History of mankind evidenced many changes happening in the way religions were followed in different periods.
Gautama Buddha preached for celibacy and forbidden to consume meat. But when Asoka accepted Buddhism, he didn’t follow the celibacy and even practiced polygamy. So, preaching of Buddha related to celibacy were never followed by followers of Buddhism after Asoka. When Buddhism reached in China and Japan, they practiced Budhhism with consuming meat.
Like all major religions, Islam also had to face some compromises by its followers. The major and first one was change from ‘Khilafat’ to ‘Mamlookiyat’.
have these changes positively contributing towards the growth of that particular religion by offering flexibility or it raised suspicions due to inconsistency?
Just checking the scope of the thread. Is the scope limited to the first and major example provide in OP of compromise? Are other topics of desired compromise/flexibility off limits for this thread? Is discussion on whether there is sufficient flexibility in religions off limits? Are we discussing only one specific religion wrt to compromise / flexibility vs inconsistency as framed in OP?
Just checking the scope of the thread. Is the scope limited to the first and major example provide in OP of compromise? Are other topics of desired compromise/flexibility off limits for this thread? Is discussion on whether there is sufficient flexibility in religions off limits? Are we discussing only one specific religion wrt to compromise / flexibility vs inconsistency as framed in OP?
Not limited to those examples in OP. Actually, it would be interesting to know further examples, if presented to support views and understanding the opinions.
The topic is open to all other aspects of the discussion. No one needs to be concerned about expressing views, if we don't move in the unwanted direction of discussion in some recent threads.
Not limited to those examples in OP. Actually, it would be interesting to know further examples, if presented to support views and understanding the opinions.
The topic is open to all other aspects of the discussion. No one needs to be concerned about expressing views, if we don't move in the unwanted direction of discussion in some recent threads.
Would you say that it's wrong for current followers of Buddhism to say that celibacy is not a part of Buddhism then? Would not the teachings and practices of Gautama Buddha take precedence over how Asoka practiced/interpreted the faith?
^ one could say that Ashoka did Ijethad in his deen, just like Hazrat Umar did in Islam. He changed many practices of islam because it was the need of that time. I see it very unfortunate that we stopped there, and today many of us follow the variation of Hazrat Umar, without realizing that he probably did that with a temporary mindset
^ one could say that Ashoka did Ijethad in his deen, just like Hazrat Umar did in Islam. He changed many practices of islam because it was the need of that time. I see it very unfortunate that we stopped there, and today many of us follow the variation of Hazrat Umar, without realizing that he probably did that with a temporary mindset
Interesting TLK Bhaiyya....could you elaborate a little/explain for me what practices you're talking about....I'd like to learn more about this
Not limited to those examples in OP. Actually, it would be interesting to know further examples, if presented to support views and understanding the opinions.
The topic is open to all other aspects of the discussion. No one needs to be concerned about expressing views, if we don't move in the unwanted direction of discussion in some recent threads.
Thanks. Re last para, the recent thread direction, in my humble opinion, was not the problem. The questions posed were legitimate. The direction appeared to be determined by some taking potshots at the questioner. Rather than attempt to answer the question. At least that is my opinion. Other may disagree.
Hence wanted to get some points clarified. I hope the direction will be courteous in this thread.
Would you say that it's wrong for current followers of Buddhism to say that celibacy is not a part of Buddhism then? Would not the teachings and practices of Gautama Buddha take precedence over how Asoka practiced/interpreted the faith?
That is the beauty of religion when followed with common sense and wisdom. It evolves with the times. The rules are not set in stone. There is no right and wrong. You follow the religion using your own set of guidelines. Flexibility and compromise, as mentioned is OP, is the key.
As we move forward, God willing, this will be the modus ope***** for most religions. It ought to be between the individual and his Bhagwan.
Would you say that it's wrong for current followers of Buddhism to say that celibacy is not a part of Buddhism then? Would not the teachings and practices of Gautama Buddha take precedence over how Asoka practiced/interpreted the faith?
That is also my question and thats why I'm calling it a compromise. But I'm indecisive whether it did good or bad to the religion. What is good for a religion? flexibility at the cost of doubts or rigidity to make it irrelevant for coming periods.
