2S
Techie. Writer. Photographer.
Archive for religion
October 11, 2007 at 8:27 pm · Filed under religion, terrorism
For anyone fascinated by dargahs like yours truly, the Hazrat Khawaja Moinuddin Hasan Chisty dargah in Ajmer would definitely be on the radar, at some point of time in life. At the risk of repeating this fact, dargahs are typically visited by people from all cultures, religious and races. The Ajmer Dargah makes a very statement on it’s website, what is quite obviously the dargah’s mission statement, one that Khwaja Sahib carved in timeless stone.
Love towards all, malice towards none.
The Ajmer dargah - like most other dargahs - welcome every human being with the same warmth, irrespective of caste, creed or colour. It is in these premises where Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs stand shoulder-to-shoulder united seeking the blessings of a divine force. Neither room nor tolerance towards any kind of aggression. The only bond between these saints and their disciples is that of love, and nothing else.
Khwaja Sahib was believed to be a great scholar - one of the many who understood Islam to be a religion of peace and love. By being compassionate to every human being, irrespective if they are Muslim or otherwise, these saints won the hearts of many (and continue to do so) hence uniting people in ways more than one.
On the other hand are the religious extremists who are either horribly brainwashed in negativity and ‘revenge’, or use religion as a front for their political agenda.
What the blasted cowards have done today is not just bomb a dargah. They’ve attacked our unity. We can only respond by strengthening the bonds among ourselves, while filling in the gaps that extremism attempts to exploit.
There ought to be no room for racist differences in India. Maybe it’s a bold statement, but when you really do have ‘love towards all and malice towards none’, you’ve taken one mighty leap towards peace.
Peace. God knows our country needs it, as does the rest of the world.
October 9, 2007 at 12:59 pm · Filed under debates, religion
With all due respect, Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran - who is supposedly responsible for the Vatican’s main liaison agency with the Islamic world, needs to do better if he wants to promote peace amongst Christianity and other religions.
Consider this report where he highlights the “extreme” case of Saudi Arabia where freedom of religion was “violated absolutely” with “no Christian churches and a ban on celebrating Mass, even in a private home”. He started off well, calling for a “culture of peace and solidarity that honours all human creatures” (although I think other animals should be loved too, but hey) - but the statement above that teases to link Islam and extremism is uncalled for.
A word of caution for the Guardian too (in fact, more than just a word) - their title reads “Vatican urges Muslim respect for all faiths”, it talks about a Cardinal showing concerns over extremism in Saudi Arabia, and it also carries a paragraph which reads:
The cardinal’s Eid greeting does not single out Muslims for criticism - his appeals are aimed at “religious believers” - nor does he make a direct link between Islam and violence.
Rrrright. And pigs fly.
So Saudi Arabia is extreme in its approach, which is why it doesn’t go down too well with the non-Muslim community. I’ve known a few Christians and Hindus I worked with who feared being sent to that country on an assignment. But tell you what - the KSA was never known to be too compassionate towards people from other faiths anyway. They’ve always been regarded (and recognized) as the custodians of Islam, they’ve always propagated the religious importance of Mecca throughout the country, and the bottom-line is, they are an Islamic state - they’re very clear on what they permit in their nation.
The Vatican ought to focus on improving their relationships with the Muslim world constructively than ‘urging them to respect all faiths’, sprinkling in chatter on terrorism and extremism. It paints a two-faced picture of them that really doesn’t help, considering that this is the same Vatican who protested against the construction of Mosque in Nazareth.
May I also remind the Vatican that the Muslim community, in general, has been more compassionate towards Christians than any other religion. In the ‘metropolitan’ city of Dubai, the commercial hub in the ‘Islamic’ government of the United Arab Emirates, there are at least two Catholic churches and one Protestant church. Orthodox too.
And two lame excuses for Hindu temples.
Sharjah - the most cultured (and extreme) Islamic city in the Emirates - has a church as well, as does Abu Dhabi. No temple in any of those cities. 140kms - Abu Dhabi to Dubai - is a long distance to travel atleast once a week, don’t you think, for someone who wants to offer worship?
Talk about cross-cultural marriages, an upcoming trend in today’s day and age where cultural harmony is peaking, Islam permits more compatibility and is more lenient to Catholics marrying people of their faith. In hindsight and at the grassroots, Catholics and Muslims are a lot closer to each other than the Vatican suggests.
I, for one, got nothing against the Christians (or the Hindus, or the Muslims, or the Sikhs - or any religion for that matter). I went to a Catholic school, I was schooled by nuns, our sweaty bunch of volleyball enthusiasts would prostrate in front of Mary outside Church, we went to Mass even, helped decorate Christmas trees and even built a Crib to celebrate and signify the birth of Christ. I don’t need anyone to tell me how compassionate the Christian people are, how peace-loving and optimistic they are, and how warm their homes are.
