You're this DattaSwami?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

dattaswami
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: DattaSwami a Bullseyes for Islamists?

Post by dattaswami »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:19 am even non-believing is cover within fasadin [mischiefs and corruptions] since non-believing is a threat per se against the religion. There are reputable scholars who support this interpretation which is difficult to refute.
Do you dispute this interpretation?
You shall enlighten them that when Prophet Muhammad came in that part of the world the situation was very worst. People were quarreling with each other in the name of different religions, and innocents were killed. Muhammad took sword to avoid several swords fighting each other. But such situation do not exists now.

The situation now and then are different. The back ground in which Quran was written should be understood properly. You are a good person to make people understand this concept and avoid misunderstanding.
dattaswami
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by dattaswami »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:26 am
As I had stated, WHO ARE YOU to insist YOURS is the 'right interpretation' which is against the literal interpretation by the learned Scholars of Islam?
That is a good question. OK Let us analyse some of the controversial verses found in Quran and let us analyse its right meaning.

I am presenting some of such verses with their right interpretations give below:

A woman inherits half of what a man inherits: Qur'an 4:11
A woman's witness testimony is half of that of a man's: Qur'an 2:282


Women(Qur'an 4:11, 2:282, Qur'an 4:34): In that old context, women were terribly suppressed in all aspects by the ignorant men. This situation existed in every religion and in every region of the world. When you suppressed by somebody, he/she will react and revenge in silent or open ways. Women couldn’t revolt in open ways due their weaker physical strength compared to men.

Showing difference by caste and gender is the climax of ignorance and stupidity. Naturally, women revolted in silent ways by becoming more alert and intelligent than men. Women became experts in cold war. They were trying to retort injustice through curved ways called cheating. Men blamed women as cunning liars. This was true in that situation but such retort was not unjust since diamond should be cut by diamond only.

You cannot blame those women in view of their unjust suppression. Hence, the witness of two women was felt necessary for the truth to come out because of the non-unity of women in those days. Wife being left half of the husband, witness of one man was said to equal to the witness of two women. Suppression of women from education and property made them to become weaker sex.

The divine Prophet gave equal right of property to the women because wealth or money is the basic strength of the entire world. Even in Hinduism the Veda said (Putrebhyo daayam...) that issues (Putra) should divide the property equally. As per Sanskrit grammar (Ekashesha sutra) the word ‘putra’ means both son and daughter. But, the word putra was misinterpreted by men to have the only meaning ‘son’. Selfish souls always pollute the scripture and analysis is the filter to be used for cleaning.

Discipline of the family is essential and one head of the family should exist, be father or be mother. In the old context father (man) remained as head and the entire family including mother (woman) was obeying the head. In the case of disobedience, the family looses unity and discipline. In such case beating was recommended just to induce fear and control.

In this way, if understood properly, this gives justified colour. If misinterpreted in wrong way, it shows atrocity against women. This topic should be carefully and patiently understood and everywhere misinterpretation drags you to side. Today, there are several families in which the woman is the only earning member and happens to be the head of the family. In such case if the husband or children become disobedient, she, as the head of the family can beat her husband or children. Headship is important and not gender.

In the old context, the head was always male, it is said that a disobedient wife should be controlled even by beating. Here, head controlling others is real focus and man controlling women is misinterpreted false focus. If the discipline comes by punishment, the anger should no more continue and no injustice should be done to anyone in anyway keeping past in mind (‘do not seek a way against them...’).

A man may marry the wife of his adopted son: Qur'an 33:4

Adopted son(: This son is not given by God. This type of son is got by the man only. There is no blood relationship between father and adopted son. The widow wife of such adopted son can be married by the father provided both are willing. This applies to a case of mutual willingness and not force to be applied in every case. Extension of it to all cases is again misinterpretation of selfish people.

Turned into Apes: Qur'an 2:65


Apes: Those who oppose the word of God, become undisciplined criminals to be treated as animals and not at all human beings. Animals have no ethics at all. In the animals also apes are very much unstable in psychology. Hence, such unstable criminals doing various types of sins without ethics are best addressed as apes.

A man can have sex with prisoners of war: Qur'an 33:50

Prisoners: The widows of prisoners are to be supported by providing peaceful family life. Here, wedding means maintenance. Husband means he, who maintains a woman (Bibharti iti bhartaa) and wife means she, who is maintained by the husband (Bhriyate iti bhaaryaa). The wedding with Prophet or human incarnation means that such unfortunate widow shall be maintained and supported by God. The word wedding should be taken as in the sense of supporting the widow and her children.

