• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Islam’s existential crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well analyzed..In case Islam is not reformed there will be many who will give up their faith..The Pope has already declared the 21st Century as a harvest period...Are Hindu leaders listening and spreading their nets wide?? There may be many M in the sub continent who will be ready to declare their Hindu origins in case of a crisis..We should be ready to support those!


Islam’s existential crisis: Tolerance is needed to stop it from splintering into separate sectarian boxes

November 25, 2016, 2:00 am IST Hasan Suroor

Today, Islam is facing arguably its gravest existential crisis since the Crusades. Yet, nobody is asking the one question that every concerned Muslim should be asking: what is the future of Islam? Will it survive the crisis? If so, in what form?
I am aware that in the current climate to pose such questions may be regarded as heretical. But the idea that it’s just a passing phase (“We saw off the Crusades, we will see off this one too”) betrays the sort of complacency that has seen inherently tolerant Hinduism mutate into RSS-style Hindutva.
Crusades were led by Islam’s external enemies; and it’s always easier to unite against a common threat from outside. Today, the threat is from within. Muslims are Islam’s biggest enemy.
The conflict is no longer between Muslims and “infidels”; devout Muslims and “heretic” Muslims; or even Sunnis and Shias. It has now come down to Sunnis versus Sunnis; Shias versus Shias … one Muslim against another Muslim.
A community, which took pride in the idea of a global umma united by a common faith, today resembles a family each of whose members is at war with the other. Jihad has come home and is devouring its own children. Muslim communities across the world are seething with internal sectarian divisions and hatred. Nothing is sacred any more.
Even the Hajj, the holiest of holy symbols of Islamic solidarity, has got caught up in the civil war tearing Islam apart. Once we were all Muslims. Not anymore.
Now we sit in separate sectarian boxes labelled Deobandis; Barelvis; Salafis; Wahabbis; Wahabbi Salafis. And certified as “good” Muslims and “bad” Muslims by self-styled arbiters of Islam. And if you fail their arbitrary test of what constitutes a “good” or a “true” Muslim, well, hell hath no fury like a mullah spurned.
One might argue that divisions always existed. Yes, but within the parameters of legitimate dissent. Nobody was murdered for belonging to the “wrong” sect or school of thought. The only overt hostility was between Shias and Sunnis, but it rarely spilled into violence beyond minor clashes during Mohurram.
Now, Shias are killed for simply being Shias. In Pakistan they are not even recognised as proper Muslims. Once, Islam’s internal divisions were only of academic interest and barely touched the lives of ordinary Muslims. In the space of a few decades, however, Islam has gone from a religion one happened to be born into and which one observed or didn’t observe according to one’s conscience (nobody put a gun to your head), to become a 24/7 obsession.
It has been hijacked by extremist vigilantes with the licence to kill anyone they suspect of not being the “right” sort of Muslim. I am not talking about what’s happening in Syria or Iraq or Libya. Or about the toxic Islamisation of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The menace of often violent vigilantism has now arrived on the streets of Britain.
That #NotMuslimEnough is one of the most popular messages that recently trended on social media indicates the prevailing level of intra-Muslim intolerance. In recent months, three Muslims in Britain have been murdered by fellow Muslims for not being Muslim enough.
One was Ahmadiyya Muslim and two were Sunni Muslims whose Sufi practices were regarded non-Islamic by Salafi Sunnis. There are areas of Muslim concentration, including East London, where vigilantes hang around to enforce Islamic dress code on Muslim women. Those who protest are abused and threatened.
It has become a cliché to say that what is going on is a battle for the soul of Islam. But which Islam? These days, Islam means different things to different Muslims. One Muslim’s Islam can be another’s heresy. Islam has been reduced to a series of perverse and self-serving interpretations.
It is the culmination of a process that began in the 1970s and 1980s with the start of Wahabbisation of Sunni Islam and Khomeinisation of Shia Islam. The Muslim reaction to Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses was a watershed; since then things have only gone downhill with thugs taking over from mullahs.
What i find extraordinary is the Muslim indifference towards Islam’s future, as if they couldn’t care less. A standard smug reaction is that all religions, notably Christianity, have gone through upheavals and emerged stronger. So will Islam; a “new” Islam fit for the 21st century will emerge from the debris of the old.
But in the absence of any evidence to support such optimism, it sounds more like wishful thinking. If anything, all the evidence points to the possibility of an opposite outcome: the world ending up with a more regressive, insular and intolerant Islam.
Meanwhile, Islam’s civil war is likely to get worse, compounded by the unseemly scramble between Sunni Saudis and Shia Iranians for political supremacy of the Muslim world. The burden of being a Muslim is going to get heavier.


