Debate a Muslim

[Ghazaly]

Thanks!
I have no objections to Islam whatsoever (and I wouldn't dare) and I even like Sufism a lot.
There are some things about Islam that puzzle me though.
* Muslims are mostly not vegetarians, they kill innocent animals for food. Why is this acceptable to muslims?

- For sustenance, the same with plants. It's prohibited in Sharia to take animals as target for no just cause, i.e. for food. It's prohibited to kill an animal for clothing, unless you will eat it & use its skin. Initially, since the Earth (& all creation) belongs to Allah, any human exercises of rights on the Earth is transgressive, unless by Allah's permission. That's why we have to slaughter our animals in the name of Allah, as a permission from Allah to take their lives for our own sustenance.

- Animal wellbeing is paramount in Sharia, as enjoined by the Prophet (pbuh):

• "There is a reward for serving any animate (living being)."
• "There is no person who kills a small bird or anything larger for no just cause, but Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, will ask him about it –it will beseech Allah on the Day of Judgment saying: "O Lord, so and so killed me for no just cause".– "[just cause] is that you slaughter it and eat it, and do not cut off its head and throw it aside."
• "Do not take any living creature as a target."
• "There was a dog moving around a well whom thirst would have killed, an Israeli prostitute saw it and took off her shoe and watered it. So Allah forgave her because of that good deed."
• "A woman was punished and put in Hell because of a cat which she had kept locked till it died of hunger. She did not allow it either to eat or drink as it was confined, nor did she free it so that it might eat the vermin of the earth."
• "A doctor consulted the Prophet about extracting medicine from a frog but he prohibited killing it"
• "When the Prophet marched in his army from al-Araj in the direction of Mecca, he saw a ***** (on the way) whining over its puppies, while they were around her suckling. He commanded one of his men called Ja'il Ibn Suraq'a to stay by its side and guard it so that none of the army would harm it and it puppies"

* The Islamic Shariah law seems quite cruel and feels like a type of revenge. Is it part of Islam to take revenge?

- No. Sharia seeks to preserve the 6 sacred rights: faith, life, reason, family, property, & honor. Penalties (Hudud) are set to stop capital transgressions against these sacred rights. For instance, transgression against Life is punishable according to "soul for a soul" principle. However, Hudud occupy an insignificant part of the whole of Sharia. As I happen to mention this in a previous post, it's relevant here as well, when you hear Sharia Law it actually refers to Fiqh legal tradition [we don't actually use the term Sharia Law in Arabic at all, that's a western convention], Fiqh branches out in 8 main disciplines:

1. Fiqh Usuli (fundamental jrsprd) = legislation theory – ethical theory – legal theory – constitutional jrsprd – legal maxims...
2. Fiqh Madhhabi (scholastic jrsprd) = Hanafi jrsprd – Maliki jrsprd – Shafi'i jrsprd – Hanbali jrsprd – & others...
3. Fiqh 'Am (general jrsprd) = debate science – topical jrsprd – consensual jrsprd – differential jrsprd comparative jrsprd...
4. Fiqh al-Furu' (branches of jrsprd) = of worship – of habits – of rights – of contracts – of property – of transactions – of relations – of care – of wills – of emancipation – of commerce – of trust – of companies, of endowments...
5. Fiqh al-Qadaa (judiciary jurisprudence) = procedural jrsprd – lawsuit jrsprd– dispute jrsprd – proof jrsprd – criminal jrsprd – Penal jurisprudence...
6. Fiqh as-Siyasa (political jrsprd) = political theory – administrative pltcs – judiciary politics (pltcs) – fiscal pltcs – public good pltcs – defense pltcs – international pltcs – social pltcs...
7. Fiqh al-Fatawa (advisory jrsprd) = case jrsprd – methods of jrsprd – mutfi decorum...
8. Tarikh at-Tashri' (history of jrsprd) = origins of jrsprd – developpment of jrsprd – biographies of jurists – of jurisprudents – of judges – of political theorists –

>>> Penal Jurisprudence (Uqubat), as part of the al-Qadaa tradition, in itself branches out into:

• Diyat (indemnities) = blood-money, wound indemnity...
• Qisas (retributions) = retributions, chastisements, atonements...
• Hubus (isolations) = restraint, confinement, imprisonment, exile...
• Taghrimat (damages) = compensations, fines, forfeits...
• Ta'zirat (discretionary) = discretionary rulings by the judge...
• Hudud (penalties) = what you're probably talking about. <<<< THIS.