There is also some factors which differentiate a religion from other. Religion like Islam which got some central figure (call it leader, prophet, founder, etc) have an impact of that personality, like Islam can't be understood without going through the history of Prophet's life (we call it Seerah). Such religion have a set pattern based on what that leader preached and practiced. On other hand, religions like Hinduism which got no founder ( If I'm not mistaken, there is no person which can be called founder of Hinduism) are flexible as compared to first category of religions.
Prophet (SAW) didn't like music or we don't find any details from his life (which is well documented BTW) that he went to visit parties where music was played or poetry was recited as was the tradition in Arabs. So, it was inferred that music is Lahwa o Lahab (time waste) in Islam.
That is the beauty of religion when followed with common sense and wisdom. It evolves with the times. The rules are not set in stone. There is no right and wrong. You follow the religion using your own set of guidelines. Flexibility and compromise, as mentioned is OP, is the key.
As we move forward, God willing, this will be the modus ope***** for most religions. It ought to be between the individual and his Bhagwan.
Bhagwan k banday...there's a reason why I asked Muqaw this question. Buddha is the founder of the religion, his teachings and practices and ways of life take precedence to changes/manipulations made by subsequent followers. Common sense. So, when we give you and your beloved Bella examples of the Prophet SAWS's life and how he dealt with apostasy and disbelievers, you both deliberately choose to ignore them, you both dismiss that "version" of Islam, and prefer to instead believe the version that portrays Islam in not only a negatively light but markedly different from the Prophet SAWS. That's what we call bias, so you of all people, should not be preaching open-mindedness. I have even seen goray politicians use the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet to refute negative stereotypes about Islam, they don't depend upon poor examples like Boko Haram. It might be an act or charade on their part, but even their charade is more open-minded than your and Bella's open dismissal of positive examples from the Sunnah...which many of us see through. It is akin to me using Hitler and Dubya Bush to form my beliefs about Christianity and dismissing the Biblical texts and the teachings of Christ. And no, we believe that the Quran is Allah's word and it's for all mankind and transcends time and deciding of your own accord that the Supreme Authority's word is outdated is disrespect to that authority. No right and wrong? That's ridiculous, there will always discernment between right and wrong and that which is decent and shameful. Civilizations cannot be established nor preserved without a code for what is right and wrong.
I will speak for myself. I have never gone after the scripture, said anything negative about the revered figures and about God. I have stated that religion based laws are not logical because it imposes one religion's laws on everyone.
I will not participate in personal attacks and will not contribute to "undesired direction" of this thread.
The topic is about flexibility and compromise. I gave my opinion. No need to get bent out of shape
Just a request to the participants. Lets forget what happened in previous threads and lets try to understand the topic under discussion, without going into past discussions.
I've already clarified that its open for all with the condition that we will be expressing our views without offending the religious sentiments of others.
Bhagwan k banday...there's a reason why I asked Muqaw this question. Buddha is the founder of the religion, his teachings and practices and ways of life take precedence to changes/manipulations made by subsequent followers. Common sense. So, when we give you and your beloved Bella examples of the Prophet SAWS's life and how he dealt with apostasy and disbelievers, you both deliberately choose to ignore them, you both dismiss that "version" of Islam, and prefer to instead believe the version that portrays Islam in not only a negatively light but markedly different from the Prophet SAWS. That's what we call bias, so you of all people, should not be preaching open-mindedness. I have even seen goray politicians use the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet to refute negative stereotypes about Islam, they don't depend upon poor examples like Boko Haram. It might be an act or charade on their part, but even their charade is more open-minded than your and Bella's open dismissal of positive examples from the Sunnah...which many of us see through. It is akin to me using Hitler and Dubya Bush to form my beliefs about Christianity and dismissing the Biblical texts and the teachings of Christ. And no, we believe that the Quran is Allah's word and it's for all mankind and transcends time and deciding of your own accord that the Supreme Authority's word is outdated is disrespect to that authority. No right and wrong? That's ridiculous, there will always discernment between right and wrong and that which is decent and shameful. Civilizations cannot be established nor preserved without a code for what is right and wrong.
wow more attacks from RV on every thread now. keep it up RV, thats all you can do apparently. i love how no one is noticing her ridiculous behavior where she jumps from thread to thread with same attacks yet southie and I are the ones who are biased.