The Day When God Died

PM #

I see your whole post as projection.

And also denial.

If you think you don`t have time to go back to history of sub-continent read only Ghiasuddin Bulbun.

Also near the end of Abbasid caliphate the Mamlooks were so powerful that they practically ruled.

As I said in your words that these things are beyond your comprehension.

Women means sex and beautiful men means sex. And no wonder in whites (your masters of masters) the most common cause of AIDS is sexual transmission through homosexuality. And two men walking hand in hand everybody smiles sheepishly.

You are not to blame.

As it is not your fault. Everybody is a product of his enviornment and circumstances and you are no exception.

krashid:

``Would you care to tell me how many times Joseph was sodomized by Minister of egypt. He was probably the most beautiful slave in world.``

Who knows? well, *you * know Who does!:-)

``In pre-Arab, Arab history and Islamic history slaves were adopted and if they showed their mettle they would be treated as sons and high officials.``

Thanks for the edicifcation. And your point is...?

``Zaid bin Haris was adopted son but was a slave. Moreover the Mamlooks (meaning slaves) not only in India but Baghdad etc who ruled are a testimony that your vision of history and culture is incorrect.``

ummm... I haven`t read much about the mamlocks in India, but Baghdad, like Turkey has a tradition of pederasty too. But heck... I don`t have the time to look up references now... maybe later.

``Or as a term in psychiatry, called projection. One sees an event according to his own understanding of things.``

Again, thanks for the edicification. Now, you might want to look up that Psych dictionary for that mechanism called `Denial`. :)

rgds,

PM

RE: Chacha Shankar

[``Haha,

mere pyaare bete ali, which word were you refering to?!--``chut or madrassah``?

While I`m intimately familiar with the former; I`m sure you will be kind enough to educate me about the latter.``]

Chacha ji, latter is the place where you never get the former. :-)

krashid:

I did not complete a sentence in #39, so I do it now:

``Homosexuality as defined in the 20th century (which includes pederasty) was, in the 7th century, not the orientation,the `sexual identity` it has very recently come to be seen as by most folks.

To sum up my arguments... SOME of what is considered today as homosexuality (that is, pederasty) seems not to have been prohibited in Islam. Perhaps you could argue, if you`d like, that it was haram on earth but ok (only) in jannah(that is, IF you accept that ghulamans WERE prized for their value between the sheets too)

rgds,

PM

PM #117

Would you care to tell me how many times Joseph was sodomized by Minister of egypt. He was probably the most beautiful slave in world.

In pre-Arab, Arab history and Islamic history slaves were adopted and if they showed their mettle they would be treated as sons and high officials.

Zaid bin Haris was adopted son but was a slave. Moreover the Mamlooks (meaning slaves) not only in India but Baghdad etc who ruled are a testimony that your vision of history and culture is incorrect.

Or as a term in psychiatry, called projection. One sees an event according to his own understanding of things.

krashid:

``PM #

So you revert back from your position that Islam condones homosexuality.``

Well, I`d be `reverting` if I ever did say the opposite. Please show me where I did. Homosexuality as defined in the 20th century (which includes pederasty) was

`` Now you say that it contradicts 78:16. I don`t know why in your world sex is so omnipresent that even the mention of good looking slaves take you directly to sex. (As I mentioned that in old times slaves were prized for their strength and good looks (not for sex))``

krashid, you just need to put two and two together sometimes... arabs tradition of pederasty + slaves prized for their beauty does not add up to scultpted `Davids` and other works of high art. (Well, in the Ottoman courts it came close to that, though)

I suppose next you will be trying to convince us that the houris were actually there to d othe cleaning and housekeeping :-)

``But I think this notion is beyond your comprehension.:-) ``

Now, now, no need to get catty. I was serious in saying that that the notion of the quran being inaccurate might be beyond your comprehension. No insult intended there.

rgds,

PM

PM #

So you revert back from your position that Islam condones homosexuality.

Now you say that it contradicts 78:16.

I don`t know why in your world sex is so omnipresent that even the mention of good looking slaves take you directly to sex. (As I mentioned that in old times slaves were prized for their strength and good looks (not for sex))

But I think this notion is beyond your comprehension.:-)

Zahra:#110

You at least noticed!The dillema I had was how to manage a soft `t` sound.It never occured to me that a `haiy` havvaz will be mistaken for it.

thank you.