* Allah is the Almighty and surely beyond place and time and yet muslims are instructed to pray to Allah in the direction of one particular spot on earth. Would Allah demand that of muslims and why is that needed?

- It's a direction of prayer, it's not the direction of Allah! Long story, but we believe the Kaaba is in tandem with Al-Bayt Al-Maamur –a sort of another Kaaba in the Heaven, through which our souls ascend to Heaven.

* Islam does not prescribe meditation or yoga asana's (postures) as a means to serve or find Allah. Their form of prayer however seems like a mixture of half prostration to Allah (and in a worldly direction) as a ritual submission and also a very simple short form of yogic asana's. Why not go all the way and do proper (full) prostration to Allah, proper yogic asana's or even proper meditation?

- Prayer is a matter of ritual worship. We don't do it to exercise, we do it to worship as we are shown.

* Muslims are advised to do pilgrimage to Mecca and do a collective ritual turning around a stone. This ritual seems to be a remnant of a similar Indian type of ritual turning in the same direction around a stone phallus ("lingam") which symbolizes Shiva (God). Why, if Allah is Almighty and not to be objectified, is there any need to go on pilgrimage and perform a ritual around a special or holy stone on a fixed spot? Is this not also a type of stone or image worship?

- This is also a long story. To be brief, I'm gunna quote something I said here earlier:
We believe our souls established a covenan ( Ahd) with Allah to worship only Him. Then brought to this life as delegates ((Khilafa) to Allah in this Earthly domain to settle, cultivate the land & prosper (Istimar). In this life our yearning for God is actually the memory of our covenant, as if something we miss we are incomplete without. This memory is our innate state of being (Fitrah), which manifests in our faculty to seek the divine & recognize it when we see it. This faculty is reason (Aql), gift entrusted to us. We are responsible (Taklif) to uphold that trust (Amana) by preserving our innate state of being (Fitrah) -thus our covenant- until we return to Allah again after death. As delegates of Allah on the Earth, we exercise our rights with the boundaries which Allah has set for us, according to 3 levels of rights:

• Rights of Allah, worship & all that it entails.
• Rights of the self, sincere pursuit of truth & self-discipline.
• Rights of His creatures, good dealings towards creatures of Allah.

- From this respect, the Five Pillars of Islam epitomizes these rights:

1. Shahada – Testimony = this signifies our renewal of covenant with Allah so as to come under His boundaries.
2. Salat – Prayer = this epitomizes the Right of Allah, an obligation to Allah to worship Him alone.
3. Sawm – Fasting = this epitomizes the Right of the self, by self-disciplining & elevating the self.
4. Zakat – Charity = this epitomizes the Right to His creatures, by giving out of your own wealth to the less fortunate, showing compassion spreading love.
5. Hajj – Pilgrimage = this signifies the return back to Allah after fulfillment of covenant, it's a sort of pre-reeactement of the Day of Judgement where all are equal in the eyes of Allah, all dressing the same in a white cloth, as we will be dressed upon death.

 

[epronovost]

Animal wellbeing is paramount in Sharia, as enjoined by the Prophet (pbuh)

Then why can't animal be stunned or anesthetized before having their throat slit? I can get why those rule were like that in the 7th century since they didn't have the technical know-how to kill animals as painlessly as today so why aren't Halal requirements different?

 

[firedragon]

- Naturally. They are already having marriages, just illegitimate ones. A marriage is in essence consent (ijab wal qubul), though needs more things to be valid, namely: two witnesses, permission from the father, maybe a gift as dower, & a commitment for compensation or parental guarantee in case of progeny –even just an oral guarantee.

You said Ijab wal Qabool. So who is doing the ajwizah and who is doing the taqbal?

 

[Danielle Dark]

It doesn't. The point is: investigation ends with other faiths & starts with Islam, for among all the book the Quran is the only one which has been perfectly preserved. If God's message is somewhere, it must be in the Quran. As to the truth of the Quran that's established on its own.

I'm not convinced that's true, but I could concede you that point for the sake of argument. How would you establish that the Qur'an is true then?

