sparten

Sam,

Of the first Shruti, well little. Oh well we (as in School and collage) knew about the Vedas and the basic descriptions of each Veda. We also knew about the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads in the sence that they were commentries of the Vedas. I am, sure it is a lot more complicated than that, but the above is the sum of what I remember. Apologies for any mistake.

Of Smriti, a bit more. Most of the Smitri was studied in far greater detail than the Shurti, mainly because of the the "epics" (mahabhrata mostly).



Vedanta: IIRC is a principal branch of Hindu philosophy and write about " Supreme Spirit" which is supposed to be the divine basis or ground of all beings. It also talks about God unless I am much mistaken. There are 6 schools of Vedenta, of which the other two you menmtioned are a part.

Dvaita:
Aa school of Vedenta, and is based on the concept of dualism. IIRC under Davita, souls are not created by God, but are depend on him to evolve.

Advaita:
Is again a school of Vedanta. I will admit that my knowledge here is pretty weak. I think that it is a monistic rather than a dualist system.

There is another school which is half way between them, Can't remember its name yet, starts with a V.

Than there is the one followed by the ISKCON, which is Bhedabheda. I am completely in the dark about it.

__________________
"Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

Ray

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

sparten

Brig,
You should always remember two things when reading the Qur'an

1) The verse must be read in context. The verses that Insomniac put forward for example on the face of it are pretty violent. But the with Lunatock adding the preceding verse, you can read the message in its context. The above verse is a pretty famous one, it was revealed before Battle of Badr. The Prophet (s) had been pretty squemish about fighting the Meccans. He was well aware of military weakness of the muslims. And he was against warfare as per princople, he had seen it upclose in the many tribal wars the Quraish had fought for control of the Kabah, the trade routes and influence. They only concluded when the Prophet was a young man and it left a lasting impression on him.

At the time in question, the Muslims were literally fighting for their lives. hence the verse, which says that there is nothing wrong with a war in self defence.

2)The translation, well many of them are not very good. I have put two together and see that the same verse come out differently. THe Arabs have an extremely bad habit of putting there own meanings in parenthesis, which of course complicates the matter.

3) Finally please remember that transaltion is a two fold process, first into modern Arabic from classical Arabic, and then into the language of choice. So in essence you have a transaltion of a transaltion.

Ray

Insomniac

Nevermind, I just discovered that over 50% of the middle east is illiterate. No wonder we are having a failure to communicate with some people over there.

"Slay them wherever ye find them!"

"but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors."

Contradicting itself there.

Muhammed himself said that he is the prophet that brings the sword. From the other post you guys seem to think I am mad at Islam. No, I actually pity them for choosing this path in life. I have looking into the history of Islam and it is really a bunch of killing. The first thing that the muslims did when formed was murder all the Christians and Jews that inhabited the city of Mecca. They fought the surrounding societies and later they attempted to conquer the entire continent of Europe, but fortunately a man named Charles Martel or "Charlemagne" stopped them.

I don't care if the internal Jihad is greater than the external Jihad. It sure hasn't stopped terrorists and as long as there is an external Jihad there always will be terrorists. The Quran okays a fully armed Jihad against anyone who oppresses Islam, but what they forget to mention is how they define the word "oppression." Many orthodox Muslims believe that if a nation's leaders do not acknowledge the rule of Islam, then those rulers are "oppressors" and thus a legitimate target for war. Many Muslims argue that America is a cultural aggressor by exporting its Hollywood values all over the world, and thus any fight against Americans is done in self-defense. Therefore, there is no end to how a Muslim group can define "self-defense" and "oppression" and thus find an Islamic justification for violence.

The societies in the Bible that the Israelites whipped out were very perverse and violent that threatened the other pure societies. Those were societies from days past that don't exist today. There is such a thing as taking a life to save more life. The Islamic terrorists are killing people for believing in something that does not line up with Muhammed's teaching.

Wait. Why bring the Bible into this in the first place? Who cares about the Bible? You don't see Christians blowing themselves up in schools packed with children. As far as I am concerned as long as they aren't turning into to kamakazies, I don't care about them. The subject is the Quran.

However, I now see that my age somehow ranks my intelligence and anything I say is just thought of as ignorance from a young man who hates to see people get murdered. So, there really is no point in me saying anything more.

Shek

Insomniac,
Europe once was the scene of hopeless violence inspired by religion - Christianity. The Treaty of Westphalia was an attempt to extract themselves from this cycle of violence. Between the Reformation and the Enlightenment, wars of religion in Europe became a thing of the past. I am not well read on all the details, but Western society is but 500 years removed from this.

