| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2005 07:51:00 AM |
| Object: |
VEDA THUMPERS |
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/hindu.html
* Why I Am Not a Hindu
Professor Ramendra's bold manifesto in which he explains why he
rejects the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas, varnashram
dharma, moksha, karmavada, and avatarvada. In place of idol
worship and ancient taboo, Ramendra advocates a humanistic
secularism based on liberty, equality, and the inalienable rights
of each individual.
"I have read and admired Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian.
On the other hand, I have also read and disagreed with M.K.Gandhi's
Why I Am a Hindu. My acquaintance with these writings has inspired me
to write this essay explaining why I am not a Hindu, though I was born
in a Hindu family."
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: VEDA THUMPERS |
27 Dec 2005 10:00:16 PM |
|
|
<hari.kumar@indero.com> wrote in message
news:43b146c4$0$76288$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/hindu.html
* Why I Am Not a Hindu
Professor Ramendra's bold manifesto in which he explains why he
rejects the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas, varnashram
dharma, moksha, karmavada, and avatarvada. In place of idol
worship and ancient taboo, Ramendra advocates a humanistic
secularism based on liberty, equality, and the inalienable rights
of each individual.
"I have read and admired Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian.
On the other hand, I have also read and disagreed with M.K.Gandhi's
Why I Am a Hindu. My acquaintance with these writings has inspired me
to write this essay explaining why I am not a Hindu, though I was born
in a Hindu family."
What you think is a Hindu from your experience might not be what opther
people think a Hindu is. Other people might read abourt hinduism and say,
"Yeah I could be one." But you yourself wouldn't call someone a Hindu who
just read about it and decided to use some of the concepts. It would be hard
fo you to approach it with an unbiasedmind. For you it is a social
phenomenon, and not an intellectual exercise.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morar" |
|
| Title: Re: VEDA THUMPERS |
28 Dec 2005 08:52:01 AM |
|
|
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/not_muslim.htm
STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY
Ibn Warraq is the author of Why I Am Not A Muslim
Given the stupefying enormity of the acts of barbarism of 11 September,
moral outrage is appropriate and justified, as are demands for
punishment. But a civilized society cannot permit blind attacks on all
those perceived as "Muslims" or Arabs. Not all Muslims or all Arabs are
terrorists. Nor are they implicated in the horrendous events of
Tuesday. Police protection for individual Muslims, mosques and other
institutions must be increased.
However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Terrorist Tuesday
is to wilfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events.
Without Islam the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by
Usama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. The West needs to
understand them in order to be able to deal with them and avoid past
mistakes. We are confronted with Islamic terrorists and must take
seriously the Islamic component. Westerners in general, and Americans
in particular, do not understand the passionate, religious, and
anti-western convictions of Islamic terrorists. These God-intoxicated
fanatics blindly throw away their lives in return for the Paradise of
Seventy Two Virgins offered Muslim martyrs killed in the Holy War
against all infidels.
Jihad is "a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission
of the Prophet Muhammad [the Prophet]. It is an incumbent religious
duty, established in the Qur'an and in the Traditions as a divine
institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam
and repelling evil from Muslims"[1].
The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.
The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels
which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al-Harb becomes the Dar-
al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of
Islam. Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent
than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to
conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the
law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no
possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the
name of Allah.
We read (IX. 5-6):"Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you
may find them";
IV.76: "Those who believe fight in the cause of God";
VIII.39-42: "Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief,
what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have
already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them
till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's."
Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply
rewarded in the life to come:
IV.74: "Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of
this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path,
whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward."
What should we make with these further unfortunate verses from the
Qur'an:
*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
* No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
* No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
* No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
* Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
* God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
* Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
* Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
* The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
* All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62,
V=2E69
* Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of
unbelievers->VIII.12
* Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
* Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
* Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
* Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
* Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to
hell too->IV.150-1
* Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
* Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
* Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ;
VI.110
* Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran-
XVII.45-46
* It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that-
XVII.97
* God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
* Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
* Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
* God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
* God deceiving humans->IV.142
It is surely time for us who live in the West and enjoy freedom of
expression to examine unflinchingly and unapologetically the tenets of
these fanatics, including the Qur'an which divinely sanctions violence.
