The Summer of ’69

sadna#179
``I have for instance read a Muslim MP and member of Muslim Personal Law Board warning `history may repeat itself and Vajpayee may have to read the Kalima`.)``
Do you know the name of this MP? It is the failure of the muslims and other secularists to condemn such statements, which is providing the fuel for the hindu intolerance.

#177 by dost-mittar on June 13, 2003 7:14am PT

Well differnet verses have different requirements to understand them. For example a verse like
for example a verse which conveys the unity of god, a simple verse I must say.

112.001
YUSUFALI: Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
PICKTHAL: Say: He is Allah, the One!
SHAKIR: Say: He, Allah, is One.

112.002
YUSUFALI: Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
PICKTHAL: Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
SHAKIR: Allah is He on Whom all depend.

112.003
YUSUFALI: He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
PICKTHAL: He begetteth not nor was begotten.
SHAKIR: He begets not, nor is He begotten.

112.004
YUSUFALI: And there is none like unto Him.
PICKTHAL: And there is none comparable
SHAKIR: And none is like Him.

each sentence is translated a little diffrently by established translators.

this verse is quite simple in it self It requries no background though there can be extensive discussion to suppourt each line it in itself complete. perhaps only comparision or back gorund could be the chrsistians view of trinity of one god. but even without it stands on its own.

on the other hand a verse like some of the controversial ones of killings of kafirs is to be read in context as common sense says that you cant kill kafirs indiscrimnately and certainly the in light of the treaties etc during the prophets time and other verses we see that the killing of kafirs was given in historical context and should be taken as such. Ie if similar conditions exist again.

The whole Quran was revealed in need for direction at both what we would call serious and even nonserious matters( mean to say non tricky situations, say like those about the saying truth, paying zakat, honoring pledges etc)
I can say that the Quran never claimed to be a book for dummies!! However the language was clear to the arabs(of that time)and the quran was not just word being relayed. It is application was practiced and explained by the Prophet.
The arabs were not illeterate neither was the Prophet(as claimed by some muslims too) ie though they could not write much they were quite elequoent people who took pride in their poetery etc. Even then the claim of Illiteracy was forwaded in context of the prophet not being a great poet or some thing like that.
like I said this kind of topic is a difficult topic to develve in form of discussion rarther it is suited for individual study with perionds of questioning etc. Nothing can be proved or disproved in this kind of forums.

#179 by sadna on June 13, 2003 6:01pm PT

1)Perhaps you have not read the various post (even in this discussion) where I have pointed that I dont have any problems with what you belive. Just take a look at the previous posts and check out the number of times I have said that.
Perhaps if you are honest you will do that and report the number of times I have done that.

...there is never any acknowledgement that a Hindu who disagrees with them on Hinduism could have a valid point. In fact in my experience on chowk, a Hindu who disagrees with a Muslim`s view of Hinduism is likely to be called intolerant and fanatic by the hypocrites here.

2)well another challenge here just this discussion.. there are many posts where me and tahamed have agreed with others. check them up and give us the numbers.

.....What I want to make clear is that an expectation that Hindus must disrespect/disown their religious heritage as the price for being called `tolerant Hindus` or as the necessary offering up to Islam or Indian nationalism/secularism is a very dangerous expectation which will only lead to horrendous conflict.

The whole object of my interacting with you in paritucular is to show this particular situation which occours with some hindus who are very happy to call themselves tolerant. Ie I want want to show you your contribution in the hindu-muslim issue.

Let us take the above statement. You are now stating the reasons for forthcoming ``horrendous conflict`` on basis of conclusions you have reached. In light of 1) and 2) will any person including yourself(a more calmer and refective) will be able to see that your conclusions are invalid and not based on facts but on what you misread in your anger(Which are based on your emotional state and sterotype images of muslims in your mind)

Similar reasons are given by the people who are under the influence of the sangh.

