The American Academy of Religions held a regional conference in the Southwest this past weekend, in Irving, TX. One of the papers presented was a summary of William Carey’s work in East Bengal (currently Bangladesh) in the 1790’s.
Carey was a Baptist Missionary who sought to convert all Pagans into the true religion of Christianity. But he ended up in Bengal, in villages that were 50/50 split between Hindu and Muslim. Yet, he only concentrated on to convert the Hindu portion, and not the Muslim portion. The paper addressed why that was so.
Basically, there were two points
Carey’s statistics at the time said that the world was 57% Pagan, i.e., not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. His goal was to concentrate on the Pagans first, of who there were too many, and not on the Muslims per se, since they were not as many of them, on a global scale. Therefore, concentrating on converting Hindus was of prime importance to him
Muslims were, in Carey’s words, “bad”. They were intractable, obstinate, and stubborn. Stories of murdered missionaries by Muslims certainly didn’t make Carey emboldened to try. There was no use wasting time with Muslims when Hindus were much more open to talk with. A standard conversation:
Carey: The Bible is the truth, the Quran is fake.
Muslim: No. The Quran confirms the precepts Bible, but the Bible is corrupted, and the Quran is not.
Carey: Then, that means the Quran is corrupt because it confirms a corrupted scripture.
This doesn’t mean Carey didn’t try to convert Muslims. He eventually did convert some. But, he saw the stereotypes against Missionary work on Muslims to be true.
So that begs the question, if missionaries stayed away from Muslims because the Christians thought they were mean, why can’t the Hindus portray the same image. Graham Staines, anyone?
Carey: The Bible is the truth, the Quran is fake.
Muslim: No. The Quran confirms the precepts Bible, but the Bible is corrupted, and the Quran is not.
Carey: Then, that means the Quran is corrupt because it confirms a corrupted scripture
??
i don't see the logic behind that conversation..
If my understanding is correct, then according to Mr. Carey, each time an error is found in the Bible, the Qur'an is proven wrong. Thus, every time a Muslim digs out an error in the Bible - what Muslims are so fond of doing - he actually digs up his own grave, because an error in the Bible is a sufficient proof of the 'fact' that the Qur'an is not from God.
The gist of Mr. Carey's argument is probably the following:
The Qur'an acknowledges that the Torah (Tauraat) , the Gospels (Injeel) and the Psalms (Zaboor) are revealed words of God (Aal Imraan 3: 3);
The Qur'an emphatically states that no one can change the word of God (Al-An`aam 6: 34, 115 and Yunus 10: 65)
Thus, according to Mr. Carey, if the Bible is corrupted/altered or adulterated in anyway, then either it is not a word of God (as the Qur'an has acknowledged) or the claim of the Qur'an that no one can change or alter the word of God is incorrect. In either case, a mistake in the Bible proves that there is a mistake in the Qur'an - and thereby proves that the Qur'an is not from God.
Interesting.
However, in drawing the whole premise of the said claim, Mr. Carey seems to have overlooked:
The usage of certain words in the Qur'an; and
The context of the referred verses in the Qur'an (and has therefore failed in determining the accurate meaning and implication of these verses).
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?
[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited March 18, 2001).]
Well, I never said Carey was a religious genius, and that particular conversation was not the focus of the paper, but I thought it was interesting enough to remember.
But it was an interesting paper. I had never met academic missionaries before. PhDs whose purpose was to spread Christianity around the world.
Hindus might be easy to talk to ,centuries ago. Not any more.
What do you think of killing of missionaries and burning of their properties which is widespread in India and makes the work of missionaries in India harder than ever.
Muslims may have strong beliefs in their faiths so they are hard to convert unlike Hindus for whom religion may not carry such a strong message to be carried out in their daily lives.
Belief is not what mind possesses, it is what possesses the mind!
[quote]
Originally posted by analyze it:
*Hindus might be easy to talk to ,centuries ago. Not any more.
*
[/quote]
This is really misinformed. The vast majority of Hindus are completely willing to talk about flighty concepts of Jesus as Prajapati, and how the sermon on the mount sounds really great. It's that small vocal minority that you keep hearing about. And they are apparently doing their job, if you really feel Hindus are currently hard to talk to.
[quote]
Originally posted by analyze it: What do you think of killing of missionaries and burning of their properties which is widespread in India and makes the work of missionaries in India harder than ever.
[/quote]
It's not like they were invited. Conversion is violence against a culture. Violence should therefore be expected in kind. Of course I decry killing and burning. But then, I decry the missionary's presence there to begin with, so it's a two-way street. If they weren't there to convert, they wouldn't fear anything. It's a choice they make, and the stakes are now upped.
[quote]
Originally posted by analyze it: Muslims may have strong beliefs in their faiths so they are hard to convert unlike Hindus for whom religion may not carry such a strong message to be carried out in their daily lives.
[/quote]
So why not let Hindus sort out for themselves what sort of message they should hold in their lives? Why introduce a completely foreign ideology, and present it as an extension of Hinduism, and then trash Hinduism in the process? This sort of religious elitism begs for jealousy, distrust, and disharmony.
Leave Hindus alone, and they leave you alone. It's a very simple concept, really.
