Ghazali On Women In Islam
A Shiraz EvilTwin November 30, 2000
#284 Posted by concerned on December 10, 2000 11:12:54 am
hamidm, fuzair and other lovers of wine:
would recommend `madhushala` by harivanshrai bachchan, perferably on cd as read by amitabh bachchan, if you haven`t heard it already.
would recommend `madhushala` by harivanshrai bachchan, perferably on cd as read by amitabh bachchan, if you haven`t heard it already.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#283 Posted by Urstruly on December 10, 2000 8:24:05 am
THE POWER OF SPANKING
Hamidm #281
You are underestimating the power of spanking. Whereas a man spends time and money to get whipped by lather clad women while they time his appointment on a stopwatch, his wife gets it free. All she has to do to deserve this is by sleeping with the Gaama Gujar i.e. milkman or the Sheeda Guddi Baaz from the adjacent chobaara. Hey, and that is worth it. If a little spanking may help you keep your family together and saves your children from getting “adopted” by the neighborhood uncles, then so be it. Never EVER underestimate the power of spanking.
Hamidm #281
You are underestimating the power of spanking. Whereas a man spends time and money to get whipped by lather clad women while they time his appointment on a stopwatch, his wife gets it free. All she has to do to deserve this is by sleeping with the Gaama Gujar i.e. milkman or the Sheeda Guddi Baaz from the adjacent chobaara. Hey, and that is worth it. If a little spanking may help you keep your family together and saves your children from getting “adopted” by the neighborhood uncles, then so be it. Never EVER underestimate the power of spanking.
#282 Posted by Mukallaf on December 10, 2000 2:28:13 am
THE WIVES OF THE PROPHET
There have been a number of references in this discussion relating to the number and characteristics of the Prophet`s wives, along with attempts to draw inferences regarding the Prophet`s character based on these references. I have provided some facts below regarding his wives (I think I`ve covered all of them). I would like to preface this with the following quote from Adil Salahi`s Muhammad: Man and Prophet:
``It is tempting to explain most of the Prophet`s marriages in terms of the political, social or religious aims which attended each one of them. One must be wary, however, of oversimplifying matters, seeking justification for things which one should accept without too much worry. The Prophet was allowed by Allah to marry as many women as he wished. If he therefore availed himself of this permission for no reason other than that for which people normally get married, this should be an absolutely satisfactory explanation.``
KHADIJAH: She was a wealthy widow. Most biographers put his age at 25 and hers at around 40 at the time of the marriage. (Some reports suggest that the Prophet was nearer 30, while there are reports that she may have been 35, or even 25. Ibn Abbas, the Prophet`s cousin states that she was 28.) During the 25 years of their marriage prior to Khadijah`s death, the Prophet did not marry any other women.
SAUDAH: She married the Prophet during the second year after the Hijra, when she was around 50 years old. She was one of the earliest converts to Islam and had emigrated to Abyssinia with her first husband, who died there.
A`ISHA: She was the daughter of the Prophet`s companion Abu Bakr. She is reported to have been married to the Prophet at the age of 6, and reportedly consummated this marriage when she was 9. (Some researchers believe that the ahadith reporting Aisha`s age are inaccurate. Based on various historical data reported by Tabari, Ibn Hisham and others, one scholar has calculated Aisha`s age to have been between 14 and 20. Allah knows best.)
HAFSAH: She was the daughter of the Prophet`s companion Umar. She was widowed when her husband Khunais ibn Hudhafa was martyred at Badr. It is reported that the Prophet offered to marry her when Umar complained that Uthman and Abu Bakr had declined to marry her.
ZAINAB: She was a widow when the Prophet married her. Her previous husband Abdullah ibn Jahsh was martyred at Uhud. She died at the age of 30 during the Prophet`s lifetime.
UMM SALAMAH: Her name was Hind and she is considered to have been one of the earliest Muslims. She married the Prophet after her first husband Abdullah ibn Asad was martyred at Uhud.
ZAINAB BINT JAHSH: She was the Prophet`s cousin. She was previously married to Zaid ibn Haritha, the Prophet`s freed slave. The Prophet married her after Zaid divorced her and upon the revelation of verse 37 of Sura Al-Ahzab.
JUWAIRIYAH: She was the daughter of Al-Harith ibn Abu Dhirar, chief of the Al-Mustalaq tribe. Her tribe was captured during a military confrontation with the Muslim army. It is reported that during the distribution of the captives among the army, the Prophet took her for himself, granted her freedom and proposed to her. As her subsequent marriage effectively made her tribe the Prophet`s in-laws, the Muslims decided to free their slaves from the Al-Mustalaq tribe.