Recognizing that thought can win out over blind faith, the question that we need to ask is what to do when it comes to Islam. We can choose to label them all beyond salvation (in the secular sense of the word), which means a global bloodbath unless we make sand into glass, or we can recognize that there is something more and beyond just the interpretation of the Quran that is driving the violence. The Quran may provide the ideological inspiration for the tens of thousands of terrorists, but something provided a push for these people to decide that Allah was the only answer.

We need to work towards eliminating the motivations that push people to the extremes, because if our answer is solely to declare that you are either with us or against us, then we won't like the results of such a policy. Do not misunderstand me, eliminating those who are are hardened extremists is absolutely part of the solution, to both prevent them from committing violence and to prevent them from recruiting more into their ranks, but it is not the only part of the solution.

It is good to that you are studying about Islam to figure out the motivations of the radical Islamic terrorists. However, do not consume solely from anti-Islamic websites, otherwise you will not get a complete picture. Two authors that I have read have been Bernard Lewis, who is the "Islam" advisor to the Bush Administration and supposedly the architect/inspiration of the "democratize the Middle East" strategy, and Stephen Schwartz, who authored "The Two Faces of Islam." I am sure that there are many other Islamic scholars out there who have written solid books about Islam and its radical strains, so I am not trying to portray these two authors as being the best or the only sources.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Insomniac

Well, when you put it that way, I agree with you. I didn't get all my info from anti-Islamic sites. I have read of couple of books, but I have not heard of a book written by Bernard Lewis or Stephen Schwartz. I will need to look them up. Thanks for giving me these names.

As for why they believe that Islam is the one and only path, like I said earlier, over half of the people in the middle east are illiterate and uneducated. They don't know how to read, so they just need to trust that whatever their educated mosque leaders say is the absolute truth. Many mosque leaders are terrorist supporters. We really don't know what the mosque leaders could be saying. The mosque leaders could tell them a fat pack of lies and they'll believe all of them. I bet that if half of the middle east could read a news paper and think for themselves it would reduce terrorist attacks a great deal...

Holy crap! That's it! Someone just needs to teach these people how to read! But I doubt that any government is willing to forward the money for teachers and books.

Bulgaroctonus

First on a point of historical accuracy, Charles Martel (676 – 741 AD) was the grandfather of Charlemagne (ca. 742 or 747 – 814 AD) , they were not the same man.

Secondly, all of the Western Monotheism are necessarily violent, since violent conquest is an efficient means of religious propagation. This is not a element of Islam alone. You will find as much, if not more, bloodlust in Christian history.

All the same, the violent history of these religions have strayed away from the apparently 'pure' intentions of the founders. However, it is unknown what the precise opinion of violence Jesus and Muhammad had. We do know Muhammad led armies, so this does indicate a certain tolerance of violence.

Yes, it does seem there are many justifications for terrorism within the Quran. However, this I cannot say authoritatively since I have not read the book. This fact I will amend in time.

I wish that no book had this power to incite violence. I find that there are always angry men in the world, and that their theological justifications are the symptom of this anger, not the cause. That is, they will kill with or without their books.

The facts are troubling and I have no easy answers.

From what I know, the pre-Israelite societies of the Levant were no more or less perverse than the Israelites themselves. The people living in Canaan were farmers and artisans living simple, agrarian lives. There is no theological or cultural justification for their extermination. The Israelites simply took the land because they had the ability to do so. It was simple conquest, not a moral crusade.

From a utilitarian view, yes. However, other moralists would argue against this. Anyway, that is a long discussion.

This is not true. The terrorists have killed far more many Muslims than westerners vis-a-vis the insurgency in Iraq. Indeed, Westerners have been slain as 'infidels.' As to the true beliefs of Muhammad, I cannot say. I am certain of only one Muslim belief:

La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasul Allah.

Insomniac,

I am only a little older than you, and I have recently been harboring the same concerns about Islam. In fact, I'm sure that some of the other members would agree that there is a strong similarity between your posts and mine.

Most of the members here are gentlemen and will show tolerance to younger people such as ourselves. Any person who shows intelligence and adherence to the truth will be respected here. Humility is also valued, and the ladies and gentlemen of the WAB will always assist a humble youth.

I share some of your concerns about Islam. However, I have realized that the situation is incredibly complex. In fact, it is more complex than I like. I have also worried that there may be something wrong about Islam and the Quran itself. Nonetheless, the complexity of the affairs in the Middle East have forced me to be mute. I cannot fully comprehend the situation, nor can I offer a definitive answer.