http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatime...om-splintering-into-separate-sectarian-boxes/
 
Hi Vgane,

This is my opinion about Islam and it's jihad:
Jihad should be war within islam and not with other people of different religion. the muslims need to fight within themselves to get rid of their own evils. they are unnecessarily dragging everybody else in the world into their internal squabbles. for comparison the hindus have well understood that the epic wars described in the mahabharata and ramayana are both conquest of the evil within one's self and not a fight to convert other people to hinduism. why can't muslims learn from this parallel about their own jihad and stop trying to convert the world. by all means form your own caliphate on some uninhabited island and have your own jihadi kurukshetra.
 
The fight within religion and across religion has its origin in the theology of how to reach a place called heaven/paradise after death and live there forever. The prospect for being in Hell forever is a daunting prospect.

Human beings motivated by religious theology will continue to fight and newer division within various religions will always emerge and oppose all others.
 
The fight within religion and across religion has its origin in the theology of how to reach a place called heaven/paradise after death and live there forever. The prospect for being in Hell forever is a daunting prospect.

Human beings motivated by religious theology will continue to fight and newer division within various religions will always emerge and oppose all others.
That is the most ridiculous concept of religion that baffles me. Why are we so concerned about what happens after death. Especially the Islamic faith seems to dwell more on the after death ideology than the present life ideology. I wonder if they want to make it a comparative assessment of life and death. If during life you make it Hell then anything after that will definitely seem heavenly and paradise.
I wish we could abolish all religious ideologies and just make it plain and simple life.
Even our great founding fathers of India's independence(Nehru, Patel et al) divided our country based on religious ideology and we are still suffering the consequences.
The Syrian war started as a political conflict to overthrow a seemingly oppressive dictator and later turned into a religious war once the theocratic Iranians got involved in it.
At this rate I am not sure what our children are going to inherit from us as a society.
 
Religious fanaticism and extremism can be minimized only by scientific thinking and logical understanding.

Even the West, where Science has grown tremendously, is gripped with superstition and religious bias.
 
That is the most ridiculous concept of religion that baffles me. Why are we so concerned about what happens after death. Especially the Islamic faith seems to dwell more on the after death ideology than the present life ideology. I wonder if they want to make it a comparative assessment of life and death. If during life you make it Hell then anything after that will definitely seem heavenly and paradise.
I wish we could abolish all religious ideologies and just make it plain and simple life.
Even our great founding fathers of India's independence(Nehru, Patel et al) divided our country based on religious ideology and we are still suffering the consequences.
The Syrian war started as a political conflict to overthrow a seemingly oppressive dictator and later turned into a religious war once the theocratic Iranians got involved in it.
At this rate I am not sure what our children are going to inherit from us as a society.

All religions including those falling under the umbrella of Hinduism promise the unknowable - namely what happens after death and how to get to a place of everlasting happiness. Theologies of Hindu religions embedded in Puranic stories do not promise a 'forever' heaven. Also our theologies do not include conversion of others as a requirement for our tourism to heaven. It also does not include condemning others ('others are infidels').

The biblical religions are more aggressive in their theologies. Christians believe that anyone who is not a Christian is bound to go to Hell. Islam insists that those who are not Muslims are infidels.

When it comes to beliefs, reasoned discussion is not possible.

Even in this forum we have people with superstitions, and equipped with 'handed down ideas from their ancestors that are frozen' ...

Life is ever fresh and our teachings of Truth in our knowledge scriptures are at odds with these beliefs.

