Donald Trump has deep ties to India’s right-wing, anti-Muslim Bharatiya Janata Party.
Trump has praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the nationalist BJP leader who gained international infamy for his role in stoking anti-Muslim riots in 2002 that reportedly killed nearly 2,000 people. The New York Times wrote that Hindu mobs skewered mothers “on swords as their children watched” while young women were raped in broad daylight, “then doused with kerosene and set on fire.”
And Shalabh “Shalli” Kumar, known as a close Modi ally and the BJP’s consigliere in U.S. politics, has emerged as a prominent backer of Trump’s candidacy. Kumar has organized multiple fundraising efforts within the Indian American community for Trump and donated $898,800 to Trump Victory, the joint fundraising committee formed to support his presidential campaign.
Trump is also in business with a prominent BJP politician, having signed a licensing deal in 2014 to construct the Trump Tower Mumbai with Mangal Prabhat Lodha, a real estate mogul and BJP state legislator. The 75-story building is now under construction, scheduled to be completed in 2018.
In many ways the partnership could not be more perfect. Like Trump, the BJP rose to power nationally two years ago by playing on sectarian anger against Muslims.
And Trump and Lodha have some things in common. Lodha is known for building golf courses and planning a gold façade at the building he is constructing. Lodha even sports a similar catchphrase, declaring on his political website his plans for “Making Mumbai Great Again.”
But Trump’s partnership with Lodha may present political complications. Lodha, like many BJP politicians, has not only antagonized Muslims, but has also repeatedly played to local anti-Christian hostility and sponsored legislation that Christian leaders say is designed to single them out for discrimination.
Neither Trump’s campaign nor Lodha’s firm responded to a request for comment.
In 2014, announcing the Trump Tower Mumbai deal, Trump praised his partner, calling the Mumbai-based firm “a truly fantastic team of professionals.” Lodha’s son, the managing director of the Lodha Group, told the New York Times that the branded approach to real estate has helped him sell condominiums; units in Trump Tower Mumbai have already sold for as much as $2 million.
Lodha came to political power in Mumbai in 1994 as Hindu activists protested over claims that Christian missionaries were entering slums and converting low-caste Hindus. In one incident, BJP activists attacked Christian converts over a dispute in Dharavi, a Mumbai slum. In another local incident, Hindus attacked a Catholic convent after accusing the school of converting a Hindu student to Christianity. Skirmishes between Christians and Muslims led to BJP activists taking to the streets to demand anti-conversion laws.
In response, Lodha has over the past two decades repeatedly pushed for anti-conversion legislation, called the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, that would criminalize certain types of proselytizing.
Claiming that minority religious groups have preyed upon Hindus, Lodha’s bill deems the “threat of divine displeasure” or “social excommunication” as types of coercive proselytizing that could be punishable with a year or more of jail time. The legislation has also called for any individual seeking to change their religion to first gain approval from the District Collector, a state administrative office.
When Lodha first proposed his anti-conversion legislation, the Catholic community viewed it as a direct attack. “The Christian community is worried and concerned by the suggestion of jailing people for efforts at conversion,” the late Cardinal Simon Pimenta of Bombay wrote in 1997 in a widely circulated letter raising concerns with the legislation.
In 2013, Lodha proposed the bill again, for the fourth time, again enraging Catholics. The introduction of “such legislation will not only be an anti-minority act but will increase the persecution of the minorities,” Dolphy Dsouza, the former vice president of the All India Catholic Union and president of the Bombay Catholic Sabha, told the Hindustan Times. “Minorities such as Christians are already being harassed by authorities on false accusations of forceful conversions,” Dsouza added, “this will become another tool for harassment.”
In more recent years, Lodha has echoed claims by national BJP leaders and claimed that Muslims are waging a “Love Jihad,” marrying Hindu and Jain women so they can be converted and sold off to Islamic countries in the Middle East. “There should be one committee for each district that should work in cooperation with local police and people, and it may strictly check occurrences of ‘Love Jihad’ in their respective areas,” Lodha said.
Lodha has also enraged local Muslims by blocking cattle from being brought into Mumbai for Eid for slaughter and calling for a ban on loudspeakers over mosques. Three years ago, he led a group of 100 demonstrators who rallied at the local police station, calling for the confiscation of healthy cattle used for Eid sacrifice. Lodha has also proposed a complete ban on cattle slaughter in the entire state of Maharashtra, a state of 112 million people.
Lodha’s political party, the BJP, has used similar tactics to win elections across India. In 2014, party leader Modi decried “Muslim appeasement,” and fielded candidates in high-profile races known for stoking violence against Muslims.
Top photo: A billboard for the upcoming luxury residential apartment complex Trump Tower Mumbai, which bears the name of billionaire real estate tycoon and presidential hopeful Donald Trump, is seen next to a busy road in Mumbai.
With respect to the author, this piece smacks of a partisan desperation to undermine Mr Trump with wild conjecture. Anti Christian bigotry in Bombay!! ????????
Alas, the author has perhaps not travelled to the city, because if he had, he would surely come to understand it’s plural & inclusive atmosphere! I worked and lived in Bombay (Kalina, Santacruz) and whilst there are surely undercurrents of tensions towards some economic migrants to the city, in recent years, the parties which have propagated this have seen their fortunes tumble every election (reflecting the lack of enthusiasm from the voters in Bombay for this chauvinism!).
The BJP is largely seen as the party for reform and the fact predominantly Christian communities voted for the BJP in the last election is telling!
Find your anti Trump ammunition elsewhere friends! This article is just grasping at straws!
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indias-modern-day-nero-to-be-grilled-over-muslim-bloodbath-1923803.html%3famp?client=safari
Spot on….for some reason there is a blackout in the international media with any negative news about Modi or his party. Modi is a thug and a failed leader, he failed to protect the citizens of his state and let it burn, the Supreme Court of India had called Modi a modern day Nero!
Religion is evil, and Christianity and Islam are the worst of it. Fuck anyone who goes to places like India to convert people to this evil crap; jail is too good for them.
We would all be doing yourselves a big favor to read this article and then do some homework on India.
1.2 billions human beings, (Mumbai alone is ~20Million) Multiple Religions ( Muslims alone > 120 Million); even more Languages and an ancient civilization cannot possible fit into the ‘box’ this article tries so hard to place India in. It is laughable to pick Mumbai, India’s most ‘open’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ of cities and try to tie it into anti Christian bigotry……and the Trump Campaign.
