Comments

It is certainly a noble thought to discuss the incident of the girl’s death in the hope that similar future deaths can be prevented – furthermore, it is correct, the arguments or verses from scriptures cannot bring that young life back.

The people are discussing at FoTH and elsewhere, for many reason, some, I am sure, have the same reason that you have stated in your para 1, that is, to try and prevent this from happening again. We cannot think of any appropriate word of English language, as we do not know the exact intentions of all of them as to why are they discussing it. As you have stated yourself, it is only human to act defensively, when one feels that one is under siege due to an attack.

Good question, how to prevent such incidents? I agree – social intervention before the tragedy strikes.

I disagree, Such a view will not be at odds with religion, certainly not with Islam. The humans for being the viceroy of God on earth are expected to uphold God’s rules. In case of Islam, the rules clearly tell us that we cannot impose our religion on any one – obviously, some do not know that, or mistakenly they believe the rules do not apply to their own family – that clearly takes us back to the need of social intervention, discussed above. I regret to say, your understanding is not correct about religion and its application. Being the viceroy, does not mean man is free to do whatsoever, his actions are restricted and subject to the rule of law.

The belief in God or Quran, may be ‘archaic’ as you put it, but its age is not a proof in itself to make the point that it is now redundant or unnecessary. By basic definition, Quran or its teachings is for ever – it is not biology or chemistry, that will keep changing and keep getting improved as people would keep on adding their research work. The Quran has been written and compiled once for all times to come. That is it. No revisions are needed and it will not be revised. The ‘Ninjas in Burqas’ are nothing but political, social or economical stunts that some have adopted for personal agendas. These examples do point out towards societal problems, but I do not see any application in the subject under discussion.

Your difficulty in accepting God as the ruler of the universe is understandable. You have of course, the right to accept or reject the existence of God. But, I strongly disagree with you that those who believe in God’s existence, do not believe in the human potentials. Those who believe in God, may understand human psychology the scientific as thoroughly as those who are non-believers.

It is not Akber Sahib’s scheme of things, but God’s scheme of things to keep His will out of the humans, and allow us to do whatever we chose to do, so that one day, we can be held responsible for our own actions. Contrary to what you perceive, the absence of God’s will in human’s decision making process is not a justification to do wrong, merely a choice, to do what we want to do and be accountable for same. Again, I disagree with you, the human bad deeds are not tossed into the waste basket of culture and history. But they are wrapped around the neck of the bad doer to make an example of them for other potential wrong doers.

Muslims are not the only one who are killing each other, on (their perception of) religious, social or political grounds. I see no value in keep repeating this statement. In case, there exists a serious problem in the understanding of the true religion and one’s obligations to others per the rules of the religion, then, obviously we go back to #3, above, to teach them the true value. I know the rules, but the girl’s father did not – obviously, the society failed to send the God’s message to all corners of the world and every household.

You have no reason to be at a loss. The answer to, ‘who and what speaks of Islam’ is simple and clear – it comes from Quran. If this father in question had read the book, he would not have done, what he did.

In this para, you are asking who makes history. I thought the answer should have been simple and elementary. Once we know, that God has given us, the freedom of free will and freedom to act, in any way we like – obviously, it is we, who make the history. God only keeps it - as a good honest historian the accounts of all of us. In case there are certain elements, that He controls, then, obviously we cannot be responsible for those, but He says in His book that , under no circumstances, He will make us do what He does not want us to do, under the provisions of our free will.

I am not sure, what is that thing which is couple of centuries old and Akber Sahib is clinging to it, but if it is some thing like his decency, common sconce, belief in the existence of God, Quran, than I think that would be worth clinging to for ever. The goodness of those attributes do not change with time. You appear to be overly impressed with the great promise of the modern technology. Not that I have any problem or objection to that, but fail to see how it changes any thing that we are discussing. I am as much aware of the modern technologies, and understand some of them batter than many, but that does not interfere with my basic beliefs in God and religion, if any thing, the modern science and technology has provided strength to my beliefs in God and Quran, without which I could have turned into an atheist myself. Perhaps, Akber Sahib also feels the same way.

It may be your wishful thinking that the religion will fade into oblivion. It will or will not, has no bearing on the current discussion. Before, the introduction of Islam and Christianity, people have been murdering each other, they will still be doing that in the future, with or without the religion. But it is the task of all of us to keep fighting against evil the way our means and available resources allow it.

I think you are suggesting that the rising tide of human emancipation lies in atheistic views. I disagree with that and totally reject that notion. Nothing I hate more than the slogan: “Sacred to Secular” (it has been said by another prominent FoTH member repeatedly). I would like to see both to exist side by side, the sacred as well as the secular. After all, it is the Quranic teachings that allows to ‘live and let live’, unlike others, who believe in ‘live and let die’.