In the present case after a realtively cooling off period you responded to tahamed`s post to friend (where both were being rude to each other) tahamed post was directed at friend and made no mention of friends religon or toward women in general. His object was friend(distasteful as it was it was not a attack on any religion or people). You jumped into it taking offence at first on behalf of women. I found this a bit out of tack with yours and others who claimed that revelaing of womens body is not distasteful.

(My argument was that revelaing a women as a body where the sexual aspects are open for display will obviously lead to a person towards thinking sexually and this is my experience of all males wether religous or the famously over exposed americans or others all men will respond in similar fashion only the degree varies to some extent) Here this same argument is also made by artists , photographers etc. This is a false argument, In fact most interviews with most artistic models both of photography or art give the same results in any country or culture only difference being that the sexual thoughts and what may follow those are not considered differently in different cultures. So a american woman may not be upset if a man is sexually excited by seeing a nude art however some of our women do hold this quaint view that a man not get sexually affected upon seeing a woman naked. even gandhiji tried this experiment and surprisingly I have met many hindus in trains and other public places and on the internet who some how give the claim about their capability of not getting aroused on seeing a naked woman. In fact one such person told me that in a train in front of a girl who he was bugging and this girl had to ask me later on to either take that guy away or help her get a different place in the train.)

anyway you proceeded to attack tahamed in a sprited way and spoke of telling your mind if you came across tahamed in real life. I did find this situation a bit amusing ie not in the sexual content but in a image of a sprited and angry woman(probably less than 30) giving the works to an (self admitted)older tahamed who seems quite conservative(despite his present descriptive post) in terms of his views of womens sexuality.
I said It would be amusing to view it.

Your turning this spat into a muslim men vs hindu women issue was very contrived to say the least. You will notice that despite all your posts to tahamed in this issue he is yet to take your outbursts into account. If this does signifies muslim men mistreating hindu women then I dont think that you will find much suppourt from any rational observer.

However that is not the main issue with you. It looks like you have mens treatment of women close to your heart(which is even more aggravated if you belive a muslim man is responsible for it.)

You have pointed out countless number of times about the various problems of Islam with respect to the treatment of women and ask muslims to abandon that part of the faith totally. How come you take it on yourself to dictate to us what we are doing when you dont care for such instructions from muslims. Not only that you dont care to comment or analayse the arguments given by muslims that these are abberations by muslims not islam and that some that you consider valid and are still considered right by Muslims like the issue of Hijab are matter of perception.

On this matter of perception I offered a you a way to see if those are too oppressive or are as what many muslim wome who voluntarily take hijab say are true.

Many great and small personalities have the habit of expressing solidarity with the opressed or needy by voluntraily undergoing similar suffering to empthahise with those suffering and to experess soliddarity with them. Like gandhiji wearing only a dothi, others fasts or give themselvs up for arrest to express solidiraty with people who they considered as wrongfuly confined.
You could also do this symbolic empthay practice by taking on the hijab in some form for a few weeks (even dressing modestly and puting a scarf like some muslims will do)is what I ask you to try. Im sure beign a beliver in all ways being right it should not go against your religon to take up such a method of covering your hair and body(which in any case most indian women do, may be you too are like that).
Express your solidiraty with the muslim women for whom you show so much concern
and attempt to learn how much opprressed you feel with the hijab and if you feel any thing apart or along with the oppression then you owe it to yourself as well as those whom you your concern for to remember your experiences and post here those.


I hope you view your thirce mentioned reasons to grid up to fight muslims in light of all of the above. I belive you are a rational person normally but you have some stereotypes embedded in you mind that makes you jump at muslims form time to time.

I am not posting this to continue an unpleasant discussion with uncouth unpleasant people, I am posting this to make something clear.

Its one thing to have an opinion that Hinduism is all murder and sexual orgy and to express this opinion - everyone has a right to their opinions and a right to express them ad nauseum.