UMM HABIBAH: She was the daughter of Abu Sufyan, a Quraysh leader who commanded its armies in several battles against the Muslims. She was one of the early Muslims and emigrated to Abyssinia with her first husband Ubaidullah ibn Jahsh. Her husband converted to Christianity, and she continued to live with him. Shortly after the death of her husband, the Prophet arranged to marry her through the help of the King of Abyssinia.
SAFIYAH: She was a member of the Jewish Banu Al-Nadheer tribe, and had been divorced by her previous husband Sallam bin Mishkam. She married Kinana ibn al-Rabi` a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. Her father and husband were killed at Khaibar. She accepted Islam and married the Prophet after the fall of Khaibar.
MAIMUNAH: She had been divorced by her first husband and her second husband died. The Prophet agreed to marry Maimunah in response to the initiative of her sister.
MARIA: She and her sister were sent as gifts to the Prophet by the Coptic ruler of Egypt. It is reported that they both accepted Islam on their way to Medina and that Maria later married the Prophet.
There have been a number of references in this discussion relating to the number and characteristics of the Prophet`s wives, along with attempts to draw inferences regarding the Prophet`s character based on these references. I have provided some facts below regarding his wives (I think I`ve covered all of them). I would like to preface this with the following quote from Adil Salahi`s Muhammad: Man and Prophet:
``It is tempting to explain most of the Prophet`s marriages in terms of the political, social or religious aims which attended each one of them. One must be wary, however, of oversimplifying matters, seeking justification for things which one should accept without too much worry. The Prophet was allowed by Allah to marry as many women as he wished. If he therefore availed himself of this permission for no reason other than that for which people normally get married, this should be an absolutely satisfactory explanation.``
KHADIJAH: She was a wealthy widow. Most biographers put his age at 25 and hers at around 40 at the time of the marriage. (Some reports suggest that the Prophet was nearer 30, while there are reports that she may have been 35, or even 25. Ibn Abbas, the Prophet`s cousin states that she was 28.) During the 25 years of their marriage prior to Khadijah`s death, the Prophet did not marry any other women.
SAUDAH: She married the Prophet during the second year after the Hijra, when she was around 50 years old. She was one of the earliest converts to Islam and had emigrated to Abyssinia with her first husband, who died there.
A`ISHA: She was the daughter of the Prophet`s companion Abu Bakr. She is reported to have been married to the Prophet at the age of 6, and reportedly consummated this marriage when she was 9. (Some researchers believe that the ahadith reporting Aisha`s age are inaccurate. Based on various historical data reported by Tabari, Ibn Hisham and others, one scholar has calculated Aisha`s age to have been between 14 and 20. Allah knows best.)
HAFSAH: She was the daughter of the Prophet`s companion Umar. She was widowed when her husband Khunais ibn Hudhafa was martyred at Badr. It is reported that the Prophet offered to marry her when Umar complained that Uthman and Abu Bakr had declined to marry her.
ZAINAB: She was a widow when the Prophet married her. Her previous husband Abdullah ibn Jahsh was martyred at Uhud. She died at the age of 30 during the Prophet`s lifetime.
UMM SALAMAH: Her name was Hind and she is considered to have been one of the earliest Muslims. She married the Prophet after her first husband Abdullah ibn Asad was martyred at Uhud.
ZAINAB BINT JAHSH: She was the Prophet`s cousin. She was previously married to Zaid ibn Haritha, the Prophet`s freed slave. The Prophet married her after Zaid divorced her and upon the revelation of verse 37 of Sura Al-Ahzab.
JUWAIRIYAH: She was the daughter of Al-Harith ibn Abu Dhirar, chief of the Al-Mustalaq tribe. Her tribe was captured during a military confrontation with the Muslim army. It is reported that during the distribution of the captives among the army, the Prophet took her for himself, granted her freedom and proposed to her. As her subsequent marriage effectively made her tribe the Prophet`s in-laws, the Muslims decided to free their slaves from the Al-Mustalaq tribe.
UMM HABIBAH: She was the daughter of Abu Sufyan, a Quraysh leader who commanded its armies in several battles against the Muslims. She was one of the early Muslims and emigrated to Abyssinia with her first husband Ubaidullah ibn Jahsh. Her husband converted to Christianity, and she continued to live with him. Shortly after the death of her husband, the Prophet arranged to marry her through the help of the King of Abyssinia.