The issue of beliefs is not just with Islam but with all religions. But they are cause for greater concern in today's world
 
... 'handed down ideas from their ancestors that are frozen' ...

Life is ever fresh and our teachings of Truth in our knowledge scriptures are at odds with these beliefs.

The issue of beliefs is not just with Islam but with all religions. But they are cause for greater concern in today's world

Like tying the cat/dog to the pole before starting the daily prayers!
Yes I can believe that. But someone like the Mahaperiyava of Kanchi has given meaning to many of our customs and rituals with a modern applicability also. I won't be surprised if we can find Mahaperyava had his explanation for the muslim beliefs too!
I have studied in missionary schools of Christians, Jews and have been brought up at home with good understanding of our Vedic religion too. So I can appreciate all faiths and seek to find commonality rather than differences. I even had a Christian teacher in Hyderabad Grammar school, who had deep knowledge of the muslim religion and would freely quote from the Koran in Urdu. With that level of integration of muslims in our predominantly Hindu society I feel that muslims in India are generally well respected, especially in south India. Everyone appreciates the Bhagavad Gita and it profound significance to life on Earth no matter what religion one belongs to.
I think Hindus should also be familiar with the Bible and the Koran to better appreciate what is common to all.
Here in America we have a Unity Self Realization church as well the Bahai followers church/temple which liberally use all the religious texts of all religions in their services. They do pick and choose certain selected scriptures. But I think that is okay since it unites all.By naming our forum as Tamil Brahmins, we have basically isolated ourselves and all these viewpoints are not known or are appreciated by people of other religions.
 
Our forum is unique because anyone regardless of their meta identity such as their religion, caste, creed, national origin to name a few are welcome to join and participate in the discussions.


Some two decades ago I had gone through Mahaperiyava's Daivatthin Kural (all 7 volumes). He had made an attempt to link some of the religious practices to higher level concepts.


In the end it comes to what the purpose of life is for a person and how a religion (including atheism as a belief) shapes that purpose. All religions including all vintages of Hinduism promotes a belief of what happens after death. That prescription dominates the actions of followers even if they may not admit to this explicitly.


Most of the mainstream religions do preach both common sense values for harmony in living as well as some kind of violence against violators. Most often such ideas alone rarely brings followers together because of their basic beliefs around what happens after death, who their 'God' is and who their prophet/Guru is ! Most have deified their messengers and hence any critique of them will lead to some form of altercation even leading to violence.


The problem is that religion is born out of human mind which likes to divide things and then oppose. So religions will always evolve and go against each other. Because Hindu religion is not founded and does not recognize conversion, it is gentle. Besides our heavens are temporary places only. So the levels of fight does not promote perpetual violence.


The Islam seemingly has an existential crisis because now many of the sub-sects are fighting within each other as per the OP. That need not be a problem because it will lead over time to more divisions within Islam.


There may not be any existential crisis per se.


Hinduism is constantly reinventing new religions - Hare Krishna movement, Shiradi Sai Baba religion (has a Purana already), Sathya Sai baba religion, Iyappa religion (renewed emphasis of the ritualistic visits in the last 30+ years or so), and there are few more I heard of recently though not mainstream. They all have different 'heads' - most are being deified over time.


I included all these ideas, heads and rituals in the phrase I used 'handed down ideas from their ancestors that are frozen'
My intent is not to be disrespectful to any beliefs but to say humanity is under the shackles of such thoughts.
 
No matter how much rightwing folks deride Islam and box it into threat category, the religion will continue to exist; despite wahhabism (which in any case does not represent all muslims). Please remember, persecution of the innocent makes them more defiant.

Conversion by threat of sword was limited. Largest number of conversions happened in British Raj, after the advent of census taking, to escape mental torture and physical cruelty of untouchability. Those who converted are never gonna find peace in a religion which places them at the lowest end of the pecking order or continues to shame them. They would rather stay in Islam. So, deriding their religion is not going to work.

Also, hard arm tactics (used in current regime) will not do. If at all anyone wants to revert to their original religion, which btw is not smartism, they will do so, if it is in their destiny (just as shias are converting to zoroastrianism in a very quiet revolution of sorts).

