Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow by Kahneman – a book I've not yet finished because of other readings (particularly Gurcharan's next book – of which I'm browsing though a brilliantly written draft, to provide Gurcharan with some comments in the next week) – will do one thing at least: it will popularise System 1 System 2 concepts on a scale no other book could have done.

Just like Jim Collins popularised the concept of five levels of leadership (I'm not sure if it was his original idea), Kahneman has massively popularised the System 1 System 2 concept. His book is a milestone in man's intellectual history, and will become a classic for all times (or at least for the next 20 years).

I have started using this System 1, 2 concept extensively in my daily thought processes, and, taken together with other ideas related to the brain functioning from a number of recent excellent books on the subject, I'm now able to keep on eye on my mental energy levels. I know that when I'm mentally exhausted I'll likely take mental shortcuts.

Basically, System 2 thinking is critical thinking (at an elementary level). It is the questioning system of our brain. But using this system requires huge oxygen and glucose flow to the brain – somewhat like pumping extra petrol into the car engine by hitting the accelerator.

Without extra oxygen and energy flow, and extra effort, we can't think critically.

(Btw, like most mothers in India, my mother always gave me a spoon of sugar to eat before exams. I have always liked sugar, so that was good. But in addition, this cultural idea now has strong scientific backing. The extra sugar provided extra energy to the brain for the two to three hours of concentrated work needed in exams – which is mentally draining and exhausting).

System 2 also stops functioning when too many demands are made on it during the day, or too much stress induced by our daily work. 

That means those who are poor, or live stressful lives with a series of frustrations during the day, will generally fail to use System 2 thinking or to use it ineffectively.

System 1 thinking, on the other hand, is intuitive. It jumps to conclusions (false conclusions on some occasions), and has been found to be prevalent in ALL humans. It is the LAZY system of our brain. Thus, even the best statisticians make simple errors in assessing data when they are not sufficiently alert.

Alertness, concentration, energy, effort: these are the hallmarks of critical thinking.

Now here's some very interesting research – from a recent post on Richard Dawkins's blog:

 In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in God.  They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God. Building on these findings, in a recent paper published in Science, Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God. Together these findings suggest that belief may at least partly stem from our thinking styles.

What does this mean? – for India?

Well, we know that India is particularly religious. It is also particularly poor. And its lifestyle is particularly stressful (which also partly explains the massive death rates in India from heart disease). It all adds up. India uses very little System 2 thinking (i.e. real thinking).

India therefore finds it easy to believe in ANY tom dick harry "leader" who offers SIMPLISTIC thinking. 

Thus, if I were to say (like Anna Hazare) that Jan Lokpal will cure India's problems, I'll become very popular at once. People love simplistic (and wrong) thinking.

Or if I were to make some utterly useless noise (like Kalam) such as "people should be good", and that India's problems will be solved by "good people", then I'll become very popular.

But I say some pretty non-intuitive things. I say that India needs to be free. Then, through a series of logical steps I show why this is good for India both in the innate and practical sense.

In doing so I make use of simple data. I make use of simple allegories. But I'm using ONLY System 2 thinking, not System 1. I'm challenging our "educated" people to think – something everyone hates (since thinking takes hard work and strenuous mental effort: in fact I believe that "educated" people are often more misguided than "uneducated" since they tend to blindly accept what they have read, whether during their own education or elsewhere. They are often LESS critical than the uneducated). 

Anyway, the excessively religious Indian brain is either lazy or exhausted. Therefore my simple message (that does require some effort to understand) doesn't ring a bell.

For my message of liberty to penetrate the mental haze and confusion of the Indian mind will require Indians to ACTIVELY question their assumptions (e.g. the common assumption that "good people" can solve India's problems).

Given the confrontational/ thinking/ non-intuitive nature of my message, I note that I'm far less "popular" than I could have been by chanting MINDLESS "mantras".

Given this, should I change my approach and join the lazy thinking of Indians?

No. I don't think so. It is better that I keep trying to explain to Indians why they should start thinking critically and start their journey of questioning assumptions. And then they will find the liberty is indeed the solution to their problems. 

Once again, a reference to my book below, for those daring enough to challenge their lazy brain.

My previous blog post/s on the issue of caste and liberty were in relation to pretend "Hindus" who believe in the caste system because they can exploit cheap labour.