SAFIYAH: She was a member of the Jewish Banu Al-Nadheer tribe, and had been divorced by her previous husband Sallam bin Mishkam. She married Kinana ibn al-Rabi` a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. Her father and husband were killed at Khaibar. She accepted Islam and married the Prophet after the fall of Khaibar.
MAIMUNAH: She had been divorced by her first husband and her second husband died. The Prophet agreed to marry Maimunah in response to the initiative of her sister.
MARIA: She and her sister were sent as gifts to the Prophet by the Coptic ruler of Egypt. It is reported that they both accepted Islam on their way to Medina and that Maria later married the Prophet.
#281 Posted by Cheema on December 10, 2000 2:28:13 am
Hamidm , urstruly
I have been enjoying your interactions, particularly hamidm`s 262. I agree that we try to derive too many conclusions from often ambiguous tone of our holy scripture. Religion unlike science depends on faith first and then attempts to prove its truthfulness. Therefore it is just a matter of personal devotion. And thats what Ghazali did.
I think we should read works of other Muslim philosophers like Ibn e Rushd, who gave his famous doctrine of double truth that is there is one truth of revelation and another of observation. Sometimes these agree with each other and sometimes don`t. So better to keep them separate. Unfortunately Muslim caliphs of his time and afterwards didn`t approve of his ideas and now his only books we can get are European translations. It is a pity the age of reason didn`t persist in Muslim society and till now Muslims at large are enslaved by the myhts and superstitions.
The first thing required for reasoning and rationalism is freedom to doubt. Somebody said that for reasoning it is neccesary to accept that all we believe is not necessarily true, all we like is not necessarily good and all questions are open. Religion on the contrary denies all these freedoms. We saw it with the rise of Christianity and burning of library in Alexandria which produced such great minds as Archimedus, Aristarchus, Ptolemy, Euclid, etc. but there practice of rationalism and logic was contrary to Christian beliefs. Same happened with the Muslim scientists by orthodox caliphs. A big blunder committed by Ghazali was his quote that `cotton catches fire not because it is in its nature but because God sends angels to light the fire`. Later on Ibn Rushd rejected this idea as it violates the fundamental principle of cause and effect of science. Ibn Rushd also rejected the occurance of miracles and ``azabs``. Because of his ideas he was banished from Spain and his books burned. This prohibition to doubt and question reality is the biggest crime of religion and the reason for our people`s intellectual and moral decline. We ourselves need to control and decide about our destinies.
``Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe, and to utter freely according to conscience, above all other liberties.`` Milton
I have been enjoying your interactions, particularly hamidm`s 262. I agree that we try to derive too many conclusions from often ambiguous tone of our holy scripture. Religion unlike science depends on faith first and then attempts to prove its truthfulness. Therefore it is just a matter of personal devotion. And thats what Ghazali did.
I think we should read works of other Muslim philosophers like Ibn e Rushd, who gave his famous doctrine of double truth that is there is one truth of revelation and another of observation. Sometimes these agree with each other and sometimes don`t. So better to keep them separate. Unfortunately Muslim caliphs of his time and afterwards didn`t approve of his ideas and now his only books we can get are European translations. It is a pity the age of reason didn`t persist in Muslim society and till now Muslims at large are enslaved by the myhts and superstitions.
The first thing required for reasoning and rationalism is freedom to doubt. Somebody said that for reasoning it is neccesary to accept that all we believe is not necessarily true, all we like is not necessarily good and all questions are open. Religion on the contrary denies all these freedoms. We saw it with the rise of Christianity and burning of library in Alexandria which produced such great minds as Archimedus, Aristarchus, Ptolemy, Euclid, etc. but there practice of rationalism and logic was contrary to Christian beliefs. Same happened with the Muslim scientists by orthodox caliphs. A big blunder committed by Ghazali was his quote that `cotton catches fire not because it is in its nature but because God sends angels to light the fire`. Later on Ibn Rushd rejected this idea as it violates the fundamental principle of cause and effect of science. Ibn Rushd also rejected the occurance of miracles and ``azabs``. Because of his ideas he was banished from Spain and his books burned. This prohibition to doubt and question reality is the biggest crime of religion and the reason for our people`s intellectual and moral decline. We ourselves need to control and decide about our destinies.
``Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe, and to utter freely according to conscience, above all other liberties.`` Milton
#280 Posted by AH2000 on December 10, 2000 2:28:13 am
Urstruly (#275 and earlier)
You seem to be saying that the different and sometimes contradictory edicts in the Book are meant for different times and peoples. However, it is not clear how one is to decide which to go by when faced with such dichotomy. Shoud neeyat be enough of a guide to help choose the `right` path in a given time and place? I doubt the neighbourhood moulvi who calls for due punishment of the Ahmedi who dares to give the azaan, or admonishes his congregation to read 4:34 to nip their marital problems in the bud is necessarily acting with bad neeyat.
If common sense is to be used to `recognize` the right edict to follow, then one has to question the need of the edicts in the first place. Would not common sense suffice? Most devout Muslims are attracted to the timelessness and absolute nature of the Quran. Few want to have to use their common sense to make moral decisions. If they are pushed to they will, but with the `readymade` divine word of God at hand, few would take the trouble.
Have you considered that it might be your education and exposure to different value systems that has led you to such ingenious ways of approaching the Quran, whereby you are able to extract the best of it and reject the unpleasant?
I do not doubt that you have the Aha! experience when reading the Quran or its intro and I doubt even less that it addresses some very profound, non-rational side of your Self. But the danger in such experiences is that, in its subjectivity, it often ignores the real danger of differnt interpretations and different effects on others. Prem`s (#275) second-to-last paragraph nicely brings out this point.
(Incidentally, the `Aha` experience, coined by Jung I think, is one in which one recognizes in what one is reading one`s own nebuluos thoughts and feelings-- could your experience, then, not be so much of a process of `recognition`-- valid and exhilirating as it is?)
If hamidm and Shiraz err on the side of selectivity, your failing seems to be the lack of recognition of potential harm that can be caused by having a divine Word that contains ANY undesirable edicts.
What would you say about the `devout` capitalist (or Marxist) who lives a righteous life and attributes it (and his contentment) to the selective following of free-market/communisitc principles (insisting, of course, that common and neeyat must be applied when following the principles)?
On pardigm shifts: Paradigm Shifts may enable one to see things in a whole new way, often enough leading to a feeling of living on a different plane altogether, but I doubt that it will ever justify a `wrong` or reconcile irreconcilables.
That is why, even though all this laborious analyses and intellectualism will scarcely give us the deeper meanings of life, we still NEED it keep from safe from the danger of over-subjectifying.
You seem to be saying that the different and sometimes contradictory edicts in the Book are meant for different times and peoples. However, it is not clear how one is to decide which to go by when faced with such dichotomy. Shoud neeyat be enough of a guide to help choose the `right` path in a given time and place? I doubt the neighbourhood moulvi who calls for due punishment of the Ahmedi who dares to give the azaan, or admonishes his congregation to read 4:34 to nip their marital problems in the bud is necessarily acting with bad neeyat.
If common sense is to be used to `recognize` the right edict to follow, then one has to question the need of the edicts in the first place. Would not common sense suffice? Most devout Muslims are attracted to the timelessness and absolute nature of the Quran. Few want to have to use their common sense to make moral decisions. If they are pushed to they will, but with the `readymade` divine word of God at hand, few would take the trouble.
Have you considered that it might be your education and exposure to different value systems that has led you to such ingenious ways of approaching the Quran, whereby you are able to extract the best of it and reject the unpleasant?
I do not doubt that you have the Aha! experience when reading the Quran or its intro and I doubt even less that it addresses some very profound, non-rational side of your Self. But the danger in such experiences is that, in its subjectivity, it often ignores the real danger of differnt interpretations and different effects on others. Prem`s (#275) second-to-last paragraph nicely brings out this point.
(Incidentally, the `Aha` experience, coined by Jung I think, is one in which one recognizes in what one is reading one`s own nebuluos thoughts and feelings-- could your experience, then, not be so much of a process of `recognition`-- valid and exhilirating as it is?)
If hamidm and Shiraz err on the side of selectivity, your failing seems to be the lack of recognition of potential harm that can be caused by having a divine Word that contains ANY undesirable edicts.
What would you say about the `devout` capitalist (or Marxist) who lives a righteous life and attributes it (and his contentment) to the selective following of free-market/communisitc principles (insisting, of course, that common and neeyat must be applied when following the principles)?
On pardigm shifts: Paradigm Shifts may enable one to see things in a whole new way, often enough leading to a feeling of living on a different plane altogether, but I doubt that it will ever justify a `wrong` or reconcile irreconcilables.
That is why, even though all this laborious analyses and intellectualism will scarcely give us the deeper meanings of life, we still NEED it keep from safe from the danger of over-subjectifying.
#279 Posted by farangi_kush on December 10, 2000 2:28:13 am
Prem:#273
Let us play the game on your turf.