We should unapologetically examine the life of the Prophet, who was not
above political assassinations, and who was responsible for the
massacre of the Jews.
"Ah, but you are confusing Islam with Islamic fundamentalism. The Real
Islam has nothing to do with violence," apologists of Islam argue.
There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There
is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most
there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of
Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur'an, the Sunna, and the
Hadith - Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived
by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The
fundamentalists, with greater logic and coherence than so- called
moderate or liberal Muslims, have made Islam the basis of a radical
utopian ideology that aims to replace capitalism and democracy as the
reigning world system. Islamism accounts for the anti-American hatred
to be found in places far from the Arab-Israeli conflict, like Nigeria
and Afghanistan, demonstrating that the Middle East conflict cannot
legitimately be used to explain this phenomenon called Islamism. A
Palestinian involved in the WTC bombings would be seen as a martyr to
the Palestinian cause, but even more as a martyr to Islam.
"Ah, but Islamic fundamentalism is like any other kind of
fundamentalism, one must not demonise it. It is the result of
political, social grievances. It must be explained in terms of
economics and not religion," continue the apologists of Islam.
There are enormous differences between Islamic fundamentalism and any
other kind of modern fundamentalism. It is true that Hindu, Jewish, and
Christian fundamentalists have been responsible for acts of violence,
but these have been confined to particular countries and regions.
Islamic fundamentalism has global aspirations: the submission of the
entire world to the all-embracing Shari'a, Islamic Law, a fascist
system of dictates designed to control every single act of all
individuals. Nor do Hindus or Jews seek to convert the world to their
religion. Christians do indulge in proselytism but no longer use acts
of violence or international terrorism to achieve their aims.
Only Islam treats non-believers as inferior beings who are expendable
in the drive to world hegemony. Islam justifies any means to achieve
the end of establishing an Islamic world.
Islamic fundamentalists recruit among Muslim populations, they appeal
to Islamic religious symbols, and they motivate their recruits with
Islamic doctrine derived from the Qur'an. Economic poverty alone cannot
explain the phenomenon of Islamism. Poverty in Brazil or Mexico has not
resulted in Christian fundamentalist acts of international terror.
Islamists are against what they see as western materialism itself.
Their choice is clear: Islam or jahiliyya. The latter term is redefined
to mean modern-style jahiliyya of modern, democratic, industrialised
societies of Europe and America, where man is under the dominion of man
rather than Allah. They totally reject the values of the West, which
they feel are poisoning Islamic culture. So, it is not just a question
of economics, but of an entirely different worldview, which they wish
to impose on the whole world. Sayyid Qutb, the very influential
Egyptian Muslim thinker, said that "dominion should be reverted to
Allah alone, namely to Islam, that holistic system He conferred upon
men. An all-out offensive, a jihad, should be waged against modernity
so that this moral rearmament could take place. The ultimate objective
is to re- establish the Kingdom of Allah upon earth..."[2]
It is surely time for moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted. I
should like to see them do three things:
1=2E All moderate Muslims should unequivocally denounce this barbarism,
should condemn it for what it is: the butchery of innocent people.
2=2EAll moderate Muslim citizens of the United States should proclaim the
ir Americanness, their patriotism, and their solidarity with the
families of the victims. They should show their pride in their country
by giving blood and other aid to victims and their families.
3=2E All moderate Muslims should take this opportunity to examine the
tenets of their faith; should look at the Qur'an, recognize its role in
the instigation of religious violence, and see it for what it is, a
problematical human document reflecting 7th or perhaps 8th Century
values which the West has largely outgrown.
While it should not be too difficult for moderate Muslims to accept the
need to denounce the violence of Terrorist Tuesday, I am not at all
optimistic about their courage or willingness to proclaim their love
for their chosen country, the USA, or examine the Qur'an critically.
Too many Muslims are taught from an early age that their first
allegiance is to Islam. They are exhorted in sermons in mosques, and in
books by such Muslim intellectuals as Dr Siddiqui of the Muslim
Institute in London, that if the laws of the land conflict with any of
the tenets of Islam, then they must break the laws of the infidels, and
only follow the Law of God, the Shari'a, Islamic Law.