Hitesh Rangra tells me that believers in Hindutva are not pretend Hindus and actually oppose the caste system. Here's a set of tweets on this subject. Read from the bottom up (this is listed with the most recent first)

sabhlok: @hiteshrangra The discussion is not about "Hindutva" but about pretend "Hindus". I'm glad we both oppose caste.

hiteshrangra: @sabhlok :Sanjeev Jee one fact most of RSS volunteer of RSS and leaders are not even on internet. They believe in working rather than media

hiteshrangra: @sabhlok :- Most of top leader of RSS are from so called lower caste(as we don't believe in caste system).

hiteshrangra: @sabhlok :- Because every time people talk about Hindutva movement they point finger towards RSS.There is nothing like caste exist there

sabhlok: @hiteshrangra Hindutva has a "high" mind (at times) and low, dirty tactics on the ground. I'm talking about all pretend "Hindus".

hiteshrangra: @sabhlok :- There is nothing like caste exist in Hindutva movement. Without knowing organization how can you say like this??

hiteshrangra: @sabhlok :- Hindutva fanatics who can't live without chamars, bhangis and other such slaves? Dear we are one who hate Caste system.

hiteshrangra: @sabhlok :- Please don't malign Hinduism for caste system.It was created by everyone knows whom.

hiteshrangra: @sabhlok :-"if untouchability is not wrong, nothing in the world is wrong"–Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras

hiteshrangra: @sabhlok :- It needs effort from each and everyone.

hiteshrangra: @sabhlok :- We don't believe in caste sir every human blood is red as common component in our blood is Fe(iron) nothing else.

sabhlok: @hiteshrangra Hitesh The caste system is evil regardless of who or when it was started. It is this evil that I invite you to destroy.

hiteshrangra: @sabhlok :-Dear it was Herbert Hope Risley who supported William Jones Aryan Race theory to create caste system.

On the other hand, I do have this extract from my compilation on RSS made a few years ago (see below). [In this context I must add that RSS is not necessarily representative of Hindutva, which is a philosophy with no organisational ownership. It is best associated with the famous Indian atheist, Vinayak Savarkar of the Hindu Mahasabha. Hindutva seems to be a very malleable philosophy, that can be moulded to suit the proponent's beliefs.]

Connivance and promotion of caste system

1. "Although 'hierarchy' and 'discrimination' are criticized by Golwalkar, for example, the idea that people are born into a particular occupation seems to be tacitly accepted: . .. [T]he distinctions in the social order did not imply any discrimination of big or small, high or low, among its constituents. On the other hand, the Gita tells us that the individual who does his assigned duties in life in a spirit of selfless service only worships Gods through such performance (Golwalkar 1966: I07, in Andersen and Damle 1987: 8i, emphasis added). … [T]he leadership of the organization remains distinctly Brahmin (Andersen and Damle 1987: 45)." [Joseph S. Alter, ‘Somatic Nationalism: Indian Wrestling and Militant Hinduism, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 557-588]

 

2. "Following the elite, upper-caste base of anushilan, the initial RSS volunteers were Nagpur Brahmins." [Milind Wakankar, 'Body, Crowd, Identity: Genealogy of a Hindu Nationalist Ascetics, Social Text, No. 45 (Winter, 1995), pp. 45-73]  [Source]

Happy to hear from you. I must add this (from my previous notes, cited above):

One good news on the subject of casteism:
4. "NEW DELHI: Ideological chalk and cheese shared dais when firebrand Dalit poet Namdeo Dhasal and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief K Sudarshan came together at a book release function in the Capital on Wednesday.

The internationally renowned poet and Dalit leader is the founder president of Maharashtra's Dalit Panther that has traditionally been at odds with the RSS. The Dalit Panther has for long looked upon the RSS as representing the Brahmanical order. Ironically, Dhasal released a RSS book on Dalit pain at the function." [Dalit leader buries the hatchet with RSS. The Times of India(Sept 1, 2006)]

3. "NEW DELHI: Following up on its radical call last year to train and appoint Dalits as priests in Hindu temples, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has severely condemned the barring of Dalits from a temple in Orissa recently.

An year-end editorial in the Sangh mouthpiece Panchjanya termed as unfortunate the discriminatory attitude of temple authorities at the Jagannath temple in Kerdagarh saying it was "shameful that even in 2006 there are temples where Dalits are disallowed Even God will desert the temple that Dalits cannot enter." [RSS rips into ban on Dalits entering temples. The Times of India (Jan 4, 2007)]

With ref. to my blog post here, I'm now posting a few pictures (click for slightly larger pics).