If the widow and the supporter (man) are mutually willing, both can get further children through the sex. This applies to specific cases only to avoid the secret sexual dealings of a widow with many men and marriage with a man is better than that bringing deceases. Rules of ethics differ from case to case and no single rule exists that should be applied to all the cases in all the contexts.

A man can marry a girl who hasn't reached puberty: Qur'an 65:4

Marriage before puberty: This existed in Hinduism also in a specific span of time and not necessary for all the times. The Manusmuruti says that a girl should be married in her 8th year (Astavarshaa bhavet...). The Veda says that the girl should be married after 16th year (Maa me dabhraani...).

This difference is based on the different contexts. A time was there when the girls were forcibly taken away for marriage. But, if the girl was married, she was leftover. To this context the first scripture applies. The normal context of all times was that such danger of looting unmarried girls was absent, which is even in the present time and to this context the second scripture applies.

In such normal span of time, a grown up girl has grown up mentally also to select her husband. This process called svayamvaram existed in which a grown up girl interviews various grooms directly and makes her own selection with full freedom. Hence, such rules are specific for specific contexts only and this is very very important point.


A man may marry four wives: Qur'an 4:3


Four wives: This rule again applies to a specific context of time and region in which a man was marrying many many girls based on his power of money and rowdy nature. Such infinite number is reduced to four and here one is also suggested. Hence, from case to case the number varies from one to four. A soul can’t do justice to more than four based on the condition of health in that time.


"Cut off their hands": Qur'an 5:38 & Qur'an 5:33

Cutting hands of thieves: This again differs from context to context. When the sin of stealing reached climax and not controlled by any punishment, the last resort of the punishment was this. This can’t be applied to another context where the sin is under control.


Sura 5:33 orders the cutting off of the hands and feet of those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger.



Cutting hands and feet of opponents of Prophet: Jesus was the Prophet before Mohammad as agreed by Islam also. His hands and feet were cruelly nailed. Such criminals opposing God should be given this punishment. Jesus indicated that He and His father are one and the same (Monism).

The anger for crucifixion came at this point. Jesus told the absolute truth as said by Shankara. The ego and jealousy of other co-human beings reached climax and Jesus was brutally killed. To avoid this horrible crime from which no involved soul can ever be excused by God, Prophet Mohammad established dualism (God and soul are totally different) and separated Allah from His messenger. Though He was human incarnation of Allah, to avoid such anger of God on souls, He rejected monism based on the context.

In fact, both theories are correct and one and the same. When current flows through wire, current (God) is inseparable from the wire (messenger) and the electrified wire shows the property of electricity (shocking) whenever and wherever touched. For all practical purposes though both are different, remain as one and the same. The electrified wire is called as electricity itself.

Prophet Mohammad criticized Jews and Christians in old context only and not in all contexts of all times. The reason for such criticism was only in the context of crucifixion of Jesus, since He was crucified on twisted background of political offence of anti Government, though the hidden real reason was the disliked spiritual knowledge of Jesus.

He was aiming at the religious leaders and their followers only, who plotted the crucifixion in most cunning way and hence friendship with such people should not be done. The latter generations should repent to do such act again and this was the main aim of criticising their latter generations after a long time and this criticism subsequently applies to all.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: DattaSwami a Bullseyes for Islamists?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

dattaswami wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:27 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:19 am even non-believing is cover within fasadin [mischiefs and corruptions] since non-believing is a threat per se against the religion. There are reputable scholars who support this interpretation which is difficult to refute.
Do you dispute this interpretation?
You shall enlighten them that when Prophet Muhammad came in that part of the world the situation was very worst. People were quarreling with each other in the name of different religions, and innocents were killed. Muhammad took sword to avoid several swords fighting each other. But such situation do not exists now.

The situation now and then are different. The back ground in which Quran was written should be understood properly. You are a good person to make people understand this concept and avoid misunderstanding.
How come you are so ignorant to insist there is no quarreling at present?
There are still many sects of Muslims who are quarreling amongst themselves.
There are still other religions which Muslims see them as enemies, especially Judaism, Christianity and other religions that is not Islam.

