Survey: The Archbishop’s comments on Shariah law in the UK
Recently the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, ignited controversy for statements he made in favour of introducing elements of Islamic law into Britain, for Muslims here to self-govern certain aspects of their collective lives. A parallel legal system of this kind already exists in some countries, notably India.
What are your opinions of having separate laws for Muslims and perhaps other faith communities to govern their “internal affairs”? Which of the following options best sums up your views on the subject?
March 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
For convenience, the full text of the Archbishop’s interview with BBC Radio Four that initially ignited this controversy is available at:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573
March 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
this idiot needs to step down with imediate effect!
March 7th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Let me turn this around a little and propose an alternative scenario. What if, instead of suggesting that Muslims should be given the option of governing their own family and personal disputes in their own way, had said a similar thing about the Hindu community, and suggested that Hindus in Britain should be given the option of governing their own personal and family issues in their own way. Would people’s opinions have been different then?
March 8th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
@ Satya -
When talk of governance and religion come up in the same conversation, people are quick to paint all religions with the Abrahamic paintbrush, but we all know there are two paintbrushes.
In regards to your question - the answer is an unequivocal “YES”. No one would have cared because people tend to feel, by our actions, that Hinduism is apolitical and has little to no political ambition.
The dharmic tradition is based on principled (i.e. compassion, truth, justice) and, coupled with karma, are ambiguous enough to create a moral compass that works in most situations. Abrahamic tradition stresses specific rules which can easily be circumvented through loopholes and is extremely political.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
You’re trying to tell me that the Hindu Forum of Britain is apolitical? You expect me to believe that all the lobbying, protesting, petitioning and campaigning going on all over the country by British Hindu today is apolitical? You’re seriously trying to claim that despite all the activity going on in the name of British Hindus today, Hinduism has no political ambition? Indeed, the whole question of suggesting parallel laws is immediately a political ambition by definition - your answer is thereby intrinsically self-contradictory.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
“A parallel legal system of this kind already exists in some countries, notably India.” …………And we all know how smooth race relations between hindus and muslims are there right?
Any hindu should feel rightly angry at this. I don’t want to live in a country that defers to muslims over any other religious groups or the common law.
However, looking at the tabloids I was just happy to see how much bad reaction this idiot got from the average everyday brit so I think there’s nothing going to happen to worry us yet.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
To treat unequals equally and to treat equals unequally are both injustice. A nation that believes in laws and egalitarianism should apply the law equally to all persons. If someone doesn’t want to be treated equally, let them prove that they are a protected group. If religions want to belong to the same group as children, handicaps, demented, etc then perhaps they should be treated differently, but every adult with about equal cognitive capacity should be treated as an individual equally with other individuals. A society that uses different laws to treat groups differently is creating a hell of governance and promoting himsa. Sometimes this is needed to resolve cultural crimes - women, class, caste, inherited wealth… but like a surgeons knife, such harm should be directed as resolving a problem quickly, not sustaining it indefinately.
The archbishop, as a monothinker, can not embrace a secular society by which all persons are equal regardless of religious background. He, like muslims, must see persons in categories of heathen, gentile, infidel, idolator, etc. I do believe that if someone were to get up and say hindus should be treated better than others, most hindus would be appalled. While when some one gets up and says christians and muslims should be treated better than others - given special rules, there is less consternation about this.
hariaum
March 13th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I agree with Ashwin
Satya doesn’t get it.
By her or his reckoning Hindus should just lay back and take abuse.
The Hindu Forum is a new org based on demands after Hindu voice were continually being ignored. It did not arise out of some greed to gain more benefits for the Hindus!!
This website Hindu Voice arose to air views because demand was there and nothing political. People like Satya like to twist things for god knows why.
Maybe they are trying to look so cool with their secular attitude.
So to cry politics and bad mouth Hindu Forum and Hindus is typical of some Hindus who wants to see Hindus trodden upon.
Then Satya so cleverly trying to turn things round by saying how would you react if Hindus demand things. Well we only have to see examples of the many ‘demands’ by Hindu Forum and the many protest ALL of which have ended up with no interest taken up by the general Hindu public. That just about sums up the level of Hindu interest. But that does not mean that those Hindu who do want things cannot claim for them either!!
There is no contradiction either in Ashwins or my post.