Above all I think of myself as a scientist. Not a good enough scientist, true, but a scientist nevertheless, by training and by practice. Economics, which I practice, is, to me, the science of choice (and scarcity) in human society. I spurn any alleged "economics" that is not based on well tested foundations. That is why Keynesian and "socialist" "economics" is, to me, a form of quackery, pure alchemy: to be shunned like the plague.

Everything in the world has an explanation, a cause.

Nothing – not even the "soul" – exists without physical causes. (I have never believed in a "soul". Although I am unable to eliminate the possibility of God – possibly an Advaitic, i.e. broadly pantheistic – "God", the concept of a private soul is clearly a delusion.)

I draw all causes (including human actions) from the first cause (big bang). Unfortunately, the science of the big bang is not as robust as one would have liked it to be. It doesn't entirely explain the way the universe is behaving. Hence dark matter, dark energy, dark flow. But the standard cosmic model is good enough as a first approximation. From it arises everything we know. (There are many plausible models re: whence the big bang came from, and I'm inclined to the infinity of universes concept since energy can't be created nor destroyed.)

This leads to the issue of vacuum. The entire universe is pure vacuum. In the vacuum found inside each atom, a tiny amount of energy courses at great speed – almost certainly at speeds greater than the speed of light: eternally, without pause, captured like a moth in a bottle, inside a tiny spherical distortion of space (this "sphere" is, of course, a gross simplification, given the properties of the quantum). 

So if we are merely vacuum and energy "hooked up" through chemical processes, what can we say about the "soul" or "self"? The Atman?

Well, it too must be mere mechanics, a play of energy, a bunch of atoms dancing in inter-connected ways.

I've ALWAYS thought that human consciousness is ENTIRELY biological, based on the brain. When parts of the brain stop functioning, key parts of our mind/consciousness stop working. Our soul is snipped. We don't exist even though we live. (I've discussed the human brain at some length in the first chapter of DOF, for I believe that without understanding ourselves, we can't understand society.)

Neurology has thrown up wonderful discoveries in the field of psychology and economics. We are truly blessed to be living in these times, as science shines its torch below each rock of ignorance.

The title of this blog post has been motivated by V. S. Ramachandran's The Tell-Tale Brain.

I've read this marvellous book just recently, and I must say it is a thriller. A thriller more exciting than any novel you'll ever read. 

Most of you would have read this book by now, it being so popular. But if by chance you haven't yet read it, please do so. 

You'll NEVER think about the soul as a "spiritual" entity, ever again.

Each part of the soul ("self") can be broken down into parts, and we now clearly know that our BRAIN is the soul. 

I look forward to the complete dissection of the human soul (self) in the coming decades. 

Please read EVERY WORD of this blog post. It presents the original summary of the Fatwa against terrorism issued by Pakistani Muslim scholar Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. The fatwa was launched in Delhi a few days ago. I've colour annotated it and broken into shorter paragraphs for easier reading online. The original fatwa (in PDF) is available on Qadri's website, here. I've not read the original fatwa due to shortage of time. This summary and FAQ should do.

It is clear beyond the slightest iota of doubt that "Muslim" terrorists are infidels, heretics, rebels AGAINST Islam. The are NOT Muslims BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION. Let's take this basic message home with us. Just like VHP, RSS and BJP who firmly believe in indiscriminate VIOLENCE against Muslims do not represent Hinduism but are apostates and its greatest enemies, so also "Muslim" terrorists" who believe in indiscriminate violence against others are the GREATEST enemies of Islam.

Summary of Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri's FATWA, March 2010

 [Sanjeev: Indeed, this was one of the foundational reasons - in particular Hindu religion's atrocities towards the lower castes - why I moved away from the Hindu religion, and have never found any further use of it, yet. The young mind HATES the practice of violence by those who practice 'religion' and preach 'morality'.]

[Sanjeev: I think Qadri has shirked his MAIN role here. Muslims must EXCOMMUNICATE all terrorists. And he has not explained how a government can adress hardships. This necessarily requires the promotion of greater liberty and open discussion]

“(Say to the people:) ‘Listen, sincere obedience and worship is only Allāh’s due. And those (disbelievers) who have taken (idols as) helpers other than Allāh (say in false justification of their idol-worship:) ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allāh.’ Surely, Allāh will judge between them concerning the matter in which they differ. Certainly Allāh does not give him guidance who is a liar, very ungrateful.”

