.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

போப் Vs. இஸ்லாம்

மதம் பிடித்தவர்கள்
நாவினால் சுட்டா வடு

ஒரே குட்டை

மன்னிக்க வேண்டுகிறேன்


வழுக்கல்?

அமைதி வேண்டி போர்

இது, இல்லன்னா வாய்க்கு பூட்டு. எது வேணும்?

23 comments:

Sivabalan said...

// WE HAD TO MODIFY
THE POPEMOBILE FOR YOUR UPCOMING
VISIT TO TURKEY //

:)

G.Ragavan said...

சிறில்....இதைப் பார்க்கின்ற எல்லாரும் சிரிப்பதோடு இல்லாமல் சிந்தித்தால் நன்றாக இருக்கும். முதல் படம் இன்றைய உலகின் நிலையை அப்பட்டமாக தோலுறித்துக் காட்டி விட்டது.

அருள் செல்வன் கந்தசுவாமி said...

முதல் படம் எனக்கு கொஞ்சம் ஆச்சரியமா இருந்தது. ஏன்னா:
http://andaiayal.blogspot.com/2006/02/game-boy.html
It happens!
அருள்.

Hariharan # 26491540 said...

//DEATH to those who say ISLAM is violent//

:((

P.C.James said...

All see and laugh. Muslims should see these cartoons and think.

Vajra said...

If islam is intolerant and violent, so was christianity a 1000 years ago.

Can pope accept there exists various paths to attain divinity? He cannot. The moment he does, christianity will stop proseletyzing.

Both monotheistic religions cannot accept criticism even today. Pope knows well that during the times of crusades the christians of europe were no better than the muslims of today.

சிறில் அலெக்ஸ் said...

//If islam is intolerant and violent, so was christianity a 1000 years ago.

Can pope accept there exists various paths to attain divinity? He cannot. The moment he does, christianity will stop proseletyzing.

Both monotheistic religions cannot accept criticism even today. Pope knows well that during the times of crusades the christians of europe were no better than the muslims of today.//

Vajra,
your comments accepted, violance in the name of God has been commited by all dominant religions in the world. Some major Indian religions are no exceptions you know that.

A 1000 years ago the world was so different. And the pope quoted something about the roots of islam. The roots of Christianity is not violant, except those commited against early Christians.

I am not sure if Crusades can be taken as Terrorism. There was death, innocent lives lost and it was bloody, but it would be more of organized warlike scenario. There were huge losses to both the sides.

May be I should create a post on the Crusades.

Samudra said...

சிறில்,

குழந்தைகள் crusade என்று கூட ஒன்று நடந்தது இல்லையா?

ஆனால் அவை நடந்து ஆயிரம் ஆண்டுகளுக்கு மேல் ஆகிவிட்டன.time to move on.

எந்த மத சாமியாரும் தனது மதம் தவறு செய்ததை சாதாரனமாக எத்துக்க மாட்டான்.போப்புக்கும் அதே தான்.

ஆனால் மதத்தை பின்பற்றுபவன் இங்கே அறிவாளியாக இருக்க வேண்டும்.

ஆனால் இங்கே பொப் தான் கொஞ்சம் அறிவாளித்தனமாக நடந்து கொண்டார்.

சொன்னதை நிருபித்துகாட்டிய "பெருமை" அவரை சாரும்.

Anonymous said...

You are right Cyril,

Christianity went through a rapid reformation process from the early 14th century. Increasingly State divorced itself from the Church.
In turn this paved the way for liberal philosophies to emerge and sowed the seeds for industrial and scientific revolution.

The black mark for Christianity I would say was Spanish Inquisition more than the Crusades.

The comparison between Jihaad and crusades is only to the extent that one was a war in the name of religion and the other is proxy war/terrorism also in the name of religion.

In my view most of the religious models tried in Human History Hinduism included have had a fair share of intolerance of dissent and the associated violence.
The proportion that obtains in Islam is more than the average though.

Sridhar

சிறில் அலெக்ஸ் said...

//குழந்தைகள் crusade என்று கூட ஒன்று நடந்தது இல்லையா?//

இதப் பத்தி தெரியல.

சர்ச் சிலவேளைகளில் தைரியமாகத் தன் தவறுகளை ஒத்துக்கொண்டிருக்கிறது. முக்கியமாக முந்திய போப் கலிலியோவின் மரணத்துக்கு வருத்தம் தெரிவித்தது.

சிறில் அலெக்ஸ் said...

//In my view most of the religious models tried in Human History Hinduism included have had a fair share of intolerance of dissent and the associated violence.//

Well said Sridhar.

Anonymous said...

//சொன்னதை நிருபித்துகாட்டிய "பெருமை" அவரை சாரும்//
அப்பா! எப்படி 'சுருக்' என்று மனதில் படும் விதமாக எழுதுகிறார்கள்.
அருமை சமுத்ரா.
அமைதி விரும்பி.

Anonymous said...

//And the pope quoted something about the roots of islam.//

Should this not be like below?

And the pope quoted something about the roots of islam, which he is not sure of

If you would like to agree or disagree, please say so in comment. Thanks

சிறில் அலெக்ஸ் said...