It is a remarkable fact that at the time of the Gulf War, a high
proportion of Muslims living in the West supported Saddam Hussein. In
the aftermath of the WTC terror, it is now clear from reports in the
media that many Muslims, even those living in the West, see these acts
of barbarism as acts of heroism; they give their unequivocal support to
their hero, Usama bin Laden.
Few Muslims have shown themselves capable of scrutinising their sacred
text rationally. Indeed any criticism of their religious tenets is
taken as an insult to their faith, for which so many Muslims seem ready
to kill (as in the Rushdie affair or the Taslima Nasreen affair).
Muslims seem to be unaware that the research of western scholars
concerning the existence of figures such as Abraham, Isaac and Joseph
or the authorship of the Pentateuch applies directly to their belief
system. Furthermore, it is surely totally irrational to continue to
believe that the Qur'an is the word of God when the slightest amount of
rational thought will reveal that the Qur'an contains words and
passages addressed to God (e.g. VI.104; VI.114; XVII.1; XXVII.91;
LXXXI.15-29; lxxxiv.16-19; etc.); or that it is full of historical
errors and inconsistencies.
Respect for other cultures, for other values than our own, is a
hallmark of a civilised society. But Multiculturalism is based on some
fundamental misconceptions. First, there is the erroneous and
sentimental belief that all cultures, deep down, have the same values;
or, at least, if different, are equally worthy of respect. But the
truth is that not all cultures have the same values, and not all values
are worthy of respect. There is nothing sacrosanct about customs or
cultural traditions: they can change under criticism. After all, the
secularist values of the West are not much more than two hundred years
old.
If these other values are destructive of our own cherished values, are
we not justified in fighting them both by intellectual means, that is
by reason and argument, and criticism, and by legal means, by making
sure the laws and constitution of the country are respected by all? It
becomes a duty to defend those values that we would live by. But here
western intellectuals have sadly failed in defending western values,
such as rationalism, social pluralism, human rights, the rule of law,
representative government, individualism (in the sense that every
individual counts, and no individual should be sacrificed for some
utopian future collective end), freedom of expression, freedom of and
from religion, the rights of minorities, and so on..
Instead, the so-called experts on Islam in western universities, in the
media, in the churches and even in government bureaus have become
apologists for Islam. They bear some responsibility for creating an
atmosphere little short of intellectual terrorism where any criticism
of Islam is denounced as fascism, racism, or "orientalism." They bear
some responsibility for lulling the public into thinking that "The
Islamic Threat " is a myth. It is our duty to fight this intellectual
terrorism. It is our duty to defend the values of liberal democracy.
One hopes that the U.S. government will not now act in such a way that
more innocent lives are lost, albeit on the other side of the globe.
One hopes that even now there is a legal way out in international
courts of law. The situation is far more delicate and complex than a
simple battle between good and evil, the solution is not to beat hell
out of all Arabs and Muslims but neither is it to pretend that Islam
had nothing to do with it, for that would be to bury one's head in the
Sands of Araby.
[1] T.Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, entry "Jihad"
[2] E.Sivan, Radical Islam, New haven, 1985, p.25.
=B7 The Origins of the Koran by Ibn Warraq
Review of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim'
Turning away from Mecca by Antony Flew
The Salisbury Review Spring 1996
(Why I am not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1995
$25.99. (UK Agent, 10 Crescent View, Loughton, IG10 4PZ).) (This review
was published in The Salisbury Review, Spring 1996. The quarterly is
published from London) This book was written by a man who was raised in
a totally Muslim environment in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. But
he has since moved to one of the NATO states which have since World War
II been accepting mass immigrations from such countries. Why I am not a
Muslim is apparently the first book of its kind to have appeared in the
English language.
Ibn Warraq arranges his abundant materials on no obvious principles. He
begins with a chapter entitled 'The Rushdie Affair', which deals mainly
with the maltreatment of dissidents within the Islamic world and the
failure of so many Western Islamicists to adopt a properly critical
approach to their subject. This is followed by four chapters on 'The
Origins of Islam', 'The Problems of Sources', 'Muhammad and His
Message' and 'The Koran'. Then, when we might have expected to go on to
the development of the Hadith and the Sharia, we have instead two
chapters on 'The Totalitarian Nature of Islam' and 'Is Islam Compatible
With Democracy and Human Rights?' After that we have seven chapters on
such various Islamic topics as 'Sufism or Islamic Mysticism' and
'Taboos: Wine, Pigs and Homosexuality' before reaching a 'Final
Assessment of Muhammad' and a final chapter on 'Islam in the West'.