But I have observed/experienced(I could be wrong) that ali87(and earlier Farzana) have consistently displayed an expectation beyond this- that they have the right to expect that like them, Hindus must also disrespect the Hindu belief system.

I say this because both have on many occasions gone to considerable lengths to register their unqualified disrespect of everything to do with Hinduism and Hindus and there is never any acknowledgement that a Hindu who disagrees with them on Hinduism could have a valid point. In fact in my experience on chowk, a Hindu who disagrees with a Muslim`s view of Hinduism is likely to be called intolerant and fanatic by the hypocrites here.

What I want to make clear is that an expectation that Hindus must disrespect/disown their religious heritage as the price for being called `tolerant Hindus` or as the necessary offering up to Islam or Indian nationalism/secularism is a very dangerous expectation which will only lead to horrendous conflict.

(Such an expection does exist to whatever small extent- I have for instance read a Muslim MP and member of Muslim Personal Law Board warning `history may repeat itself and Vajpayee may have to read the Kalima`.)

I dislike the BJP intensely but I have never heard their leaders go so far and assert a similar proselytizing expectation that Muslims must give up their religion as condition for amity. Perhaps they do indeed imply this in their politics(given that their version of Hinduism seems to be hate speech and rape and murder of Muslims), in which case their expectation is as dangerous and unrealistic as any similar expection from any Muslims.

The sooner these unrealistic expectations on both sides are nipped in the bud, the safer it is for all of us.

My post is for this reason only - to make clear as a Hindu where the limits lie for me - that if Muslims, Indian or Pakistani think their famously perfect religion or Indian secularism grants them the right to expect universal submission to Islam, well get prepared to fight.

dost-mittar #177 ``Quran says repeatedly that Allah had sent this message for the Arabs in simple words in their own language so that illiterate Arabs can understand it. If so, there should be no need for interpretation. And I agree that the messages are quite clear and interpretations could merely be spin doctoring of one kind or another (whether by moderates or jihadis).``

Now you have a better understanding of Islam than most muslims. And a lot better understanding than virtually every single maulvi. And this is what I have been ranting about on chowk for ages - that there is no room for middlemen aka priests in Islam. It is for the individual to read and understand and apply it as his or she deems fit using his or her common sense.

``The people whose opinions I really value are those who have freely adopted a religion other than those of their birth after careful study and not because of some traumatic event such as marriage or socio-economic-political pressures. ``

I differ here - I dont think changing religions is such a big deal. That is, I consider a religion to be like your name: you are given a name at birth, and so you are declared a muslim or hindu at birth. You can can change your name no doubt at any time in your life. And you can change your religion too. BUT: a change in religion, like a change in name, is not worth the trouble. To paraphrase and extrapolate Shakespeare a bit:

``What`s in a name?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
Nor will a change in religion
Change thee by even a smidgen.``

So, call yourself a hindu or muslim or buddhist - no big deal. The important thing is WHO YOU ARE as an individual.

One advantage I do see is that I wont have to listen to one more Arab saying ``Mashaallah`` when you tell him your name as if you have found a cure for cancer or perhaps won the nobel prize for literature... like this palestinian-born electrician did last week with me and started going ``brother, brother`` when all I needed him to do was fix the damn heat pump.

