for them. I am thank
ful to Islam for coming to India.  But if you don't know, Baba Ambedkar
converted lot of lower caste people to Budhisim too. The problem with
budhisim is that it don't protect.


Each of this can be debated and argued, but the whole exercise (IMO)
is futile.

-- Milind Saraph


GUPTA> Don't make general statements like Islam is the only religion
doing or preaching so and so. First read about other religion and then
say some thing. We are at present reading Islam. But how many ( i know
some who are doing so) are reading Budhisim or Hinduisim or the
small book GITA? You don't have to beleave them. I don't. Read them
for knowledge.

GUPTA> the biggest problem today with muslims are that they don't know
anything about HINDUISIM/ISLAM. They judge it from what can be seen. like
some one praying a cow etc. Remember that Hinduisim is a very old religion.
Budhisim is the purer form of it. So as customs theere are many things that
a normal person cannot differenciate , I mean between religion and customs.
Don't judge Hinduisim from it. Either ask a knowledgeable person or read
some things or read only budhisim + Gita.

GUPTA> Budhisim is much older then Islam or Christianity. Budha was
real. Not like RAMA or KRISHNA. We have historical record of it.




-- 
With regards

SUPRATIC GUPTA