The pseudonymous author makes no pretensions to being himself a
professional Islamicist. But all his materials about the doctrines and
history of Islam are drawn from the works of Western scholars and so -
as I am assured by one of them - we can take the book to be factually
reliable. It does, therefore constitute an invaluable compilation.
Unlike professional Islamicists who are alive and working today, this
author is not afflicted with inhibitions from offending either Muslim
friends or Muslim regimes.
Although he does make the crucial point that all true Muslims are as
such fundamentalists, and that this term should not be applied only to
the Ayatollah Khomeini and his like (p. 11) he does not either make it
adequately or insist upon it consistently. The term 'fundamentalist',
which was coined in 1920, derives from the title of a series of tracts
- The Fundamentals published in the United States from 1910 to 1915. It
has since been implicitly defined as meaning a person who believes
that, since The Bible is the Word of God, every proposition in it must
be true; a belief which, notoriously, is taken to commit fundamentalist
Christians to defending the historicity of the accounts of the creation
of the Universe given in the first two chapters of Genesis.
Note from webmaster on the term "fundamentalist." While it is true that
a Christian "fundamentalist" believes as he says, the meaning today is
very different. It usually implies carrying that belief system into
civil law and using government force, something even many devout
Christians oppose. See my article Christian Fundamentalism Exposed. As
an American, I have no problem with the term as Warrag uses it. Muslims
have never learned to separate Mosque and state.
L=2E Loflin
On this understanding a fully believing Christian does not have to be
fundamentalist. Instead it is both necessary and sufficient to accept
the Apostles' and / or The Nicene Creed. In Islam, however, the
situation is altogether different. For, whereas only a very small
proportion of all the propositions contained in the Old and New
Testaments are presented as statements made directly by God in any of
the three persons of the Trinity, The Koran consists entirely and
exclusively of what are alleged to be revelations from Allah (God).
Therefore, with regard to The Koran, all Muslims must be as such
fundamentalists; and anyone denying anything asserted in The Koran
ceases, ipso facto, to be properly accounted a Muslim. Those whom the
media call fundamentalists would therefore better be described as
revivalists.
This conceptual truth not only places a tight limitation upon the
possibilities of developmental change within Islam, as opposed to the
tacit or open abandonment of one or more of its original particular
claims, but also opens up the theoretical possibility of falsifying the
Islamic system as a whole by presenting some known fact which is
inconsistent with a Koranic assertion. Unfortunately Ibn Warraq fails
to emphasize this point and to bring out its implications consistently.
Thus, even on the page immediately following that on which he argues
that all true Muslims must be fundamentalists, he goes on to argue
that, because "the vast majority of victims of 'Holy Terror' are
inhabitants of Islamic states, therefore "Islam is a threat to
thousands of Muslims " (p. 12: emphasis original).*
(* The reviewer has not presented Ibn Warraq correctly. The sentences
he quotes from p. 12 relate not to fundamentalism but to a book, The
Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, by the American Islamicist John
Esposito. The book, Ibn Warraq says, is "based on the same dishonesty
as soft-core pornography.. What Esposito and all Western apologists of
Islam are incapable of understanding is that Islam is a threat to
thousands of Muslims. As Amir Taheri puts it, 'the vast majority of
victims of 'Holy Terror' are Muslims'." Here the word 'Muslims' has a
double meaning, namely, that all believing Muslims being
fundamentalists, they threaten with death the Muslims who try to
dissent. The implication is that if believing, Muslims were not
fundamentalists, many born Muslims may choose to dissent.)
Why I am not a Muslim gives readers abundant excellent reasons for not
becoming or remaining Muslims and also makes a compelling case for the
conclusion that Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and
maintenance of the equal individual rights and liberties of a liberal,
democratic, secular state. It thus provides further support for Mervyn
Hiskett's more particular contentions about the threat to British
traditions and values arising from our rapidly growing Muslim minority.
