Religion & Reformation
Secular – Right posted about a debate regarding reform of Islam.
The gentleman who was representing Islam, to me seemed to be not at ease; his arguments were evasive and tended to be defensive.
The problem with any discussions can be stated like this.
How Islam (or any religion for that matter) is defined. If it is assumed that Koran contains words of Allah in immutable and final form and therefore a true Muslim has to obey it in absolute sense without modifying any of the instructions, it poses a problem because along with suras which instruct for kindness and tolerance, there are many others which instruct to ruthlessly crush the non-believers.
This is not unique to Islam. Old Testament, New Testament and Hindu scriptures contain lots of instructions which call for violence which will be unacceptable in modern civilization. This is a dilemma for any religious person, but especially adherent to “book”, by this I mean Muslims and to a large extent Christians. It is sought to be resolved by reinterpretation of the inconvenient verses, this in my view is a self defeating exercise.
For example there are verses which exhort to eliminate idolaters, or which instruct to distrust Jews. The instructions are clear enough, they can not be reinterpreted or limited, nor is it possible to quote some other instruction which preach tolerance. This causes lots of stress to anyone willing to follow the canon.
As a religious person here is my thought on that. I was born Hindu therefore I have a natural bias for Hinduism. I hope I will be able to form a consistent world view, a right way in other words. It might be Hinduism or Christianity or even Atheism. I am a seeker, since I have a. inherent affinity with religion of my birth, I am also skeptical of my conclusions.
I do not accept that scriptures were handed to us by God. They were written by men, exceptional men no doubt but men nevertheless. Therefore scriptures contain human wisdom, they also contain human folly.
I will accept scriptures which I agree with, I will reject those I do not agree with.
For example I accept of a higher truth, but I reject discrimination on basis of birth. I accept dharma but reject suppression of women.
The earliest Hindus were seekers of knowledge; least I can do is to emulate them.
5 comments:
Hindu scriptures calling for violence? Can you quote some ( other than discriminatory texts like manu smRti which none cares about )? Thanks.
Frog,
Yes I was talking about Manu Smriti, but whether I or you like it or not Manu Smriti has been a well established scripture of Hinduism. Further I think that Manu Smriti codified the prevalent practises and did not establish laws which were new, further even Manu Smriti has its good points.
If you will remember there is a (in)famour hymn to pour lead in Shura's ear if he listens to Vedas
also the part where Bhagwan Ram slayed Shambuk for doing Tapasya even though he was a Shudra
Regards
Regarding rAmAyaNa, however, here is what I would like to add as caveats :
1. shambUka's penance, according to the story, led to the death of a brAhmin boy. It can be regarded as executing a murder suspect.
2. rAmAyaNa itself says that shUdras can do tapas in kaliyuga. The shambuka thing was for trEta yuga.
Anyway I don't think texts which actual hindus care about call for violence.
Frog,
I agree with this.
However these scriptures have been used in past to justify oppression.
Hence, it can not be said that these scriptures never had any validity.
Regards
What a great site bluetooth wireless bluetooth headphones Uk budget home insurance http://www.management-training-1.info Sociological effects dietary supplements Marcia walden skin care evolutions of internet advertising Calatrin diet pills slot machines Free fax service e-mail pay per click program Free website basic auction templates
Post a Comment