It is not simple for a Nation State to have the multitude of distinct identities i.e. Multiple Groups following their own laws when it came to marriage, divorce, inhernitance; practicing their own faiths on the streets as openly as every group does in India (yes, that includes the many many Mosques across the country blasting the call to Prayer on Loud Speakers, 5 times a day, every day, all year round); speaking their own distinct language; yet following the same Consitution. So despite the invasions and occupation by Muslims & the mass forced conversions that followed, the rule of the East India Comapny, the Rule of the British Raj, the remanants of the caste system & enduring poverty- India has truly defied the course of history to remain intact, secular, democratic and pluralistic.
Perhaps America should try and deal with be catastrophe of its election campaign, within the contours of its own borders! India has nothing to do with Trump but I suspect, being as open as we are, Hillary or Trump, Indians will look for the best in whomever the American People choose to lead them.
The Indian Prime Minister Modi is known in India to have a large paid social media team that scours the internet to shoot down any disparaging articles about the “great leader”. And I see the comments section of this article has been overtaken by what we in India call “Bhakts”, the troll army of Modi. This article is accurate in its description of the nationalistic party BJP and its leader Modi, who by all accounts orchestrated the deaths of thousands of innocents in the 2002 riots and escaped punishment by a corrupt and biased Indian legal system. The systematic persecution of minorities including Muslims and Christians is another sad reality which many people here in the comments section professing to know India, are denying. As the article clearly states the anti Muslim bigotry and hatred is bringing both Trump and the BJP together. But the aspect of anti Christian persecution, which is very real, propagated by Trump’s partners is something that should be talking points in the US public, only because the Christian right may need to rethink their support for Trump.
OMG! I’m no Trump supporter by a long shot and yet I couldn’t help grimace at this article! If not for the higher plains of jounaltiatic integrity, how about some plain decency with those peoples’ of that Nation called India today but which has existed as a melting pot of civilizations for thousands of years?? It’s tolerance far exceeds American understanding of foreign cultures/ religions and Trump is not even a blip of blip of a story in India’s journey. This comes acrosss as a total hit piece and for all the reasons to not vote for Trump, this article is almost a dog whilstle to ‘liberal interventionist” types with little time for such things as Truth or Context. Sad to see The Intercept publish it too.
Sorry to disappoint those looking for another stick to beat everyone’s fav US Presidential Candidate BUT please look elsewhere as this piece conflates certain truths & half truths to paint a rather unreal picture. Take for e.g. the topic of Christians in the Mumbai. It is true that religious conversions have at times been controversial in certain parts of the India but present day persecution of Christians in Mumbai is a MYTH. They are, in fact, a strong community with deep links and history in the city. Their presence is actively felt in many places and open worship and congragation is visible for all to see on a daily basis. E.g. The famous annual Mt Mary festival (in the prominent Bandra locality) recently concluded with much fan fair (as is the norm!). In fact, most Christians are more concerned about the conservative strains of Islam that are infecting some communities in Mumbai. This ‘strain’ may not amount to Islamic radicalism but its othordox nature and puritanical influence is most unwelcome in a cosmopolitan city- which has been built and hosts communities from all over the country. Sadly, this truth has fallen victim to the authors desire to desperately find fresh ammo in his Anti Trump Article. Please place facts in context to create a story, rather than mix up local politics, the religeous politics of multiples Indian States with with the most distasteful ongoing US Presidential Election.
PS- The Indian PM won his landslide election (first party to win a parliamentary majority in 30 years) in 2014 on a platform of economic reform! Some folks seem most upset at their predictions of suspension of democracy under PM Modi not being Fulfilled! Harping back to the sad communal riots in Gujarat is common but old ammunition against the PM and trying to link this event with Trump is a rather desperate on the part of the author to create something, out of nothing. ????
“The New York Times wrote that Hindu mobs skewered mothers “on swords as their children watched” while young women were raped in broad daylight, “then doused with kerosene and set on fire.”” Wierd that they didn’t create pornography out of the crimes, being conservative and all.
“Trump is also in business with a prominent BJP politician, having signed a licensing deal in 2014 to construct the Trump Tower Mumbai with Mangal Prabhat Lodha, a real estate mogul and BJP state legislator. The 75-story building is now under construction, scheduled to be completed in 2018.
In many ways the partnership could not be more perfect.” I’m glad to assist by never ever visiting the building they’re constructing.
“Neither Trump’s campaign nor Lodha’s firm responded to a request for comment.” Due to fears they would give away secrets regarding Bush’s potus run after Clinton finishes committing her war crimes.
Missionaries should not be persecuted for attempting to stop the persecution of poor Indian minorities. Let’s hope Modi doesn’t get nukes from the nsa somehow.
Great article! Information presented on India is bold and surprisingly accurate
Scared the heck out of me.
Utterly biased article…how is stopping proselytization through the use of money ans superstitious miracle cures equal to excommunication of Christians. Check YouTube for those funny miracle cures offered by these Priests to the poor in India just to convert them to Christianity.
This guilt by association game is probably the cheapest way to falsely make your point. To paraphrase some popular book/series, “you know nothing Lee Fang”.
The easiest way to fill up the Intercept with sensational pieces would be a series of, I don’t know, maybe 100 articles, all titled “Clinton foundation takes money from [fill in the blank]”.
And, trust me, there’s less than 6 degrees of separation between Hillary Clinton and Hitler, Pol Pot, Putin, W Bush. Probably not much separation at all between her and the Trump. Trump actually stated that Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton ‘are friends’. Digest that if you can.
I understand you have to demonize Trump, but you are commenting about the politics of a country you do not understand. You might think ‘I have Indian friends’, or I have read 20 blogs about this country so I am an expert on India and their politics. A lot of points you raised in the very first paragraph were debunked later as media creation.
Do you justify the exploitation of the extremely poor by paying them 20 dollars to convert to another religion ? If you do I don’t see how you are any better than Trump or the Republicans.
Frankly if this is what Trump opposers are like then you are just opposing your own reflection.
Visit India, stay for a year, understand the country and then comment.
__
Bush Jr was your President twice. Trump is your Presidential candidate.
Save your country first. Then try to save the world.
Applause loud and clear! Enough said. “…if this is what Trump opposers are like then you are just opposing your own reflection.” Could not have said it better.