A couple with their new-born visit you and are bubbling with joy and trying to impress you with the little tid-bits of the new arrival.
Now you for some reason do not consider children a joy.On the contrary you loathe them.
Must you make sure that you point out the evils & inconvenience of having and raising a baby?
With a name like Prem you shouldn`t,of all people,have problem figuring this out.
``Ubb naa voh PREM,naa uss PREM kee yaadain baquee.
Aag iss ghurr mein luggee aisee,rahaa kuchh naa buchaa.
Jiss kee tasveer nigahon mein liyey baithhee ho.
Mein for dildaar naheen uss kee hoon khamosh chita``.
__________________________________________________
wassalaam
Let us play the game on your turf.
A couple with their new-born visit you and are bubbling with joy and trying to impress you with the little tid-bits of the new arrival.
Now you for some reason do not consider children a joy.On the contrary you loathe them.
Must you make sure that you point out the evils & inconvenience of having and raising a baby?
With a name like Prem you shouldn`t,of all people,have problem figuring this out.
``Ubb naa voh PREM,naa uss PREM kee yaadain baquee.
Aag iss ghurr mein luggee aisee,rahaa kuchh naa buchaa.
Jiss kee tasveer nigahon mein liyey baithhee ho.
Mein for dildaar naheen uss kee hoon khamosh chita``.
__________________________________________________
wassalaam
#278 Posted by hamidm on December 10, 2000 2:28:13 am
scout,
..... in all this talk about divine mesages and spiritual kaka, i almost missed your blasphemous comments about wine .....
``Of course. Some men don`t have the strength or will power to give up ``gora`` culture concepts.``
....... gora culture concept ! .... i swear by my six yard pathan shalwar that the pursuit of fine wine, beautiful women ( and boys ), tangy naswar, tangier bhang and, of course, the blissful sweet smoke of peeli-pati charas is not something we learned from the farangis ..... we perfected the art of hedonistic pleasure all by ourselves ..... even allah himself has promised us the best of wines and virgins if we behave ourselves for what is but a few minutes on the celestial clock ...... don`t tell me you didn`t read the arabian nights or babar nama or that masterpiece, kama sutra - the only worthwhile contribution to mankind made by our horrid cousins from across the border ......
....let`s not put ourselves down by ascribing all useful inventions to the white man ..... not that i am an expert on urdu literature, but from what little i know i would have thought that all our big time poets - ghalib and dard and meer and iqbal, were a bunch of irishmen...... or were they merely delusional like the rest of us...
......... and that brings up another point - all of us, specially desi women, stupidly presume that we, the faithful, live in the land of the pure, our little personal dar-ul-harb - protected by god and his angles, while the decadent white pigs wallow in the filth of western civilization ...... even as we live amongst ``them`` and enjoy the bounty created by a secular and pluralistic society, we despise their values, their culture - we smugly and derisively mock baseball, apple pie and chevrolet so that we protect our ``values``.......wake up and smell the bouquet of chotu`s merlot..........
.....coming back to the merlot thing ........ if the bedouins had been able to grow decent grapes, not even gabriel could have outlawed wine..... not that i want to quote from some satanic sources, but some badmashes say that even bad date liquour was quite okay with the prophet until omar messed it up for us .. .... astaghfirullah !... since that day muslims, bad and good alike, have had a fanatical, some say almost pathalogical, aversion to alcohol ....even though some of them , like good southern baptists, sneak in a gulp or two on our way to the bazaar or the urs of bari imam........... it seems to me that there are four tenants of the rabid muslim`s faith : one, aversion to alcohol; two, revulsion for the poor pig; three, fear of women and four, interest aka riba ..... and that is about the extent of the modern muslim`s religion ...... i say, let the fool join a lashkar so that he can embrace shahadat at rsaxena`s hands - good riddance to bad rubbish !
.....the sad part is that, given half a chance, this malady is easily corrected........ all the good momin needs is a taste of the fine napa merlot that chotu mentioned, succulent proscuiotto on melon and the company of a good woman .....and he will discover the joy of municipal bonds on his own ........
...... and nobody, i say nobody, gets huffy and start lecturing on the evils of alcohol and drug abuse - god knows, i get enough of that at pta and tafseer meetings !
..... in all this talk about divine mesages and spiritual kaka, i almost missed your blasphemous comments about wine .....