I said you are so ignorant of the Quran.

I repeat my point 5:33 again;
  • Quran 5-33: Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger,
    and go about the earth spreading mischief1
    -indeed their recompense is that they either be done to death, or be crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off from the opposite sides or be banished from the land.2
    Such shall be their degradation in this world; and a mighty chastisement lies in store for them in the World to Come
    — Tafheem-ul-Quran - Abul Ala Maududi
The critical word here is 'mischief' i.e. "fasadin" [root Fasād (Arabic: فساد [fasaːd]) is an Arabic word meaning rottenness, corruption, or depravity] which has a very loose meaning extending to anything negative against the religion.

Currently you are committing mischief [fasadin] and 5:33 sanction killing of those who cause 'mischief' [fasadin] to Islam.

There is no way, you, me or anyone else can change the real meaning of the religion to be foolproof in preventing SOME [up to 8 million] from obeying the literal commands of their God.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

dattaswami wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:26 am
As I had stated, WHO ARE YOU to insist YOURS is the 'right interpretation' which is against the literal interpretation by the learned Scholars of Islam?
That is a good question. OK Let us analyse some of the controversial verses found in Quran and let us analyse its right meaning.

I am presenting some of such verses with their right interpretations give below:

A woman inherits half of what a man inherits: Qur'an 4:11
A woman's witness testimony is half of that of a man's: Qur'an 2:282


Women(Qur'an 4:11, 2:282, Qur'an 4:34): In that old context, women were terribly suppressed in all aspects by the ignorant men. This situation existed in every religion and in every region of the world. When you suppressed by somebody, he/she will react and revenge in silent or open ways. Women couldn’t revolt in open ways due their weaker physical strength compared to men.

Showing difference by caste and gender is the climax of ignorance and stupidity. Naturally, women revolted in silent ways by becoming more alert and intelligent than men. Women became experts in cold war. They were trying to retort injustice through curved ways called cheating. Men blamed women as cunning liars. This was true in that situation but such retort was not unjust since diamond should be cut by diamond only.

You cannot blame those women in view of their unjust suppression. Hence, the witness of two women was felt necessary for the truth to come out because of the non-unity of women in those days. Wife being left half of the husband, witness of one man was said to equal to the witness of two women. Suppression of women from education and property made them to become weaker sex.

The divine Prophet gave equal right of property to the women because wealth or money is the basic strength of the entire world. Even in Hinduism the Veda said (Putrebhyo daayam...) that issues (Putra) should divide the property equally. As per Sanskrit grammar (Ekashesha sutra) the word ‘putra’ means both son and daughter. But, the word putra was misinterpreted by men to have the only meaning ‘son’. Selfish souls always pollute the scripture and analysis is the filter to be used for cleaning.

Discipline of the family is essential and one head of the family should exist, be father or be mother. In the old context father (man) remained as head and the entire family including mother (woman) was obeying the head. In the case of disobedience, the family looses unity and discipline. In such case beating was recommended just to induce fear and control.

In this way, if understood properly, this gives justified colour. If misinterpreted in wrong way, it shows atrocity against women. This topic should be carefully and patiently understood and everywhere misinterpretation drags you to side. Today, there are several families in which the woman is the only earning member and happens to be the head of the family. In such case if the husband or children become disobedient, she, as the head of the family can beat her husband or children. Headship is important and not gender.

In the old context, the head was always male, it is said that a disobedient wife should be controlled even by beating. Here, head controlling others is real focus and man controlling women is misinterpreted false focus. If the discipline comes by punishment, the anger should no more continue and no injustice should be done to anyone in anyway keeping past in mind (‘do not seek a way against them...’).

A man may marry the wife of his adopted son: Qur'an 33:4

Adopted son(: This son is not given by God. This type of son is got by the man only. There is no blood relationship between father and adopted son. The widow wife of such adopted son can be married by the father provided both are willing. This applies to a case of mutual willingness and not force to be applied in every case. Extension of it to all cases is again misinterpretation of selfish people.

Turned into Apes: Qur'an 2:65


Apes: Those who oppose the word of God, become undisciplined criminals to be treated as animals and not at all human beings. Animals have no ethics at all. In the animals also apes are very much unstable in psychology. Hence, such unstable criminals doing various types of sins without ethics are best addressed as apes.

