existence of Hinduism

3. Let me provide an imaginary example and draw an analogy. Imagine someone coming to earth and noticing the following phenomena: grass is green, milk turns sour, birds fly and some flowers put out a fragrant smell. He is convinced that these are organically related to each other and sees 'hipkapi' in them. The presence of hipkapi not only explains the above phenomena are but also how they are related to each other. To those who doubt the existence of hipkapi, he draws their attention to its visible manifestation: the tigers eating the gazelle, dogs chasing the cats, and the massive size of the elephants. Each of these is a fact, as everyone can see it. But, of course, neither severally nor individually do they tell us anything about hipkapi. When more like him come to earth and reiterate the presence of hipkapi, other conditions permitting, hipkapi not only becomes a synonym for these (which?) phenomena but also turns out to be their explanation. Thereafter, to ask what hipkapi is, or even how it explains, is an expression of one's idiocy: does not everyone see hipkapi, this self-explanatory thing?

This is what the Europeans did. The puja in the temples, the sandhyavandanam of the Brahmins, the Sahasranamams, etc. became organic parts of the Indian religion. Purushasukta was the cosmogenic explanation of the caste system, and untouchability its outward manifestation. Dharma and adharma were the Sanskrit names for 'good' and 'evil', the Indian deities were much like their Greek counterparts. To the missionaries, we were the idolaters; to the emasculated liberal, we are mere polytheists. In the analogy I have used, the visitor 'constructs' the hipkapi. To him, it becomes an experiential entity. He talks about this experiential entity, as his fellow-beings do, in a systematic way.

The facts exist; does the hipkapi exist? This is the issue. Puja in the temples, the sandhyavandanam of the Brahmins, the Sahasranamams, the Purushasukta, our notions of dharma and adharma, etc. all exist. Does their existence tell us that 'Hinduism' also exists? Are they organic parts of a phenomenon called 'Hinduism', even if that phenomenon is not a religion?

Fatwa Online !!

Is it permissible to wear a tie? Is it permissible to tuck one's shirt into one's trousers?

(Fatwa: 1282/1096=L/1429)

(1) It is not allowed.

(2) By tucking shirt into trouser, the parts of the body which should not be displayed are more revealed. Therefore it will be makrooh (undesirable). However, pant and shirt is the clothing of those involved in sin and obscenity; therefore Muslims should avoid wearing pant and shirt.

and Allah (Subhana Wa Ta'ala) Knows Best

If the pant's hems are at ankles(below the ankles) can they be folded before performing Namaz?

(Fatwa: 1565/208=B/1429)

It is unlawful (haram) to wear lungi, pyjama, pant etc out of pride below ankles whether you are in or out of salah. Performing salah in this state is makrooh tahrimi (undesirable to an extent of haram). If one wears pants above his ankles but by chance if it comes down below ankles because of some reasons, then it will not be considered haram. If one folds up his pants before salah above ankles the salah will not be makrooh. In the Hadith, it is prohibited to play with clothes in salah i.e. doing so is against the Sunnah as well as khushu (concentration and absorption in salah). However, the salah will be valid with karahah (undesirability). It is not necessary to repeat the salah. This is the right and correct ruling, one should act upon accordingly.

and Allah (Subhana Wa Ta'ala) Knows Best

Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband

ASSLAAMALAIKUM, I am studying in eng. college in B.Tech course.I have applied for education loan in minority commision.LOAN IS GRANTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT @3% interest. is it halal for me as my parents are unable to pay a huge amount of fees.please clear my confusion.

It is unlawful to give and take interest. If you can continue your education through any lawful income source, then you must adopt it, otherwise in case of dire difficulty and compulsion, it is allowable to take education loan and you must continually do repentance and seek forgiveness while deeming it a sin.

Asalamualaikum, My question is that does Islam allow us to use pirated or cracked software? As original software are expensive & found rarely.