``Of course. Some men don`t have the strength or will power to give up ``gora`` culture concepts.``
....... gora culture concept ! .... i swear by my six yard pathan shalwar that the pursuit of fine wine, beautiful women ( and boys ), tangy naswar, tangier bhang and, of course, the blissful sweet smoke of peeli-pati charas is not something we learned from the farangis ..... we perfected the art of hedonistic pleasure all by ourselves ..... even allah himself has promised us the best of wines and virgins if we behave ourselves for what is but a few minutes on the celestial clock ...... don`t tell me you didn`t read the arabian nights or babar nama or that masterpiece, kama sutra - the only worthwhile contribution to mankind made by our horrid cousins from across the border ......
....let`s not put ourselves down by ascribing all useful inventions to the white man ..... not that i am an expert on urdu literature, but from what little i know i would have thought that all our big time poets - ghalib and dard and meer and iqbal, were a bunch of irishmen...... or were they merely delusional like the rest of us...
......... and that brings up another point - all of us, specially desi women, stupidly presume that we, the faithful, live in the land of the pure, our little personal dar-ul-harb - protected by god and his angles, while the decadent white pigs wallow in the filth of western civilization ...... even as we live amongst ``them`` and enjoy the bounty created by a secular and pluralistic society, we despise their values, their culture - we smugly and derisively mock baseball, apple pie and chevrolet so that we protect our ``values``.......wake up and smell the bouquet of chotu`s merlot..........
.....coming back to the merlot thing ........ if the bedouins had been able to grow decent grapes, not even gabriel could have outlawed wine..... not that i want to quote from some satanic sources, but some badmashes say that even bad date liquour was quite okay with the prophet until omar messed it up for us .. .... astaghfirullah !... since that day muslims, bad and good alike, have had a fanatical, some say almost pathalogical, aversion to alcohol ....even though some of them , like good southern baptists, sneak in a gulp or two on our way to the bazaar or the urs of bari imam........... it seems to me that there are four tenants of the rabid muslim`s faith : one, aversion to alcohol; two, revulsion for the poor pig; three, fear of women and four, interest aka riba ..... and that is about the extent of the modern muslim`s religion ...... i say, let the fool join a lashkar so that he can embrace shahadat at rsaxena`s hands - good riddance to bad rubbish !
.....the sad part is that, given half a chance, this malady is easily corrected........ all the good momin needs is a taste of the fine napa merlot that chotu mentioned, succulent proscuiotto on melon and the company of a good woman .....and he will discover the joy of municipal bonds on his own ........
...... and nobody, i say nobody, gets huffy and start lecturing on the evils of alcohol and drug abuse - god knows, i get enough of that at pta and tafseer meetings !
#277 Posted by hamidm on December 10, 2000 2:28:13 am
urstruly,
if i understand you correctly 4:34 was meant for the savage bedouine and 4:35 is meant for the convent educated sophisticate ...... and here i was, thinking that the koran was god`s infallible word and good for eternity .... so i guess it is not permissible for a bureaucrat from islamabad to beat up on begum sahiba , but it is okay for painda khan from chak #36 to beat some sense into his disobedient wife, janat bibi, inspite of the fact that she is only twelve years old and a first cousin on both sides ..... what if that bonafide witch and enemy of islam asma jehangir hears about this ?
.... and since you mentioned the geneva conventions, are you in any way, astagfirullah, suggesting that the geneva convention supersedes the precedent set at khandaq which clearly stated that god wanted the jews dead and their women and children taken into captivity ..... anouzobillah, are you suggesting that god or his prophet erred or, as barry richards and ted olsen would argue, the law of the time must be followed ..... pardon me for being stupid, but i thought that god`s law was timeless and therfore we mortals do not have the right to divine anything by suggesting that there might have been anomalies - astagfirullah!....may allah protect us from the shaitan ...... laholaywala quwat - or as my grandmother would say, dafa door!...... blind faith and ignorance are certainly a bliss - it is like having that nice warm feeling when you have peeed in your dark worsted trousers ..........
if i understand you correctly 4:34 was meant for the savage bedouine and 4:35 is meant for the convent educated sophisticate ...... and here i was, thinking that the koran was god`s infallible word and good for eternity .... so i guess it is not permissible for a bureaucrat from islamabad to beat up on begum sahiba , but it is okay for painda khan from chak #36 to beat some sense into his disobedient wife, janat bibi, inspite of the fact that she is only twelve years old and a first cousin on both sides ..... what if that bonafide witch and enemy of islam asma jehangir hears about this ?