 

[firedragon]

1. Yes, Sun Rise. I am very consistent, and I always try to be consistent. I am an a strong atheist and I do not worship any God or Goddess. So, no question of Bhakti.

You dont have Bhakti to oppose theology? Do you have Bhakti to anything at all?

 

[firedragon]

How would you establish that the Qur'an is true then?

You know I am always curious when people use this word "true". What do you mean by that quieten "Is the Qur'an true"? Is it a historical question?

 

[danieldemol]

- So you're going for a question not an objection. Define exactly what you mean by 'natural selection' then I will respond with approval or otherwise.

I already did;

'Natural selection is defined as a process by which species of animals and plants that are best adapted to their environment survive and reproduce, while those that are less well adapted die out.'
Source: What is natural selection?

- That's a mountainous feat to achieve –unachievable if you do practice law.

Being a large feet does not make it unachievable, throughout history laws have changed because somebody somewhere got the personal idea that a law was wrong and should change, then the idea caught on amongst the people and the law was changed.

13 significant protests that changed the course of history | Live Science

- Then demonstrate. If your point of contention is in confinement vs. death penalty, then so it is among the ulama as well, as to whether convicted apostates are sentenced to death or prison.

Actually except for the case of treason against the state I am asserting that neither confinement nor the death penalty is suitable for mere religious apostasy. But confinement is certainly an improvement over death, so I applaud those ulama who argue against the death penalty even if I do not agree with them that there should be confinement for mere religious apostasy.

- No-sequitur. Reason of conviction does not necessarily follow from type of sentence, or the contrary.

I used an "and" statement. The state could still wrongfully convict someone of treason, but it could not also kill them under that pretext if there was no death penalty.

- You're just saying things now. Where is your argument? An argument ends with a conclusion which follows from a supported premise. Regardless, confinement is literally a form of coercion.

No, I insist that neither confinement nor death penalty are appropriate for mere religious apostasy which is not treason.

- Non-sequitur. Individual action =/= state action.

To be more specific, it protects people from being killed under wrongful conviction *by the state* who may not have even made apostasy in the first place

- You're making a lot of bare assertions & jumping to unrelated conclusions. On what moral basis or value are you making sense of confinement's "betterness"?

Confinement is better in the sense that it allows time for people to be rehabilitated for safe reintegration into society.

Based on your own assumption from which you argue against "killing", it makes no sense to confine someone for doing what's part of their nature, the same was –in your example– you wouldn't confine a lion & starve them just for being a lion.

The wisdom of confining them is to safely isolate them from the rest of society (for the protection of society, not for any inherent virtue of theirs) until their cure can be found and implemented, allowing them to safely return to society

You insane defense case is an appeal to example –it too a fallacious argument.

Can you explain why using an example that demonstrates my point is fallacious?

- None of what you're saying makes any sense whatsoever. "we'll find this out in the future, therefore now" is not a valid argument, all you're saying is literal fantasy. You don't have to fantasize about this to understand the efficacy of punishment:

Had to look up the word efficacy. Google defines it as, "the ability to produce a desired or intended result." I would assert that the desired result of punishment is to safely rehabilitate an offender for return to society. What would you see the desired result as?

abolish the penal code & watch the "perfect-brain" people's actions!

Strawman, I was not arguing against the entire penal code, just the death sentence.

As far as abolishing just the death sentence goes vs not it has been done in real life and the results in the US are clear;

'The murder rate is highest in the South (6.5 per 100,000 in 2016), where 80% of executions are carried out, and lowest in the Northeast (3.5 per 100,000), with less than 1% of executions. A report by the US National Research Council in 2012 stated that studies claiming a deterrent effect are "fundamentally flawed" and should not be used for policy decisions.[198] According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 88% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder.[198]'

Source: Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

You are also begging the question, you assume confinement is good & proceed to argue against life-confinement!!

Confinement is good because it gives us the time to develop and implement reform solutions in the criminals and keeps them from harming wider society until such time as that can take place. Once they are safely reformed I see no reason to continue to hold them in isolation.

If you're so worried about the life of the murderer, you should be more worried about the life of the victim.

If the victim has been murdered it is too late to be concerned with the life of the victim.

- Red herring! The point was to expose hypocrisy not compare penal codes.

In that case you have not exposed any hypocrisy on the part of an Australian by comparing US and Muslim law.

However just because you made a point does not preclude me from advancing a point of my own. The death sentence is proven not to increase deterrance of murder.