It is not right to use it without the permission of its owner.

and Allah (Subhana Wa Ta'ala) Knows Best


Assalamu-alaikum, While sneezing comes, what should we do? Someone says, we should control it at our best, if not possible, then we can use the front side of left hand to cover-up the mouth. Another alim says, rather reverse side of pump of the left hand should be used to cover-up. Which one is correct? Zazakallahu khairan.

One should not withhold the sneezing. The abovementioned matter is of yawning, one can put inner and outer side of his palms upon his mouth while yawning, and both ways are allowed. It is in Shami that if a person is in standing position in salah, he should use his right hand whether outer or inner side, and if he is in other positions of salah he should use the outer side of his left hand. (Shami, 1:477) But this is the ruling of yawning (no sneezing) which is called tathaub in Arabic. The sneezing which is called utaas in Arabic, there is no ruling to control it. The Hadith says: ان الله يحب العطاس ويكره التثاؤب (Allah like sneezing and dislikes yawning) And it is narrated in Bukhari and Muslim:

Is it permissible to use utensils such as forks, knives, spoons etc. to eat?

One can use the things mentioned in the question when needed. But, it is prohibited to use them as fashion and avoid eating with fingers.

and Allah (Subhana Wa Ta'ala) Knows Best

Assalam mu Alaykum, When is sexual intercourse haraam and when is it makrooh. And what is haraam during sexual intercourse and what is makrooh.

(1) No, she can not. Such a woman has been cursed in Hadith.

(2) She should cut her nails fortnightly, if not weekly. If one did not cut the nails for fourteen days then one will be sinful whether a woman or a man.

(3) Every time she will perform Umrah she will have to cut the hair of her head equal to one third of her finger. If the hair reached up to her shoulder then also she has to cut the same.

What type of eveidence should be required to charge an adultery on woman? like whether four men see that particular female having sexual intercourse. or having relations with other men out of Islamic boundries like in a separate or going out alone with other man. If one wife is found guilty of having lewdness relations with other men then is he liable to give dower (Meher) at the time of divorce.

Four witnesses are requited to establish the offence of adultery. These witnesses will have to bear witness in this way: "I have seen so and so man doing intercourse with so and so woman in a way as pin of kohl is inserted in kohl-jar." One can not blame a woman of adultery just by seeing her going out alone with a man:

ویثبت الزنا بشھادۃ أربعۃ رجال فی مجلس واحد بلفظ 'زنا' لا مجرد لفظ الوطئ و الجماع، فیسألھم الامام عنہ ما ھو؟ کیف ھو؟ و أين هو؟ و متی زنی؟ فان بینوہ و قالوا رأیناہ وطئھا فی فرجھا کالمیل فی المکحلۃ و عدلوا سراً و علانیۃً حکم بہ (الدر المختار مع الشامی: 6/8)

(2) Yes, he has to give her mehr (dower) in case of talaq.

Dear Mufti, Asalamualaikum, I want to ask is network marketing is allowed in islam? Is it permisable to take the commission from the pepoles works whos is working below you?

Network marketing is neither based on partnership nor Muzarba (investment by one partner and work by other), rather it consists of many invalid conditions, and it is similar to lottery and gambling. Also, there is so much deception that in the greed of wealth it can trap the entire population in financial crisis. Therefore, it is Islamically unlawful to become its member or to take commission from the work of the persons below you while you do not have a share in their work.

Don't convert to marry, says Muslim seminary

An Islamic seminary in Muzaffarnagar has issued a fatwa saying that conversion of a woman to Islam for the purpose of getting married with someone from the faith is illegal and against the Shariat.

The fatwa was issued in response to a question posed before the Darul Uloom Deoband asking whether the conversion of a non-Muslim woman into Islam for the purposes of marriage was justified.

Don't convert to marry, says Muslim seminary

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Religioscope: India: does Hinduism exist? Interview with Martin Fárek

Religioscope - But when people speak about Hinduism, what is problematic?