.... and since you mentioned the geneva conventions, are you in any way, astagfirullah, suggesting that the geneva convention supersedes the precedent set at khandaq which clearly stated that god wanted the jews dead and their women and children taken into captivity ..... anouzobillah, are you suggesting that god or his prophet erred or, as barry richards and ted olsen would argue, the law of the time must be followed ..... pardon me for being stupid, but i thought that god`s law was timeless and therfore we mortals do not have the right to divine anything by suggesting that there might have been anomalies - astagfirullah!....may allah protect us from the shaitan ...... laholaywala quwat - or as my grandmother would say, dafa door!...... blind faith and ignorance are certainly a bliss - it is like having that nice warm feeling when you have peeed in your dark worsted trousers ..........
#276 Posted by fuzair on December 10, 2000 12:56:37 am
Re: Scout #267
Hey, relax, have a drink! ;-) But seriously, why do you persist on insisting that alcolhol for desis is a Gora-wanna-be trait when we have such a long and glorious history of alcohol production and overindulgence of our own?
Granted distilled alcohol may be a Gora import but many non-Western cultures knew the trick of freezing wine, removing the layer of ice on top and thus increasing the alcohol content even if they didn`t know how to distill the stuff. After all, didn`t the Prophet ban alcohol, after previously only banning drunkeness, because the Arabs, good Muslims that they are, were saying their prayers while in their cups?
Given our diet, proclivity to overeat, smoke too much and not exercise, we desi men certainly do need a glass of red wine a day. Umm, better make that two for me.
Regards.
Hey, relax, have a drink! ;-) But seriously, why do you persist on insisting that alcolhol for desis is a Gora-wanna-be trait when we have such a long and glorious history of alcohol production and overindulgence of our own?
Granted distilled alcohol may be a Gora import but many non-Western cultures knew the trick of freezing wine, removing the layer of ice on top and thus increasing the alcohol content even if they didn`t know how to distill the stuff. After all, didn`t the Prophet ban alcohol, after previously only banning drunkeness, because the Arabs, good Muslims that they are, were saying their prayers while in their cups?
Given our diet, proclivity to overeat, smoke too much and not exercise, we desi men certainly do need a glass of red wine a day. Umm, better make that two for me.
Regards.
#274 Posted by Urstruly on December 9, 2000 6:29:14 pm
Zahra
I think we should not scorn or scold Ali1 for him being blunt. A 12 years of civil war can do this to a man. Beleive it or not, his sentiments are exactly those which are moving men and material in Karachi these days. Again we must not single out one party or other. It is the politics of hate, whether it is done by MQM or Punjabi-Pakhtoon Itehad; they use the same rhetoric and it works like magic. It has been working like magic. I wish we could somehow channel this energy into positive use. We could have done miracles. Unfortunately we used it to hurt each other. So here we are-bleeding, beaten, tired and lost.
I think we should not scorn or scold Ali1 for him being blunt. A 12 years of civil war can do this to a man. Beleive it or not, his sentiments are exactly those which are moving men and material in Karachi these days. Again we must not single out one party or other. It is the politics of hate, whether it is done by MQM or Punjabi-Pakhtoon Itehad; they use the same rhetoric and it works like magic. It has been working like magic. I wish we could somehow channel this energy into positive use. We could have done miracles. Unfortunately we used it to hurt each other. So here we are-bleeding, beaten, tired and lost.
#273 Posted by Prem on December 9, 2000 6:27:13 pm
Damn,
Please ignore the postscript to my last post. It didn`t belong on this board.
Thank you.
Please ignore the postscript to my last post. It didn`t belong on this board.
Thank you.
#272 Posted by farangi_kush on December 9, 2000 6:27:13 pm
PM:#263
You`re so right.
They are a treat to watch even at the age you are!
just that you refer to them as mental gymnastics.The even more intellectually inclined call them calsthenics.
You`ll be there one day!:-)
__________________________________________________
``Teri kitaabon mein aye hakeem-e muaash aakhir rakhaa hee kiya hai
Khoothe-Khamdaar kee numaish,mareez o kajdaar kee numaish``
ALLAMA IQBAL
tr:So what is there in your book,O scholar of economics.
A show-off of curves,and a display of the inverted bowl``
__________________________________________________
wassalaam
You`re so right.
They are a treat to watch even at the age you are!
just that you refer to them as mental gymnastics.The even more intellectually inclined call them calsthenics.
You`ll be there one day!:-)
__________________________________________________
``Teri kitaabon mein aye hakeem-e muaash aakhir rakhaa hee kiya hai
Khoothe-Khamdaar kee numaish,mareez o kajdaar kee numaish``
ALLAMA IQBAL
tr:So what is there in your book,O scholar of economics.