Whether he is sure of it or not is known only to him, don't you think. If he was sure of it he would not have quoted someone else. he would have said it himself.

Anonymous said...

What the Pope quoted in part is a straight statement.

"The violence embodied in Jihaad is contrary to "reason" and "God" which I think is a profound statement.

In no way this is against Quraan or God because even as per Quraan Allah is kind and merciful.

Vajra said...

பார்க்க சந்தியா ஜெயினின் கட்டுரை பயனியரில்

Anonymous said...

//If he was sure of it he would not have quoted someone else. he would have said it himself. //

Since the pope has said something he is not sure of, it is natural that he should have tendered a formal note of apology, not with some disguised sorry statements.

Anyway thanks for the post

செந்தில் குமரன் said...

எல்லா மதங்களாலும் மனித குலத்துக்கே தொந்தரவுதான். christianity witch burning என்று scholar women எல்லோரையும் எரித்தது.

இஸ்லாம் கேட்கவே வேண்டாம் புனிதப் போர் என்று அடிக்கற கூத்து.

இந்து மதம் இதில ஒரு கட்டதுக்கு சைவர் வைஷ்ணவர் என்று தங்களுக்குள்ளே அடித்துக் கொண்டார்கள். இப்பொழுது இந்து மதம் பாபர் மசூதி இடித்து பெரிய ரத்தக் களரியை ஏற்படுத்தினார்கள்.

இதையெல்லாம் சொன்னால் மற்றவர்கள் மேல் பாய வேண்டியது.

இதையெல்லாம் சுட்டிக் காட்டினால் அதை எல்லாம் திருத்திக்காம என் மதத்தை எப்படி குறை சொல்லலாம் என்று பாய வேண்டியது இல்லை சப்பைக் கட்டு கட்ட வேண்டியது.

இப்பொழுதெல்லாம் மதம் இறைவனை அறிவதற்கு உதவுதா இல்லை மனிதனின் என் மதம் தான் பெரியது என் கொள்கைகளைப் பார் எவ்வளவு உயரியது என்று மனிதனின் egoவை satisfy பண்ண உதவுதான்னு தெரியல. மனிதனின் மதத்தால் அவனுக்கு இறைவன் என்பவர் இரண்டாம் பட்சமாகி விடுகிறார்.

Anonymous said...

எந்த மதத்தில்தான் வன்முறை இல்லை?கிருஷ்ணருக்கு ஜீன்ஸ் ஆணிவித்ததற்காக
கொடும்பாவி கொளுத்துவதா? இத்தனைக்கும் இந்து மதத்தில் கடவுளுக்கு விபூதி,
சந்தனம் என்று பல விதங்களில் அலங்காரம் செய்வது வழக்கம்தானே?

ஸ்ரீதர் said...

சிறில் அவர்களே,

இன்றைய DAWN a Pakistan based News paperl திரு இர்ஃபான் ஹுசேன் அவர்கள் எழுதிய கட்டுரை
கீழே.

Irfan Hussain is one of the most respected journalists in Hussain.
His column usually appears on Saturdays in the Dawn newsPaper.
I thought that he has written brilliantly about the issue on hand.

Faith and reason




By Irfan Husain

I HAVE a theory about riots: those out on the streets often don’t have a clear idea what they’re rioting about. And invariably, they have a lot of time on their hands.

After all, how often do you find an employed person asking for leave to join the demo of the day? But when you have time to kill, you’ll join any crowd that’s out to protest, no matter what the cause. When Salman Rushdie’s ‘Satanic Verses’ inflamed the Muslim world, how many people demonstrating had actually read the book? I must confess that neither had I, but it wasn’t for lack of trying: struggling manfully, I ploughed through the first hundred pages before admitting defeat. So I never actually read the passages that gave rise to the famous fatwa. But I doubt very much if the people who rioted even saw the book.

The same is true for those now up in arms about the Pope’s address at the University of Regensburg. I have printed out the speech, and must confess that it’s heavy going. The offending section is a tiny part of the paper, and it remains a mystery why Pope Benedict needed such an obscure quotation in his discussion of faith and reason. Having said that, he has addressed an issue that needs to be debated: how should believers reconcile their faith with the dictates of reason? According to him, modern Christianity has bridged the gap, while Islam hasn’t.

We can debate his conclusion, and criticise his choice of supporting material, but we can hardly deny his right to hold an opinion. When Muslims demonstrated their opposition to his views, many of them carried placards threatening the Pope with death. In fact, the London police are seeing if they can prosecute some demonstrators for inciting others to violence. It seems that our stock response to the slightest provocation consists of death threats and violent demonstrations. These undignified protests reinforce the worst prejudices others have about Muslims. After all, why should some cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper, or a papal address at an unknown German university, send hundreds of thousands pouring into streets around the world?

When we were children, when somebody said anything offensive, we would chant: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me.” As we grew older, we learned that some words are deadlier than any sticks or stones, festering long after bruises and wounds have healed. But we were also taught to be stoical, and not to complain.

