Indeed a nice comment…. The core of any religion is to teach it’s adherents a way to LIVE our lives …not to run away from life….

The only point I diagree with Mr.Mohammad is …he says Islam is the ONLY religion which says so… this is quite unpalatable to me . I always tend to get worried about the word ‘ONLY’…

If we take the case of Hinduism…there is the concept of the renunciation or monkhood called Sanyas. But it is not a rule for everybody. The classical delineation of Hindu society was fourfold. The brahmcharis( students), the grihastas( householders), vanaprasthis (grihastas who has passed on the responsibility of earning or administration to their younger generation and have taken voluntary retirement to live a life of quietitude and contemplation) and finally sanyasis( persons who have take a vow that their sole purpose in their life is realization of the truth or god. they have no duties and no rights in the society). The grihastas were the providers for both the brahmacharis and the sanyasis.There was/is no age restriction for sanyas. Before initiation into sanyas, a person should make sure he or she has no outstanding obligations to the society. The sanyasis prayers included the well being of the whole world . In a nutshell this is the classical orgnanization of the Hindu society. Of course …this set up is hugely modified in the current day scenario ..but still the spirit remains ….

“Being close to God” in the hindu society is to perform ones stipulated duties according to which station of life he is ( brahmachari, grihasta or vanaprastha) .Duties well performed pleases God.

I hope with the emerging new practicing muslims race, the day is not very far off when we will definitely be appreciated when we try to bring peace and will resolve issues like Babri-Ram janambhumi conflicts. Insha’llah we will bring that change. Where there is a will there is always a way.

Lets be those ‘practising Muslims’ on which the whole world will be proud one day.

AAMEEN

“Islam in itself is moderate religion. It is the only religion that preaches a balance of life and religion. It doesn’t say that in order to be close to God you have to go for celibacy or become a monk in jungles. You practice religion and do you regular job and take care of family. In fact earning a livelihood and taking care of family are religious duties. The Prophet (peace be upon him) taught that apart from the obligatory acts of worship, you should do the worship as much as you can. T”

Very well said

Ask anyone above 50 – past tense

i’d say well done shaiviites and vaishnavites for keeping ur differences civil in secular India

I agree that we need to look at history in entirety and most of what u said. but why look at history at all? completely ignoring history seems to be an objective exercise as all people in history were doubtlessly complex, that there have no ideas that have prevailed through history – from ancent to medieval to the present, that there’s nothing to learn from history just papmering ego by glorifying or vilifying people…

or u can look at what disasters took place under what ideas and learn from it. Tegh Bahadur is dead, but the pundits who refused to convert sre still suffering under the same ideology. i hope u read the link i gave above, don’t u think there ar ideas there that exist today? just listen to Zakir Naik (many indian muslims i know think he’s cool) and listen to the supremacist tone and twisted logic. and these poeple think they are secular and have ‘enuf’ respect for others. these are powerful ideas my friend and looking at these ideas through history is part of looking at history in entirety isn’t it? why look at aurangzeb when detractors mention him, look at his fatwas through to MIM and see the link. its quite objective.

I find it really strange that even after three centuries we still have to attack/ defend Aurangzeb. Who says that Aurangzeb did not kill Teg Bahadur or did not attack sikhs or did not commit some other wrongs? OTOH, I have repeatedly mentioned that he indeed many times misused Islam to gain political mileage. The only point I am making is that he should be judged in his entirety, not just on this single trait. Using religion for political mileage is not something he alone was guilty of. Maybe he went overboard in his actions that we find today distasteful but judging a medieval king on standards of contemporary norms is really a farcical exercise.

I see two diametrically opposite trends here arguing at the cost of objectivity. One side thinks that just because he promoted islam at the cost of other religions, everything he did was wrong and needs to be attacked. The other side thinks that just because he did it in the name of Islam, he must be right in everything and needs to be defended. In both these passionate stands what gets sacrificed is the objective truth. When will we have the maturity to appreciate that he was a human being and a king and had many strengths and weaknesses just like everyone else? If we really want to learn from history, we must develop the maturity to look at the history dispassionately. Making a historical figure a saint or a demon and then trying to study him is a travesty of history.

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/temple_aurangzeb.html

Also i’d like to see evidece that muslims were paying more tax under aurangzeb than hindus (as it sounds incredible). besides, isn’t jaziya and zakat is to be used for benefit of muslims alone? then how’s it the same? its not just one point abt jaziya, its abt interfering in hindu religious matters, abt persecution of sikhs and murder of tegh bahadur, abt destruction of temples but the main point is his belief in supremacy of sunni islam and the same remains very much relevant today. he was the strongest of all mughals, then why was his reign riddled with rebellions from hindus? the only other explanation can be political hinduism, but i hope we all agree that that was not present then. the most likely reason is it hwas just survival and revolt against humiliation of hindus.