This article represents the sick mentality of a writer who does not have any knowledge or substantial Information about India. Read history of India, it is the country that gave asylum and security and religious freedom to Shias when they were being prosecuted all over the world, same is true about Jews, Zoroastrians (Persians). There is a Mosque in Kerala which dates back to 6 A.D. Same is true about many Churches, synagogues. In short I want state that India and Hindus have had welcomed and respected those people who were being prosecuted all over the world because of their faith and provided them full religious freedom. Don’t malign India for you narrow political goals. I don’t claim that we never had any conflict but don’t generalize it. If you want to understand the reasons of conflict do some real research and base your views on findings instead writing something stupid article like this one.
Don’t simply portrait the win in 2014 as anti Muslim ! If you aren’t sure about some thing you write about ! Please shut up !
FWIW, Modi has already outlawed not only the slaughter of cattle for any reason, but also the sale of cattle for export. It has resulted in peasant farmers whose work oxen are too old or too frail to work having to support them for the rest of their lives. The same thing applies to milk cows. Before a peasant could use the price of an ox to defray the cost of a new one, but now that possibility no longer exists. The farmers thus can no longer farm.
There are a whole lot of reasons to despise Donald Trump. They run the gamut from the benign bullsh*t of a political campaign, to his malignant effect on politics, racial relations, intolerance, misogyny, classism, and threats to overall world stability.
This thin and somewhat challenged article isn’t it.
Next time, and there will be a “next time”, go for substance.
Totally bogus article. If US media is lying about a country where we know what is happening, wonder how much of the info Americans get about other countries is true.
The Gujarat incident was started by Muslims when they locked up a train full of Hindu priests and pilgrims (about 500 people) and doused it with gasoline and set it on fire, burning all of them alive.
The counter riots were specifically against the muslim village leaders and their supporters who planned and executed the train burning. And that too only after several similar attacks had gone completely unpunished by the central Congress government in the then recent past.
Steno Bob Mackey must be working on a blockbuster regarding Kim Kardashian.
Lee Fang seems to have drawn the short stick to carry the torch of propaganda.
Absolute lies. The riots were a results of Muslim Terrorists burning a train full of peaceful Hindu pilgrims at Godra. Mr.Modi did not stroke the riots , infact he quelled it.He saw to it that there were no riots there after even if Muslim Terrorists attacked again and again later, like Mumbai 26/11 attacks.
Peaceful Hindu pilgrims who stiffed the kids who were selling food to train passengers because the kids were Moslem. Then the brave Hindus who had provoked the violence ran like rabbits instead of protecting the women and children on the train.
Mr. Lee Fang you clearly dont know shit about India or it’s politics, please if you wanna comment on our country please do your research, and also its pretty rich that this is coming from a guy whos homeland basically punishes every religion and bars Muslims from fasting Ramadan, seriously your article is pure bullshit.
Mr lee fang you dont know shit, please dont write articles about topics you dont know. the situation in 2002 gujarat is very complex, and most certainly not a anti-muslim riot, as many hindus were also killed. The BJP is not a anti-muslim party but it is not a conservative nationalist one, we dont need people like you telling us how to run our affairs, and before you say anything you must realize that your motherland is a cummunist shit-hole so please.
Lee Fang’s country of origin is the U.S. His hometown is in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Besides, your statement regarding a journalist “…telling us how to run our affairs” is so far off the mark. Since when do governments follow orders of journalists? Oh yeah, uh, since never. The journalist’s job is to report how things are not how they think things should be unless, of course, writing an opinion piece. Here Fang is simply reporting things as they are. Sure, the report may not be correct. But why get so upset about a report on a less than popular news web site that averages about 13K pageviews a day?
Journalism ( @ the intercept ) :
Reading random ‘blogs’ that suit your agenda and rewriting them without any research to get clicks.
Don’t insult a noble profession. This guy has no clue what he is writing about. Journalist’s job is of informing people about the truth, not twisting facts into stories to suit one’s own agenda.
Also, your last argument – if 13k pageviews a day don’t matter or influence a reader shut the damn thing down. If it does influence even a single reader then readers have a right to protest a fabricated article.
“noble profession?” lmaoshmsfoaidmt
Sure. “Shut the damn thing down.” Who cares? Well, Pierre Morad Omidyar for one. He has a pile of money and an agenda to pursue. And I feel certain if/when the time comes that he no longer feels he’s getting the clicks he needs, then shut it down he will.
And my so-call “argument” is not really an argument at all but merely reinforcement of the point that, in general (yeah, I’m generalizing here), nobody gives a shit what Fang, Greenwald, the Intercept, news outlets of any sort or journalists anywhere/everywhere are writing any longer, least of all governments on any continent. The only time any government official cares what is being “reported” is when their “leaks” need publishing.
So the article is quoting the NY Times, the paragon of truth? Did NY Times have anything to say about the burning of a train load of Hindu Pilgrims by the Indian Muslims? Riots ensured. What has Prime Minister Modi got to do with it?
Similar thing is going on in the USA now. Anything and everything that happens to a minority is somehow connected to Trump by the Media.
Totally one sided article, dude you start by writing anti-muslim party BJP!!!
That anti-muslim party is now in power voted by the people of India that too majority in which even Muslim people voted for the so called anti-muslim party
I don’t know what you are trying to depict here all I can sense from this article is hate!!
Horrible article
This is truly excellent news. As a child of the 60s I fully appreciate the philosophy of balance, of the ying and yang as they say in the sowth. So here under Trump we will persecute Muslims, and in India they will persecute Christians. As we Americuns are so ingenious we can make up for the fact that the Indians outnumber us better than two to one. The Pakistanis I’m sure would like to join in by persecuting Muslims. And the Chinese are keeping up their end by persecuting Buddhists. All that’s left is to find someone to take care of the Jews. Russia, perhaps?
Mis-spoke. Of course I was thinking the Pakistanis could be responsible for the Hindus.
Did I forget anybody?
A commenter here has suggested that the Palestinians are persecuting the Jews. It’s possible that s/he thinks the Palestinians are the occupying force.
I would not classify any violent activity against Zionist murders and land-grabbers as persecution. Rather, I would call it self-defense.
Just wait until the Cherokee and Lakota Nations blow up your school buses. We’ll see how you call it “self-defense”.
Strange common themes written about Trump on the The Intercept. McKay gives us important insightful comments about single dangerous Trump supporters in other countries. I thought his next piece would find the one dangerous supporter in Albania. Lee Fang has instead clued us into an evil Trump supporter in India. Okay, Outer Mongolia is next. But don’t give up on Albania either.