So what is the purpose of missionaries? To convert. Sometimes, they do it under the guise of humanitarian causes (education, poverty, women's rights, slavery, etc), but really, if the goal was to solve social ills, there really would be no need to proselytize. Simply, they could frame the social arguments from within the native tradition, fix the problems, and move on, and that would be service enough to the missionary's own god.
But no, they insist on the ulterior motive of conversion, an insidious practice that is simply asking for violence. And if you ask for it, why be surprised when it comes?
its obvious that missionaries' purpose is conversion...theres no denying that. but if you think that its a kind of violence then why are they allowed in there in first place?on the other hand, since india says that it is secular, so no one can stop them from being there and doing their work.
most importantly, even if hindus think that missionaries are working against them, theres no reason for the kind of anti-missionary activities seen there. there can be other ways to stop them.
[quote]
Originally posted by Scratch: its obvious that missionaries' purpose is conversion...theres no denying that. but if you think that its a kind of violence then why are they allowed in there in first place?
[/quote]
There is a difference between the law and what people feel. Akif previously had this discussion on blasphemy in Pakistan. Just because it's written in the constitution doesn't necessarily make it right today. They are allowed in because pretty much everyone is allowed in (Pakistani excepted). It's what they do that causes communal tension.
[quote]
Originally posted by Scratch:
*on the other hand, since india says that it is secular, so no one can stop them from being there and doing their work. *
[/quote]
And no one is stopping them. That's the point. However, Christian missionary activity is much more fierce against the Hindu than the Muslim. Why is that? What's wrong with Hindus imitating Muslim stubbornness in this regard?
[quote]
Originally posted by Scratch:
*there can be other ways to stop them. *
[/quote]
Such as?
Look - if someone goes peeing on a picture of your mother, you would get kinda pissed, right? So if the same happens to a Hindu's murti, he gets kinda pissed, too. There have already been discussions here on gupshup at how occasionally mean-spirited people get when someone calls them a terrorist simply because they are Muslim. The same goes for when someone calls a Hindu "backword, pagan, hell-bound" - it causes strife. It asks for strife.
[quote]
Originally posted by astrosfan:
** So why not let Hindus sort out for themselves what sort of message they should hold in their lives? Why introduce a completely foreign ideology, and present it as an extension of Hinduism, and then trash Hinduism in the process? This sort of religious elitism begs for jealousy, distrust, and disharmony.
Leave Hindus alone, and they leave you alone. It's a very simple concept, really.**
[/quote]
Astrosfan, dont be offensive about the fact that you tried to point out stubbornness and mean-spirit of muslims by referring to a 18th century christian missionary and ended up defending Hindu atrocities against present day christians.
Hindus used to be mild natured, docile and laid back but no more. Even if you are talking about minority of Hindus being aggressive and fanatic currently, this minority did not exist in 1790. So if Mr Carey would have been there today he would have similar observations about Hindus or Muslims alike. Christians missionaries used to preach in India for centuries but it has been only in recent years that news about killing and burnings have surfaced. So there have been a drastic change in the mind set of at least some Hindus.
Well, concept of leaving Hindus alone is appealing but they they could have said same thing centuries ago. Only in recent years they have this renaissance.
here is another story ...about a preacher in China..
China arrests Christian preachers
March 19, 2001
Web posted at: 9:26 PM HKT (1326 GMT)
By Rose Tang
CNN.com Writer
HONG KONG, China -- China has detained two Christian leaders who were preaching at a home in central China, Human Rights in China has reported.
Local police took Luo Gang and He Ping, preachers for the underground Chinese Evangelical Fellowship, from a family prayer service in Hubei province last week.
The New York-based Human Rights in China says the group, with one million members in China, is branded by Beijing as one of a dozen of "evil cults" in the country.
Spokesman of the group's Hong Kong branch David Zhang denies the label, saying the group "loves China and its people."
Katherine Baber, a Hong Kong-based China researcher for Amnesty International, says several members of the group have been detained or sent to labor camps since 1998.
One member was severely beaten and died in custody in Henan province last year, according to an Amnesty International report.
"They (Beijing) don't want to see any consolidation of any groups. It doesn't matter if it's a religious group or a labor rights organization," Human Rights in China research director Sophia Woodman says.
[quote]
Originally posted by analyze it:
*Christians missionaries used to preach in India for centuries but it has been only in recent years that news about killing and burnings have surfaced. So there have been a drastic change in the mind set of at least some Hindus. *
[/quote]
Right. They are no longer welcome. Situations change, and they need to adapt. As in, they need to leave.
[quote]
Originally posted by analyze it: Astrosfan, dont be offensive about the fact that you tried to point out stubbornness and mean-spirit of muslims by referring to a 18th century christian missionary and ended up defending Hindu atrocities against present day christians.
[/quote]
As one who is no doubt aware of negative Western media stereotypes against Muslims, it's a wonder why you so whole-heartedly believe their reports against Hindus. Yes, there have been some small outbreaks against Christians. They are tiny compared to what the Christians have done to Hindus. Look - Hindus don't just up and attack random people - instead, it is the cause of escalating tensions.
Or will you lay blameless the missionaries who turned a once docile people into the aggressors?