It just sickens me to think that the ‘custodians’ of such a wonderful community pass such comments at a global level. It fuels hatred for not-so-fortunate Hindus and Muslims who believe what they hear and read without actually sharing their lives with the Christians, or vice-versa.
In any case, chances of Muslims listening to “the Pope’s interfaith expert” are remote, to say the least.
September 19, 2007 at 11:31 am · Filed under personal, religion
My heart breaks into a soulful scowl everytime I think about it. Why is it so difficult for the world to accept two people as they are? Why is it oh-so-impossible for a guy and a girl to just lead a sweet little life sugarcoated with the one thing that makes the world go round? What does religion have to do with all this anyway?
A lot. For one thing, legitimacy.
But of course, it isn’t as easy as simply ‘loving’ one another, is it? With feelings come a sense of responsibility - a ‘legitimate’ relationship, if you like, and to sustain the wretched aforementioned ‘L’ word, one needs to have what they call religious compatibility. Because we live in what they call soceity. After all, what would the neighbors think? What would family think? Friends? We can’t just seclude ourselves from the crowd, can we? We all need to co-exist. It matters.
Balls.
Let me tell you what matters. A guy, a girl, and their feelings coupled with the mental maturity to spend the rest of their lives without bitching too much at each other. Period. And yes, because the family has to be ‘taken forward’, the guy’s manhood must work and the woman follows ten minutes of pleasure with nine months in pain. That’s a given - it happens all the time - so before we digress to much, yes - sex.
Oops. Therein lies the problem. That damned ‘L’ word again. What of the kids?
A common scenario, for the heck of it. Hindu guy, Muslim woman. They love each other. Kapish? Nope. Marriage? Sex? Children? But who cares? The couple love one another, and that’s what matters right? The child will grow up and be just fine. But a few questions first.
What does the ‘Hindu law in the nation’ (whatever the fuck that might be) call the child? Take a guess? Yes, but of course - illegitimate. And what does Islam call the child? Take three guesses or three hundred, but we all know it.
Where does this leave the product of love bastard? What does it feel like to wake up one day questioning your own legitimacy in soceity? Is this the price one has to pay for love? Didn’t God and Love go hand in hand, when we last checked?
“He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love.” - John 4:8
To the rest of the world, it’s a quote from the Bible. To me, it’s a paradox.
I don’t care about myself or anyone being bastardised. I don’t care if someone’s a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or even a Satanist. Because all roads lead to Rome, and one day the world will wake the fuck up to this reality.
September 17, 2007 at 1:00 am · Filed under politics, religion
I detest it.
Not ‘a’ religion. Not the fact that one subscribes to a religion. But the very idea of blinding yourself in a belief if it comes in the way of others. It pulls people down, it pulls a nation down, it makes us incompatible with one another. It comes in the way of co-existence. It hampers development and growth.
And you know what? Every religion does it. The supernatural forces don’t - their disciples do. The books might not - the interpretation does. And how long are we going to keep consoling ourselves into believing that the root cause is not the religion, but the interpretation? Religion doesn’t mean harm - but it inflicts damage on us if it blinds us to extremism. Similarly, I didn’t wake up one day intending to despise the idea of religion, but if it leads us to destruction, then such a belief can be damned.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not asking people to give up their religious beliefs for the ’cause of the nation’ - that’s not it. Religious harmony is what we need. But, pray tell me, of what use are some religious beliefs when they come in the way of development? Or worse - when they come in the way of one another?
The Ram Setu issue has provoked many to write about it. More importantly, write and do little, and since I’m no different, here I am with my opinion - not on the project itself - but on my take on religion.
Before that, a quick reality check, if I may. Are we a secular nation, or are we pretending to be one? Secularism in India means we separate religious beliefs from national interests. It calls for the exclusion of religious considerations from civil affairs.
Those who agree that we are indeed secular, or those who want us to be secular, ought to oppose any force that denies the development. Yes, no one is asking for the cancellation of the project, but even a ‘realignment’ incurs a heavy cost on an already corrupt set of coffers. Do we want that?
I grew up on Amar Chitra Kathas, and I was in total awe of the epic Ramayana. Every single bit, including the construction of the bridge. But, pray tell me, what’s the big deal about it in today’s day and age? The place serves a purpose, a materialistic purpose - if you may - then why the big hulla over it?
Some people do claim that there is no documented proof if Ram ever existed. To me, Ram’s existence is not to be questioned. It’s simply irrelevant. Can we quantify the damage to Hindu heritage if indeed Sethu Samudram goes through? Does it amount to more than the benefits? Can’t we just live with the damage?
If we go on living in this cover-up of secularism, then we would have hit the brakes on our development - as a nation and as a race of people - while we allow religious extremists to hamper it. The Sethu Samudram project holds the same interest with me as the fact that Beyonce Knowles missed a kiss at an award ceremony. I don’t care about the project one bit.
