In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful

Re: # 875 what is zemax going to do with the boys?

... Oh I see the cockroach has now abandoned the Zeemax/drinks, Zeemax/drinks as well ... and now it's 72 virgins/ninja chix, 72virgins/ninja chix.

Good going cockroach, keep it up!

Re: # 875
Und alle 72 Jungfrauen sind Ihre Schwestern!

peeweemax: there's still time...give up drinking and you'll get 72 virgins and 72 young boys in allah's titty bar..

hey..some of the 72 virgins might even be ninja chix...

#869 Posted by tahir,

LoL ... yes you can be assured of that.

#872 Posted by HP,

DM's point was that Muslims in a thousand years of rule did not stop Sati, while the British did.

#863 Posted by echoboom on April 27, 2008 9:58:13 am
“DostMittar:
THis is reproduced from a past post of mine, with some editing now.Maybe some missed it.
============================================================
Muslims, are strictly prohibited to interfere in the religious practices, rituals, cultures of those who are NOT muslims.”

I know you are limited to what DM asked and you are providing one specific example. I was unable to locate DM’s post so I don’t know how he actually framed the issue.

However, I think the issue is less religious. The political exigencies, the inability of the Persian/Muslim rulers of India to really relate to local population and the local issues, and the overall social consciousness of the society at that time were the main reasons for the Muslim rulers not interfering in the Hindu affairs.

The respect of women, the human rights, and the religious rights were not really at the top of agenda for any ruler in the world at that time. The awareness of the basic human rights and values has increased overtime, but at that time, it was only a matter of personal preference.

There were institutional efforts in the West that led to a comprehensive change in the human outlook of just the basic rights. Still, the West finds it difficult to comply with the values and the rights of other cultures and nations. The west’s transgressions of the human rights and values are for every one to see.

The slavery was not abolished in Europe until the 17th century. In England, the state liberated the slaves by buying them off from the individual owners and releasing them. A hundred years later the US did not follow this route. (Ron Paul supported the British model and he was tagged a racist for that.)

I believe that if the Brits had come to India around the time the Persians did, they too would have had a nonchalant approach to Sati and other social issues.

The Persian Muslim, who ruled India, believed in pretty many identical social values that the Indian Hindu society believed in. They did not have any drastic differences of opinion regarding women. For them a woman was as much an honor issue as it was for the Hindu society. They all believed in the tribal values and killing a woman over the honor issue was acceptable to them too. While the Hindus were forcibly burning widows in the pyres, the Persian Muslims were packing them in bundle of cloths and walls.

Imo, the only reason the Persian Muslims did not burn the women themselves, was their having no problems with the second marriage or many marriages. The remarriage option allowed them to dispose off the young widows without making her being a widow as an honor issue.

The Hindu society forbids the second marriage option and that was one main reason for Sati. In the absence of the second marriage option, the question of what to do with a young window, kind of forced Sati on young women.

I am not aware of the complete history of the Sati tradition but whatever little I know makes me believe that most of the Sati victims were young widows. The Sati approvals by the society removed the stigma of killing young girls from a family. It was a community decision that everyone followed.

# 863 Echoboom & Dost mitter;

In an ideal Islamic polity the non-Muslims have religious, legislative, and jurisprrudence autonomy. This standard was set by our Master, the Holy Prophet (pbuh), when he gave this world the first ever written Constitution in the history of mankind. He enforced it in city state of Medina and also later put it in practice thru out Arabian penninsula.

If one takes a look at it with an unbiased eye one would understand that this is the truest form of absolute Secularism. The secuilarism that our Prophet (pbuh) is a blessing for mankind. Isn't that what kept a country as big as a continent with people as diverse as they could be as one cohesive unit for over a thousand years? I am talking about our Hindustan. It only broke up into pieces when European secularism was forced down our throats.
One should give the credit where it is due.

Re: # 868
"Arjun is going through the growing pains,otherwise he is a good kid"

His growing up is causing needless pain to the good neighbours. He must grow up in complete silence--in the toilet.

Re: # 867
"Zeemax/drinks, Zeemax/drinks ..."

