Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jainarayan
Yes, this. It's like the story of the blind men and the elephant:
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
The Rig Veda says ékaṃ sád víprā bahudhā́ vadanty, "That which is One, the sages give many names". And then when we all disagree on what kind of animal it is, and who is right and who is wrong, all hell breaks loose, and the fighting begins. |
But what happens when one of the blind men who touches the elephant is a murderer, rapist, and a property confiscator? Is his word any less believable than perhaps another blind man who touches the elephant who has good morals?
My point is. Regardless of what a religion says, people will still look to its founder as a source of inspiration. Well, what exactly is inspiring about Muhammad's personality from the perspective of our modern constitutional republic/democratic ideals?