“And among people there is also someone whose conversation seems to you pleasing in the life of the world and who calls Allāh to witness that which is in his heart, but in truth he is most quarrelsome. And when he turns away (from you), he runs about in the land to do (everything possible) to rouse mischief and destroy crops and life. And Allāh does not like mischief and violence. And when it is said to him (on account of this tyranny and violence): ‘Fear Allāh,’ his arrogance stimulates him for more sins. Hell is, therefore, sufficient for him. And that is indeed an evil abode.” (Al-Qur’an, 2:204-206)

“When it is said to them: ‘Do not spread disorder in the land,’ they say: ‘It is we who reform.’ Beware! (Truly) it is they who spread disorder, but they do not have any sense (of it) at all.” (Al-Qur’an, 2:11-12)

“It is those whose entire struggle is wasted in worldly life, but they presume they are doing very good works.” (Al-Qur’an, 18:104)

The keynote address in the seminar on freedom of expression I attended on Tuesday was delivered by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan.

Being a late arrival on the political scene (from February 1998), and focused almost entirely on economic and governance (not social) issues, let me say that I had not heard of this gentleman. Nor, indeed, of any of the panelists.

While I have no intention nor capacity to become a scholar of Islam, I do have the duty to understand Islam better if I am to understand Indian society and participate in Indian politics. So I have been learning bits and pieces about Islam through various readings. Recently, if you recall, I have commented positively on at least three Muslims:

a) Mike Ghouse

b) Reza Aslan and

c) Irshad Manji.

Now I find in Maulana Wahiduddin Khan yet another Muslim with whose interpretation of Islam I can live with – even advocate (as I advocate elements of Buddha's and Vivekananda's teachings in my writings). 

I made extensive notes during the talk. The point that is becoming clearer is that just like (many) Christians were the GREATEST enemies of Christ for most of Christianity's history, so also many Muslims are the greatest enemies of Mohammed. 

Such "Muslims" have garbled, distorted, and entirely turned the message of Mohammed on its head. There seems to be a race to the bottom among organised religions. The more irrelevant an issue that is insisted upon (e.g. burqua or not eating pork), the greater is one's power over the flock. This is PURE POLITICS, not religion.

Anyway, here are extracts from my notes of the talk:

Islam teaches TOTAL freedom (except the 'freedom' of violence). God said you must be free and no one shall impose restrictions on your freedom till Doomsday.

There is a difference between Muslims and Islamic teachings.MUSLIMS ARE NOT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ISLAM. They are followers of Islam. They are a community. That doesn't mean they represent Islam. Islam is the Quran.

Freedom of expression is the basis of ALL development and progress. Freedom leads to discussion which leads to intellectual development which leads to both secular and religious progress. Absence of freedom leads to intellectual stagnation which cannot be distinguished from the state of death.

I (the Maulana) invite criticism for criticism is healthy. Thus, both reason and religion favour freedom of expression.

The idea of blasphemy is foreign to Islam. It was a latter innovation during the Abbasid period. Mohammed was himself personally criticised in the Quran. Mohammed was called a mad man, magician, and his claims were said to be false. None who criticised him was killed! 

I (the Maulana) REJECT the idea that criticising the Prophet can be an excuse for violence. If someone criticises the Prophet through a book, you have the right to write another book to refute the criticism, but you have no right to take up the sword. There is NOT A SINGLE VERSE in the Quran that denies liberty of expression.

Jihad is an IDEOLOGICAL struggle, a peaceful struggle. Jihad is NEVER used in Quoran in terms of war.

War is permitted in Islam ONLY for defence. But even then war is the prerogative of the state. It is NOT up to any individual Muslim to take up a defence war on behalf of others.

Further, Islam makes clear that ONLY combatants are to be challenged in such defensive war, not the non-combatants.

In brief, I have NO REASON TO DISAGREE WITH A SINGLE WORD OF THIS INTERPRETATION OF MOHAMMED'S MESSAGE. To that extent I'm a practising Muslim, just as I'm a practising Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and agnostic. 