Also, achieving similar crime rates does not follow from adopting similar penal codes. Even if we assume that is the case, your conclusion is still false –given that the penal codes in most of these Muslim countries are inspired from the Civil Code & that these countries are generally less stable than western countries today.

According to my understanding they are generally less stable due to the occurrence of religious strife that occurs within them (see Yemen for example) which I think is inevitable if you try to kill people who apostatise from or insult you. Once you take out religious strife from the equation it may surprise you how penal codes influence crime.

- Strawman. Friend, you're confirming what I said just to deny it afterwards! Self-contradiction?! As I said, this is NOT a question of events or qualification, it's a question of institutional worldview, which is strictly exclusive in the West. All the western "scholars" of Islam combined are not as qualified as a single 'alim (religious savant) in Sharia. Will Imam Malik himself (the founder of the Maliki school of jurisprudence) be allowed to teach Sharia in a western university. No. If you imagine otherwise then you're completely delusional. This also extends for anything systematic in the nation, you're not allowed to use other than a secular rationale for the administration of the state, or for enacting policies, or for legislating laws. You're not allowed to practice anything except what the secular law imposes on you, without a possibility for alternative. This much is obvious.

Yes we do not allow dead people to teach.

If Imam Malik himself were alive today he would be the expert on the Maliki school of Islam and provided he passed his diploma of education he would be allowed to teach the Maliki school at an university level. Qualifications in education are necessary for a number of reasons which I won't go in to here, but suffice to say that educators would consult with Malik for content on the Maliki school of law and then teach it according to approved educational standards - they would probably award him an honorary degree in Maliki law (but not a degree in teaching) and would allow him to debate Maliki law with them.

- What citation! We do watch the news you know! Out-of-this-world revulsion level. A simple google search would have sufficed:

• man shot for saying he does not believe in God
• neighbor shot for not believing in God
• This one is insane: couple kill own children believing they joined Satan... WTF!

From 3 articles in the US you concluded that, "Killing Christian apostates is not uncommon in the West"? Well I'm glad you have at least qualified what you meant by common.

In my opinion. To be continued...

 

[Danielle Dark]

You know I am always curious when people use this word "true". What do you mean by that quieten "Is the Qur'an true"? Is it a historical question?

I mean, how would you establish that the Qur'an is what it claims to be, namely a divine revelation?

 

[danieldemol]

@Ghazaly

- I don't have a position on this or anything else for that matter, for I'm not qualified to. I'm not a Alim. I'm sharing the positions (generally the majority ones) of ulama from the Four Madhhabs on these matters, from different perspectives. Islamic legal tradition branches out into 8 main disciplines of jurisprudence (jrsprd):

1. Fiqh Usuli (fundamental jrsprd) = legislation theory – ethical theory – legal theory – constitutional jrsprd – legal maxims...
2. Fiqh Madhhabi (scholastic jrsprd) = Hanafi jrsprd – Maliki jrsprd – Shafi'i jrsprd – Hanbali jrsprd – & others...
3. Fiqh 'Am (general jrsprd) = debate science – topical jrsprd – consensual jrsprd – differential jrsprd comparative jrsprd...
4. Fiqh al-Furu' (branches of jrsprd) = of worship – of habits – of rights – of contracts – of property – of transactions – of relations – of care – of wills – of emancipation – of commerce – of trust – of companies, of endowments...
5. Fiqh al-Qadaa (judiciary jrsprd) = procedural jrsprd – lawsuit jrsprd– dispute jrsprd – proof jrsprd – criminal jrsprd – penal jrsprd...
6. Fiqh as-Siyasa (political jrsprd) = political theory – administrative pltcs – judiciary politics (pltcs) – fiscal pltcs – public good pltcs – defense pltcs – international pltcs – social pltcs...
7. Fiqh al-Fatawa (advisory jrsprd) = case jrsprd – methods of jrsprd – mutfi decorum...
8. Tarikh at-Tashri' (history of jrsprd) = origins of jrsprd – developpment of jrsprd – biographies of jurists – of jurisprudents – of judges – of political theorists –

- As you can imagine, each of these disciplines will have a slightly different perspective on different moral/legal matters, including apostasy. Al-Mawardi himself being a Maliki jurists, the supreme judge of the Abbasid empire, & a politicist, exposes different opinions on apostasy in his different works.