From hereon,it will without any `h`.

P.S:I really enjoy & appreciate the fondness and pride with which you talk about your Abboo and family.

__________________________________________________

A shair for you to unravel & relish:

``MehfilayN burhum karay hai ganjfaa baaz e khayaal

HaiN varraque gardaani e nairang e yuk butkhaana hum.``

Chuchaa jaan.

wassalaam

Ali1,

{{Chacha shankar, do you really know the meaning of this Urdu/Hindi word? Just wondering.}}

Haha,

mere pyaare bete ali, which word were you refering to?!--``chut or madrassah``?

While I`m intimately familiar with the former; I`m sure you will be kind enough to educate me about the latter.

aicha,

Thanks for the translation. Me,the root of mischief?!!...tauba tauba! We Bombayites speak only a very colloqial brand of ``desi``--as you see, our poor vocabulary is fully aquainted with gaalis, no hi faluteen stuff.

Urstruly,

I didn`t get u on the `presumptions`. I didn`t presume anything until reading your #8, specifically the lines to Sadaf. Perhaps I misconstrued?!?

You still haen`t told us which one of the chowk`s staff you are :)

rgds,

``I know you are another tough customer therefore I am quite relieved to see that you are satisfied at least this time.``

Well, I totally disagree with you. You do not have to write something that appeals any reader`s finer senses. You should write whatever you feel like writing and whatever your experiences have been. In your past episode, I had nothing to relate to. It was too specific to certain surroundings and people.

``One of the purpose of this article was also to highlight certain social issues which we Desis usually choose to ignore as I discussed in the post addressed to temporal below. The safety, welfare, innocence, and dignity of a child must supercede anything and everything. It is our responsibility to create a society that ensures a safe and innocent childhood to all children.``

I will again differ with you. As I mentioned in my post, you did a great job with the different moods in your surroundings. That was it. What you are writing above does not make any sense to me. In short, there is a disconnect.

``As far as your suggestions on ``Chehl Qadmi`` etc. is concerned, trust me, I am not just a ``Paadaa`` (blabbermouth) aadmi; but if I elaborate on this it will make me one :) ```

Sorry, Urstruly I could not understand what you meant by your above statement -- Baat Bilkul Sumujh Main Naheen Ayee`.

Take you time before you write the reply :-)

Mukurmee-o-Mohtarmee:

In a khudkalami mode: kyaa ho gaayaa hae!

``Voh aik sajda jissay Too Giraan samajhtha hai
Hazaar sajdOn sey Daita hai aadmi ko Nijaat``

Hope now it sounds perfect :-)

Kind Regards,

Mukur-mee-o-Mohtarmee Farangi Kush:

Welcome back. Hope you had a wonderful break(and not brake).

Sir, with due respect, I beg to differ with your ending words. You have a tendency to make them sound as if they all have a ``Hai`` at the end. I have never come across words, such as Nijath or Usth. It should be Nijaa`t and Ust`.

Let`s read it again:

``Voh aik sajda jissay Too Giraan samajhtha hai
Hazaar sajdOn sey daitha hai aadmi ko Nijaat``


Theek!

Take Care,

PM

various posts.

See, was that so bad? Didn`t I tell ya the ``persumptions`` are a bad thing.

Sometimes I am a warrior; most of the time I am a lover.

Ms. Versey # 73

You ask very difficult questions. The keyword, as it was in your post, is ``finality``. It is the sense of finality which scares us. Today, while in a group friends we were discussing the morality of Euthenasia (sp?) I sensed that the beleivers are at an advantage, at least psychologically when such ``absolute`` issues come up. If you get a chance try to read David Humes` paper on `morality of suicide`- it helps to understand another dimension of concept of death. Though I am a stern beleiver, Humes` writing did help some to refine my own beleifs.

Sorry for the delayed response.

Zahra# 82

I know you are another tough customer therefore I am quite releived to see that you are satisfied at least this time.

One of the purpose of this article was also to highlite certain social issues which we Desis usually choose to ignore as I discussed in the post addressed to temporal below. The safety, welfare, innocence, and dignity of a child must supercede anything and everything. It is our responsibility to create a society that ensures a safe and innocent childhood to all children.

As far as your suggestions on ``Chehl Qadmi`` etc. is concerened, trust me, I am not just a ``Paadaa`` (blabbermouth) aadmi; but if I elaborate on this it will make me one :)