Friday, May 27, 2005

on the koran incident at guantanamo

may 27th

from the financial times, may 16th:

the mufti of egypt, sheikh ali gomaa, on the alleged flushing of a koran down a toilet in guantanamo bay --

"it's an unforgivable crime toward the monotheistic religions which call for the faithful to respect the sacred values of other religions"

-------

ah, i am glad that explains it. respect for other religions only applies to 'monotheistic religions'. that is why destroying the bamiyan buddhas was okay. this is why hindu travelers to saudi arabia will find their gitas shredded and their ganeshas ground underfoot (this first-hand experience was related to me by a diplomat's wife who said she was severely traumatized when a customs man calmly did this to her religious objects at the airport in saudi arabia).

but how does this explain the following in relation to a 'monotheistic religion'?

http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2005/05/23/National/What-About.Bible.Desecration.By.Saudis-953649.shtmlWhat

What about Bible desecration by Saudis? By Patrick Goodenough
May 23, 2005
A U.S.-based think tank critical of the Saudi government has added its voice to allegations that authorities in the kingdom routinely destroy Bibles.

"As a matter of official policy, the government either incinerates or dumps Bibles, crosses and other Christian paraphernalia," the Saudi Institute said in an article posted on its website.
...

------

i think it's simple. when monotheistic religions are powerful, they will trash the symbols of other religions as part of 'my monotheist god is bigger than your monotheist god'. muslims did this to christians in moorish spain. christians returned the favor when they kicked the muslims out of spain. now christians are powerful, so they will desecrate muslim objects. when and where muslims are powerful, they desecrate christian objects. par for the course.

the hue and cry over the koran incident is inducing liberal guilt in the west, which is a good stick to beat them with.

of course in the us, freedom of speech has allowed an 'artist' to display a crucifix upside down in a beakerful of urine, entitled 'piss christ'. this was a while ago, i wonder how people would relate to that today.

a bigger question: isn't the veneration of objects such as the cross and the bible a little strange considering the prohibitions on (graven) images? is a book a graven image? why not? it's a man-made object, isn't it?

happy memorial day weekend to those in the us.

22 comments:

Ryan said...

These muslims are a bunch of hypocrites. They did not utter even a word against the destruction of a heritage structure like Bamiya Buddha by their co-religionists, on the other hand Quran is something which can be re-printed anytime. They are more concerned about some book being flushed down the toilet than the loss of innocent lives (of their own co-religionists).... after all that book does deserve to go down the drain for all the horrible things it says about us non-muslims, and also ordains muslims to kill us whenever possible. Now they have started a Quran distribution drive in order for people to realise how "peaceful" Islam really is... I wonder how many more lives will be lost once those people flush their copies down the toilet realising how much shit the book really contains.

This is the message of Islam:

Agree that its peaceful else get slain !

Kalyani said...

Exactly Rajeev!How does one lose sight of truth and fairness that are so patently clear sans a trace of ambiguity?Reminds me of another thing.

Maldives is another Saudilike place where no symbols of "Hindu God"are allowed.There too at the airport there are people(!)ready to pounce and trounce upon our Gods'photos etc.Point is, pseudo secular India sent in its troops with such alacrity to thwart an internal coup there!

Stooping to conquer(Bhagavan Sri Krishna Paramathma never counsels self flagellation)is idiocy.When do we conquer our stoop?

Santhosh said...

Well the world is not fair enough, is it?
These monotheist religions have no place for non believers. Accept it or not, they offer only one world view while no one solution exists for all.

Lets call spade a spade then. The goal of these (monotheistic) religions is not pursuit of god. As put in the Matrix movie, they are like viruses. Each one wants to madly self-replicate by infecting others to the extent its the only kind. When their numbers swell and no opponent to fight with, then begins (two ro three) the major split and the in-fighting is on.

This is the stable cyclical process to eliminate others by replication or infection, divide with in, fight the other half,... and it goes on...a recursion, infinite. But this process leaves bloodshed behind and is very counter-productive.