A man can have sex with prisoners of war: Qur'an 33:50

Prisoners: The widows of prisoners are to be supported by providing peaceful family life. Here, wedding means maintenance. Husband means he, who maintains a woman (Bibharti iti bhartaa) and wife means she, who is maintained by the husband (Bhriyate iti bhaaryaa). The wedding with Prophet or human incarnation means that such unfortunate widow shall be maintained and supported by God. The word wedding should be taken as in the sense of supporting the widow and her children.

If the widow and the supporter (man) are mutually willing, both can get further children through the sex. This applies to specific cases only to avoid the secret sexual dealings of a widow with many men and marriage with a man is better than that bringing deceases. Rules of ethics differ from case to case and no single rule exists that should be applied to all the cases in all the contexts.

A man can marry a girl who hasn't reached puberty: Qur'an 65:4

Marriage before puberty: This existed in Hinduism also in a specific span of time and not necessary for all the times. The Manusmuruti says that a girl should be married in her 8th year (Astavarshaa bhavet...). The Veda says that the girl should be married after 16th year (Maa me dabhraani...).

This difference is based on the different contexts. A time was there when the girls were forcibly taken away for marriage. But, if the girl was married, she was leftover. To this context the first scripture applies. The normal context of all times was that such danger of looting unmarried girls was absent, which is even in the present time and to this context the second scripture applies.

In such normal span of time, a grown up girl has grown up mentally also to select her husband. This process called svayamvaram existed in which a grown up girl interviews various grooms directly and makes her own selection with full freedom. Hence, such rules are specific for specific contexts only and this is very very important point.


A man may marry four wives: Qur'an 4:3


Four wives: This rule again applies to a specific context of time and region in which a man was marrying many many girls based on his power of money and rowdy nature. Such infinite number is reduced to four and here one is also suggested. Hence, from case to case the number varies from one to four. A soul can’t do justice to more than four based on the condition of health in that time.


"Cut off their hands": Qur'an 5:38 & Qur'an 5:33

Cutting hands of thieves: This again differs from context to context. When the sin of stealing reached climax and not controlled by any punishment, the last resort of the punishment was this. This can’t be applied to another context where the sin is under control.


Sura 5:33 orders the cutting off of the hands and feet of those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger.



Cutting hands and feet of opponents of Prophet: Jesus was the Prophet before Mohammad as agreed by Islam also. His hands and feet were cruelly nailed. Such criminals opposing God should be given this punishment. Jesus indicated that He and His father are one and the same (Monism).

The anger for crucifixion came at this point. Jesus told the absolute truth as said by Shankara. The ego and jealousy of other co-human beings reached climax and Jesus was brutally killed. To avoid this horrible crime from which no involved soul can ever be excused by God, Prophet Mohammad established dualism (God and soul are totally different) and separated Allah from His messenger. Though He was human incarnation of Allah, to avoid such anger of God on souls, He rejected monism based on the context.

In fact, both theories are correct and one and the same. When current flows through wire, current (God) is inseparable from the wire (messenger) and the electrified wire shows the property of electricity (shocking) whenever and wherever touched. For all practical purposes though both are different, remain as one and the same. The electrified wire is called as electricity itself.

Prophet Mohammad criticized Jews and Christians in old context only and not in all contexts of all times. The reason for such criticism was only in the context of crucifixion of Jesus, since He was crucified on twisted background of political offence of anti Government, though the hidden real reason was the disliked spiritual knowledge of Jesus.

He was aiming at the religious leaders and their followers only, who plotted the crucifixion in most cunning way and hence friendship with such people should not be done. The latter generations should repent to do such act again and this was the main aim of criticising their latter generations after a long time and this criticism subsequently applies to all.
WHO ARE YOU and what authority do you have to insist YOURS is the right meaning according to what the God intended?

If you were to present the above interpretation to real Muslims they will accuse you of blasphemy, i.e. bidah, i.e. mischief, thus can be killed in accordance with 5:33.
In Islam, bid'ah (Arabic: بدعة; English: innovation) refers to innovation in religious matters.