One aspect that is strange about the article is the lack of “big context”. Extreme Hindu nationalism and the actions of their adherents is not some quirk of recent history sorta involving Trump. When I first began reading about India in the 1970’s anti-Muslim riots were not uncommon. In fact, I read about the bit of cattle runs back then. Actually, if not blocked, the cattle runs also caused riots by Hindus. Coming or going the Muslims were screwed. I guess I could go back and I am confident I would find the same types of activities against Christians. But to what end?
Somehow inserting Trump into this large historical context of violent actions of Hindu nationalists is more partisan than enlightening. Everyday the American foreign policy bureaucrats and elites support governments who systematically oppress various groups including Christians. I suppose good to know about Trump. Okay, next.
I sympathize with Indian Christians (where is the sympathy for Syrian Christians by the way) but you know, as an American that is an issue for the Indians to resolve. Trumps support for some rabid Hindu nationalist is going to do jack squat to the plight of Indian Christians or Muslims.
But as an American, I would rather Lee Fang use his journalistic endeavors to investigate how the Indian outsourcing companies have financial ties to the Clinton Foundation and the payment of huge speaking fees to Bill Clinton which replicated the same sorts of pay-for-play that characterized defense contractors sales to such anti-Christian nations as Saudi Arabia.
As an American, the actions of the Clintons and rich Indian benefactors is much more important to me as tens of thousands of American jobs and lives have been ruined because companies like Disney and McDonalds laid off qualified workers for underpaid and under qualified foreign labor, which the stats tell us, is mostly Indian.
Or how about high tech companies sponsoring studies which show phony labor shortages in much the same way oil industry sponsored studies show no climate change due to human activities. And then guess what, justification to alter and subvert labor markets royally fucking many Americans. In case The Intercept was desperate to find an Indian link.
I read a number of outlets including Drudge. For Drudge to get a sense of daily right talking points and agenda items. Will start doing that with the The Intercept now–to get a feel for where the propaganda winds are blowing.
Legislation that author refer to is a good one since it BAN’s forced proselytizing of ANY religion.. If as a human you want to help someone,help them but using religion and playing messiah to innocent helpless and turning them to hate existing majority will only cause more headache..
Besides, i dont think just by taking a religion would grant heavens if his/her KARMA is in bad shape :)
Shameful perversion and presentation of facts to peddle a biased narrative. The BJP is not “anti-Muslim” , it has Muslim minister and members . The PM and leader of the party though accused by his opponents and liberals of “Stoking” religious riots was after more than a decade of investigation by his political opponents absolved of any criminality by the highest court in India .
Further, laws against proselyting religion is universal and applies not only to Christians – as it has created communal disharmony and is funded by foreign NGOs that are unwelcome in India due to their deleterious effect on social harmony. Claiming that Chiristians are affected and “persecuted” is tantamount to admitting that Christians are on a mission of professionalization and conversion of hindus in an aggressive expansion of Christianity. It is also an admission of changing the demographics of India and a covert attempt to destabilize the country through Western NGOs . Are you claiming that Ms Fang ?
Perhaps not as solid an anti-Trump argument as hoped, Lee, as I for one would love universal laws against proselytizing for ANY religion – anywhere, including atheism. Loud-speaker-Muslim-prayers, passing out Bibles or the aroma of properly prepared kofta kabobs in Hindu neighborhoods could conceivably all qualify. Teaching proven accepted sciences in school would not.
And though I love Francis I have zero sympathy for the Catholic Church. I say piss on ALL religions believing their delusion should be everyone’s path.
Sounds a little bit like Russia. Maybe you should check it out.
@ Deadhedhed. I took up your challenge, and found this.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-mosque-idUSKCN0RN1UD20150923
Putin opens Moscow’s largest mosque, warns against extremists
so you’re a fundamentalist
“You put me in a box here.”
My quote from Deadpool was supposed to be, “You got me in a box here.”
My heart has become capable of every form:
It is a pasture for gazelles,
And a monastery for Christian monks,
And a temple for idols,
And the pilgrim to Ka`bah,
And the tablets of the Torah,
And the Book of the Qur’an.
I follow the religion of Love:
Whatever way Love’s camel takes,
That is my religion and my faith.
—- ibn Arabi
One of the things I find amusing about religious texts is that one can find just about anything in them. On one page it says love your neighbor, then on the next it suggests putting nonbelievers to death. That’s part of the problem with them, really, especially the Abrahamic ones, that lack of consistency. It’s given rise to many episodes of persecution, even to wars.
There are of course primitive religions, still practiced by handfuls of native peoples throughout the world, that do not share the schizophrenic world view of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. But the three are in a way united in their efforts to eradicate them all.
I’m not familiar with other religions’ primary texts, but I am quite familiar with the Quran, and it is an integrated whole in which one part elucidates the other parts.
I’m quite aware of the so-called inconsistencies in it and am satisfied of how they can be explained and clarified.
The “inconsistencies” do not necessarily give rise to violence.
Succumbing to the lower consciousness (greed, selfishness, lust for power, control, land and resources, anger, arrogance, doing unto others what one doesn’t want done unto one, hatred, vengeance, etc.) causes it, and this phenomenon of succumbing to the lower consciousness transcends all religious and non-religious boundaries.
That’s one yuuuuge generalization, treating religions as monolithic!
A religion is a very potent force.
Interpret and apply it through the lower consciousness and there’ll be trouble.
Interpret and apply it through the higher consciousness and it can be enlightening.
http://www.zahrapublications.com
Something else I love is the insight, wisdom and grace you’ve contributed here, and I greatly wish you to stay. Please.
While I usually tell everyone I’m non-religious, because I can tell they don’t really care or want to know, I’ve considered the power of that single emotion my religion for more than 40 years. I wish I were always a better practitioner and advocate over those years though, instead living a schizoid existence for creature comfort. And indeed you hit upon the one regret in my original comment here, that I didn’t openly admit I would see proselytizing a message of loving others as ourselves an exception to that no-tolerance-rule, “and no matter who they may love.”
Peace, Sufi Muslim, and thank you.
Love is the essence, and the consequence, of the higher consciousness.
The image of Christ that has been created is of a being in whom love existed, and manifested, at the highest level.
(So it’s a shame to see some of his self-proclaimed followers behaving with so much anger, hatred, arrogance, and are full of vengeance and bellicosity.)
If a path, religious or non religious, does not lead a person, or collectivity, to love, then there’s something wrong.
Wait, he “praised” him??? REALLY??? Wow, that does indeed make his ties to this person “deep.” More crack reporting hard-nosed journalism from The Intercept.