Insightful to look at this way. Hindu segment of india is like a rich host vulnerable to viral attacks of the proselytization.

Hinduism, on the other hand, offered a cure long ago. It is like "Pushpaka-vimANam". There is always room for one more. Be it ideas, a way to pursue god or understanding self/world,etc.

All humans are not born alike, which is why, variety is the spice of life. So it is only natural to call monotheistic approach a dead bore. Humans are pre-disposed not to sustain it.

End of my cribs!!

san said...

I agree that monotheistic faiths are designed with the intent of political control (follow my God and what He says or else!), while polytheistic faiths are simply the forerunners of modern pluralism (family of many gods, many beliefs).

No wonder the main monotheistic faiths originated in the Middle East, since it is a geographical crossroads through which various invading armies have tramped. That's where/why this need for absolutist divinely-mandated control came from, because that area was always under siege. The problem is that these faiths have then carried their siege mentality down through the generations, preserved in their texts.

Others accuse Hindus of a seige mentality, but when you consider the various insurgencies from the 1980s, the various wars initiated by multiple neighbors, the conversion campaign statistics, then it's not paranoia. On the other hand, what do Saudis have to be afraid of? They've been coddled and protected so much that they've never had to fight a real war. So why do they feel they're under seige?

Those who are themselves intolerant regressive throwbacks don't have much credibility when accusing others of intolerance. Muslims in Western countries are busily wrapping themselves in the minority banner, to nurse their sense of grievance and wallow in their age-old seige mentality. Meanwhile, the rest of us who are also minorities remain tight-lipped, allowing these hypocrites to dominate the field of debate.

san said...

The Washington Times writes about
Dhimmitude

IndianXian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
IndianXian said...

Veneration is not worship - the two are different. "Graven images" are specifically (3D) statues that supposedly capture an image/man-made imagination of G-d - which is why the Bible, the Cross and the Saints are venerated while G-d is worshipped. (The law has been inherited from Judaism)

san said...

IndianXian, as an atheist, I'd say that all religions will try to encapsulate/define God with some characteristics. For instance, when the Bible uses He/Him, it may not be trying to associate a gender to God, but it effectively does. When descriptions are made of God having been angry, pleased, etc, then these amount to claiming knowledge of God's psychology, desires/wants and emotional makeup.

Was Man really made in God's image, or isn't it really Man who with pen and paper and story has sought to create God in his own image? Obviously, I find the latter to be much more probable.

Regarding veneration as not intending to define God, I would say that all religions have that view of themselves. This does not stop zealots in any sect from claiming the other faiths are idolators. If idolatry's only distinction is in defining God by image rather than by description, then what is the moral relevance of this distinction? Furthermore, if veneration is legitimate, what qualifying limits are there, if any?

I think it's natural for the human mind to want to define anything as precisely and completely as possible. This is the motivation for the scientific method, and the basis for its credibility. To argue in favor of keeping something undefined and ambiguous, particularly something whose authority is so frequently invoked in justification, is why Faith is often described as being blind.

IndianXian said...

The first part of your reply has actually been answered by many people - both scientists and saints, before me. Excellent books exist that answer the same questions and I would urge you to read them.

Perhaps you should read my comment again - I am not sure where you got the idea about "veneration not intending to define G-d or other religions etc..." I am not sure what you mean by "moral relevance" of "defining G-d by image rather than description". The limits of veneration are obvious - one ought not attribute to the venerated object aspects or attributes of G-d - that is the point when veneration turns to idolatory. Not sure how this is a "moral" question.

"I think it's natural for the human mind to want to define anything as precisely and completely as possible."