In religious matters
"A newly invented way [beliefs or action] in the religion, in imitation of the Shariah (prescribed Law), by which nearness to Allah is sought, [but] not being supported by any authentic proof - neither in its foundations, nor in the manner in which it is performed."[10][non-primary source needed]
"Carrying out actions which displease Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala and his messenger" Muhammad. (Muhammad ibn Isa at-Tirmidhi).[11][non-primary source needed]
"New things that have no basis in the Qurʼan or Sunnah" (Ibn Rajab).[12][non-primary source needed]
bid'ah is always bad but if a new thing has origins in the Qurʼan and Sunnah it is to be called Bid’ah Logaviyya (verbal innovation), (Ibn Taymiyyah).[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid%27ah# ... us_matters
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by Lacewing »

Does it matter which face is used to represent this concept?

Image
Last edited by Lacewing on Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
dattaswami
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by dattaswami »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:40 am

As I had stated, WHO ARE YOU to insist YOURS is the 'right interpretation' which is against the literal interpretation by the learned Scholars of Islam?
From your replies i am deducting that you have gone through the Quran very nicely and you yourself have a conviction that those controversial verses shall not be taken in a literal sense without knowing the then existing circumstances in which those verses were told by Prophet Muhammad and those situation do not exists now. Hence shall not be extrapolated to the present to kill somebody...

Your inner consciousness shall be your judge to decide about the truthfulness of any sentences in any scripture of any religion. The sentences shall be subjected to sharp logical analysis to find out the truth. God is the most genius and HE will never say any thing illogical. If any illogical statements are there in the scripture be sure that that is an insertion by a vested interest. Therefore God Himself says that one shall analyse with sharp logical analysis to filter out such illogical statements from the scripture.

As friend of humanity, you can help in people not fight each other by giving logical explanations.
dattaswami
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by dattaswami »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:40 am
If you were to present the above interpretation to real Muslims they will accuse you of blasphemy, i.e. bidah, i.e. mischief, thus can be killed in accordance with 5:33.
Now known the truth you shall teach such people that this verse shall not be interpreted in that way now. It is now your duty to establish peace in the society. You should work towards that...
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

dattaswami wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:40 am

As I had stated, WHO ARE YOU to insist YOURS is the 'right interpretation' which is against the literal interpretation by the learned Scholars of Islam?
From your replies i am deducting that you have gone through the Quran very nicely and you yourself have a conviction that those controversial verses shall not be taken in a literal sense without knowing the then existing circumstances in which those verses were told by Prophet Muhammad and those situation do not exists now. Hence shall not be extrapolated to the present to kill somebody...

Your inner consciousness shall be your judge to decide about the truthfulness of any sentences in any scripture of any religion. The sentences shall be subjected to sharp logical analysis to find out the truth. God is the most genius and HE will never say any thing illogical. If any illogical statements are there in the scripture be sure that that is an insertion by a vested interest. Therefore God Himself says that one shall analyse with sharp logical analysis to filter out such illogical statements from the scripture.

As friend of humanity, you can help in people not fight each other by giving logical explanations.
I'll leave you to your own thinking but note those [Muʿtazilites 8th-10th Century BCE] who tried to be the most rational Muslims long time ago had failed.
The later Mu'tazila school developed an Islamic type of rationalism, partly influenced by Ancient Greek philosophy, based around three fundamental principles: the oneness (Tawhid) and justice (Al-'adl) of God,[4] human freedom of action, and the creation of the Quran.[5]

The Muʿtazilites are best known for rejecting the doctrine of the Quran as uncreated and co-eternal with God,[6] asserting that if the Quran is the literal word of God, he logically "must have preceded his own speech".[7]
This went against the orthodox Sunni position (followed by the Ashʿarī, Māturīdī and the Traditionalist (Athari) schools[7]) which argued that with God being all knowing, his knowledge of the Quran must have been eternal, hence uncreated just like him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazila
One point is the Quran is grounded on the irrational [i.e. faith] and no amount of rationality will be able to overcome evil based on irrationality especially on the matter of religion where the ultimate ground is driven by the human psyche.

In contrast Christianity is also grounded on the irrational, i.e. faith, but fortunately the originators has the intuition and wisdom to ground and nail it on absolute pacifism, thus good for all till eternity.

As I had stated I have done detailed researched and analysis of the Quran 6236 verses and >77,000 words.
>3400 of the verses i.e. 55% contain elements which condemned the non-believers [kafir] with intense hatred and negativity.
>300 verses are condoned violence against non-believers.
>50% of the verses imply if believers do not comply with the literal words of God they will be doomed to terrible hellfire.
the Quran is worst than Mein Kempf
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1267974713282439
With the above, how can one overcome and interpret the above to be non-violent.