The contradiction is a natural state of human mind. Where One wants something the other does not. Nothing new here then.
The majority Hindu it seems just wants to get on with their lives.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Satya -
Hindus do not ask for much. Because we do not have so many silly laws to govern our lives (we just use common sense), we can fit in anywhere.
I am an American, but I see no contradiction between living in America and my Hinduism. Hinduism does not bother anyone, like most other religions, because practice privately but celebrate publicly, which everyone loves anyway.
Islam is the only one to build mosques coupled with annoying prayer towers and what not.
Are we trying to impose our political will on other people?
Even if we wanted to, could we? No. There is no such thing as Hindu law, we only have dharma, which is inherently secular and based on principles of high-minded living.
There has never been a “Hindu theocracy” in the history of India. Not once. Even Chanakya and the Mauryan emperor was based on treating everyone equally. Just look at the Edicts of Ashoka and compare them with the Code of Hammurabi. It shows the difference in thinking that is very much prevalent today - that is, monolithic (there is only one answer) versus Dharmic (Indian) pluralism.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Let me add one thing that I forgot.
Asking for our rights and being proud of who are is not political, it is our duty.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Passion took control in that last comment; I apologise for that, though I stand by the views contained within. I am unable to express myself any more clearly, however, but before withdrawing from this discussion, leave the following points for consideration..
A virtuous past does not guarantee the same for either present or future. The fact that Hinduism has traditionally been accepting, assimilative and integrative does not necessarily mean that the same is either still true today or will remain so tomorrow.
Hinduism has suffered immense tyranny and persecution in its own lands, and yet it has survived. However, those centuries of oppression and torture have understandably left their mark - Hinduism today is not what it once was. It is scarred, frightened and paranoid. In another discussion, PTSD was (in that case, inappropriately) mentioned. It is perhaps appropriate to describe the corporate Hindu psyche of today as heavily post-traumatic. The following points are taken from the definition of PTSD in the ICD-10, the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, the WHO’s standard of disease classification:
1. “Arises as a delayed or protracted response to a stressful event or situation (of either brief or long duration) of an exceptionally threatening or catastrophic nature, which is likely to cause pervasive distress in almost anyone.”
It would certainly be highly appropriate to characterise the history of Hinduism since the time of the Islamic onslaught as being “of an exceptionally threatening or catastrophic nature”. It is worth pointing out that Hinduism’s subsequent response is not abnormal - it could happen “in almost anyone”; however, neither does this make it healthy or desirable.
2. “Typical features include episodes of repeated reliving of the trauma in intrusive memories (”flashbacks”), dreams or nightmares, occurring against the persisting background of a sense of “numbness” and emotional blunting, detachment from other people, unresponsiveness to surroundings, anhedonia, and avoidance of activities and situations reminiscent of the trauma.”
There is a very evident obsession on the part of Hinduism with this past, and “repeated reliving” of numerous events within this are almost part and parcel of modern Hindu discourse. Equally, “a sense of “numbness” and emotional blunting” is clearly evident in the background docility and apathy of much of Hindu society, which is both non-characteristic of pre-Islamic Hinduism, and also makes the more active features of the disorder stand out all the more starkly by their contrast. Similarly, the remaining listed features can all be readily recognised as characteristic features of major elements of modern Hindu society and discourse.
3. “There is usually a state of autonomic hyperarousal with hypervigilance, an enhanced startle reaction, and insomnia. Anxiety and depression are commonly associated with the above symptoms and signs, and suicidal ideation is not infrequent.”
Modern Hinduism’s paranoia and often excessive activism (as fairly typically displayed above) is certainly understandable, but clearly fits with “hypervigilance, an enhanced startle reaction, and insomnia.” The latter set of features here are perhaps less obvious and by their nature somewhat more subtle, but looking for them very rapidly demonstrates their undeniable presence.
4. “The onset follows the trauma with a latency period that may range from a few weeks to months. The course is fluctuating but recovery can be expected in the majority of cases. In a small proportion of cases the condition may follow a chronic course over many years, with eventual transition to an enduring personality change.”