The human being is curious, but the mind can tolerate ambiguity and deep down "knows" the difference between right and wrong, good and bad etc. "Scientific method" was largely a construct of the "Enlightened West" - the cause and effect philosophy (I am assuming by "scientific method", you mean the way "science" (physical science) proves or disproves physical phenomena). The Eastern philosophy does deal in ambiguities and has a different approach than the "scientific method" - the koans, for instance. Using the "scientific method" one cannot prove or disprove the existence of G-d anymore than one can prove or disprove the existence of Faith or Love. No human being can explain on the basis of "scientific method" why one action is "good" and another is "bad". Give it a try - on what "science" would you argue that you love your wife or that she loves you or that your parents love you? If the fittest of the animals survive, why shouldn't I kill my neighbour and take his possessions except for that pesky law that says I shouldn't?

If "scientific method" is so "credible" why the constant revision of scientific theories? Doesn't that mean that the proof you seek in the "scientific method" is illusory - something along the lines of 'with the present knowledge and with the precision of the instruments we (have and) used for this experiment, we think our best guess for the cause of this phenomenon is x'? Surely "new evidence" will be found all the time that would disprove earlier "theories" which leads me to believe that relying *only* on "scientific method" to guide one's moral compass is folly.

"To argue in favor of keeping something undefined and ambiguous, particularly something whose authority is so frequently invoked in justification, is why Faith is often described as being blind"

I would disagree: The faithful person knows why s/he believes in G-d and from that particular moment, G-d is not some amorphous ambiguous entity in need of a definition (for that person). Blind faith is faith without reason - you don't need G-d as the object of blind faith, "scientific method" will do just fine too.

Anonymous said...

It is becoming clear that Indian Catholics are functioning as fifth columnists for foreign powers.
People who testify against their own country abroad and who threaten India with western sanctions are a threat to it and must be dealt with.

Anonymous said...


which is why the Bible, the Cross and the Saints are venerated while G-d is worshipped


You must be a Catholic, many protestants consider Catholics to be filthy idolaters for their veneration of saints.

san said...

IndianXian, nature also promotes altruism, and not merely "kill first or be killed". Caring can also be a survival trait. Regarding proof/disproof of God, I'd say that natural economy of belief (aka Ockham's Razor) means that the burden of proof is on those who claim existence of God, rather than on those who don't. If the existence of God is not required for a situation to function, then why presume such existence? Out of psychological fear, that our existence has no special supernatural protection or purpose, that there is nothing waiting for us beyond this natural life.

Regarding revision of theories in science, the evolution of science is due to interplay between theory and observation. This process of revision and expansion is natural and inevitable, since people are not born knowing everything.

Certainly, our morality is not a consequence of science, but rather of our nature. It is an interplay between our own feelings and the necessities of existence/coexistence.

Again, science is based on reason and questioning, as contrasted with unquestioning faith. Whether a religious adherent doesn't need God to be defined is not at issue -- that a religious person doesn't need god to be fully defined is glaringly obvious. The implications and consequences of choosing faith over reason is what's at issue. Science has the humility and sagacity to keep itself continuously under challenge and having to re-prove itself. Faith does not. Faith simply says what happened happened, and let us not question it too much or scrutinize it too closely, lest we see the chinks in its armour and destroy the illusion it presents.

While by no means infallible, scientific culture sufficiently advocates detailed questioning and proof, so that it generates much more confidence in its results. Religion however, shies away from details, because these will inevitably prove inconvenient to its beliefs.

IndianXian said...

To the Anonymous posts:

First, I am not Catholic although I do understand the position of the Catholic Church on various issues. It is true many non-Catholic Christians do not approve of the veneration of Saints or the Marion theology of the Catholic Church. But these non-Catholic Christians do venerate the Bible and the Cross. The statement was written to cover all "branches" of Indian Christianity.

Perhaps you can "prove" that Indian Catholics are a "fifth column" although I think it is merely the simple fact that the Shadow Warrior and people of his ilk are content to promote such tripe in the guise of patriotism with no "proof". Sling some mud and see what sticks.

Anonymous said...

Indian Catholics *are* a fifth column, the antics of Cedric Prakash, John Dayal, Dolphy D'Souza and John Prabhudoss leave no doubt. Catholics are at the forefront of vilyfying India and making money out of it, Agnes Gonxha Bijaxhiu (aka "Mother" Teresa) was a fine exponent of this art.