A show-off of curves,and a display of the inverted bowl``
__________________________________________________
wassalaam
#271 Posted by Prem on December 9, 2000 6:27:13 pm
Dear Urstruly,
Have you considered the possibility that the awe, inspiration, and breathlessness you experienced on reading an introduction to the book you consider holy had more to do with you (or your upbringing) than with the book itself?
Let me give you just two examples of the power of the symbolic.
Recently, there was a report on NPR on Jerusalem. The reporter, a reasonable lady, informed the audience how utterly overwhelmed she was, how tears rolled down her cheeks when for the first time she stood atop some mountain in Jerusalem. She claimed to have understood why God had to choose that very rock to do whatever the story says he did.
Or, consider reasonable people who flock by millions to see the current Pope when he makes one of his (innumerable) foreign visits, and honestly burst into tears of joy when they `catch a glimpse of the divine.`
Conversely, symbols have no meaning unless those meanings have been already internalized, either consciously or unconsciously. My fundamentalist Christian friend is unlikely to accept your contention that the book holy to you has greater inspirational power than the book holy to him. And, there are an increasing number of people who believe that while both books do teach a few good things, they are also chockful of loads of harmful crap that has brought more misery to the world than good. Let me assure you that some of these people have tried reading the books and the only magical feeling they - unlike you - felt was one of utter disgust.
The point is, if you believe something, go ahead and believe it. Don`t try to explain it. I don`t think you can.
Best.
Prem
P.S.: I am not sure how any of this is related to the article. I read the article a couple of times -- after all, the author is an Indian!:) -- but couldn`t figure out what he/she was trying to say. I read his/her posts too, but no help there either. Can anyone please explain in simple Hinglish? Thanks in advance.
Have you considered the possibility that the awe, inspiration, and breathlessness you experienced on reading an introduction to the book you consider holy had more to do with you (or your upbringing) than with the book itself?
Let me give you just two examples of the power of the symbolic.
Recently, there was a report on NPR on Jerusalem. The reporter, a reasonable lady, informed the audience how utterly overwhelmed she was, how tears rolled down her cheeks when for the first time she stood atop some mountain in Jerusalem. She claimed to have understood why God had to choose that very rock to do whatever the story says he did.
Or, consider reasonable people who flock by millions to see the current Pope when he makes one of his (innumerable) foreign visits, and honestly burst into tears of joy when they `catch a glimpse of the divine.`
Conversely, symbols have no meaning unless those meanings have been already internalized, either consciously or unconsciously. My fundamentalist Christian friend is unlikely to accept your contention that the book holy to you has greater inspirational power than the book holy to him. And, there are an increasing number of people who believe that while both books do teach a few good things, they are also chockful of loads of harmful crap that has brought more misery to the world than good. Let me assure you that some of these people have tried reading the books and the only magical feeling they - unlike you - felt was one of utter disgust.
The point is, if you believe something, go ahead and believe it. Don`t try to explain it. I don`t think you can.
Best.
Prem
P.S.: I am not sure how any of this is related to the article. I read the article a couple of times -- after all, the author is an Indian!:) -- but couldn`t figure out what he/she was trying to say. I read his/her posts too, but no help there either. Can anyone please explain in simple Hinglish? Thanks in advance.
#270 Posted by Molko on December 9, 2000 6:27:13 pm
Scout, no need to be so self righteous. It`s a medical fact that a glass of red wine a day can lower one`s chance of heart disease. But, as in all things, moderation. There needs no prophet come down from a mountain to tell us that.
#269 Posted by rsaxena on December 9, 2000 6:27:13 pm
RE: scout #266
Once again, the message of the brilliant hamidm`s post is lost on you. It used to happened to me too at first...until I learned better...that`s the least the less brilliant of us can do.
But you don`t even seem to learn...tsk tsk. Kya hoga tumhara. Everything isn`t black and white.
Once again, the message of the brilliant hamidm`s post is lost on you. It used to happened to me too at first...until I learned better...that`s the least the less brilliant of us can do.
But you don`t even seem to learn...tsk tsk. Kya hoga tumhara. Everything isn`t black and white.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- akcheema: Re: # 58; parthaab... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- stuka: And yes, I do... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- stuka: Zeejah yaar, tu tau... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- BJ2: Re: # 313 Pinku, I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: #312 Posted by tahmed32... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: pinku #304 "You can... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: pinku #303 er...well..ok.
... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal - tahmed32: masadi #308 thanks for... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