ali87:
Good and let`s keep the discussion civilised.
I am one of those who believes that we defend our respective religions almost exclusively because of what can be roughly called our lifelong conditioning and upbringing or what the hindus more appropriately call sanskaras. In other words, if I were born a muslim and you a hindu, we would probably be saying different things. The people whose opinions I really value are those who have freely adopted a religion other than those of their birth after careful study and not because of some traumatic event such as marriage or socio-economic-political pressures. On Chowk, SameerJB is one such person who is a muslim by birth and buddhist by conviction. I too fall partially in that category since I also like buddhism and sikhism more than the religion of my birth, but in my case there is no significant incompatibility of these religions with my religion of birth.
Yes, I have read commentaries of the controversial passages in the quran. But I have several problems with that. It is said that Islam does not permit intermediaries and everyone has to do his or her own interpretation, suggesting that there is no definitive interpretation. Also, if these verses are to be seen in their context, it is inconsistent with the claim that the quran is valid for all times and all places (i.e., context free). It also supports those who claim that these ``revealations`` were too convenient - to provide divine support to the prophet whenever he faced serious situations, such as the accusations against Ayesha leading to the rule of evidence in `zina`, or the the prophet not liking people peering at his wives, leading to the dress code for women. But my main problem with these interpretations lies elsewhere. Quran says repeatedly that Allah had sent this message for the Arabs in simple words in their own language so that illiterate Arabs can understand it. If so, there should be no need for interpretation. And I agree that the messages are quite clear and interpretations could merely be spin doctoring of one kind or another (whether by moderates or jihadis).
And I agree we should spend more time on chowk on other issues. The Pakistanis seem to be doing that more about Pakistan than we do about India (I might say that I do try:-)).

#173 by dost-mittar on June 12, 2003 1:33pm PT

Well different people see different things in the same text. It is good that you read the Quran perhaps you did not read the commentary associated with the verses. The verses do not stand independent in themselves but at times there are conditional verses further qualifing the independent verses and also need to be seen in the context which they were revealed. I dont know if you have done such an exercise. There are plenty of instances which can be cited in history which suppourt what the muslims claim regd peacfullness of Quran and its recognition as such by muslims and on the other hand you will find plenty of times the same verses were used to justify unnecessary voilence(or as you will call the violence actually meant in the Koran).
A better plan would be to make a list of verses(they are not too many in number) that you find voilent and then do a futrther study of how they are understood by muslims.
However there is a possibility that you have already done all that and drawn your conclusions. That is your right.
But as a comprehensive text and compared to a collection of such texts and ideologies in other religions Islam does not suffer in comparision. So from the point of view of what is the Koran and its Ideology and how does it compare with other religons it will stand way above other such religious Ideologies. But that is my opinon obviously you dont belive that I can live with it. One may even give a reasoing that it should stand right on its own. Perhaps that is th right way to judge it.

My view is that all many of the things that Islam upholds is being adopted by the world today wether muslim or not. One may call it modernity but it is there in the Koran.
Basically I dont have much complaints with the non-muslim world it is increasingly comming to accepting the muslim view though it may call modernity. Both christianity and Hinduism have moved their positions closer than ever to Islam than any point in history.

Buddhisim had similar problems as all religons. Mahanayama Buddhisim (the type which is prevalent now in the world) which split the buddist religon was actually seen by the early buddhists as going against some of the basic tents of Buddhisim where preists, Idol worship etc were prohibited. However my knowledge is sketchy about buddhisim.
Commonly held belif in India that buddhisim is vegetarain is wrong Buddhists have no problem with either drink or meat as told by the Dalai Lama himself.

Me and you will always find some point where we can agree. However people like us getting to along is not a big thing. It is the hot heads that need to be reigned. My intention in spending time on this boards is to understand these peoples thinking process. It has given me valuable information to me. Also I feel that there is a need to know how to tackle the reasons for anger and to understand what are the possible processes in which one can penetrate the line of thinking with some logic.

After all even if we all become hindus or muslims our problems will not disappear. some new ones will crop up as pakistan is discovering. When two religons are present there will necessaryily be differences. I do not forsee India turning into another west ie of irreligousity and taking up what is called Modernity which I feel is just consumerism and little esle. So our solutions need to be different.
It would have been Ideal if we could discuss the real problems and solutions of our countries but such a situation at least on this kind of boards is not possible as the people dont have much intrest is dull booring subjects.

By the way some people feel that the problems are very large and cant be solved by individuals. I dont belive in this at all.