And that $25 million Hillary’s foundation accepted from the Saudis, who execute gay people and ban women from driving, going to school, or marrying without their male guardian’s permission? Nothing to see there, bor-ring. Nice try, right wing kooks! Four witnesses to prove a rape is perfectly reasonable and it would be culturally insensitive and possibly racist to refuse that regime’s money.
“In 2014, announcing the Trump Tower Mumbai deal, Trump praised his partner, calling the Mumbai-based firm “a truly fantastic team of professionals.” Lodha’s son, the managing director of the Lodha Group, told the New York Times that the branded approach to real estate has help him sell condominiums; units in Trump Tower Mumbai have already sold for as much as $2 million.”
That is a little more than just some praise. He’s actually in business with him.
Why does everything have to be and Hillary did this. Both of these people are very bad people. When I make arguments as to why Hillary is a horrible person I don’t need people coming back and saying “Well Trump did this”. Trump is a horrible person. Hillary is a horrible person. I don’t need to compare the two or argue against each other, they’re both crap. The fact that Hillary took 25 million from Saudi Arabia does not lessen Trumps relationship with this a****** in India. Both show corruption
I agree— stupid partisans are everywhere and exasperating and dumbing down every conversation here.
You’re so right. When I mention that the Syrian Christians are the exact dna as the Jews, nobody replies. Their blood is the same…their Aramaic speech was the same once. There are many such contradictions that point to powers way beyond race or religion. Many…
Yet the bathroom walls of this gadget draw millions of flies and maggots.
I don’t understand the hypocrisy of this article either. Did the author just recently learn about the history of India?
As for this presidential race, I like Pence and Sanders. The relief of having scandal-free humans in Washington would be so liberating. Bless them!!!
Should I now feel better or worse that Americans can’t distinguish between Muslims and Hindus?
I’m leaning toward better/right all along.
It used to be Americans only learned geography through war, now we learn geography through Trump.
More propaganda from the Intercept , shilling for Hillary Clinton — who, ironically, was part of the cabal that wanted to lock up or kill Ed Snowden.
Aside form that, the propagandist Lee Fang fails to mention the Clinton’s close relationship with Modi:
https://still4hill.com/2014/09/29/bill-and-hillary-clinton-call-on-indias-prime-minister-modi-in-new-york/
Lee Fang is a master manipulator. Notice how the title of the article claims Modi is Trump’s business partner. As the article goes on we don’t find any evidence that they are business partners. Trump has just sold licenses for properties to them. Fang would have you believe that if you sell to someone you are their business partner. Yet if you accept millions in bribes from misogynist countries, as Hillary has done … silence.
The funniest thing about this article, aside from the obvious astroturfing of the Intercept, is that Hillary has received millions from despots whose record with women and Christians are nothing less than a basket of deplorables.
The Intercept is ignoring the misogynistic rape culture of the far right Islamic dictatorships that bribe Hillary Clinton. This article and the author personify dishonest journalism … since the greatest lie is the lie of omission.
Since the Intercept is so fond of following the money, let’s do so:
United Arab Emirates $5,000,000 to Clinton Foundation
State Dept. approval for U.S. weapons sales to the UAE.
Persecutes women,– women can lose children for converting to Christianity:
https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/world-watch-list/united-arab-emirates/
Qatar $5,000,000 to Clinton Foundation
State Dept. approval for U.S. arms sales to Qatar. State pressure on Justice Dept. to curtail investigation of bribery payments regarding FIFA and 2022 World Cup host, Qatar.
Acute persecution of Christians and women with death penalty for religious conversions:
http://www.opendoorsuk.org/persecution/worldwatch/qatar.php
Oman
$5,000,000 to Clinton Foundation
State clearance for U.S. weapons sales to Oman.
Torturous, barbarous regime with horrible human rights records and persecution of Christians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Oman
Sheikh Mohammed H. Al Amoudi (Ethiopian-Saudi billionaire)
$10,000,000
Influence-buying within the Clinton State Dept.
GEMS Education, Dubai
$5,600,000
Bill Clinton made “honorary chairman” of the Dubai company.
Brunei
$5,000,000
State Dept. clearance for U.S. weapons sales to Brunei.
Bahrain
$250,000
Muted criticism by State of Bahrain’s abysmal human rights practices.
Prince of Abu Dhabi and Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates
$5,000,000
Access to HRC at State Dept. and a $500,000 environmental speech by Bill Clinton given at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi while HRC was meeting in Washington with Shaikh Abdullah.
In Lee’s twisted world, if a real estate mogul sells to someone — they are business partners. Yet if a Secretary of State is bribed with millions of dollars through her foundation, while in office … well that is just fine.
Um, I’ll have the salad, and do you have a drink menu or was it in there someplace?
Hi Jamie, I strongly encourage you to read the rest of Lee’s writing. There are few reporters out there who cover Clinton’s financial ties so extensively. He also never said Modi was Trump’s business partner; the headline is referring to Lodha.
He is totally right! The xian is based on lies and miatranslations and inquisitions, quit trying to whitewash, xian is confusion!
Gee. nasty guy. Somehow he doesnt scare me nor does the idea that people in business have some crazies. I see it this way, everyone has to eat and have a place to live and in so doing, UNLESS THEY ARE CAREER CRIMINALS like WALLSTREET, they get paid, by someone.
Hellary on the other hand has actual wallstreet criminal enterprises AS HER SUPPORTERS. They are paying her! Hello!
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/26/clinton-foundation-spin/
Thusly, Hellary isnt just a terrorist magnet, she is also a mob moll!
hello!
This article appears to be deliberately anti-Trump. Hellary tried to destroy the ME in the name of fighting Muslim terrorists. There has been direct blowback to the USA.
SO whose foreign policy is worse for America?
We need more detail here on the bill itself and how it is likely to be applied. To play the Devil’s advocate a moment, I suppose that in America if a Christian went to a Muslim and told him that if he kept trying to sell his slurpees in a Christian town, God might set his truck on fire, there are unfortunately high odds some legal process would come of it. And I suppose if he told the man that none of the warehouses selling ice or paper cups would give him a deal, there might even be some kind of process out of it. So the “divine displeasure” and “social excommunication” arguments *could* mean something familiar.
Now by that I don’t mean they’re not wrong — they are. But until Americans learn to stop relying on prosecution of threats, to stop shutting down schools because someone posts a picture of a nasty clown and says watch out, we are not going to be in any position to exercise moral leadership on the issue. Banning threats is worse than useless; it teaches the smart people to jump directly to violent action which is easier to get away with and often much less harshly punished! But we need to learn and practice that.