Fárek - It also depends on the position of the person speaking about Hinduism. When a Westerner speaks about Hinduism, I see several problems. One of them is the notion that it is a unified religion. There have been so many different attempts to define Hinduism itself; I myself have written an article about these discussions and definitions. Some people say that the term "Hinduism" makes no sense. In academia, you have radically diverse opinions on the very basic understanding of what Hinduism is.

Behind this, there are more serious questions. When we speak about Hinduism in Europe, in our classrooms or in the media, we are conveying to people the idea that a religion such as Hinduism exists and that this is what Indians are. By doing this, we are explaining what the people of India are, what they do, why they do it, etc. We make sense of Indian cultures and traditions according to this definition of Hinduism, very much connecting it to the caste system and a range of other issues that have arisen at the conference.The question is: Does all this really help us to understand people in India?


Religioscope - Do you expect such an undertaking to have any impact outside of academic research? Do you see it as something more than an intellectual exercise - something that could initiate changes in Indian society?

Fárek - I think it can. But there is a question of several layers or groups when one is speaking about Indian society. At the conference in question, during several sessions and discussions, one could observe that there are people whom we call "Hindus" who rarely use the word, and if they did, it was because they had to complete forms for the government or respond to census questions such as : Are you Christian, Hindu, etc., i.e. What is your religion? It was on these occasions that many Indians first heard about "Hinduism"! Many of them decided: "OK, I am Hindu!" But this obviously did not mean much to them. So we must think first of all about how many people in India still live in villages - I think possibly 70 per cent of the population. These people are not touched by these emerging notions of "Hinduism" so much and whatever other terms are used. Of course, then you have the educated strata of society, not only intellectuals: I think they are the real targets of the conference - the educated so-called "Hindus". Many of them experience difficuty in understanding who they are and what their tradition is. Some of them feel that they are anglicized or modernized, but what are the alternatives? There is a lot of heated discussion around such questions. This is a sign that this conference can achieve a more general outcome.



The paper about untouchability was wonderful in many ways, and in one way it showed that you cannot solve untouchability in India as a problem without dealing with the broader issues that arose at the conference. The researcher presenting the paper, who himself had occasionally had very painful experiences with regard to untouchability, told us: "You see, untouchability has nothing to do with religion, with Hinduism. There is something else behind it. And what I say after doing a great deal of research" - i.e. these were not statements just based on his personal experience, even though he had actually thought originally that untouchability had something to do with religion - "is that at least in Karnataka, religion does not fit into the picture." He said that, at the moment, the government of India is more or less approaching the problem of untouchability as a religious problem, and since India is a secular state, the government will never interfere with it. There are laws demanding equality for all citizens, but this is not the solution to the problem of oppression. He said that, in some areas, because of this secular approach, the problem of oppression of some groups by other groups is getting worse. We do need to rethink the whole idea of the caste system, but this problem is very much connected to the notion of "Hinduism" and how the structures of Hinduism are perceived. We have first to deal with this issue, because it is blocking our search for possible solutions to the problem.

Religioscope: India: does Hinduism exist? Interview with Martin Fárek

Blogged with the Flock Browser

How I Became An Atheist

Children are pliable in the extreme, and they without fail emulate those they respect. My father was a Christian, so I became one as well.

Realize what I mean by that: I didn’t decide to become a Christian; it just happened. As a child, if someone you respect tells you that something is true — or even just illustrates that they believe it to be true — it becomes absolute. This is something that people don’t realize. There is no choice in these matters for a human until much later in life.

The place was more segregated than anything I’d ever seen. Everyone disagreed on where Jesus was buried, where this happened or that happened, and overall had their own dogmatic and exclusionary versions of how things “really” transpired.

I remember the moment it happened — the moment I realized I no longer believed.

I was reading a story about Moses going into a town to spread the word of God. The people of the town must have been Pagans or something because they wanted nothing of Moses’s teachings. They became quite terse with Moses, as I remember, and invoked the anger of God.

In a fit of rage, God proceeded to set fire to the town.