Let us hope that Hinduism is able to recover and recapture its former glory, and yet manage to avoid descending into a chronic self-destructive cycle, ending in an ironic, twisted “enduring personality change” which would make a mockery of all that Hinduism has stood for through the ages. It is perhaps telling that the modern response of an increasing number of people to the description of oneself as a Hindu is, “So are you one of those Hindu fundamentalists?” It is well said that revolutionaries are prone to becoming that which they once fought against - modern Hindu “activism” frightens me precisely on this count.
March 15th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Well, I don’t really know how my comments were any different than yours. They don’t seem to contradict and they aren’t mutually exclusive.
What political things to Hindus do besides asking for their rights and the respect as people?
Any Hindu on this forum is aware of the problems facing the community, or else they probably wouldn’t be here considering the mentality of the current stock of Hindus today. I realize that we cannot just sit back, but I suppose I assumed you used the word political in a “manipulative” sense, the same way Muslims do, and I didn’t wan us to fall into the same category.
It was just a semantics issue, not an ideological one.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
that was a tedious post Satya, quite irrelevant and extremely superfluous
valid points can be made simply and not dressed up in waffle and institutional jargon
out of interest, do you classify yourself as a Hindu, Satya?
March 15th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I’ve read what you say Satya .. unfortunately we do have differing and alternatives views.
What a shame that we are not on the same side of the fence.
If India, Hindus and Hinduism need strong men, it is now but alas, the depth of moderation in many a learned Indian men of your calibre of which there are many, can see no wrong being done to us that needs to be resisted and righted with psychology of restorative balance of equilibrium using the same ideology in reverse to a certain degree, but with additional refinements.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:23 am
To Ashwin: I feel Hinduism has changed, and not necessarily for the better; I do see us sliding in an Islamist direction, and see us potentially reaching a stage very soon where, much as you and I may dislike it, we will fall in very much the same category. For the most part, I think we are indeed agreed, but there is a fundamental difference in our views; I respect your opinion, and your optimism for this strand of Hinduism, but cannot easily share it.
To Rakesh: since you like brevity, I will be brief. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. Yes, I do consider myself Hindu.
To Pravin: We do indeed have differing and alternative views; however, I do not view this as any bad thing. Hinduism is big enough, pragmatic enough and honest enough to not just allow, but encourage hugely divergent views to exist within itself. My personal view is that one of Hinduism’s greatest strengths is that it has traditionally able to effortlessly assimilate and absorb the myriad differing opinions, ideals and beliefs that have arisen over the millennia.
However, my personal concern, which I am aware that you do not share, is that there is a forceful movement within Hinduism today, exemplified here, that is increasingly intolerant of diversity of opinion, and which seeks to stifle any opposition to its overtly (yet perhaps even unconsciously) political agenda. Whilst I understand where this has come from and why it exists, and respect the motivations which precipitate and perpetuate it (as I was once very firmly within that same movement), my personal feeling is that it is potentially dangerous, for Hinduism itself as much as for others.
I also worry about any revolutionary movement (for such is my perception of it) which thinks that it can adopt precisely the methodology against which it strives and not end up irreversibly destroying a fundamental part of itself.
To all: I honestly do not think I can make my views on the subject any clearer than this. Equally, I think it is quite evident that none here are likely to change our opinions on the topic, so we will have to agree to disagree. I do feel that this was a useful and important discussion to have, but personally, I see nothing further that can be usefully said on the matter. I therefore respectfully withdraw from this discussion at this point and thank all for an interesting exchange of views.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Thank you Satya.
For the benefit all participants here, I would simply put out what I believe to be corrective thoughts as I perceive them to be in relation to yours; An important counter-point which if not expressed here would be considered “injustice”:
“.. is that there is a forceful movement within Hinduism today, exemplified here..” - Yes, that there is. I would further add that these men and women have always been there, but choose to come out now because they feel that their tolerance has been taken for granted, and India is endangered not only by militant terror, but also by “selective” communal policies of the Indian Congress government itself.
“..that is increasingly intolerant of diversity of opinion ..” - I do not believe this to be the case. Frustrations expressed here can be so misinterpreted giving an impression of intolerance. Diversity of opinion is alive and well in the hands of secular *Indians (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian/Catholic) today as it was 50 years ago, and opinions which we all expres here is living proof.
“..and which seeks to stifle any opposition to its overtly (yet perhaps even unconsciously) political agenda..” - The political agenda being discussed here is indeed overtly so. It is unfair if anyone feels or interprets it to be “perhaps even unconsciously” so.