The problem is, I fear they might expect something more like in Russia, where a few nominal nibbles out of freedom of speech are intended from the outset to provide something to write on a form, but are actually intended to ban every kind of proselytism and conversion. And if that’s the case, it is a truly wretched scenario. I have argued here before that the religion-neutral way to implement Trump’s ban on Muslim immigrants is to give absolute lowest priority to people who want to immigrate from countries where proselytism or conversion are illegal, unless they come from a religious minority that is not so “protected”. If India blunders into this definition, I have no motivation to change it.
Forget the alarm clock, i actually awaken to read TheIntercept and the comments. Among others i relish your perspective on things and want to express my appreciation for your insights.
I invite you to rise in your consciousness and allow the higher self within you to shine (compassion, courage, understanding, love, generosity, forgiveness, selflessness, …)
Ask yourself: What would Jesus (who reflected the highest possible consciousness) do?
And don’t forget Juan Matus, another practicioner of the kingly science of the Mind, who also reflected the highest level of human consciousness
This is an interesting question. There really *were* very early Christian communities that had the opportunity to decide what to do about immigration issues, and it would surely be interesting to know their approach. But I don’t know it… I should see if I can figure something out.
The answer is actually quite simple:
The image of Christ, as created by the Christians (and accepted by the Muslims, especially the Sufis who have reported spiritual connection with him), is that of a being who was the most loving, forgiving, generous, sympathetic, compassionate and selfless.
So ask yourself: What is the most selfless, loving, generous, sympathetic, forgiving and compassionate thing to do regarding those who are generally fleeing death and destruction?
Also know that the vetting process for the Muslims to get into the U.S. is extremely hard, and it can take up to 2-3 years for Muslim refugees to get in and up to, like EIGHT years for other Muslims to get immigration.
The visitor’s visa is also very difficult for those Muslims who live in certain Muslim countries, where an overwhelming majority of applicants are rejected outright.
So the threat to the U.S. from the Muslims coming from other countries is very, very small.
“Top Six US Problems worse than Terrorism”, at http://www.juancole.com/2016/09/problems-worse-terrorism.html
I am not an expert in these matters, but I would hazard a guess that the day that Judas gave Jesus his last kiss, the Romans weren’t actually invited. I understand that excluding ANYONE from entering a country is at its core a violation of their natural rights; it can only be justified when considering it as a form of military action. A relatively weak form, it would seem, and yet, when they hop the wall, the guns come out soon enough. However, Christianity is not an entirely pacifist religion, and the precise degree to which it is pacifist is one of the most important theological disputes there can be. So, freely admitting I may be wrong here, I’ll say my guess is that it might generally use the same standard as the Bhagavad-Gita, which is to say, violence is permissible when it is motivated chiefly by love, by an honest desire to defend rather than out of hatred. In the case of America and Muslims, of course, the adherence to this standard is most questionable.
Nonetheless, there is a very real fear that America is losing its democratic and civil libertarian principles. We see in this election a candidate pushing for torture, pushing for censorship of journalists, and the other one, only marginally better; the Russians are in the ballot box and the media runs a circus to distract us from the substantive issues. And in that context, how many more people can we let in with no appreciation for democracy or even for the most basic ideas of freedom of speech and religion, before we lose these principles for everyone? How many times can we let in Muslims, see spectacular acts of terror, and find out that the flip side of letting everyone be a citizen is that nobody retains the rights that we’d expect a citizen to have? It is an ideological war here, but one whose loss will have very brutal and physical consequences.
The other thing I would bear in mind is that Jesus always had sympathy for the poorest and most wretched of the earth. By contrast, I don’t feel like awarding citizenship to any Syrian or Honduran who can somehow get to America and smuggle himself over the border is really a true sympathy for the poorest. I think that our response for refugees has to start, at least, at the border of Syria or Honduras, and should work together with their neighbors. We don’t provide nearly enough funding for countries like Jordan and Nicaragua that take in refugees, even though their good work is the most effective barrier to keep them from moving on to the U.S.
So I think we have to build a wall, but I think the cheapest and best wall is a wall built out of food, shelter, security, and opportunities for economic development and integration in nearby poor countries.
You state:
Muslims in America are not causing this.
“Top Six US Problems worse than Terrorism”, at http://www.juancole.com/2016/09/problems-worse-terrorism.html
Far more non-Muslim Americans are killed by the non-Muslims than by the Muslims.
Excerpt from the above article:
You said:
No one is talking about illegal entries.
That said, from the perspective of the natives, was it legal for the Europeans to cross their borders or did they smuggle themselves?
Should the opinions of the natives be taken into consideration vis-a-vis the Muslim refugees, who are generally fleeing violence and destruction?
I recall a scene in which many white Americans were protesting against dozens of immigrants in buses.
A lone native held up a sign that said something like: “You are all f***ing illegal aliens!
He was obviously in favor of letting those people in, and was trying to make a point.
That’s reasonable.
I personally feel that it’s the neighboring Muslim countries that should bear most of the responsibility. But I also see spiritual benefits to any country that will rise in its collective consciousness and helps them out, without irrational fear: the risk is minute.
More tabloid trash talk about Trump, instead of dealing with actual election issues.
Lee, did they assign this dreck to you in hopes that it would escape the drubbing Bob Mackey has been taking for posting a long stream of it?
“President Obama and India’s Modi Forge an Unlikely Friendship”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/world/asia/india-narendra-modi-obama.html?_r=0
“Bill Clinton Tells PM Modi Why He’s Thrilled at His Election”
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bill-clinton-tells-pm-modi-why-hes-thrilled-at-his-election-672656
Nice try, Doug. I posted something similar in response to Robert’s latest gem, and I guess TPTB at TI either ignored it or thought I was just badmouthing him. It takes work to compare the actual proposals of the four candidates, work that includes overcoming the biased viewpoint that there are but two. Alas I fear TI is incapable of it.
This is depressing and upsetting. As someone who is no fan of religious discrimination no matter who it is practiced by, this should be condemned by anyone and everyone.
Now the US is far from perfect (particularly in execution of the law and/or enforcement and/or funding of certain religious affiliated enterprises/services), but it is one good thing about the First Amendment–the US government, domestically anyway (although in practical reality it does in many ways in favor of “Christianity”), doesn’t take sides or attempt to pass (at least not very often) laws that infringe a person’s right to worship and believe as they choose without (dis)favor to any religion or sect.
When you start letting the state interfere by passing proscriptive laws that (dis)favor one religion over another in society, you are asking for serious trouble, particularly if you are in the minority.