If anyone thinks becoming polytheistic will make people less prone to violence, please, such a view is just too foolish. It will only take people back to the days when pashupatas, ganapatyas, kapalikas, pancharatrins, and so on were fighting against each other.

Religion does not bring peace by itself. Give a man predisposed to certain tendencies, any religion, he will still behave the same. No matter what religion one may belong to, including Islam, the peaceful will remain peaceful; whilst the power-hungry will remain power-hungry; the extremists will remain extremists, and the violent will remain violent.
 
The Islam seemingly has an existential crisis because now many of the sub-sects are fighting within each other as per the OP. That need not be a problem because it will lead over time to more divisions within Islam.

Hinduism is constantly reinventing new religions - Hare Krishna movement, Shiradi Sai Baba religion (has a Purana already), Sathya Sai baba religion, Iyappa religion (renewed emphasis of the ritualistic visits in the last 30+ years or so), and there are few more I heard of recently though not mainstream. They all have different 'heads' - most are being deified over time.

Though the crisis is quite severe in Islam, the religion is fairly non-controversial, as they seriously follow one God concept, and it is also being accepted mostly in all places.

As regards Hinduism, since it is not organized, those who gains popularity among masses, start his/her own way of worship with so many build-up stories, mostly mythical and superstitious. The new entrant of course is Bhagavatha Religion, preaching like Evangelists: it is Radhe Krishna instead of Alleluio.
 
...
Religion does not bring peace by itself. Give a man predisposed to certain tendencies, any religion, he will still behave the same. No matter what religion one may belong to, including Islam, the peaceful will remain peaceful; whilst the power-hungry will remain power-hungry; the extremists will remain extremists, and the violent will remain violent.
I disagree with this statement. Religion has converted people from good to bad and vice-versa too!
I have seen enough people who have been to wars and killing who come back and adopt religious ways of life and lead very peaceful life thereafter.
I have also seen people who have been very peace loving and then take on religious dogmas and go on to be responsible for massive killings.
Anwar Al-Awlaki is a good example.
 
I disagree with this statement. Religion has converted people from good to bad and vice-versa too!
I have seen enough people who have been to wars and killing who come back and adopt religious ways of life and lead very peaceful life thereafter.
I have also seen people who have been very peace loving and then take on religious dogmas and go on to be responsible for massive killings.

Anwar Al-Awlaki is a good example.
Events, not religion, shape outcomes. As you yourself reckon but do not realize above (sentences in bold). An example for clarity - an Iraqi sunni shouting Allahuakbar goes to war against Irani shias, believing his version is the only truth to be upheld at all costs. The same man with broken bones, an amputated leg, struggling to sleep without pain, lying on a hospital bed wonders what was all that about. He starts searching for spiritual side, unmindful of shia vs sunni, or any other difference with any other religion. Events shaped him. Events decided which side of religion he should search for. Not religion per se. Some may wish to call events 'karma'.
 
Events, not religion, shape outcomes.
Outcomes being "events" themselves. In simple terms events shape subsequent events. In a sense we could say that religion itself is an outcome of certain events.

As you yourself reckon but do not realize above (sentences in bold). An example for clarity - an Iraqi sunni shouting Allahuakbar goes to war against Irani shias, believing his version is the only truth to be upheld at all costs. The same man with broken bones, an amputated leg, struggling to sleep without pain, lying on a hospital bed wonders what was all that about. He starts searching for spiritual side, unmindful of shia vs sunni, or any other difference with any other religion. Events shaped him.
This is one of many possible outcomes (events).

Events decided which side of religion he should search for. Not religion per se. Some may wish to call events 'karma'.
Events do not decide anything at any time. It is rather the individual who has a clarity of perception at some point in time (more than one factor may be involved in this metacognition) and reflects on the whole purpose of it and starts a search for the inner meaning. Perhaps.
 
... It is rather the individual who has a clarity of perception at some point in time (more than one factor may be involved in this metacognition) and reflects on the whole purpose of it and starts a search for the inner meaning. Perhaps.