“..is that it is potentially dangerous, for Hinduism itself as much as for others..” - I fail to understand your repetitive reference to such open exchange of views as being “potentially dangerous”; I have given a differing view on your belief as such in an earlier post here for the benefit of others who may be unaware that this view has been quizzed.
“..I also worry about any revolutionary movement (for such is my perception of it)..” - I do not believe the use of the term “revolutionary movement” is correct terminology here, but I, including others here do “subscribe” to thoughts more apt to views towards a corrective movement in India which would be politically motivated, tolerant and diplomatically mature and of course peaceful albeit firm in its balance and fairness. I hope I speak for the majority of such people here and say that this will perhaps help allay fears of any on here who have “such perceptions of it”.
It is, after all, a debate on a most serious matter of international interest, its possible dangers and ramifications of which India is target today, and the Archbishops irresponsible, uninvited and ill-advised interference considered dangerous not only for the UK, but indeed for all non-Islamic countries worldwide.
“..which thinks that it can adopt precisely the methodology against which it strives and not end up irreversibly destroying a fundamental part of itself..”
I do not believe this to be the case. To the contrary, if we do not “adopt (in part) the methodology against which it strives” (but for sure not “precisely” as is your belief for that then I agree would be considered dangerous), it is that then which would be “irreversibly destroying a fundamental part of itself” ie. Hinduism, and therefore Hindu India. It is the possibility of that destruction which is cause for deep concern being expressed here from “the other side of the divide”.
Such a political theory would then serve the purpose to “re-take” India into rightful ownership of the *Indian, and will serve to “fundamentally strengthen the *Indian and India”; non-action could lead to its ultimate destruction - is my contrary view to that which you express.
I make this point for the benefit of others.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
A quote from Satya above….
“I do see us sliding in an Islamist direction, and see us potentially reaching a stage very soon where, much as you and I may dislike it, we will fall in very much the same category.”
How can you justify this controversial statement Satya….?! On what basis?
March 17th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
When discussing our view points it is helpful to ask oneself why we are doing this. We certainly can not hope to enlighten someone by the internet. Such an act takes personal effort based on knowledge. We certainly should not be monothinkers and expect all others to agree with us or to to think we will share the perspective with all others.
I, for one, felt I needed to be involved in the global culture that is hinduism. I felt that by discussing these things my knowledge will grow about hinduism, about my relationship to hinduism, and about the fallacies in my thinking about hinduism. I use HinduVoice.uk as a wetting stone to sharpen my perceptions. But I will fail in this self seeking process if I sit quietly and fail to declare what I think. If you all, the community, the satsang, don’t know what I think you can not teach me. But, as strange as reality is, if I reject what you teach me then I must at least ask myself shy I reject it. Thus it is still not the satsang that teaches but simply offers perspective.
I must admit, I feel upset when someone disappears from the discussion. Harish is heard from too little - for one.
On the other hand. One of the things missing from Hinduism, is a dialogue about the present. We all can go back and read a book about the greatness of the past (or failures) but that can only help so much. We must act into the future and thus this allows me an outlet to try and help others acting into the future of hinduism - that is the real need for hinduism today. We are created by our past but must carry it forward that it may grow and be a help to humanity in times of dire need.
hariaum
March 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
As to the comment of PTSD, It is an interesting comparison. I have often suggested that Arjuna suffers from pre-TSD and the Gita is the cure. If I were to extend Satya’s comments, it is hinduism that suffers from PTSD, rather it is humanity. And the salve is the Gita. Though there are children in Africa that are raped and watch their friends/parents being killed off, they strive to survive. Yet there are fat, selfish rich kids that can’t figure out why they should live another day. Who suffers from PTSD? We complain of poverty as the source of problems, yet even Gilgamesh found the happiest person in his kingdom to be poor; and Valmiki became happier when he stopped chasing money. It is ego. It will always be ego. Whether we seek for ourselves, our tribe, our nation, our species - it is ego. and Ego creates maya that Ego may survive. It is Ego that suffers PTSD and needs a daily guide of intellect to heal it - to align it with reality - Tat Sat. But it is precisely because Ego is suffering that we can be compassionate and loving to one another. Only when a child falls can a father help the child get back up. Only when a friend is sad, that a friend can bring joy. Only when a world is ignorant, that a religion can bring vidya. Now we, as the actors, must chose: propagate satya or asatya, propagate jyotir or tamas, propagate death or life, propagate himsa or peace?