In a letter to the Guardian of September 20, San Cassimally of Edinburgh writes: “As a Muslim, I am much more saddened and shocked by the murder of the Somali nun than by what the Pope said in Regensburg... even if he knew exactly what he was doing.”

I would add that I am far more horrified by the endless Muslim-on-Muslim killing going on in Iraq than by anything the pontiff could possibly say. According to UN estimates, an average of a hundred Iraqis are being killed every day, almost invariably by other Iraqis. And all too often, many of the victims are tortured to death. When Israel killed a thousand Lebanese civilians in a month of senseless bombing, Muslims (and others with a conscience) around the world were rightly incensed. But approximately the same number of Muslims are being killed by other Muslims every 10 days in Iraq, and there are no protests anywhere. Before the invasion of Iraq, when Saddam Hussein tortured and gassed his own people with impunity, I do not recall any Muslims condemning him publicly.

Applying these same double standards, when Nato forces accidentally kill Afghans, we are furious. But when the Taliban kill innocent Afghans in suicide bombings, and assassinate teachers for teaching girls, we look the other way. Similarly, when the Iranian authorities rig elections and suppress their own people, we are silent spectators. But when President Ahmedinejad is seen as standing up to the West, we applaud him loudly.

This kind of moral inconsistency is reflected in the treatment non-Muslims generally get in Muslim countries. For instance, while the 300,000 Iraqi Christians were treated as equal citizens in Saddam’s secular regime, two-thirds of them have fled the increasingly Islamic nature of the present government. In Pakistan, we are regularly and correctly pilloried by human rights organisations for the wretched social and legal status of our minorities. Saudi Arabia, while funding Wahabi mosques across the West, refuses to permit non-Muslims to build their places of worship on its soil.

I am often asked why Muslims in Pakistan get so worked up about Bosnia, Chechnya and Palestine. I try and explain in terms of the ummah, and the feeling of connectedness between, say, Indonesian Muslims and Turkish Muslims. But I fear this is only a small part of the real answer. The truth is that the problems we face in much of the Muslim world are often so intractable that we escape reality by looking abroad. Matters like poverty, disease, political instability and institutional meltdown are too difficult to be tackled by the inefficient and corrupt elites much of the Muslim world is cursed with. To deflect blame, they fulminate against the West for its perceived anti-Islamic attitudes.

It is this mindless, knee-jerk anti-West sentiment that sustains the jihadi groups, and is now propelling us to a very real ‘clash of civilisations’. As Islam becomes more heavily politicised, it is evoking a strong reaction in the West. More and more, the Muslims who have migrated to Europe and America, as well as their children, are being seen as a fifth column. The sight of perpetually angry Muslims from London to Lahore, marching with placards calling for the death of somebody or the other, is moving normally liberal people to anger.

For me, the really worrying part of the Pope’s address was his demand for the subordination of reason to theology:

“Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology.”

Sorry, but I’m not buying this, Your Holiness. This is precisely why I don’t think faith and reason can ever be reconciled.

சிறில் அலெக்ஸ் said...

Sridhar,
Thanks for the article. It has so become that people like Hussain are considered exceptions, a point he has expressed very well in the article.

Please address me as Cyril (do not add AVARGALE)

:)

arunagiri said...

சிறில்,

Reason and Religion- இரண்டையும் மணமுடிக்க வைக்கும் முயற்சிகள் வட்டிகனில் முந்தைய போப் காலத்திலேயெ தொடங்கி விட்டன. மூன்று நூற்றாண்டுகளாக ஐரோப்பாவில் Reason-னிடத்தில் தோற்று மக்களை இழக்கத்தொடங்கிய கிறித்துவம் விழித்துக்கொண்டு இந்த சமரசத்திற்குத் தயாரானதில் ஐரோப்பாவில் இரண்டாம் உலகப்போருக்குப் பின் இஸ்லாத்தின் வெகுவான வளர்ச்சிக்கும் பங்குண்டு.

போப் பெனடிக்ட் கார்டினலாக இருக்கையிலேயே இது குறித்துப் பேசியிருக்கிறார். ஒரே ஒரு வித்தியாசம்: அப்போதெல்லாம் இஸ்லாத்தை வம்புக்கு இழுக்கவில்லை. பல ஆண்டுகளாக ஐரோப்பாவில் வட்டிகன் சாதிக்க முடியாத கிறித்துவ ஒருங்கிணைப்பை கடந்த ஒன்றிரண்டு ஆண்டுகளாக இஸ்லாத்தின் வன்முறை ஆர்ப்பாட்டங்கள் சம்பாதிதுத் தந்து விட்டன என்பதைச் சரியாக அடையாளம் கண்டு கொண்ட வட்டிகன், கிறித்துவ மதமாற்ற வன்முறைகளை வசதியாக மறந்து, இஸ்லாமை மட்டும் உதாரணப்படுத்தி, குறிபார்த்த எறிந்த கல்தான் இந்தப் பேச்சு. எதிர்பார்த்த விளைவுகளையே ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது.

Anonymous said...

இந்த படபடப்புலயையும் உங்களுக்கு எல்லாம் ஒரு கிளுகிளுப்பு தேவப்படுது....

சிறில் அலெக்ஸ்