Those who so uneqivocaly defend US here fail to realise that the real reason for the success of US is the involvement of Individuals in its national building task. Even a small number of people can make a subustantial impact not by themselves of course but by taking increasingly more people along with their stand.

dost mittar #174 You are not in the bad books of this muslim, at least. :-)

On the literal acceptance of religious verses: You are right that the Zionist movement in the mid-19th century that culminated in the state of Israel was started by secular people. However, the basis for this was the literal acceptance of the Torah concerning the land of modern day Israel being promised by God to Abraham in return for doing his bidding. And indeed there had been a number of movements in the centuries before for the return of the Jews to what was then palestine: perhaps the best known is the 17th century movement led by the ``jewish messiah`` Sabbatai Zevi which lit a fire in jewish hearts all over europe, but had a surprise ending with Zevi being captured by the Ottoman rulers and becoming a muslim (he did not have much choice in the beginning, although later I think he seems to have gotten used to the idea), and still getting jewish visitors. This does not mean that the other reasons for Israel were not understandable: after all, jews had been routinely harassed by the europeans, and a major reason was the practical one of getting out of europe. Interestingly, the British PM (I forget his name) at the time strongly supported Zionism at the same time he voted against an immigration bill that would have allowed jews in central europe to seek asylum in UK. Such are the ways that men have used religion to serve political ends through the ages!!

Pakistan provides an interesting parallel to Israel, and someday I am sure someone will write a history PhD thesis on how religion was used (and also abused) for perfectly legitimate practical goals. The problem of course is that mixing religion with politics is a dangerous thing, as we all know too well nowadays.

tahmed:#170

Thanks for taking my rant in good spirit - as always.

It was not entirely directed towards you, just an expression of frustration at what sometimes goes on at Chowk. At times I feel personally responsible for the rabid hindu Indians :) and yes I know there are some here at Chowk. But I suppose that`s largely because we don`t have too many Indians at Chowk, so they perceive it as a `not Indian` site and utilize it to vent their own frustrations in the worst possible ways! But I claim that Chowk is neither Indian nor Pakistani -- just something good that both Indians and Pakistanis happen to share (among other things).

ali87: #168

Ali I think you are right, but I also think that many people need something to hold on to and religion fills this gap. We all need our beliefs, and it`s a fairly personal thing - but for some compulsion we feel the need to defend our belief and also convince others that our belief was chosen well - even before we can honestly say that to ourselves (before we reach the end of our journey we proclaim we have arrived!). Those who initially proposed the ideas in religions that are popular today- surely must have taken a journey of their own and realised something profound they wanted to share with others. I think in this sense - Buddhism is quite a cool `religion` where you have to discover the path, but like everyone else Buddhists too can get caught in rituals and superficial things. (I`m making an assumption here, I don`t know a lot about Buddhism). So I suppose we come back to the idea it is so, and it must be so - things will continue like this. And if it is a journey -- everyone will do it at their own pace right?


Brat

ali87:
I did not quote from the quran because I would merely be repeating what has been said on chowk before (I will repeat them if you insist though I would rather not!). I narrated that particular hadis because I do not recall it having been mentioned on chowk before.
Believe me ali87, I have read the whole quran, or rather its translation, and my views about Islam`s intolerance of non-muslims and support of violence did not change after reading the holy book. But I also know that the majority of muslims, especially Indian muslims, are quite tolerant and peaceful.