So though I agree that this subject is off topic with the anglican church’s support of himsa, I think it is an important topic for each of us.
hariaum
March 18th, 2008 at 12:22 am
The insensitivity and lack of flexibility of Islam towards other religions is not unique, it is part of parcel of Christianity as well in its dealings with Sanatana Dharma.
To say that it is a greater threat than Islamism would be false, but to say that we are somehow “on their side” belies the larger issue of forced conversion and affiliation to Western culture rather than their roots as Indians.
It is no coincidence that “Nagas for Christ” are separatists. Keep that mind.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Oh, come on Keshav! islam mandates the FORCED conversion of all non muslims, or death as a penalty, or pay the jizya. Find me THAT in the Bible.
The religion of scum sets up mohammed as an example of the ‘perfect man’ for all times; a paedophile caravan robber, murderer, rapist and oath breaker; contrast that with the example of Jesus.
I agree to a certain extent that missionaries are a pain in the backside - my former in laws were some in Africa, so I know wherof I speak
Christianity was not spread by torch and sword, islam was never spread by any other means.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
christianity in Europe was failing to spread. So the focus changed from common folk to kings. Once kings started converting, they forced their people to convert. Since the people were of different minds on this, the rule of as the king so the people came into play. I am sure that the vikings and celts just laid down their religious traditions to the peaceful christians - not. The americas, whether southern or nothern, were killed off and converted by force. The english supported churches and destroyed temples. Those in the church were favored as opposed to those out - jizya. Rwanda took tribes that belonged to one religious christian tradition, went to their churches, and killed them becuase they belonged to the wrong tribe/christian sect.
It is easy to ignore the cruelty of one’s own.
hariaum
March 21st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Oh, let’s not forget the Nazi’s.
hariaum
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:49 am
Robert-
Christianity was absolutely spread by the sword. Historically, Christianity was the same, if not worse, than Islam. If you deny that, at the very least, this conversation is bound to end very quickly.
Missionaries have the right to spread the religion, just do it among atheists and Muslims and what not. Hinduism is the oldest culture in the world and deserves to be protected along with all pre-Christian religions of Africa, Southeast Asia and Native Americans.
I didn’t say Christians were a worse threat than Islam but they definitely do not garner my respect. Usually, Christians who oppose Islam usually oppose every other religion - any current alliance is purely coincidental of the situation.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Oddly enough, I had a very similar conversation to this with one of my senior colleagues earlier today. He is currently reading a book on the global jihad, and was asking me about the Hindu view of Muslims. During the conversation, he started to claim that whilst all, or at least the vast majority, of Muslims had jihadi tendencies, Christians were very different; he further said that conversion in Christianity was very different to Islam, as Christians do not do it by force.
My response was that not only have Christians been just as forceful as Muslims in the past (whilst modern-day technology allows a greater scale of damage to be inflicted, the passion and effort put into violence was just as high, if not more so), but the fact that modern Christian conversion is not necessarily physically violent does not in any way lessen the damage that is done. Whilst Muslims convert by force, Christians do so by deception, blackmail and deceit. That being the case, it could potentially be argued that whilst Islam is more obviously violent and damaging, the long-term effects of Christianity are potentially far more destructive. Further, it is a nonsense for Christians to claim with no evidence that the vast majority of Muslims support jihad, and yet claim with similar lack of evidence that the same is not true of the vast majority of Christians and their support for conversion.
As I have said before, it is always very easy to compare the best aspects of your own faith and culture with the worst aspects of another’s; this proves nothing. That is what I appreciate most about the Hindu way of assimilating all that is good from whatsoever source it may come, whilst simultaneously freely offering all that we may have to contribute, for our own constant improvement and the ultimate benefit of all.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Navin,
Since when were the nazis Christian? Hitler was a believer in astrology and had a thing about the old Norse Gods.