Look at the website of these traitors : http://www.aiccindia.org/
Note that Catholic dominated AICC does not have a single good thing to say about India, Indians should seriously start pondering about how to deal with these traitors.

Anonymous said...

But these non-Catholic Christians do venerate the Bible and the Cross.
Rubbish, the Jehovah's witnesses consider (correctly) the worship of cross to be idolatrous. So they correctly call you guys filthy idolaters.

IndianXian said...

Read my comments - veneration is different from worship. Again what is the basis of your statement that Jehovah's Witnesses are a) correct about the veneration of the cross, b) Christians ? Most Christians regard them a cult - they do not acknowledge basic Christian beliefs. Sorry no dice - get a better source.

Anonymous said...

Read my comments - veneration is different from worship.
Most Christians have incorporated pagan beliefs, for eg. look at many silly Catholic rituals, so the Jehovah's witnesses are correct and you are a filthy idolater.

IndianXian said...

"Note that Catholic dominated AICC does not have a single good thing to say about India..."

They seem to oppose the BJP and have headlines regarding alleged persecution of Christians from all over the world apart from some general news. Doesn't the site for Kashmiri Pandits have something similar?

IndianXian said...

Specifically which "rituals" are "pagan" ?

Kalyani said...

For all you fulminating anti Hindu (idol breakers and idol looters both creeds included)idiots("Lunacy can be cured not idiocy"!),I narrate the following:-

"DrH.of the small group of Americans who spent a few weeks in the Ashram asked Sri Maharshi(Bhagavan) if there exists such a thing as a Personal God.

B:Yes,Iswara.
Dr.H:(with astonishment)What?With eyes,nose,ears etc?

B:Yes,if you have them why should not God also have them?
H:When I read in the Puranas that God has these organs,I laugh.

B:Why don't you laugh at yourself for having them?

A Hindu devotee says:
"People scoff at me and call me a superstitious idolator"

B:Why don't you retort by calling them worse idolators?For do they not wash,dress,feed and worship their body so many times every day.Is not the body the biggest idol?Then is he not an idol worshipper?

H:It is hard to conceive God,the formless,giving rise to forms.

B:Why hard?Does not your mind remain formless when you do not perceive or think,say,in deep sleep,in samadhi or in a swoon?And does it not create space and relationshipwhen it thinks and impels your body to act?Just as your mind devises and your body executes in one homogenous,automatic act,so automatic,in fact,that most people are not aware of the process,so does the Divine Intelligence devise and plan,and His energy automatically and spontaneously acts-the thought and the act are one integral whole.This Creative Energy which is implicit in Pure Intelligence is called by various Names,one of which is Maya or Shakti,the Creator of forms or Image."

All you anti vedic numbskulls--- gotit?I know I am talking to long dead, putrifying but respirating carcasses(awaiting disposal).

Anonymous said...


They seem to oppose the BJP and have headlines regarding alleged persecution of Christians from all over the world apart from some general news.


Dear Filthy idolater,
You are desperately clutching at straws by comparing the site of a community that has been totally cleansed from its homeland to the site of community that is ruling India by proxy. Even the Panun Kashmir site, has things to say about glory of Indian culture and their contribution in it, but the flithy rice xtians only whine, whine and whine. Part of the reason might be that most Indian Christians cannot think beyond a plate of rice. The "adopt a dalit child" scheme on the right on the left pane is sponsored by a US politician who is a known friend of Pakistan and enemy of India. Indians should think of ways to deal with these Catholic traitors, they clearly don't belong in India. Indians should seriously study how the Shoguns dealt with the Catholic missionaries.

Anonymous said...

Funny how these people condemn idolism, while posting statues of their figures all over their religious places of worship. There are pictures of their saints and "sons of God" holding lambs and such (which he will eat later no doubt, considering they don't respect vegetarianism).

What hypocrisy!