All I can say, let your concerns be motivation for research. Read about Islam and the Middle East as much as you can. I intend to read the Koran cover to cover.

We must find the truth about Islam, and research is the path to that truth.

Shek

Actually, it is quite clear that Jesus renounced violence. "Turn the other cheek" is cited by both Montesquieu and Machiavelli as a major cause in the decline of the Roman Empire, especially by Machiavelli, since it wasn't conducive to employing the necessary tools to maintain the robustness of a republic.

Shek

The radical Salafists don't consider the vast majority of Muslims to be true "believers" of Mohammed. As such they are just as much an infidel as any Westener. Basically, they have created an ideological monster that equates to "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out." What is equally peverse is that the act of martyrism purifies them of all sin, which is why they shoot up on drugs and go whoring the night prior to their "72 virgin" mission.

Bulgaroctonus

I am aware of that line of the Bible. However, I refrained from writing that Jesus was a pacifist because there may be other passages within the New Testament that discredit that. I have not read enough of the Bible to write authoritatively that Jesus was a pacifist.

I disagree with that simplistic thesis, especially since it has many logical holes and is not supported by history. I know a good deal about Late Roman Imperial history, and the decline of the Empire was not due to Christianity. In fact, the Eastern Empire thrived long past the extinction of the West due to its centralized Christian church.

Anyway, I know it is not your thesis.

sparten

Hmmm lets look at the historical wars the prophet fought.

1) Battle of Badr, Meccans try to invade Medina, are repulsed.

2) Battle of Uhad, try the same one year on, are successful in flanking the muslim army, but withraw afterwords.

3) Battle of the "Ditch", A huge army about 40,000 strong lays siege to Medina. The decision is made to create a trench around medina (some of it can be seen even today). THe siege lasted several weeks near the end of which the Medinans were reduced to tying rocks on their stomachs to simulate a feeling of fullness. The Meccens eventually withrew after an abortive attempt to breach the trench.

4) Treaty of Hudaibiyah. A peace treaty signed, between the Mecceans and the Medinans. ALlowe either party to invade if one broke the treaty.

5) Meccans break treaty. Medinan army goes to Mecca. Mecca fall without any violence.

6) The Byzantiums threaten Muslim Caravans and send a huge army to Tabuk (which was part of the Roman Empire at the time). Muslims send army in reponse. Byzantiums withraw as do muslims.

sparten

Sir, your friend has mixed two things up.
Kuffar means non-believer in Arabic. The muslims used it for the meccans and vice-versa. Similar (in Arabic Muslim use) to the way Jews use "Gentile". However in Pakistan it is a very rude word.

The people you refer to who had not converted fully were in Medina, and were called "Munafiq"; hypocrites. They while pretending to be muslim, were in fact still in fact in contact with the Meccans. Simply put, they were playing both sides of the street.

Samudra

Sparten,

So would I be wrong if I were to assert that your knowledge about Hinduism is far from satisfactory ?

I'm sure you practise Islam because you were born into it - not because you have studied all religions and then decided that Islam was the best ?

(I bet one would need a 100 lifes to study all religions)

TBH, I was a Hindu for exactly the same reasons for the last twenty years.After getting introduced to some Hindu scriptures I came to know that what I practised was only a very small part of Hinduism.

It takes two hours to understand a dozen verses in the Upanishads - even with a commentary.

Almost all the people who practise the religion of their parents never enquired into religions before choosing.They were born into it and except for the converts all seek to practise(and sometimes propagate) their own faith.

There are cases which believe that theirs is the only path.
These are exceptions and are always slapped a "bad apple" label easily.

But people fail to see that quite a few religions, via their books and institutions, seek to condemn the ways of others.Very ugly of them to do so!

It happened with Christianity.
It is happening with Islam.

If Islam were to preach that all religions are true then from where would a ignorant 20 year old jihadi find inspiration ? (Not that he would never find it due to the conflicts but atleast this would prevent violence in the name of religion and instead he would fight for the region)

From what I have seen most people dont know what their 'books' are all about but will cause a huge ruckus if something untoward is attributed to their books.They are even willing to die for it - many die, taking a dozen or two along with them in the process.

Silly blokes.

Bulgaroctonus

Samudra,

The last line of your previous post is part of a wider sociological tendency. Simply put, "It does not matter what the truth is, it matters what people think."