Where are the Questioning Minds?

Urstruly:
a reference for my #148 is here : Sura-e-Maida verse#3. 5:3.
Thanks for interacting yesterday on the topic.


by the way, have i said already that #65 is just a mindblowingly moving image?! it should win a prize or something.


Mantolives:
dont cry man. i will not write on this board anymore. please, carry on. :-)

peace.

Netizen

Good question.... let`s see how muslims here respond to that :)

Re: # 212

tahmed:

it seems that your interpretation is quite different from your co-religionists.

but the world is listening and looking at your co-religionists who outnumber you drastically and are not averse to demonstrate their interpretation.

just by saying ``their interpretation`` is wrong doesn`t resolve the issue, it just saves you from embarassment for some time.

let me ask you about the most often repested verses from quran which state bad things about infidels. why just not erase them so that no one will interpretate them wrongly.

early chritianity too had bad things about non-christians. but no one learns/knows about that stuff. similarly why can`t islam be reformed to keep such references out?

Mantolives, #211:
I am also done with the discussion between us but since you implied some actions by me, I want to ``microanalyze`` our initial statements. See my statements within braces.
#4, Mantolives:
``While one agrees with your liberalism and rant against patriarchy ...

Your understanding of South Asian history is pathetically poor ... so poor that it really destroys your own argument and opens it up for a complete destruction by the opponents of your liberal progressive view...{I found nothing wrong. You are personally condemning her.}

You write: ``But hundreds of years before British India ever existed, the region was anything but patriarchal and the religion of Islam was anything but repressive. Hindus and Muslims used to live under laws based in local custom in the pre-British India. `` {While India before the British was patriarchical so was the rest of the world. India under Nehru reformed in 1955. Mere 20 years before US and may be 100 years before Britain. Pakistan is still wildly patriarchical, e.g., one man`s legal testimony is more than two women`s, women are not supposed to run outside of their house, and many more.}

You have no clue... you have not bothered to read history before making such a weird claim... The coming of the British unified, modernised and rationalised existing laws ``based on local customs``... they would have done better to abolish them altogether... { What the laws or the customs?!}

Many local customs - Muslim and Hindu- were abolished... Child Marriages Restraint Act for example was a British law... though locals like Jinnah played an important in its passing... Satti was abolished by the British... the list goes on. { What was Jinnah doing about four marriages allowed for and Talaaq reform among Muslims? Why was he so concerned about reforming Hindus unless he was currying favor of the British for carving out a place in politics for himself. He did not realize that the devil he was to release would result in his own assassination by Punjabi muslims. Jinnah was an outsider for the Punjabis and Sindhis so they just eliminated him. Expectedly.}

And then you make another outrageously stupid claim... you claim that Rabia Al Basari was ``south asian``... Please for god`s sake... why don`t you atleast try and research what you are writing ... {You have not been able to show inspite of my doggedly pursuing you on this.}

``society dominated by religious fanatics``

Please... lets not be so self critical as to start lying... `` {That is the absolute truth.}




Now to your charge that I accused you in #5.
#5, Inquirer

``Azra Ji:

I do believe you expected the reactions of the types you got from Mantolives and, Of course, Urstruly. Even though it pained Mantolive to agree with Urstruly but they share a common goal. Need I elaborate on it? { Without the knowledge of the statements you made about your acceptance of women, your almost baseless crticism did appear like condemnation of a woman`s writing.}

But there are sensible people, yes even in Pakistan, like Nazarhayatkhan, Salim and Feroz. Let us support the likes of them. They along with likes of you are the only hope for return of sense to Pakistan as the Yogi imagines stting in Leiden. Yes, that is true inspite of your denigration by the Mantolives and Urstruly.
{Your evalustion of the article is personal as well as academic denigration. If you do not agree then you and I have a different definition of denigration.}

arjun: just to add to #214: if you stuck to condemning only those who promote violence among muslims, i would have no problem since i do the same. but you have a hatred that goes beyond just those who promote violence to the religion of islam itself and your ridicule extends beyond these individuals to all muslims - for example, your expressions of joy at the deportation of ``pakis`` after 9/11 lasted a few years on chowk. Granted they were in the US illegally and so were not totally law-abiding, but so are a lot of individuals of all nationalities including Indian - your joy was because these were ``pakis`` being deported.

Your hatred for pakistan makes it impossible for you to even say the word, so you say ``pakiland`` instead. So dont tell me that you are not just the hindu version of those you claim you write about.

arjun: you have difficulty reading?? go back and re-read what i said.