You should watch the CNN special The Wonder list with Bill Weir - about the Dutch Donald Trump. He talks to a Moroccan artist who has sought asylum in the Netherlands. This artist sums up perfectly saying:
"Religion should be one's personal interaction with one's God and not between two people".
I thought that was a profound observation by a simple man.
At one time Queen Noor of Jordan said something similar too!
 
Abrahamic religions have deep pockets. There will always be enough people coming to their defense! Those religions are not held responsible for any excess. The only time religion is held guilty is when it comes to hinduism or other pagan religions. This is how narratives are created. But like it was said somewhere else, "people are much too aware these days and can judge sources..."
 
Outcomes being "events" themselves. In simple terms events shape subsequent events. In a sense we could say that religion itself is an outcome of certain events.

This is one of many possible outcomes (events).

Events do not decide anything at any time. It is rather the individual who has a clarity of perception at some point in time (more than one factor may be involved in this metacognition) and reflects on the whole purpose of it and starts a search for the inner meaning. Perhaps.
Depends on how you construe. Yep, events shape religion. Here, the post was in response to raysundar's pov, on events shaping individual attitude to religion. For clarity, the same man can continue war-mongering, instead of searching for the spiritual side. In such case, he must be predisposed to violence biologically, and nothing can change him. As it happens, the middle-east was always violent; perhaps since the beginning of human 'civilization' and neither ashur, enki, nanna, anu, nammu, or their grand temples (including that of petra which incidentally follows the same technology of rock cutting from top as some indian sites, such as kailasa temple of ellora do), could change them. Which means, despite the civilizing quality of art, structure, composition value, they still remained with their violent streak. The warring tribes of the middle-east continue to take pride in their warring traditions till date.

Compare with some traditional scotsmen who take great pride in their clan traditions even though they were brutally suppressed by the englishmen after the last jacobite uprising). Despite defeat and forced amalgamation they still rue over their warring traditions (which to them is intrinsically tied with their lost freedom to live their traditional life with their language gaelic, culture, food, beliefs, observances, etc). That just means, suppression does not erase love of the warring tradition.

There are many means and ways to obtaining social power. Warring was/is the commonest, and some men all over the world, are predisposed to it. The quality of power matters though. They could be barbarians, brutal, ruthless or their violence could have some method, reasoning, or some civilizing quality to it. Which just means a power-hungry man will remain power-hungry, a violent one will remain violent and a peaceful man will remain peaceful. Events can change which he wishes to pursue or stick with. Reg your pov in bold, will disagree. There is no one size that fits all. Events can change a highway robber into a shloka composer, or vice-versa.
 
கால பைரவன்;369557 said:
Abrahamic religions have deep pockets. There will always be enough people coming to their defense! Those religions are not held responsible for any excess. The only time religion is held guilty is when it comes to hinduism or other pagan religions. This is how narratives are created. But like it was said somewhere else, "people are much too aware these days and can judge sources..."
So it seems Sravana is not the only one suffering from delusional disorder. Except that Sravana is a harmless gentleman who believes he has some powers. The rest can wallow in their delusions of abrahamic religions and display sheer idiocy.
 
One example of sheer idiocy is to claim opposite things in the same post. Grand claims of predisposed mind and violent man always remaining violent etc are made in the same post as also claims of "events" changing a man. This know it all attitude and condescension towards others (sravna) that is on ample display is also a result of a delusional mind only that no one can really help these people.
 
கால பைரவன்;370049 said:
One example of sheer idiocy is to claim opposite things in the same post. Grand claims of predisposed mind and violent man always remaining violent etc are made in the same post as also claims of "events" changing a man. This know it all attitude and condescension towards others (sravna) that is on ample display is also a result of a delusional mind only that no one can really help these people.
Takes a dimwit not to understand "There is no one size that fits all". Its not opposite things. A man can be biologically predisposed to violence and *in such case* nothing can change him. Events are coequal in determining if that is the case. You are free to delude yourself, as usual, on sravana, anything or anyone else.
 