Then again, I have a huge problem with any religious person who is so fundamentalist or so fervent in their belief that they cannot coexist with others of varying religious beliefs. Now from my point of view as an atheist I think all religious folks’ “beliefs” derive from some very serious deviations from reality, but I also understand that at this point in human history religion is well entrenched in the vast majority of human beings’ cultures, lives and emotional orientation to the world for good and/or bad.
That being the case, it would be really nice if they all learned to accept each other, accept differing beliefs, accept that they may not be the “chosen” people of God to the exclusion of others, and that if there is a God all his/her/its creation are “God’s children”. But apparently that’s a bridge too far for too many religious folks, and that’s highly problematic.
Ouch!
Thanks for putting me in my place.
@ Sufi Muslim
I wasn’t trying to be hurtful to you or any religious person. I simply disagree, quite strongly, with the basis of your beliefs (i.e. a supra natural being responsible for creation of the universe and/or anything in it, because quite frankly I believe it is illogical to suggest a being could be both “unreal” (i.e. supra natural) and “real” (i.e. function of the natural universe) in which case the latter is the proper subject of inquiry for Science whose existence (and/or reality) can be proved or disproved), and not religion.
Maybe this would be productive and interesting just to see how you attempt to grapple with these tests:
Prove God exists outside your “belief” in his existence.
Better yet, prove God exists in the material world (i.e. reality) or has the capacity to directly affect reality or be impacted by reality (i.e. the material universe).
Even better still, prove God created the Universe including spacetime, forms of energy (including electromagnetic radiation and matter), and the physical laws that relate them.
I’ll wait.
Now of course you could say a belief in God and the belief in Science are different non-overlapping “magesteria,” or put another way that a belief in God is about “values” and “moral truth” and Science is about establishing “facts”, which I’m actually fine with. But even being fine with that distinction does lead me to the conclusion that “God exists”, in fact quite the opposite.
To me God is an “idea”. Ideas exist in the minds of (wo)men and are a function of the activity of a human being’s brain, and thus a function of the “natural world”. And it follows that if ideas (or beliefs), in God or any other being, are a function of the activity of our human brains, then unless you can establish God is part of the natural world, and necessarily a proper subject of scientific inquiry to be proved or disproved, then you can’t establish that God “exists” except as an idea or belief that can’t be proved or disproved, in which case I don’t really care about what can’t be proved to exist anymore than I care that some people believe in gnomes, fairies or Santa Claus. Which is not to say I don’t care about the consequences in the real world of actions motivated by ideas or beliefs, which are very real, but, again, a function of the human brain and a proper subject of scientific inquiry.
And similarly you could argue that Science cannot definitively answer the questions I asked of you, yet, and/or with absolute epistemological certainty. Nevertheless, and you are free to disagree, but I believe Science will provide a much greater likelihood of answering those questions (which are important to me, although maybe not religious folks) than religion ever could.
I am not in the business of proving anything or convincing anyone of anything.
My primary objective is to share my perspectives.
God to us is simply the Reality that encompasses and permeates all other realities — the Absolute Consciousness.
It is extremely unwise, counter-productive and silly to discuss that Reality.
Our striving, as I have stated often, should be to groom our self so that it reflects the higher consciousness (selflessness, compassion, love, peace, humility, forgiveness, lack of lust for power and control, doing unto others what one would want done unto one, generosity, serving others without expecting anything in return, etc.) regardless of our religious or non-religious affiliations.
http://www.zahrapublications.com
I stated: “It is extremely unwise, counter-productive and silly to discuss that Reality.”
I had meant: “It is extremely unwise, counter-productive and silly to argue over the existence, or lack of existence, of that Reality.”
Fair enough. I would agree with that sentiment whole-heartedly as a function of being a human being. But, personally, I don’t need to believe in the existence of a God I can’t prove exists to support that “striving”.
Why? Out of curiosity are there other topics among human relationships and beliefs that you find “unwise, counter-productive and silly” to discuss?
I mean you spend a lot of time here discussing your belief that certain Muslims are misinterpreting Islam’s foundational documents and/or doctrines and/or practices, while sharing your beliefs with regard to the same issues and why.
So I’m confused, is it just problematic that non-believers question believers about their those topics or foundational beliefs in the first instance, and thus “silly, unwise or counter-productive”? In other words, are you suggesting your beliefs should be beyond reproach or question? If so that’s one of the many reasons I’m not a “believer” in any religion. Now I might not be satisfied by the answers you’d provide, but I’d be a lot more concerned about a religious person who does not or can not defend why he chooses belief in a Supreme being over non-belief in same.
That’s why I said “[grooming the self] …regardless of our religious or non-religious affiliations.”
Belief in, or recognition of, the Reality that encompasses and permeates all other realities is a personal matter. A person comes to that awareness through complex processes, such as upbringing, reflection, inner experiences, seeing that Reality’s echoes in one’s own self, etc.
I generally do not like to argue over an issue, especially when someone asks me to prove something (often scientifically) that are matters of inner understandings, experiences, and convictions.
I am not interested in trying to convince anyone of anything.
I prefer to share my thoughts instead. And if someone finds my perspectives interesting, that’s fine, and if someone finds them repulsive, I am fine with that too.
I don’t have a “scientific proof” of what you think “God” is or is not.
My postings on the Internet began when I realized that there was a lot of stereotyping of Islam and Muslims going on and there was a lot of misconceptions about Islam and Muslims (e.g., that Islam is monolithic, misconceptions about what the primary source of Islam says, misrepresentation of terms, such as Jihad, Shariah), usage of offensive terms, such as “Islamic Terrorism”, “Jihadism”, and saw that the perspectives of Sufi Muslims were not being presented.
After having commented for so long (and I only comment here and on Juan Cole’s website) I am not sure if I should carry on.
I have no problem with that.
Religious beliefs are a personal matter. A person adheres to religious “beliefs” (the Quran calls them “inner convictions”), doctrines, and practices, due to a variety of personal reasons — upbringing, inner and outer experiences, research, reading, interactions with others, personal reflections, company of teachers, outer environment, culture, observations, etc., etc.
If I am not bothering anyone (am I?) or imposing my inner convictions (am I?) on others, then what’s the problem?
You are free to questions others’ inner convictions and blind beliefs. No one is stopping you.
But why do you want me to prove anything or why do you want to question my inner convictions, and expect me to “defend” my inner convictions, when I am not trying to convince you of my inner convictions or being judgemental towards you?