What I do care about, is development.
In which case, religion and all other irrelevant matters must take the backseat, thank you very much. When I sit back and look at what our nation and our people have been through, it’s disheartening. The Bombay blasts. Godhra riots. Babri Masjid. Hyderabad blasts. Many more come to mind. Lives, wasted. Yes - they are political issues and not religious - but the fuel and they key lies with religious extremism. No one can deny that.
And, hey, India was supposed to be the spiritual answer to the world? We pride on co-existence and on religious harmony - and yes, there haven’t exactly been rivers of blood compared to what other nations might have gone through if they had a million beliefs bundled in one nation - but when it comes in the way of taking life, it sucks.
Hence, I detest religion - primarily because of the intensity it carries with it, and the brainwashing capabilities, notwithstanding the peace it brings to the heart. It’s the extremism that murders it. For me, it divides us at a very, very granular level. In our minds, our hearts, and our souls. Religious extremism makes a man kill his own kind. It’s what we would call the work of Satan.
I’ll hit the brakes here, with a few quotes from the Dalai Lama, an individual I respect above most mortals.
This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness. Whether you believe in God or not does not matter so much, whether you believe in Buddha or not does not matter so much. You must lead a good life.
My nation is now sprinting ahead, trying to break free from the iron leash that restricts it from reaching prosperity and communal harmony. We must all work towards taking it forward.
Call me agnostic, call me an atheist, but the Gods can sit this one out.
August 28, 2007 at 3:09 pm · Filed under religion
There still is speculation as to the real origins of the festival of Raksha Bandhan, or simply Rakhi - which is today. The most common (and popular) one dates back to the epic Mahabharata, where Draupadi tears a piece of silk off her sari and wraps it around Krishna’s wrist to stop the flow of blood. Krishna, moved by incident, vows to protect her in return. Which he did, by elongating her sari, preventing the Kauravas from disrobing her. But is it a Hindu festival? Yes and no. Yes, because hey - it’s so tightly coupled with Hindu teachings. No, because the Sikhs celebrate it too, in spite of acknowledging it as a pagan practice. As do many other people, yes - Muslims and Parsis inclusive. Because, in case you’re wondering, ours is a secular nation, and it is inevitable that harmless religious practices find themselves overlapping across other faiths.
So when I looked at this rediff interview, and more importantly, at one of the comments at the end which suggests that the Rakhi is un-Islamic, I had the same reaction that you might have - what the heck?
Just in case that comment gets written off as abuse, these are the exact words: ‘Rakhi is forbidden in Islam. Be careful. Some mulla may issue fatwa.’
Many ‘learned’ Muslims who think they know the religion have rubbished Raksha-Bandhan as a pagan practice. As far as Islam goes, there are sins - minor and ruinous. And I find it extremely difficult to believe that tying cloth around the wrist of a brother can lead to a fatwa. It’s not about the cloth in any case - yours truly is not a fan of blind religious practices - but the meaning behind it has merit.
Maybe the comment was a joke, but it sure as hell isn’t funny. I hope these extremists, blinded by what they believe in, realise that we live in a different world. No one is asking them to move towards apostasy. A rather inspiring conversation with a friend last night introduced me to a suggestion he made for those who are firmly rooted in their religion: ‘Move forward within your religion’. A bit of broad-mindedness in a secular nation won’t do harm, and will work wonders for the attitude.
Incidentally, today is also 15 Shaban - Shab-e-Barat. Muslims around the world believe that on this night God writes the destinies of His people considering their past deeds, and hence holds importance. They pray for forgiveness of their sins, while they celebrate the festival at night. In this nation, sweet vermicelli is as common a sight today in a Muslim’s house, as rakhis are in a Hindu’s house.
There is this little apartment in India where, today, you’d find both. You’ll find a Muslim woman ringing up her brother, and all forty-nine years of her bonding with her brother will unite when she mumbles ‘tumna happy rakhi, bhaiyya’ in Deccan Urdu. This little apartment celebrates every festival from every religion as if it were its own. In this little apartment, the poor are fed till they drop dead in remembrance of the elders every Shab-e-Barat. The madrasa receives a donation every Ramadan. The diyas are lit every Diwali night. The sisters send in their Rakhis ever year, some in anticipation of a return gift, often monetary. In this house, traditional puliyodurai is cooked on Hindu festivals with the same enthusiasm as the finest quality of mutton biryani is cooked during a Muslim festival. This house rarely leaves out the eggs on Easter or the avial on Onam.
This house sends a message: that let there be no mistake, it has absolutely no time and effort to waste on creating differences. It just wants to live and let live. Everyone who sets foot in this house is treated equally, irrespective of caste, creed or religion. This house dreams, every single day, of prospering in a world and in an India of religious harmony, the one thing that can truly unite against all forces of damage.
This is my home.
And you know what? I love it here.