It is possible to convince Muslims to be good humans but there is no way one can change what is inherent in the Constitution of the Religion.
The fact is in any human population there is always a small % of evil laden people. If there are various degree of evil prone people say, 20%, that would be 300 million of them all around the world feasting on those literal verses which are immutable.
It is a fact within psychology 1% of humans are psychopaths.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Dec 28, 2022 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

dattaswami wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:01 am
blah blah blah I'm in love with myself blah blah blah...
You're a wanker.
dattaswami
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by dattaswami »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 9:10 am



It is possible to convince Muslims to be good humans but there is no way one can change what is inherent in the Constitution of the Religion.
The fact is in any human population there is always a small % of evil laden people. If there are various degree of evil prone people say, 20%, that would be 300 million of them all around the world feasting on those literal verses which are immutable.
It is a fact within psychology 1% of humans are psychopaths.
There is a reason why I explained this concept on the basis of logic. The powerful logic behind the concept itself is the strongest scriptural authority. When such strong logic exists, no separate theoretical quotation from the scripture is needed. If strong logic to support a concept is absent and it is only supported by quoting the scripture, it must be rejected. If it is not logical, it should be treated as some insertion in the scripture. Such inserted wrong concepts should be rejected. There is no need to feel sorry about calling such an insertion in the scripture as an insertion. In fact, knowingly treating a wrong insertion in the scripture to be genuine is very bad. It is said that if you are bitten on your finger by a snake, you should immediately cut off the finger without any foolish attachment towards it or else the poison will spread all over your body and kill you (Anguliivoragakshataa). A certain concept from a genuine scripture like the Veda or Gita might be accepted by others to be genuine. But if it is proved to be wrong upon analysis, it must be rejected. One must leave foolish and blind attachment towards the scripture in favor of the truth. Logical analysis is greater than the scripture.
dattaswami
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by dattaswami »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 9:10 am

One point is the Quran is grounded on the irrational [i.e. faith] and no amount of rationality will be able to overcome evil based on irrationality especially on the matter of religion where the ultimate ground is driven by the human psyche.

In contrast Christianity is also grounded on the irrational, i.e. faith, but fortunately the originators has the intuition and wisdom to ground and nail it on absolute pacifism, thus good for all till eternity.
Regarding Jihad or the fight against injustice, it was also confined to the context of external atmosphere present in His time. There were several religions having their own individual gods resulting in the multiplicity of single God. Prophet Muhammad established the concept of single God called as Allah without any medium (the unimaginable God).

Of course, He agreed to the mediation of unimaginable God by formless light, in which human form leading to the danger of crucifixion is totally negated. In His time, the multiplicity of all these ignorant religions resulted in mutual fights ending with mutual killings. He wanted to stop these fights with the help of a fight called as Jihad or fight against the injustice of killing each other.

The clue in this is that a thorn can be removed only by another thorn. Real followers of Mohammed understand this and use Jihad for stopping killing each other, which is not to be used to kill each other! Prophet Mohammed said that one should reveal the message of Allah to every human being and leave it safely in its house after protecting it from every external damage. His real concept is not understood by some followers because original preacher is always a shining diamond and the followers are always black charcoals twisting the meaning always with misinterpretation.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

dattaswami wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 9:23 am There is a reason why I explained this concept on the basis of logic. The powerful logic behind the concept itself is the strongest scriptural authority. When such strong logic exists, no separate theoretical quotation from the scripture is needed. If strong logic to support a concept is absent and it is only supported by quoting the scripture, it must be rejected. If it is not logical, it should be treated as some insertion in the scripture. Such inserted wrong concepts should be rejected. There is no need to feel sorry about calling such an insertion in the scripture as an insertion. In fact, knowingly treating a wrong insertion in the scripture to be genuine is very bad. It is said that if you are bitten on your finger by a snake, you should immediately cut off the finger without any foolish attachment towards it or else the poison will spread all over your body and kill you (Anguliivoragakshataa). A certain concept from a genuine scripture like the Veda or Gita might be accepted by others to be genuine. But if it is proved to be wrong upon analysis, it must be rejected. One must leave foolish and blind attachment towards the scripture in favor of the truth. Logical analysis is greater than the scripture.
Logic is limited.
Have you read the research by Antonio Damasio?
It is something like 'logic is the slave of passion'