#198 by tahmed32 on February 7, 2006 8:01am PT


but saying you are right here does not mean i consider you to be anything more than those who enjoy spreading hatred among people.


That`s right...the people who carry the beheading threat placards, 37% of whom think jews are a legit target, are really nice and decent folks just out to make a honest living..

It`s people who post the images of people carrying death threat placards, like yours truly, who`re really hateful..

We`ve had pakis living in germany threatening to unleash moroccans to do to people what they did to theo van ghogh...those people aren`t hateful..pakis never are..

Netizen: Others are not reading the Quran. They are listening to the Dr. Israr Ahmeds of the world. But since you dont consider yourself to be a muslim anyway, I am not going to get into a discussion on the Quran and instead will say to you and to these ``muslims``: to you be your way and to me be my way. (this is what the Quran advises one should say, rather than getting into arguments and fights on religious matters).

Dear Inquirer...

Jinnah was a fellow Ismaili ...

The reason I micro-analysed your post 2 was simply to show you how the same kind of specious reasoning could be applied to you... your accusation against me was unfair and wrong... my objection to the article was academic and not agenda driven... for my agenda is exactly the same as Azra... though I doubt a Canadian has any weight in imposing her agenda in Pakistan...


Dear Harish Hyd..

``If this is what you believe, then I`m afraid you haven`t understood the meaning of the word ``empowerment``. ``To empower`` means conferring the power on the weak the right to think and act as they deem fit. Please look up a dictionary if it helps.``

So if Jinnah did not stop his daughter`s marriage what does that tell you? Jinnah was not like Nehru to try and scheme and break apart his daughter`s union.. Empowerment doesn`t mean you have to agree with the person... but respect their right to dissent. In any event this is going in circles and it is clear that you have no logical argument and you are merely obfuscating as is your wont. So please keep on believing what you wish.. I see it is very hard defending Gandhi so you have to resort to such arguments indeed.

Now the following is just for your information: The dietary regulations i.e. Ham Sandwiches and Whisky for your information is not a big deal for Ismaili Muslims- infact almost all Ismaili Muslims I know eat pork and drink. There are no such taboos in Ismaili Islam. However in Islam, in all sects, it is absolutely forbidden and a grave sin as per Islamic doctrine for the woman to marry outside the faith- the current Agha Khan has allowed recently for first time in history to marry his daughter outside the faith- it is still not clear if this means a general permission.


I am done with this discussion.

Re: # 204

tahmed:

``and to thus be comfortable after reading the Quran carefully that islam has a great positive message of respect for all faiths and respect for the rights of the individual??``

i think you and the ``other muslims`` are reading different qurans.

urstruly: good thoughts. but first you should give muslims a break and think a little before crying wolf.

Inquirer #199 I agree with your goals - with millions living in misery in the subcontinent, there can be no other goal for anyone with any conscience.

However, to reach this goal, you dont encourage people like arjun as ``feisty`` and those who seek such goals as boring. What is feisty in ridiculing ``pakis`` and islam every day?? And what is boring about discussing things in a respectful manner? I think you need to do some self-reflection yourself here, dont you think?

Re: # 206

I think we should be more lenient and accomodating towards Hindus; all they want from us is little recognition of self-respect and dignity. I don`t think being nice to other people and extending respect to them is akin to being weak. It is a long process and needs patience, I think ultimately they will be able to reciprocate kindness.

urstruly: and what makes you so confident that arjun doesnt really mean it when he equates islam with terrorism?? its not just arjun - do you have any response to the list of real wolves that I mentioned, into whose hands fools like you of the muslim world play every day when you go around puffing your chest threatening those who mean muslims no harm while ignoring those - or even pandering to those, as you just did with arjun - who spit on muslims?

urstruly: yup. i should shut my mouth. that is the only response you can give to what i wrote.

Netizen #200 What you quote from the guardian, i already acknowledged in #198 below: ``i cannot disagree when you say that muslims write the same garbage in english since that is a bitter fact (at least for me as a muslim). ``

Does that mean that as a muslim I should submit to the directives of some other man, as the author of this article has done and as too many other muslims have done? Rather than to have faith in my own ability to see and to think, and to thus be comfortable after reading the Quran carefully that islam has a great positive message of respect for all faiths and respect for the rights of the individual?? I dont think so!!

Does this mean that after seeing the jehalat of the muslim world that cries wolf at every opportunity and when the real wolf arrives (as I mentioned below) has no clue on what to do, I should throw up my hands and say that their jehalat (and not the Quran), as ably illustrated by urstruly on chowk, is the message of Islam?? I dont think so. And does this mean that arjun was right all along and islam is terrorism? I dont think so!!