To his suggestions as to how an administration with vision, backbone
and truly conservative principles might counter this threat - by, for
instance, insisting that the criminal law must be applied equally to
all, including Muslims and non-whites inciting to murder - we can now
add another. For this threat might be slightly reduced if some
individual were to write a much shorter, persuasive book deploying all
the good reasons for not becoming or remaining a Muslim.
Attempts to get the present book into public libraries would also be
worthwhile. They would force the opposition to choose between allowing
it to become more widely accessible and providing evidence of the
reality of the Islamic threat to freedom of expression.
Title: Islam is religious fascism Author: Ibn Al-Rawandi
=B7 'Honor killing' shakes up Sweden after man slays daughter who
wouldn't wed
=B7 Are Muslim Americans Victimized? by Daniel Pipes
=B7 Islam reveals its evil agenda in Denmark
=B7 Stop Making Excuses for Islam
=B7 Muslim Immigration From Middle East Soars
=B7 Islam: the Folly of Appeasement
=B7 Honor Killings of Women in Islam
=B7 Who knows for sure what Islam has to say about women?
=B7 Facing Unpleasant Facts in the Middle East by Steven Plaut
=B7 Tolerating Intolerance: Fundamentalist Islam in Western Europe
=B7 The Reward to kill an American
=B7 Arab brain drain destabilizes Mideast, poses threat to West
=B7 European Fears of the Gathering Jihad
=B7 Those Young Arab Muslims and Us
=B7 Islamist Put to Death in Virginia Good going Virginia!
=B7 Islam's Deadly Truth
=B7 Assault on Civilization
=B7 The September 11 Lesson
=B7 How Islam Views Christians and Jews
=B7 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights
=B7 A Muslim whines about the image of Islam
Converts to violence.
=B7 Converts to Violence? Islamism and the Washington Sniper
=B7 Murder in the 101st Airborne: Muslim convert kills again.
=B7 Preaching terror
=B7 Muslim Antisemitism
=B7 What is Islamism?
=B7 Return of the Nazis: Clippings on Islamic Fascism
=B7 The new Islamic fascism
=B7 Religion of Peace? Prove it!
=B7 Answering Islam: Muhammad, Islam, and Terrorism
=B7 WHY THEN ARE THE MUSLIMS DEFEATED?
=B7 The Roots of Muslim Rage Part 1
=B7 The Roots of Muslim Rage Part 2
Life under Islam
=B7 Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State
=B7 The Jizyah Tax or Islamic Protection Money Mafia Style
Islamic terror in Egypt
=B7 Egypt's Endangered Christians
=B7 Egyptian Copts Murdered by Islamism
=B7 Islamic Mafia in Egypt
=B7 Islamism Murders Hindu Women and Children
=B7 Islamism Kills Christians
=B7 Islamism Kills Prisoners
=B7 Pied Piper of Islamic Terrorism
=B7 Stephen Schwartz on Wahhabism and Muslims
=B7 Islamism: Justifying The Genocide of Infidels
=B7 Dhimmitude: Equality And Dignity Under Islamic Law?
=B7 Comments on the Beslan Child Slaughter
Other sites exposing radical Isalm:
=B7 http://www.anti-cair-net.org Exposing CAIR
=B7 http://www.danielpipes.org Exposing radical Islam
=B7 http://www.memri.org Exposing the Islamic media
=B7 www.honestreporting.com Exposing the anti-Israel media
=B7 www.think-israel.org Many essays and writers.
Disclaimer: The material either quoted, linked to, or reproduced on
this site are presented for information purposes only and in no manner
implies an endorsement of this website or writer. This site may contain
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. I believe this constitutes a 'fair
use' as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Also see
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
hari.kumar@indero.com wrote:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/hindu.html
* Why I Am Not a Hindu
Professor Ramendra's bold manifesto in which he explains why he
rejects the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas, varnashram
dharma, moksha, karmavada, and avatarvada. In place of idol
worship and ancient taboo, Ramendra advocates a humanistic
secularism based on liberty, equality, and the inalienable rights
of each individual.
"I have read and admired Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian.
On the other hand, I have also read and disagreed with M.K.Gandhi's
Why I Am a Hindu. My acquaintance with these writings has inspired me
to write this essay explaining why I am not a Hindu, though I was born
in a Hindu family."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