So are you not capable of thinking for yourself and forming your own opinion?

- That's a fair question, understandable given where you're coming from. You have to step into an Islamic paradigm for this to make sense. The traditional state hinges on allegiance to faith within national communities, whereas a modern state hinges on allegiance to flag within national borders. In this respect, an apostate –thus leaving his community & faith– is effectively a traitor. In Sharia, 'murtad' can mean anything from someone who stopped believing in the faith, to a militant apostate, to a rebel to an ex-Muslim traitor. In fact, in the Maliki school, a secret apostate (practices Islam but hides his disbelief) is deemed a spy until otherwise proven. You can't have people come

That is precisely why the modern state is superior to the Islamic state in allowing human rights.

- You're straw-maning your own strawman. Without the option for execution for 'safely isolated' enemies the war is as good as lost.

Not at all in the context of modern industrialised societies. They can be safely isolated until they are reformed. From their position of isolation they cannot re-enter the war.

- I don't see the part where you actually make the argument?

On this particular point I was accusing you of sales/apologetics tactics, not making an argument.

Regardless, as I said, building a temple then having growing a following as an apostate is obviously an alarming situation for the state, if it can't control it, then it will have to crush it. Citizenship in an Islamic system, unlike in a Secular system, is not contingent on territorial borders (by blood, birth or naturalization), it rather hinges on faith & communitarian fellowship. Anyone can become de-facto citizen just by saying the Shahada, without the need of any naturalization process. It's the opposite case for Secular system, where a long winded process (several years or decades) of sifting & conditioning to weed out any potential undesirables or threats is required to achieve naturalization (if even). Under Islamic system, the process of sifting & weeding out is done not on entry, but on exist. If anyone who wishes to come in, infiltrate the Muslim society, penetrate its ranks, is allowed by the state to leave as they please & do as they please, then that state will crumble in record times.

Only an Islamic state would crumble in record times, western states have not crumbled in record times due to this reason Pehaps this demonstrates the superiority of western states to Islamic states

In my opinion

 

[Polymath257]

- It definitely didn't feel disgusting to them... I'm sure you fantasied about having sex then as well, tough not to once biology kicks in.

Which it usually doesn't until puberty.

Plus, you do allow sex, therefore you must allow marriage, for it is –on all counts– less harmful & more beneficial –"disgusting" is not a moral qualifier, & even if, marriage is less disgusting that sex.

Marriage is a contract that should probably not be entered into before one is over 20 years old. Sex is likely to happen by age 16 or 17.

People *should* have sex before (and even instead of) marriage.

You should get going, 2 million so-called pre-teens are having sex in the US, lots to be disgusted about.

I doubt that many people aged 12 or less are having sex.

I started being interested pretty early and wasn't interested until I was 14.

You know what's actually disgusting though, sex among teenagers that you & your likes endorse. It's all about degeneracy to you people. Always! Jumping to embrace out-of-wedlock open sex with no legal guarantees or protection for "freedom" & "rites of passage", yet hasten their pretentious "ew" when it comes to marriage, which is about commitment & sacrifice & protection. It's just that marriage is not degenerate enough for you to embrace. It will never be, probably...

Sex should not be happening before age 13. Period.

Marriage should not be happening until adulthood.

I see no problem with sex out of wedlock. In fact, i encourage it.

But, if people want to be married, that is certainly their right once they are of age. I, for example, am married.

 

[firedragon]

I mean, how would you establish that the Qur'an is what it claims to be, namely a divine revelation?

It will never begin or end in this thread. And even to begin that discussion one has to have very deep understanding of the other persons epistemology.

 

[firedragon]

That is precisely why the modern state is superior to the Islamic state in allowing human rights.

So you have a religion called "modern" that you are placing as competition to "Islamic"?

 

[danieldemol]

So you have a religion called "modern" that you are placing as competition to "Islamic"?

Nope, I am proposing that amongst modern western states are states which are superior to the Islamic state as defined by @Ghazaly in the post I was responding too. Context here is important.

 

[Danielle Dark]

It will never begin or end in this thread. And even to begin that discussion one has to have very deep understanding of the other persons epistemology.

Of course, but @Ghazaly asked for questions and objections and claimed that the Qur'an is "manifestly a true revelation," so I engaged. I have no illusion that I'm going to discover the Truth in a single thread; the goal is to have constructive conversation which hopefully results in both sides learning something.