Keshav,
As regards the South Americas, you dont mean those lovely Incas and Mayas do you? You know, the ones who sacrificed their enemies to their sun god by ripping their hearts out. Nor are the Hutus and Tutsis Navin mentions acting out of any spirit of Christianity, but out of good old fashioned tribal bloodlust - the curse of Africa.
Satya,
“Whilst Muslims convert by force, Christians do so by deception, blackmail and deceit.” I wouldn’t mind seeing some evidence for this, as you seem to be painting us with a very broad brush.
While some here point at (sometimes mythical) Christian actions of the past - like 800 years past!, islam is doing this TODAY.
Personally, I have no wish to convert anyone, but niether will I BE converted by threat or force; that is my quarrel with islam, I have none with Hinduism - unless you tell me I can’t eat burgers anymore, then it’s war
March 25th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Robert-
You are ignorant of the problems in India. There are indeed CHRISTIAN TERRORIST groups such as “Nagas for Christ” and many separatist groups in Northeast India. They are currently, that is now, torturing and harassing Hindus and Buddhists who have lived peacefully together for centuries.
Pure South Americans, that is, those not part of the mass rape that took place on orders from the Catholic Church, follow the old ways of their Gods. They are not sacrificing humans but are looked down upon by the blended people whose ancestors are both European and South American.
There are many Pagan people’s in this world that you don’t hear about whose existence is constantly threatened by useless missionaries with nothing better to do with their lives. Thankfully, Wicca and Reconstructionist religions are making a come back in Europe and in some parts of America.
When we refer to Christians causing problems, we usually don’t refer to people like you (unless you enjoy seeing age old civilizations die off in favor of yet another bland flavor of Christ) but to the missionaries who have done untold damage to the oldest existing civilization on the face of this planet.
Keshav
March 27th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Christian missionaries spend a whopping US 4.6 billion annually for conversion purposes. Prime target is India - “to cast the net and fish ” thus saving many pagan souls, so insulted Pope John Paul when he visited India that graciously gave him red carpet treatment while China shut its doors on his face!! Slime balls like Benny Hinn et al are also at this heinous work.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Keshav,
You’re kidding me right? The Nagas? Would this be the same minority tribal nutters who have a quarrel with some other minority tribal nutters (Kiklis?) and who want to set up a Socialist Christian state based on Maoism? To hold these clowns up as having anything whatever to do with Christianity rather than as loopy commies is the same as my saying that the Thugs were a shining example of Hinduism because they worshipped Kali under one of her less benign manifestations.As regards the Indios of South America, dont you find it odd that most of them are Catholic? Even now, 500 years after the Conquistadors, the Church there goes from strength to strength; would that it did in Europe. I agree to a certain extent about missionaries, but let’s not forget that both muslims and Buddhists proseletise; I do not know about Hindus and Sikhs.
I was not aware that Christianity had made any great inroads into India, nothing like islam did when the muslims came with torch and sword and murdered God alone knows how many Hindus; I’ve heard figures of 80 million, can that be right? I think that on the whole, Christians at least MEAN well, evn if they seem a bit blinkered, but then I must confess that no one has tried to convert me away from my mother culture and religion (I regard them as more or less synonimous). My missionary former in-laws are in Senegal, where they have had some success converting muslim Africans, mostly by translating the Bible into the local language and letting people read it for themselves; I find it hard to condemn this as they are merely reversing the forced conversions by the muslims in what was once a rich arabic slaving area. I fully agree with you that they should keep out of India until they at least understand what Hinduism is about and has suffered; and probably keep out after they understand as well.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Robert -
When a man says he does something for a particular cause, you believe him, because thats what he believes. When Genghis Khan believes he’s a God who should rule the entire world, you tend to think he actually believed, regardless of how crazy you think his ideology is. When Nagas fight for Christ, they truly believe they are fighting for Christ - you cannot deny this regardless of how you may feel it is irrelevant to Christianity. I’m not saying that the Nagas are shining example of Christianity, but they sure as hell do it in its name.
Do I believe that Thugee was killing people in the name of Kali? Yes, I do. Does it represent what I believe is Sanatana Dharma? No. But it doesn’t change the fact that they did.
The fact that South Americans are still Catholic says more about Christianity as an exclusivist faith which says Jesus Christ is the only way (and the brainwashing that goes along with that) than it does about South Americans and their culture.