As I was reading this, with all of these doubts and questions in my mind already, I was dumbfounded. Setting fire to a town? A town full of humans he created? Was he surprised at their non-belief? How could he be if he created each one of them from scratch as an omnipotent and omniscient being? Wouldn’t he have had to create the very “flaw” within them that gave them the option to choose incorrectly? If not, how did it get there without his knowledge? What part of any of this was outside of God’s control.

Nothing. Nothing is outside the control of an all-powerful and all-knowing God.

Moses ended up negotiating for the people who’s town was being destroyed by God. He begged and pleaded that they didn’t know any better, and that they should be sparred. God finally listened to Moses and stopped his attack (praise God).

That was it for me. I put the book down and have been an atheist ever since.

As an example, the Bible clearly says that if you work on the Sabbath you should be put to death.

Whosoever shall work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.— Numbers 15:32

But millions of Christians and Jews work on the Sabbath and think it’s just fine. Why? Because they’ve justified — using their own morality — that no just God would really condone killing people for such a thing, right? Well, here’s the simple question: what gives regular men the right to deny the parts of the Bible that they see fit? What tells them to pick and choose what to follow and what to discard?

The answer is nothing. Nothing tells them it’s permissible to ignore the exact words of the ten commandments if at some future time the laws don’t permit their enforcement. Let me state this again: God commanded Moses to kill a man for gathering firewood on the Sabbath. The man was killed. There is nothing about this that expired or became obsolete due to later law. If you are a Christian or a Jew, and you work on the Sabbath, you are breaking God’s law in a way that God himself says is punishable by death.

And that’s my point. You, my fellow humans out there who know this is a hideous idea but cling to a Christian identity are fooling yourselves. You are moral because YOU are a good person. You are moral because you don’t kill people who check their work email on Sunday. You decide how your family follows the Bible. You decide the moral way to raise your family.

You think your goodness comes from the Bible, but it doesn’t. It was inspired by the Bible, and you enjoy the idea of the Bible, but that idea is actually your own version of it — not the real thing. If it were the real thing you’d be in jail right now. The same goes for Muslims, as the Koran commands unspeakable evil as well of its followers. In short, if you’re open, thoughtful and moderate then you’ve perverted the original teachings of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by being so.

Religious support for slavery

If you were really a Rabi, you would know that God, Himself, told the Jews it was OK to own slaves as long as the slaves were not the children of Israel. Heathens and foreigners may be kept as slaves and their children bought and sold as property. God also allows you to beat your slaves as long as they don't die from the injuries. The book of Exodus commands slaves to submit to their masters regardless of their treatment.

You can read it for yourself in any Torah or Bible. It's in the book of Leviticus--the same book where God sets the Kosher laws, denounces homosexuality, severely limits who is worthy of entering His temple, and demands you sacrifice sheep to atone for your sins. Our Founding Fathers used those passages to justify writing slavery into the Constitution.

Believers vs Non-believers

What do the data say?

I have seen no evidence that nonbelievers commit crimes or other antisocial acts in greater proportion than believers. Indeed, some studies indicate the opposite. Six of the seven states with the highest crime rates are in the Bible Belt. Fifty percent of the prison population are Catholics. Atheists comprise about 0.2 percent. A child's risk of sexual abuse by a family member increases as the family's religious denomination becomes more conservative, that is, when the teachings of scriptures and other doctrines are taken more literally. Similarly, the probability of wife abuse increases with the rigidity of a church's teachings pertaining to the gender roles and hierarchy.

Do our values stem from god? - V. Stenger

It's all OK if you are a Christian

Our country, with the approval and encouragement of George W. Bush, has been carrying out a program of religious indoctrination and the unconstitutional endorsement of evangelical Christianity. Federal money has been funneled into "faith-based" programs that make religious dogmatists prosper, and have no other actual, real-world value. The clearest examples are the prisons, where con artists like Chuck Colson have been engaged in a kind of ministry that is actually religious extortion and bribery.