Takes a dimwit not to understand "There is no one size that fits all". Its not opposite things. A man can be biologically predisposed to violence and *in such case* nothing can change him. Events are coequal in determining if that is the case. You are free to delude yourself, as usual, on sravana, anything or anyone else.

Who is dimwit and pretentious is there for all to see. Funny to see people writing elaborate theories and then claim "no one size fits all". Goes to show that just googling and reading some papers does not impart wisdom. Hopefully people here can see through the hollowness of such posts.
 
So it seems Sravana is not the only one suffering from delusional disorder. Except that Sravana is a harmless gentleman who believes he has some powers. The rest can wallow in their delusions of abrahamic religions and display sheer idiocy.

mssg,

Did you introduce yourself to the forum? I must have missed it if you did. Kindly send a link to your intro.

We have not seen anyone new to the forum referring to other members in a manner that is not respectful. I am not sure if you have interacted with Sri Sravana, but it is not in good taste to refer to anyone as suffering from delusional disorder.

Sometimes we have seen 'newbies' members to be reincarnation of someone known to others . Do we know you already in another incarnation that may explain the kind of remarks you are making?
 
mssg,

Did you introduce yourself to the forum? I must have missed it if you did. Kindly send a link to your intro.

We have not seen anyone new to the forum referring to other members in a manner that is not respectful. I am not sure if you have interacted with Sri Sravana, but it is not in good taste to refer to anyone as suffering from delusional disorder.

Sometimes we have seen 'newbies' members to be reincarnation of someone known to others . Do we know you already in another incarnation that may explain the kind of remarks you are making?

hi

i feel the same..i agreed also....
 
கால பைரவன்;370150 said:
Who is dimwit and pretentious is there for all to see. Funny to see people writing elaborate theories and then claim "no one size fits all". Goes to show that just googling and reading some papers does not impart wisdom. Hopefully people here can see through the hollowness of such posts.
Sure. Everyone has a different viewpoint, let anyone construe things the way they like it. Nobody claims to be wise here :)

mssg,

Did you introduce yourself to the forum? I must have missed it if you did. Kindly send a link to your intro.

We have not seen anyone new to the forum referring to other members in a manner that is not respectful. I am not sure if you have interacted with Sri Sravana, but it is not in good taste to refer to anyone as suffering from delusional disorder.

Sometimes we have seen 'newbies' members to be reincarnation of someone known to others . Do we know you already in another incarnation that may explain the kind of remarks you are making?
Are intros compulsory? From what I know, they are not. I made it clear why I wrote in to Sravana in the spiritual energy thread. I have not said anything different from what other members, like a-TB are saying. I also made it clear am disappointed with Sravana's reponses and will not be disturbing him anymore. He does not even seem to get the last question posted to him. So, it is understood that his response will not be to the point, as usual. Which obviously means am at the fag end of my interaction with him; not requiring further responses from me. Yep, i took the liberty to comment on few other posts (and also disagree with your views). That need not mean am here to stay. So, don't worry. Sravana will know there is no intention to be disrespectful to him. But yeah, you are free to construe anything you wish. Its your intention anyways. Praveen will know me from my email and IP addresses. He will also know that am unsubscribed from all threads since when I began posting here. Which already means, there is no expectation to continue posting here. So, have no worrries and stay cool. If Praveen has an issue, he need not publish my posts. Thanks.
 
Also TKS, there is something called privacy. When someone values their privacy, more so in current times, when certain lobbies behave as "we-all-know-what-they-are", it does not behoove well on your part to expect introductions. You have not introduced yourself in the intro section either. Anyways, am not expecting anything better either from you or Kala-bhairava or TBS. Nor will you see me asking for your introductions. Anyways, each of us know who the other is. Such are connections which go on in that network loop. How pointless can one get.

As for your allegations of disrespect, if any of my previous posts required moderation, they would not be published in the first place. You must be aware that my posts are published minimum 48 hours after I write in, after going thru moderation process. Therefore, if you have an issue with any of my previous posts, go to the moderator and have them deleted. Or, if you are the moderator, go ahead and please delete them. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top