ChatterBank31 mins ago
Religious intolerance; who is to blame?
87 Answers
Does religious intolerance stem from the teachings inherent within different teachings, or from the manipulation of those teachings by politicians and clerics?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I bet in when it's put in the right historical context, it might just as easily be translated thus..
Allah's Messenger said, 'Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.' Maslama got up saying, 'Would you like me to kill him?' The Prophet proclaimed, 'No. That would be an unreasonable over-reaction. Sit down Maslama.'
Allah's Messenger said, 'Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.' Maslama got up saying, 'Would you like me to kill him?' The Prophet proclaimed, 'No. That would be an unreasonable over-reaction. Sit down Maslama.'
Khandro
"Partition in India, is another example of religious peoples being manipulated by politicians with disastrous consequences"
With respect, I suggest you learn your history.
The idea of Pakistan was not instigated by British imperialists, or even by particularly powerful politicians. It was instigated by the Muslim League as early as December 1930, when in a Presidential Address Muhammed Iqbal called for partition. You can read the address here:
" I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India. "
http://
Later on, as it became clear that the British intended to leave India after WW2, the Muslim League became increasingly insistent on partition. In 1940, it passed the Lahore Resolution, calling for a separate Muslim state: http://
It's a complex narrative, obviously, but the story is NOT one of politicians artificially seeking to manipulate believers - the partition was insitgated and actively campaigned for by the faithful, and were eventually given in to by a government which wanted to leave as soon as it could.
"Partition in India, is another example of religious peoples being manipulated by politicians with disastrous consequences"
With respect, I suggest you learn your history.
The idea of Pakistan was not instigated by British imperialists, or even by particularly powerful politicians. It was instigated by the Muslim League as early as December 1930, when in a Presidential Address Muhammed Iqbal called for partition. You can read the address here:
" I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India. "
http://
Later on, as it became clear that the British intended to leave India after WW2, the Muslim League became increasingly insistent on partition. In 1940, it passed the Lahore Resolution, calling for a separate Muslim state: http://
It's a complex narrative, obviously, but the story is NOT one of politicians artificially seeking to manipulate believers - the partition was insitgated and actively campaigned for by the faithful, and were eventually given in to by a government which wanted to leave as soon as it could.
kromo; thank you for the history lesson, but it is all known to me. The main initiator of partition was Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Jinnah opted for partition not as a part of his conviction but as a result of political contingency. He was a London-trained lawyer and very much a politician, many accuse him of the destruction of India. Mountbatten was left to deal with the situation as the British withdrew, and he was opposed to partition, as was Gandhi. The British in no way were wanted, nor were responsible for partition.
Jinnah may have been a major protagonist, but the simple fact of the matter is there had been a long-established campaign for Pakistan, and it was India's muslims who backed the campaign. It does not stack as the example you used it for - which was as an example of politicians 'manipulating religious people'.
// Allah's Messenger said, 'Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.' Maslama got up saying, 'Would you like me to kill him?' The Prophet proclaimed, 'Yes.' //
http://
http://
krom.; if anything does not, as you put it 'stack', it is your post. Are you suggesting that partition was not orchestrated by political will, but by the ordinary rank and file Muslims - the majority of whom could neither read or write? The fervour of inter-religious hatred, leading to the death of at least half a million people was roused entirely by politicians, and has created an atmosphere of mutual hostility and suspicion between India and Pakistan that plagues their relationship to this day.
Well, if the Diety who *actually* exists could be prevailed upon to put in a brief appearance and thereby quash all 'Holy Gourd/Holy Sandal' arguments, life on earth might be a little less tense.........
Until that time, all dieties are equally valid, and by extrapolation, equally invalid and so ought to be ignored until such time as they stop being so 'precious' about their existence.
Until that time, all dieties are equally valid, and by extrapolation, equally invalid and so ought to be ignored until such time as they stop being so 'precious' about their existence.
Khandro - “... birdie;//...you believe in a supreme deity creator...// When have I ever said that?...”
I don't recall you ever overtly proclaiming your religions beliefs per se but that is not to say your position on such matters is unclear. Are you now saying that you do not believe in a supreme deity creator? If so, it would appear that many people have misunderstood you. Please clarify.
You further say, “... But why don't you address my question instead of trying to steer away from it by the usual boring polemics?...”
I was addressing your rather disappointingly dismissive and simplistic comments in your post of '20:22 Wed 22nd Aug 2012'. If you find my posts boring then I suggest that you adopt the stance of the ignoramus known as 'Keyplus' and simply ignore them in future.
With regards to your OP, I wasn't trying to steer away from it. The answer is blindingly obvious: it is both the teachings themselves and the actions of clerics and other such people who wish to have power over others. Both are guilty of religious intolerance; it's just a question of who or what is the more culpable. Clearly the words contained in the various holy texts are the starting point of intolerance and mistrust amongst the world's various religions but those seeds are ruthlessly and enthusiastically cultivated by the aforementioned self-serving individuals.
In short, the answer to your OP is: they both are.
I don't recall you ever overtly proclaiming your religions beliefs per se but that is not to say your position on such matters is unclear. Are you now saying that you do not believe in a supreme deity creator? If so, it would appear that many people have misunderstood you. Please clarify.
You further say, “... But why don't you address my question instead of trying to steer away from it by the usual boring polemics?...”
I was addressing your rather disappointingly dismissive and simplistic comments in your post of '20:22 Wed 22nd Aug 2012'. If you find my posts boring then I suggest that you adopt the stance of the ignoramus known as 'Keyplus' and simply ignore them in future.