Am I obliged to do so? Am I being less of a person if you question my inner convictions and I say to you “please forgive me, but I’m not interested in an argument.“?
You question the existence of God. That’s your inner conviction. Am I obliged to give you evidence of what I think of that Reality? People have different understandings and perceptions of that Reality.
I am sure your rejection of God is not blind. That is, I am sure you have a definition, or description, of what God is, and you reject it.
If you didn’t, then do you reject something you don’t even know what it is?
If you do know what you reject, is it not possible that I also reject that? That is, it is not possible that there are ideas of God you and I both reject?
No, I am not suggesting that at all.
You are free to question what I adhere to, if you know what I adhere to, for it is possible that you may have assumed what I adhere to, and I am free to not argue over it.
Unless a person is offending you, or proselytizing you or being judgmental towards you, why is it necessary for her to defend herself?
Am I proselytizing or being judgmental?
Isn’t a person who is to defend herself in the position of defence?
If so, does it not mean that another person is on the offence against that person?
Is it not possible that a person is convinced about the Reality because s/he sees/feels/recognizes its echo within her/his self?
I have stated here often that there are as many paths to the truth as there are hearts (including agnostics and atheists), that everyone is on a unique journey to discover her/his own reality and perception of the truth, that I see the requirement of our time is to groom the self — a function you have already agreed upon.
Our path is that of ibn Arabi, Rumi and many other Sufi teachers.
We are not judgmental, nor do we proselytize.
We see islam referring to the yielding of the lower consciousness to the higher consciousness.
Our path is that of love, as I have shared elsewhere.
Is it really necessary for us to argue over it, or put me in the position of self-defence?
Fair enough.
I find it to be an interesting discussion why people believe what they believe. You apparently don’t. You believe what you believe, and you view it as a personal matter that you are only interested in sharing in a one-sided way (i.e. no “discussion” or inquiry (i.e. argument if you prefer), as a function of “sharing your thoughts” but without having to defend the basis of those thoughts as a function of:
Again, that’s fine by me. I also find that my views on certain topics are a function of:
So, it follows that it is an interesting topic to me how two people who are both a function of those things come to wildly different understandings of “reality” and their place in it.
If you don’t want to defend or discuss how or why it is you came to those personal positions, again, that’s fine by me too.
And no I’ve never found you to be someone who proselytizes or is judgmental in these threads on this topic (unless of course by “judgmental” you include the fact you “judge” others understanding and interpretation of the religion you identify with in such a way as you consistently argue their “understanding” or “interpretation” of what your purported shared “faith” requires or does not.)
Again, that’s why I find it an interesting topic particularly when engaged with someone who holds, apparently, strong views that others are misinterpreting his/her faith (or that others who nominally share that faith are misunderstanding or misinterpreting it, which is kind of my point and problem, in part, with believers–you all believe you have the “correct” interpretation (although often wildly divergent from the views of others who nominally share that faith) of an idea that to me should never be the basis of conflict or discord with anyone .
Bottom line, engage or not engage others regarding your beliefs and faith. But I find it difficult to understand someone who won’t bother to “defend” or perhaps a better word would be “explain” to another “why” it is you believe what you believe.
Sharing one’s inner convictions about the Reality that encompasses and permeates all other realities and trying to give scientific evidence of it to someone who has asked for such an evidence are two different things.
Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not ask me to give scientific proof of the existence of that Reality (to which you referred to as God), to which I then declined?
I have no such proof.
And my brief explanation of why people have a different understanding of that Reality, or why people reject Its existence, is quite concise and accurate:
—“upbringing, inner and outer experiences, research, reading, interactions with others, personal reflections, company of teachers, outer environment, culture, observations…”
Yes, that is correct. I agree.
That is correct. Each one of us is unique and examines the realities around us, and within us, from a unique perspective. Moreover, our levels of consciousness are also at different stages.
So yes, it is an interesting phenomenon that two people would examine the same things and come to two different conclusions. We analyze things in our own unique ways and our inner journey is also unique.
Again, There are as many ways to understanding the realities around us as there are hearts.
Defending and sharing are two different things.
I felt that you put me in a defensive position, implying that you put yourself in an offensive position. I felt that you wanted me to give you scientific proof — and I have none — and gave me the impression that somehow I was on trial.
So I wisely declined to cooperate.
Had you asked me to share my views in a receptive manner, my reaction would’ve been different.
My personal positions are based on my own unique personal journey in life, and inner and outer observations and experiences. I have been mostly influenced by the environment I opened my eyes in, the Quran, the Sufi teachers, and interactions with a fairly diverse groups of people, including atheists, agnostics and members of non-Islamic faiths and doctrines.
I am essentially a follower of the teachings of ibn Arabi, Rumi, several other Sufi teachers of the past, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Martin Lings, Frithjof Schuon, and Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri.
I adhere to the doctrine of Transcendent Unity of Religions.
In a nutshell, I try to point out the following:
1. Islam is not monolithic, that there are diverse views on what Islam is and says. There exist currents within Islam that are bad to worse, there are those that are benign and there are those I consider to be good to excellent as they focus on self-development and are quite peaceful.
2. What Islam says and teaches is based on the Quran, and not any other sources.
3. Other sources must be examined in light of the Quran, not the other way around. That is, for something to be considered “Islamic”, it must not conflict with the framework the Quran establishes.
4. The Quran is an integrated whole, so parts of it elucidate other parts. The Quran must be interpreted in its own light, with proper contextualization and through the higher consciousness.
5. The various forms of Sufi Islam are not discussed in the media or by the pundits and the politicians. So I felt the need to share my Sufi perspectives; though I am now increasingly feeling that there is no need for me to post comments on the Internet.
It’s not so much a matter of what is “correct” as it is a matter of what the primary source of Islam (The Quran) is actually saying.
Often, it is said that Islam teaches that the non-Muslims must be killed, as a universal principle.
But an examination of Islam’s primary source reveals otherwise.
That’s right. There is a huge difference between putting someone on the defensive, asking them to give scientific evidence of the Reality that encompasses and permeates all other realities, and asking them to share and explain their inner convictions and the basis of their inner convictions.
http://www.zahrapublications.com
Perhaps your rose-colored world is appealing in the sense that ignorance is bliss.
‘all other realities’ …
Good luck.
What am I ignorant of, and why do you think that my perception of the world is “rose-colored”?
Please elaborate, thanks,
That is correct.
There’s a whole metaphysics about it, and we are not imposing it on anyone.
Good luck with what?
http://www.zahrapublications.com/#sufismAndIslamicPsychologyAndPhilosophy