Once you satisfy him that you don't (do you?) or do indeed drink (Oh Max, but why?) as prescription medicine, he'll switch to: why do you eat, breathe, walk, or talk?

Arjun is going through the growing pains,otherwise he is a good kid.

... Oh I see the cockroach has now abandoned the Ayesha/Mo, Ayesha/Mo mantra and now it's Zeemax/drinks, Zeemax/drinks ...

Good going cockroach, keep it up!

#863 Posted by echoboom,

I see my error in #854.

#863 Posted by echoboom on April 27, 2008 9:58:13 am


Once they convert they are supposed to adhere very strictly to the Islamic practice & culture & give up the pagan/non-muslim practices.


Zeemax drinks....isn't drinking verboten?

if muslims are required to give up non-muslim practices, then, presumably, everything the saudis do is islamic...ergo, the whole segregation, not allowing women to drive etc etc is islamic...can't blame that on tribal customs..remember..you just said muslims are required to give up non-muslim, in the case tribal, customs..

so either the restrictions on women and ban on any other religion in saudi arabia is islamic or the saudis aren't muslims..

so which one is it?

Re: # 857
Thanks for the compliments Mr. Tauheed,

If you apologise to the entire Muslim population at CHOWK for your anti-Islam comments, you may get the answer to the question.

DostMittar:
THis is reproduced from a past post of mine, with some editing now.Maybe some missed it.
============================================================
Muslims, are strictly prohibited to interfere in the religious practices, rituals, cultures of those who are NOT muslims.

Once they convert they are supposed to adhere very strictly to the Islamic practice & culture & give up the pagan/non-muslim practices.

Fundamentalism (GOOD word) is not applied one sidedly.


Babur , the great Mughal, specifically intructed MUSLIMS to be very discreet about cow slaughter. It is also in his will to Hamayoun, his son.

SATI:

This indeed is very disturbing but even then there was no interference EXCEPT on one occasion & one occasion ONLY.

and that was by Sher Shah Suri.

Once during his exile days he was given sanctuary by a hindu woman who he had called mother because of his association with her when he was a mere child. He was the only "mughal" king who was a Quazi, & an exemplary one because he was trained in a Madressa to be a Quazi & mufti. HIs battles were against Babur & then by Humayoun but with latter only by default.

It so happened that when he was appointed the adminitrator of a certain district, some 20 years later, he was aghast to find out that it was that same woman who was to be sutteed , by her "will" of course..because that was what was expected of her..no choice then.

Sher Shah intefered & stopped it..but then the Pundits all went to the governor & complained. The Governor immedeiately reprimanded Sher Shah and reminded him that the Sharia forbade him to interfere into the religious practices , no matter how heinous they be or how personall one is affected by them, & hence is a violation of the social-contract that no religion wiill interfere in matters of another religion {sounds like pristine "secooolarism].

Sher Shah backed off but was also determined to curb it whenever he would get a chance.

Whe he took control of Bihar, the first thing he did was to summon a large assembly of Pundits & brahmins & arranged a debate , without any coersion yet in control, to somehow work towards alternatives.

Sati was stopped then by the Pundits & Brahmins themselves agreeing that it was not necessary. You might call it his power & influence..but still it was not decreed & no one was punished if they did so. There IS a difference.

After him they all went back to their old ways. You might also be aware that sati gets more "honourable" either in famine or in plenty.

P.S: A person of your caliber really gains something by interacting with plebians or pavlovians?
============================================================
Matti Pao & enjoy this. Even if you knew him, you'd still enjoy this..I hope Rahul, GT, Swarrier & others too are around. I'll post it on unplugged as well. Here he is when he was almost 80, & I know not anyvoice as powerful ANYWHERE
ANYTIME since recording began.

The recording is better in this audio only which is also continous. Listen to this FIRST before the Video.
http://www.apnaorg.com/music/pkhan/pkhan6.rm

This is a VIDEO --unfortunately in TWO parts ..& you have to go click number 2 on the same page to get the 2nd part. It is 17 mts long & you`ve to be patient & worry-free & undisturbed to appreciated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVeBsN3Zsc4