 

[firedragon]

Nope, I am proposing that amongst modern western states are states which are superior to the Islamic state as defined by @Ghazaly in the post I was responding too. Context here is important.

Lol. Daniel. Alright alright. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Of course, but @Ghazaly asked for questions and objections and claimed that the Qur'an is "manifestly a true revelation," so I engaged. I have no illusion that I'm going to discover the Truth in a single thread; the goal is to have constructive conversation which hopefully results in both sides learning something.

I understand and your question is absolutely valid. What you are calling out is a fallacy called "appealing to faith". I agree with your question.

I was just telling you that the conversation on that subject is absolutely too long and wide and will not conclude. It was just a conversation, not that your point was invalid.

 

[oldbadger]

-
- That's like saying I haven't heard of Aristotelian school while speaking of Greek philosophy. Here is an intro:

• Maliki is a Sunni legal school founded by Imam Malik (d. 795), it's the second school to emerge in Medina (Arabia) after Abu Hanifa's school in Kufa (Iraq). It's the legacy & culmination of the Ahl-athar school initiated by Imam Malik's teachers. It's also the second most propagated madhhad, after Hanafi, & was historically the state madhhab for much of Maghreb-Andalusia history. Imam Malik is highly revered among Muslims, credited with many contributions, in legal theory like consequentialism (Sed-tharai'i), in logic like analogical reasoning (qiyas), & in law, as one of the greatest legislators of Islamic history, famous for his 2-million words encyclopedia of law –al-Mudawwana, & his hadith collection al-Muwattaa.
• Ashaari is a Sunni theological school founded by Imam Ashaari (d. 936), it's the predominant theological school in the Muslim world, & has been for the past 10 centuries. It is the school to which Imam al-Ghazali subscribed & supported, his school which influenced most Enlightenment thinkers like Hume, Hobbes, Locke...etc. Imam Ashaari is one of humanity's genuine geniuses, his thought was original & profound, credited with major metaphysical, cosmological & theological concepts, such as al-Kasb, & refutal of efficient causation, & the relativity of time & space...etc. –Ideas which would later be promoted by Hume & others.
• Junaidi is a Sunni mystical (sufi) school founded by Imam Junaid (d. 910), a major figure of sufism &, along with his teacher al-Muhasibi, he is credited with establishment of the principles & terminology of Sufism..

There you go! See? That wasn't hard, was it?
An earlier post of mine asked if you are Sunni, Shia or Amadija Muslim..... or another.
You didn't give an easy answer at first but I made a guess, and now I know that you are a Sunni Muslim, therefore very unlikely to be Iranian.... is that about true, so far?

Oh dear! How far mankind can go astray!

Maliki, famous for his 2-million words encyclopedia of law?
Ashaari and his school which influenced most Enlightenment thinkers?
Imam Junaid and Sufism?

And so there are Muslims who do not believe that Muhammad knew enough law, enough theology enough guidance for his own?

Christians did it as well, you know. After Jesus, along came apostles who really did not know too much about him, or his mission, and their writings and ideas were mostly additions to Jesus's actions and words.

 

[firedragon]

And so there are Muslims who do not believe that Muhammad knew enough law, enough theology enough guidance for his own?

So which muslim does not believe "Muhammad knew enough law, enough theology enough guidance for his own"? Can you pinpoint a school of thought who claim that and where?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You don't have Bhakti to oppose theology? Do you have Bhakti to anything at all?

No, I differ from even those from whom I have learnt - Buddha and Sankara. They were good thinkers but they too, in my opinion, faltered in places, basically conditionally accepting the existence of Gods. I do not have 'bhakti' (unquestioning servitude) to anyone. I am happy to walk alone.

 

[firedragon]

No, I differ from even those from whom I have learnt - Buddha and Sankara. They were good thinkers but they too, in my opinion, faltered in places, basically conditionally accepting the existence of Gods. I do not have 'bhakti' (unquestioning servitude) to anyone. I am happy to walk alone.

Bhakti means "unquestioning servitude". In what language is that? I am not talking of such a deep religious servitude. Anyway, why did you just bring in the Buddha? Did you learn from him? Did he tell you to have Bhakti to him?

What does Bhakti mean?