As I had stated I have done detailed researched and analysis of the Quran 6236 verses and >77,000 words.
>3400 of the verses i.e. 55% contain elements which condemned the non-believers [kafir] with intense hatred and negativity.
>300 verses are condoned violence against non-believers.
>50% of the verses imply if believers do not comply with the literal words of God they will be doomed to terrible hellfire.
the Quran is worst than Mein Kempf
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1267974713282439

With the above, how can one overcome and interpret the above to be non-violent.
Logic is useless with the above.
dattaswami
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by dattaswami »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 9:10 am

As I had stated I have done detailed researched and analysis of the Quran 6236 verses and >77,000 words.
>3400 of the verses i.e. 55% contain elements which condemned the non-believers [kafir] with intense hatred and negativity.
>300 verses are condoned violence against non-believers.
>50% of the verses imply if believers do not comply with the literal words of God they will be doomed to terrible hellfire.
the Quran is worst than Mein Kempf

With the above, how can one overcome and interpret the above to be non-violent.

It is possible to convince Muslims to be good humans but there is no way one can change what is inherent in the Constitution of the Religion.
The fact is in any human population there is always a small % of evil laden people. If there are various degree of evil prone people say, 20%, that would be 300 million of them all around the world feasting on those literal verses which are immutable.
It is a fact within psychology 1% of humans are psychopaths.
Please do not think that I am criticizing the divine scripture by lowering its value. I have to say this because peoples's blind fascination for the scripture, setting aside logical analysis, must be condemned. I am not criticizing the divine scripture. The wrong concept is not genuinely part of the genuine scripture. It is only an insertion made by an ignorant person who wants his wrong concept to be accepted by people like you. He inserted it in a genuine scripture so that people will accept it without question. He is exploiting the position of sacredness given to the divine scripture.

You must realize one basic point: How can God, the author of the divine scripture speak such illogical wrong concepts? Such wrong and illogical concepts were definitely not told by Him! This one point makes logical analysis occupy a higher place than the scripture. The logical analysis reveals what is actually spoken by God and what is inserted by ignorant or crooked people in the scripture. The purpose of giving this entire background is to emphasize the point that a concept supported by sharp logical analysis itself is the scripture. Whether such a concept is found in the divine scripture or not is not important. In any case, there is always the possibility of insertions and corruption of any scripture, so accepting any statement from the scripture without analysis is foolish.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

dattaswami wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 9:32 am I'm a con man.
Go back to scamming idiots. We aren't so stupid on here.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: You're this DattaSwami?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

dattaswami wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 9:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 9:10 am

One point is the Quran is grounded on the irrational [i.e. faith] and no amount of rationality will be able to overcome evil based on irrationality especially on the matter of religion where the ultimate ground is driven by the human psyche.

In contrast Christianity is also grounded on the irrational, i.e. faith, but fortunately the originators has the intuition and wisdom to ground and nail it on absolute pacifism, thus good for all till eternity.
Regarding Jihad or the fight against injustice, it was also confined to the context of external atmosphere present in His time. There were several religions having their own individual gods resulting in the multiplicity of single God. Prophet Muhammad established the concept of single God called as Allah without any medium (the unimaginable God).

Of course, He agreed to the mediation of unimaginable God by formless light, in which human form leading to the danger of crucifixion is totally negated. In His time, the multiplicity of all these ignorant religions resulted in mutual fights ending with mutual killings. He wanted to stop these fights with the help of a fight called as Jihad or fight against the injustice of killing each other.

The clue in this is that a thorn can be removed only by another thorn. Real followers of Mohammed understand this and use Jihad for stopping killing each other, which is not to be used to kill each other! Prophet Mohammed said that one should reveal the message of Allah to every human being and leave it safely in its house after protecting it from every external damage. His real concept is not understood by some followers because original preacher is always a shining diamond and the followers are always black charcoals twisting the meaning always with misinterpretation.
Btw, 'Jihad' in the Quran literally means "striving".
But it is only in the full context that 'jihad' become a war cry for killing non-believers.

I asked again have you ever read the 6236 verses and analyze the >77,000 words of the Quran thoroughly?
If not, it would be wise for you admit you just don't have any credibility to jump to conclusion re the above.
Post Reply