Does Islam, in fact, Encourage Paedophilia?

Re: # 250

Kaal, you are right I meant philosopher

Well guys......seriously...being a student of philosophy its kinda pain in the butt to see educated folks discussing (determining) the validity of a religion on the basis of such issue.

I won't surprise to see this kinda stupidity from hamid buffoon and the hindu fundos here but.......PM(patrick)?

Re: # 248


PM, seems like you are feeling like there is no room to maneuver. Instead of addressing the philosphical issues like a student of philosophy you seem to be degenerating into name calling !!!! What philosophy do you study?

#244 PM: So, you think the pope just happened to be christian when anabaptists were burnt at the stake in the middle ages (over 200,000 by one estimate)? or that brahmins just happen to be hindus when they piled insult over injury over insult over untouchables through the centuries? or that advani just happened to be hindu when he demonstrated his leadership qualities in tearing down the mosque? Could have fooled me!

Re: Kaniz (#240).

Fatima too young for Umar?

Doesn't this support the argument of those who say that Ayesha was actually much older at the time of her marriage?

Shiva

The non antrhropomorphic Lingam form of Shiva is what is held in reverence in temples all over the sub continent. The Lingam is a symbol. It is a symbol of that which is invisible yet omnipresent. It is hence a a visible symbol of the Ultimate Reality which is present in us (and in all objects of creation ).

The Shivalingam denotes the primeval energy of the Creator.It is believed that at the end of all creation, during the great deluge, all of the different aspects of God find a resting place in the Lingam; Bhrama is absorbed into the right, Vishnu to the left and Gayatri into the heart. The Shivalingam is also a representation of the infinite Cosmic Column of fire, whose origins, Vishnu and Bhrama were unable to trace. (see Lingodbhavar).



Legend has it that Parvati fashioned a Shivalingam with a fistful of sand at Kanchipuram and worshipped Shiva; this lingam is known as the Prithvilingam, denoting the primordial element earth. Shivalingams in several temples are swayambus, or that which appeared on their own, or that which is untouched by a chisel. On the other hand, there are temples where the Shivalingam is carved out of stone and installed. The highly polished Shivalingams of the Pallava period bear several stripes, as in the Kailasanatha temple at Kanchipuram.

The Shivalingam is generally mounted on a circular or quadrangular receptacle called the Avudaiyar. This pedestal is designed so as to drain off the water offered during ablution ceremonies. In temples such as Kanchipuram, abhishekam is offered only to the pedestal and not to the Shivalingam made of sand. The bottom of the pedestal represents Bhrama, the octogonal middle represents Vishnu and the upper circular portion represents Shiva. The upper portion of the Shivalingam may be of various shapes, cylindrical, elliptical, umbrella shaped. Images may also be (rarely) carved on a Shivalingam.

Nandi, the bull is depicted facing the sanctum in all Saivite temples, symbolizing the human soul Jeevatma yearning for realizing its oneness with Paramatma, the ultimate reality.

Typically, the processional bronze images of Shiva are those of Somaskanda, Chandrasekhara, Bhikshatana and Nataraja. Although in most Shiva temples, the central shrine enshrining the Shivalingam is of the greatest importance, the Nataraja shrine is of greater importance at Chidambaram, the Somaskandar - Tyagarajar shrine is of greater significance at Tiruvar

re. TAhmed #234:

"In any case, my point is that you dont condemn an entire religion due to something done in its name. Otherwise (as I have painstakingly tried to demonstrate by giving examples of Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism) every religion stands condemned. Every ideology (including Democracy, Capitalism, Communism) stands condemned."

I have to think you're being deliberately dense here. As others have already pointed out, there is a difference in killing in the name of religion (and providing justifications- flawed or otherwise-- for the killing), and killings by those who just happened to belong to a certain ideology. If you negate causative factors in such events, you may as well claim that ALL men are evil, since, from all evidence, all of those you mention were men.

But don't worry, you'd be in the company of some good feminists if you did argue that way! :0)

And Pakistani's in one stroke decided some Pakistanis who
were Hindus could not be head of state just because they
are Hindus.

Pakistanis do not talk, they just do it.

cliftonbridge #228,

Technically you are right about prayers, which is why I stayed away from it. And that’s why I referred to the Quran itself … which commands believers to send salutations to the Prophet (pbuh). Heck, Quran even warns believers not to marry Prophet’s widows after he (pbuh) passes away.

+++

hamidm,

I think tahmed sahib is either in denial, or is reading from a different Quran … one with several missing verses. Perhaps there is something to the goat story after all.

But the latest from Sahib is that … Quran is for Arabs only … and the rest of us should not worry about its commandments prohibiting alcohol and pork. So you were right all along in enjoying the good things our Lord has made for us. Takbeer.

+++

Kaniz (#240),

I was just about to point out the same. Thanks for the clarification; now it all makes sense ...

@235

(correction)

No, Pakistan was created because Muslims were afraid that Hindus being in majority would get power and treat them (muslims) as the latter had treated the hindus when they were were in power. They did not like what they saw when they looked back at their own behavior

Correction, Asif Naqshbandi: Caliph Umar was not married to Um Kulthom Binte Ali (she married Aun Bin Jafer and was his widow in 680 A.D). It is impossible for Caliph Umar to have married her because, Caliph Umer wanted to marry Sayeda Fatima (Um Kulthom's mother) and the Prophet deemed even her to be too young for him. Caliph Umar was married to a very pious lady, Um Kulthom Binte Abu Bakr, who very likely could have been of similar age to her sister, lady Ayesha.

Also, minor detail, lady Ayesha cannot be addressed as "Syeda" because she is not an offspring of the Prophet, this title is reserved for Fatima Binte Muhammad Mustafa.

hamidm: more bad news. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves. Does that negate his message that all men are created equal? Only in the minds of the masadis of the world. Do you want to be like Masadi then?? Cant see the forest for the trees?

Was not Pakistan created because Hindus were deemed
tyrants just because they were in numerical majority and
could not be trusted and kicked out of Pakistan
and Pakistan has not regretted that?

Re: # 235

No, Pakistan was created because Muslims were afraid that Hindus being in majority would get power and treat them (muslims) as the latter had treated the hindus when they were treated. They did not like what they saw when they looked back

hamidm: "but don't you think we should expect better from our prophets ?"

Not really. See my post #196 to Ajeya.

Also, I expect better from you than to ask such questions. Or do you seriously believe that you expect an ordinary human being to walk on water, so-to-speak? Even christians had to elevate their prophet to divine status before they bought off on that.

DM: you wrote "You may recall that when I wrote my article on female infanticide in India, Indians did discuss and mostly condemned the practice."

Actually, I dont recall that article. In any case, my point is that you dont condemn an entire religion due to something done in its name. Otherwise (as I have painstakingly tried to demonstrate by giving examples of Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism) every religion stands condemned. Every ideology (including Democracy, Capitalism, Communism) stands condemned. And that while Indians are adept at this (and some are full time specialists like JayP), you dont find Pakistanis returning the favor.

Thus: in your article, how many Pakistanis do you recall jumping to condemn Indians as having a "killer gene", or hinduism as preaching infanticide?? Not one I would bet. Unlike what you see Indians doing all the time. That is my point.

ps: Shouldnt it be "sawal gandam, jawab chanaa"?