The Maulana is unfortunately getting old (but still seemed very fit, and many decades yet to go! I hope), but I hope there are a good number of young Muslims he has trained, so the message of LIBERTY that Mohammed represented will spread across the world in the coming decades and culminate in the peaceful, prosperous, free world that we all deserve to live in.   

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

The Maulana is a man of peace and liberty, widely recognised by many for his contributions.  Fortunately, his work is now available FREE OF COST, online.

About the Maulana

His books

His articles. I've picked this article that he published in India Today last year.

I'm currently reading a critique of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (haven't read the original essay yet, just reading its critque by Aaron, a book – freely available online – which I heartily recommend).

Locke's essay was pathbreaking in many fields including cognitive psychology, linguistics and epistemology. His essay, along with others like Francis Bacon's Novum Organum (and even Descartes's s Discourse on the Method), contributed to  establishment of the institution of critical thinking, of which the scientific method is one component. I have TWO separate chapters on critical thinking in DOF - work in progress, though.

Without being able to think independently, and without knowing how to think, the West would never have broken free from the heavy chains of its bondage to the Church – which was (often) more intolerant and more violent than even the most fanatic elements of Islam today (I need not remind readers, for instance, of the total eradication – through massacre and deportation – of the Moors in Spain, for instance).

It is the process of understanding (a) how we acquire knowledge, and (b) how we should think in order to maximise knowledge, that marks the birth of the modern era.

Locke was a major contributor to the modern era from all angles. In particular, he denied the value of pure reason that is untested on the touchstone of experience and observation. 

Note that similar thoughts had been expressed in ancient India by Charvaka, but unfortunately these thoughts soon disappeared in the sands of time. To Locke, therefore, all of us owe the origin of the modern society.

I cited an excellent article on the subject of knowledge (here) on FB recently, and wrote a comment in response to a discussion. Harsh Vora believes that my comment deserves its separate post. I have no objection to doing so, given FB's ordinary search feature. Also, what one writes on FB is lost forever. On the other hand, a good blog is likely to remain behind, and engage the wandering passerby in discussion well after one is dead and gone.

And so, for whatever it is worth here's the relevant extract of my very ordinary and routine comment on FB:

Sanjeev Sabhlok (linking to this article: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/01/27/the-role-of-the-individual-in-science-and-religion/)

In science "nothing is gained by going to the older sources. Science advances and the older writings lose their pedagogical value. This is because in science, the ultimate authority is not a person, but observation."

Sudeep Shetty Pretty Interesting … If older source (science) are true we can pickup the basic from old source and always make it better and stronger …

Sanjeev Sabhlok Sudeep, in every science, the basics are automatically adopted into basic education. Aryabhata's work (zero) is taught in class 1, Newton's work in class 12 or first year BSc, Einstein's work in third year BSc (or earlier), and so on. By the time a person has finished graduation, he is now just about 30 years away from the frontier of knowledge. By the time post graduation is completed, he is 10 years from the fronter, and by the time PhD is completed, he is AT or beyond the frontier. 

Therefore, except for the student who wants to learn the history of science, there is no value in going back to Aryabhata or Newton.

Only religion goes back to what was said thousands of years ago. That is because it ASSUMES that what was said is true. There is NO verification at any stage of the content of religious scriptures.

I know a little bit about Islam; not as much as I should. Reza Aslan’s 2005 summary of Islam’s history (No God but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam), which I bought from the clearance section in a bookshop a few days ago, is magnificently educative.

Not only is this book a fine piece of literature (I wish I could write as well as Reza – which would make my message so much easier for the people of India to understand), it deals effectively with a number of controversies that beset Islam. In doing so it gives the impression of genuine, scholarly objectivity (to the extent that a practicising Muslim can be totally objective).

When I read such books by Muslim authors (other good books of this genre which I've read include: The Shade of Swords by MJ Akbar and Reconciliation by Benazir Bhutto), I get the sense that things will turn out well in the end, despite the total mess in the Islamic world today. It is not going to be easy, though. A hard journey lies ahead for Muslims, to overcome many obstacles, including the hatred they have formed of the West. But as education expands, the capacity of educated Muslims like Raza Aslan to educate the world (and their fellow believers, as well) will expand. 

My respect for Mohammed – the prophet of Islam – has increased considerably after reading this book, and I'm able to better see why many of the criticisms often made against him are basically invalid. The founders of religions are often good people (not perfect!) but their followers, through rigidity of opinion, politics, and confusion, often create numerous problems for mankind. If Mohammed was alive, Osama bin Laden would have been long booted out of Islam.