Muslims and Buddhists do not proselytize. Or at least not as annoying as Christian missionaries. Muslims are much more upfront and their lack of subtlety only works on a few people (births make up the growing Islamic numbers). Muslims may use violence, but they aren’t dressing up their faith as anything other than what it is.
I am very glad that you’ve come to see the light on India, however, if only partially.
Keshav
March 31st, 2008 at 11:43 am
I think you people got the whole thing wrong. Shariat cannnot be implemented for the non-Muslims. No one has suggested that.
Muslims in Britain are already under the Shariat. They consult first their Mosques about the marriage, divorce, property etc and obey Shariat. That is the reason ArchBishop said it should incorporated in the legal system for the Muslims only in order to rule out any arbitrary illegal actions by the Mullahs.
Non-Muslims are not to be affected by it.
That system already exist in India, where there are seperate civil laws for people of different religions. Muslims in India are already ruled by the Muslim personal laws based on Shariat not on the general civil laws. Hindus in India are also under the Hindu laws.
Arch Bishop may be suggesting somethong along that line.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:54 pm
As many here will know by now, I enjoy joining those of other faiths in their worship. At the end of last Sunday’s service in church, the chaplain mentioned that he had copies, for those who may be interested, of a couple of recent articles from ‘Evangelicals Now’, a British-based Christian newspaper. Two articles in particular caught my attention, both from the March 2008 issue. One was titled “Oxford: the Muslim call to prayer”, and gave an Oxford chaplain’s views on the recent controversy surrounding Oxford Central Mosque’s plans to begin broadcasting the ‘azan’ (call to prayer). The other was a Commentary piece by the editorial staff, titled “The Arcbishop, Islam and Pluralism”, obviously on the above issue of Dr Williams’ views on Shari’a law, etc.
For the convenience of those who may be interested here, a quick Google search revealed that the newspaper is also published online, and these two articles are available at:
http://www.e-n.org.uk/4136-Oxford-the-Muslim-call-to-prayer.htm
http://www.e-n.org.uk/4131-The-Commentary.htm
As a Hindu, and therefore a relatively neutral, outside observer, it is fascinating to witness Christian-Muslim discourse; more to the point, it is instructive to learn from such observation an objective approach to one’s own interactions with non-Hindus. It is so easy to compare the best of one’s own with the worst of another’s, so easy to slip into hypocrisy and double standards, and so difficult to accept that differences do not always necessarily imply superiority or inferiority.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
very interesting discussion, though the subject got hijacked.
1. Robert: if you are really interested in learning more about the negativities of Christianity go to Google group - Atheism vs Christianity - I think you will get a lot of answers with ref quotes from Bible and other scriptures. This does not mean that you need to accept or believe what they say. That is some more information for you to read, think, and either negate or validate - as you may feel fit to do. Meaning you need to use your *free will *.
2. India has almost 85% population which is Hindus. Still the second largest land owner of India - next only to the Govt of India - is Christian church.
3. In spite of having 85% population, India is not a Hindu nation. The segment that wanted India to be a Hindu nation could not succeed to come to power in spite of their best efforts and their closest party which is BJP could come to power only with support of so many parties like DMK, TDP,TC, JDU, - i think fifteen of them. Which means Hindus do not subscribe to the idea of a Hindu nation. Does this give some indication of
Hindu terrorism or militancy or any such thoughts?
4. I have no idea what is in Shri Satya’s mind when he sees Hinduism of today is not what it should be. He finds Hindus are intolerant etc.
It will be interesting to know if Shri Satya could be specific on issues and tell us readers, the instances that he found to be not good and why it was so and what he thinks could be solutions?
5. I wonder if there is any country in this world that we live, where, 85% of a religion has their temples - places of worship is fully controlled by the government, the money the devotees deposit in these temples is spent towards - 20% towards Haj subsidy, 20% to help christian to build churches and 20% for maintenance of the temples and balance 40% taken by govt for other expenses for govt. The government does not spend money for either educating the children of the people who work in these temples, nor have a minimum pay and other benefits etc - while the government employees get huge pay and still bigger allowances .
It will be interesting to see if any statistics is available to make a comparison as to the violences caused by Hindus, deaths caused by Hindus, other types of violences caused by Hindus vs each of the other religions vs population vs level of education vs subsidies and facilities offered by govt to other religions ( because they are minorities !!! even the largest land owner next only to govt ).