With regards to your OP, I wasn't trying to steer away from it. The answer is blindingly obvious: it is both the teachings themselves and the actions of clerics and other such people who wish to have power over others. Both are guilty of religious intolerance; it's just a question of who or what is the more culpable. Clearly the words contained in the various holy texts are the starting point of intolerance and mistrust amongst the world's various religions but those seeds are ruthlessly and enthusiastically cultivated by the aforementioned self-serving individuals.
In short, the answer to your OP is: they both are.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
"re you suggesting that partition was not orchestrated by political will, but by the ordinary rank and file Muslims - the majority of whom could neither read or write?"
I think the evidence clearly suggests that the principle of Pakistan was one that did gain a significant amount of support among Muslims in India. I don't know if it was a majority or minority - we probably can't tell. But the numbers were significant enough to give the idea significant clout. There's plenty of reasons for this - not least the failures of Indian nationalism to sufficiently appeal to Islamic Indians. Certainly at any rate, the idea would not have gained much traction had it not been for its tireless championing by the Muslim League and its followers. I don't think it's sustainable to suggest as you do that partition was this top-down imposition that absolutely nobody wanted.
And yes, I'm also well-aware that the regions' inter-religious hatred (and the process of partition itself) cost millions of lives. But to claim as you are that it was entirely politics and faith had absolutely no contributing influence is an ugly whitewash of history.
I think the evidence clearly suggests that the principle of Pakistan was one that did gain a significant amount of support among Muslims in India. I don't know if it was a majority or minority - we probably can't tell. But the numbers were significant enough to give the idea significant clout. There's plenty of reasons for this - not least the failures of Indian nationalism to sufficiently appeal to Islamic Indians. Certainly at any rate, the idea would not have gained much traction had it not been for its tireless championing by the Muslim League and its followers. I don't think it's sustainable to suggest as you do that partition was this top-down imposition that absolutely nobody wanted.
And yes, I'm also well-aware that the regions' inter-religious hatred (and the process of partition itself) cost millions of lives. But to claim as you are that it was entirely politics and faith had absolutely no contributing influence is an ugly whitewash of history.
Kromo; // to suggest as you do that partition was this top-down imposition that absolutely nobody wanted.// Yes I am suggesting it was a top-down imposition, but I'm not suggesting that nobody wanted it. My thesis overall, is about the manipulation of religious groups by politicians, and to emphasise that intolerance is not purely resultant of the religion itself, which is a commonly held view, and it can be expanded much further than India, but as we seem to be there, another example was Indira Gandhi, posing as a secular leader, abandoning the inclusive policies of her father Nehru, and stoking up fears that the Hindu dharma was under threat by the Sikhs and Muslims, and in order to neutralise the moderate Sikh leaders who were her main rivals in the Punjab, encouraged Sikh radicalism, which ended with the bloody confrontation in Amritsar, and her own murder by two Sikh bodyguards.
Leaving India, one could also dwell on the use of the manipulation of religion in American presidential candidacy, as well as countless other examples.
Leaving India, one could also dwell on the use of the manipulation of religion in American presidential candidacy, as well as countless other examples.
↑ None of which would have been possible without the xenophobic ideals inherent within each faith.
You seem to be favouring the idea that the faiths themselves (ie. the religious texts) are largely blameless and that it is people manipulating those texts for their own person gain who are the real monsters. This is true but it is also an idea that neatly sidesteps the plain and simple fact that if these religious texts did not exist, they could not be used in this way.
As always, religion is the fundamental problem. There's no getting away from it.
By the way, you didn't bother to answer my earlier question. Since I have done you the courtesy of answering yours, please can you tell me whether or not you believe in a deity creator?
You seem to be favouring the idea that the faiths themselves (ie. the religious texts) are largely blameless and that it is people manipulating those texts for their own person gain who are the real monsters. This is true but it is also an idea that neatly sidesteps the plain and simple fact that if these religious texts did not exist, they could not be used in this way.
As always, religion is the fundamental problem. There's no getting away from it.
By the way, you didn't bother to answer my earlier question. Since I have done you the courtesy of answering yours, please can you tell me whether or not you believe in a deity creator?
birdie; //None of which would have been possible without the xenophobic ideals inherent within each faith// I'm not sure to which xenophobic ideas you refer, I do not find these in the teachings of Christ, Buddha, Confucius or any of the Zen masters, nor do I find them in Hinduism, Taoism, Sufism, or Sikhism. To say "if these religious texts did not exist, they could not be used in this way." Is too simplistic, and rather silly, you might as well say, if kitchen knives didn't exist, kids on the streets couldn't injure one another.
To answer your question; Not being certain of what you personally believe a 'deity creator' to be' I put it into Wikipedia and found, "A creator deity, (often called the Creator), is a deity responsible for the creation of the world (cosmos or universe). In monotheism, the single God is often also the creator deity, while polytheistic traditions may or may not have creator deities. A number of monolatristic traditions separate a secondary creator from a primary transcendent being, identified as a primary creator".
It's a big concept, I'll just say, I believe there is a higher power, which is unknowable.
To answer your question; Not being certain of what you personally believe a 'deity creator' to be' I put it into Wikipedia and found, "A creator deity, (often called the Creator), is a deity responsible for the creation of the world (cosmos or universe). In monotheism, the single God is often also the creator deity, while polytheistic traditions may or may not have creator deities. A number of monolatristic traditions separate a secondary creator from a primary transcendent being, identified as a primary creator".
It's a big concept, I'll just say, I believe there is a higher power, which is unknowable.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles60 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
News80 mins ago
ChatterBank92 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.