If you haven't yet read the book, I strongly commend it. Three excerpts from this book are available on his website:

• Chapter One: The Sanctuary in the Desert
• Chapter Three: On The Origins of Hijab
• Chapter 10: The Islamic Reformation

I'm particularly interested in having everyone read this little section (from Chapter 4: Fight in the Way of God). Fortunately, someone has already scanned and OCRd it for wider dissemination (here), so I'm just reproducing this bit.

The meaning of Jihad as it was intended by Mohammed

The doctrine of jihad, as it slowly developed in the Qur'an, was specifically meant to differentiate between pre-Islamic and Islamic notions of warfare, and to infuse the latter with what Mustansir Mir calls an "ideological-cum-ethical dimension" that, until that point, did not exist in the Arabian Peninsula. At the heart of the doctrine of jihad was the heretofore unrecognized distinction between combatant and noncombatant. Thus, the killing of women, children, monks, rabbis, the elderly, or any other noncombatant was absolutely forbidden under any circumstances. Muslim law eventually expanded on these prohibitions to outlaw the torture of prisoners of war, the mutilation of the dead; rape, molestation, or any kind of sexual violence during combat; the killing of diplomats, the wanton destruction of property, and the demolition of religious or medical institutions – regulations that, as Hilmi Zawati has observed, were all eventually incorporated into the modern international laws of war.

But perhaps the most important innovation in the doctrine of jihad was its outright prohibition of all but strictly defensive wars. "Fight in the way of God those who fight you," the Qur'an says, "but do not begin hostilities; God does not like the aggressor" (2:190). Elsewhere the Qur'an is more explicit: "permission to fight is given only to those who have been oppressed… who have been driven from their homes for saying, 'God is our Lord'" (22:39; emphasis added).

It is true that some verses in the Qur'an instruct Muhammad and his followers to "slay the polytheists wherever you confront them" (9:5); to carry the struggle to the hypocrites who deny the faith" (9:73); and, especially, to "fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day" (9:29). However, it must be understood that these verses were directed specifically at the Quraysh and their clandestine partisans in Yathrib – specifically named in the Qur'an as the "polytheists" and "the hypocrites," respectively – with whom the Ummah was locked in a terrible war.

Nevertheless, these verses have long been used by Muslims and non-Muslims alike to suggest that Islam advocates fighting unbelievers until they convert. But this is not a view that either the Qur'an or Muhammad endorsed. This view was put forth during the height of the Crusades, and partly in response to them, by later generations of Islamic legal scholars who developed what is now referred to as "the classical doctrine of jihad": a doctrine that, among other things, partitioned the world into two spheres, the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-Harb), with the former in constant pursuit of the later.

As the Crusades drew to a close and Rome's attention turned away from the Muslim menace and toward the Christian reform movements cropping up throughout Europe, the classical doctrine of jihad a vigorously challenged by a new generation of Muslim scholars. The most important of these scholars was Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), whose influence in shaping Muslim ideology is matched only by St. Augustine's influence in shaping Christianity. Ibn Taymiyya argued that the idea of killing nonbelievers who refused to convert to Islam – the foundation of the classical doctrine of jihad – not only defied the example of Muhammad but also violated one of the most important principles in the Qur'an: that "there can be no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Indeed, on this point the Qur'an in adamant. "The truth is from your Lord," it says; "believe it if you like, or do not" (18:29). The Qur'an also asks rhetorically, "Can you compel people to believe against their will?" (10:100). Obviously not; the Qur'an therefore commands believers to say to those who do not believe, "To you your religion, to me mine" (109:6)…

Over the last century, however, and especially after the colonial experience gave birth to a new kind of Islamic radicalism in the Middle East, the classical doctrine of jihad had undergone a massive resurgence in the pulpits and classrooms of a few prominent Muslim intellectuals. In Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini (1902-89) relied on a militant interpretation of jihad, first to energize the anti-imperialist revolution of 1979 and then to fuel his destructive eight-year war with Iraq. It was Khomeini's vision of jihad as a weapon of war that helped found the Islamic militant group Hizbullah, whose invention of the suicide bomber launched an appalling new era of international terrorism.