May be such studies will throw more light than the noise that is created by subjective statements.
enjoy
April 7th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Pairamblr,
The atheist sites are quite interesting, not least because they seem to be desperately trying to convince themselves rather than me. I have no problem either way, let people worship what gods they will, or none at all; all I ask is that they extend that same courtesy to me.
It often amazes me the abysmal level of ignorance regarding Christianity that is shown by these people; Leviticus for example sets out the civil code affecting Jews, it has no bearing on Christians. I also find it amusing that atheist groups who are so brave and smug about Christianity keep very quiet about islam - obviously the desire to spread the ‘truth’ stops in the face of someone threatening to behead you.
I am astonished to find that Christians own so much in India, what do they do with it? Are these properties or farm land or what? Mind you, the Church owns an awful lot in the UK as well, they are I believe the single biggest landowner.
While I dont want to get in a row about it, wasn’t this keeping Hindus in India down at least partly due to Ghandi? I seem to recall something in a previous thread about his wanting to keep the muslims happy and so trying to keep India secular. I think much of the rest is caused by Hindus being TOO tolerant; it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease after all, just look how the tiny minority of muslims shove people around to get their own way.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Having two laws in any country must be a disaster for the unity of the country. In progressive India Muslim women especially young girls in villages and small towns are getting rough and poor deal, worrying about their husbands’ infidelities. They live, year in year out, with sword of Talaq (devorce) hanging over their head and remain their husbands’ servants.
I think Archbishop Williams doesn’t know the ‘Sharia’ laws were never part of original Koran and were brought in by Sheikhs of Saudi Arabia about three hundred years after Muhammad’s departure. The Koran itself had robbed the followers of their freedom and after Muhammad they were agitating against it. By which the Sheikhs were losing control over their subjects. The draconian Sharias made the followers their prisoners and deprived them of true knowledge about the world we live in.
I remember one discussion on TV in which changes to Sharias were recommended by couple of participants and the Muslim leader immediately affirmed that ‘even single change to Sharia laws will finish Islam’, thus will not be allowed. This is why Muslim leaders in whichever country they are demand seperate Islamic (Sharia) laws for their followers. AND ARCHBISHOP WILLIAMS FELL IN THEIR TRAP.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Robert-why convert anybody in the 1st place??as you said your inlaws do this in Africa…why??to a guarantee a place in ‘heaven’?? plz explain
April 10th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Hello Robert,
Like I stated in my earlier post, A vs C provides a lot of interesting info for an inquisitive mind to study, think, discern, assimilate, negate etc. The choice is purely ones application of ones’ own * free will *.
And I said that because you asked some questions in that context.
If you have glanced thru the discussions, then you would have seen that there are lot of discussions on Islam also. But the site, since formed in west where Christianity is a very popular, the discussions originally centered on A vs C.
I brought the issue of largest land ownership by Christianity only to let readers know the situation. Now if one is interested in finding out how and why, then they can and that will be more revealing.
Pl go to the hindu civilization group of yahoo and read a file with the title
” the wrought that Britain brought ” for you to know how India was and how Britain converted to what it is . Again, all these are info only for one’s education - not for “believing”.
I have no problems with Hinduism being too tolerant. I have no problem with any one following their own “belief” system. All that I wonder often is that why on earth one fails to allow the other to have their space?
Why is it that you insist on “saving” me? Particularly you know and say that you are limited, you know little, etc? Does not that give a small thought in your mind that since you think you know little, you are limited etc, you could as well be wrong? Does it not give an idea in your mind that when you - repeat it is you - validate a book, ( * you * it is *you* - who believe that book is the word of god ) since you have inherent limitations as per your own admission, is there a possibility in your making a mistake by validating something?
India wanted to be secular. The good majority of Indian - who are Hindus - support Secularism. But the world does not seem to understand it. For 50 years, the world thought that “poor” Pakistan is right in going ahead with encouraging killing people in Kashmir. The “poor” Bush felt that killing one person can change the whole history of Iraq, without knowing that how hard it was for Saddam to control those people in Iraq.
Hinduism is happy to have meaningful discussions. Hinduism is not afraid of any discussion from rational / logical / meaningful way.
enjoy
cheers