 

In Saudi Arabia, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (1941-89), professor of Islamic philosophy at King Abdulaziz University, used his influence among the country's disaffected youth to promote an uncompromisingly belligerent interpretation of jihad that, he argued, was incumbent on all Muslims. "Jihad and the rifle alone," Dr. Azzam proclaimed to his students. "No negotiations, no conferences, and no dialogues." Azzam's views laid the foundations for the Palestinians militant group Hamas, which has since adopted Hizbullah's tactics in their resistance against the Israeli occupation. His teachings had an exceptional impact on one student in particular: Osama bin Laden, who eventually put into practice his mentor's ideology by calling for a worldwide Muslim campaign of jihad against the West, thus launching a horrifying wave of terrorism that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Of course, these attacks are not defensive strikes against specific acts of aggression. They are not sanctioned by a qualified mujtahid. They make no differentiation between combatant and noncombatant. And they indiscriminately kill men, women, children, Muslim and non-Muslim. In other words, they fall far short of the regulations imposed by Muhammad for a legitimate jihadi response, which is why, despite common perception in the West, they are so roundly condemned by the vast majority of the world's Muslims, including some of Islam's most militant and anti-American clerics such as Shaykh Fadlallah, the spiritual leader of Lebanon's Hizbullah, and the radical Muslim televangelist Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The fact is that nearly one out of five people in the world are Muslims. And while some of them may share bin Laden's grievances against the Western powers, very few share his interpretation of jihad. Indeed, despite the ways in which this doctrine has been manipulated t justify either personal prejudices or political ideologies, jihad is neither a universally recognized nor a unanimously defined concept in the Muslim world. It is true that the struggle against injustice and tyranny is incumbent on all Muslims. After all, if there were no one to stand up to despots and tyrants, then, as the Qur'an states, our "monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques – places where the name of God is honored – would all be razed to the ground" (22:40). But it is nevertheless solely as a defensive response to oppression and injustice, and only within the clearly outlined rules of ethical conduct in battle, that the Qur'anic vision of jihad is to be understood. For if, as political theorist Michael Walzer claims, the determining factor of a "just war" is the establishment of specific regulations covering both jus in bello(justice in war) and jus ad bellum (justice of war), then there can be no better way to describe Muhammad's doctrine of jihad than as an ancient Arabian "just war" theory.

Jayendra Saraswati, guru and chief of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam says:

Even Muslims and Christians could now enter some of the major temples in the country if they professed they had faith in Hinduism. He said there should be no discrimination among people. [Source]

Why can't they enter if they have no faith in Hinduism? There is nothing preventing ANYONE from entering a Church or mosque. So why this condition in Hinduism that you can enter a temple ONLY if you have faith in Hinduism?

E.g. someone has asked on the internet: 

Can a Christian attend a mosque?

Response:

Mosque is the House of Al-Mighty God Allah Subhanahu Wata'ala. Every mankind are slave of God. Every mankind have the right to be in God's House. During Prophet and Apostle of Al-Mighty God Allah Subhanahu Wata'ala Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu'alaihi Wassalam All meeting with Christians and other religion are done in the Mosque.

Sooner or later the Christians shall be Muslims. Therefore let them be in the Mosque. [Source]

Indeed, if a religion claims to be tolerant but won't even let non-believers enter its temple, then how can it claim to be tolerant?

I have blocked out a lot of anti-Muslim people on FB, email, and other media. But like mushrooms, they sprout everywhere, so strong is the hatred against Muslims among MANY Hindus in India (and abroad).

A FB commentator wrote:

How Hindu minorities have been wiped out in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

While Muslims breed like vermins in India.

My response

Such language "breeding like vermins" is grossly inappropriate. Let us be proud that India has not become a Pakistan or Bangladesh and that humans are respected for what they are. Do you want India to sink to the level of Pakistan or Bangladesh? If so what's the difference between you and the "vermin" Muslims?

There is a tendency among Hindu fanatics to (a) exaggerate things,  (b) label others as insects or vermin, and (c) to seek out the lowest denominator.

Just because Pakistan and Bangladesh have hounded Hindus to extermination (assuming that to be the case) should India seek to rival this brutality?

Will the so-called tolerant Hinduism please stand up? I can't see it anywhere, wherever I look.

I've blocked this FB "friend", but how many such people can be blocked out?

The reality is that India is in deep trouble. Its younger generation has been brought up in an atmosphere of hatred. Violence can erupt at any time under such circumstance. And with Modi on the upsurge, expect the worst in the next few years.