tahmed#163
Yes, there are are bible-thumping christians in the U.S and even in Canada but they do not determine the policy of their governments, nor do they say that the state laws should be based on the bible nor do they support training camps for killers or call them freedom fighters. The proportion of christians who support these groups is no larger than the proportion of muslims like yourself who accept the essential message of Islam rather than accept everything literally.
And the state of Israel was created by zionists many of whom were non-believers. The socialist Labour party of Ben Gurion ruled Israel for a long time. The premise was not so much religious as ethnic, of a group which had faced persecution historically on account of ethnicity.
As for hindus, unfortunately, they are becoming more intolerant than they were. But they have a LOT of catching-up to do before they get to the same level as the children of Abraham. There are many muslims like farzana and 12-head who can speak up their minds in India. Can you tell me of a single Hindu in Pakistan or any other Islamic country who can speak up their mind like that?
Regarding Chowk, you have been constantly claiming that the Indians are more intolerant. I wont make any comment on this as I do not claim to be neutral or unbiased. [If chowk conducts a poll on this, they will most likely find that Hindians think that Pakistanis are more narrow-minded and the Pakistanis the opposite; muslims think that hindus are more intolerant and hindus the opposite].
I have not commented upon the Interacts between you and friend because although I was somewhat surprised by your ali1-like post regarding friend`s mother, I know both of you are not above indulging in mutual insults. My comment was directed to sadna who may hold strong opinions but is civil in her discourse. I objected to her post as she had stereotyped all muslim men.
Since I am now in the bad books of hindus, muslims, indians and pakistanis, I must be doing something right!

Brat #164 I agree with you 100% that the term ``scum`` is not something that applies to all Indians. Or even to the vast majority of them, I may add. My views on Indians and other things are not so shallow as to be swayed by what one comes across on chowk (and in my post to dost mittar i do make it a point to refer to Indians on chowk only, not all Indians). I know many first rate Indians in real life, some of whom I very much like and respect. These were of course successful professionals and people in large companies, and obviously they are going to be a cut above SOME of the individuals who show up on chowk. I have Indian friends who by now qualify as lifelong friends (known them for a couple of decades).

I also agree 100% with your on what you write about religion. I have also argued along similar lines on chowk.

Chowk of course is different than real life in some ways. Aside from the obvious misuse of anonymity that some individuals make on chowk to abuse other posters, there is also a well-known psychological aspect to the internet that makes one`s words seem harsher than intended. To this we can add the fact that one meets people from a lot more diverse community on the internet than one does in real life. So, it is for this reason that we need not base our views on ALL Indians or ALL Pakistanis based on chowk interactions. Now all I need to do is to remember this good advice myself. :-)

Thanks for your post. I needed that on this board :-)

ali87 #166 Thanks for the good advice. As you can see in my post to ``friend`` below, I have taken your advice.

friend #167 and #162: So you are a liar: you have failed to meet the challenge in my post #159 to cut and paste what I wrote which provides you the basis of trying to portray me as flirting with another man on chowk .

Calling me names is not a response to that challenge. Nor does trying to back off now claiming that you simply said flirtation and did not word homosexual an answer. Nor is writing two such posts rather than one in response to my challenge an answer. zero plus zero is still zero. Duh!!

I wont be responding to your posts (unless I change my mind and think you deserve an answer). So, have a nice day.

Ali#166,
Tauheen-e-Ahmek is crying because I exposed his hidden desires.
This idiot converted ``ahmad`s flirting with RSaxena indicates that even old man in Pakistan try to keep learning fact of life by flirting with other boys. `` to ``homosexual flirtation``.
If he had even an iota of intelligence, he would have checked the meaning of ``flirting``
But Ahmek being an insult to all ahmeks, chose the meaning he was looking for.
His quick treatment is really necessary for the benefit for all Pakistanis. I will keep helping him.

Ahmek - Read following (if you know how to read)
flirt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flûrt)
v. flirt·ed, flirt·ing, flirts
v. intr.
To make playfully romantic or sexual overtures.
To deal playfully, triflingly, or superficially with: flirt with danger.
To move abruptly or jerkily.
v. tr.
To toss or flip suddenly.
To move quickly.
n.
One given to flirting.
An abrupt jerking movement.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

#164 by Brat on June 12, 2003 9:49am PT

Perhaps the solution is not to think our religion is ours. We being mere followers of gods religion It would be better if we focus to see how good we come compared to what our religion wants us to be.
After all a traveller cant say he is proud of the road. He may take pride in selecting the right road at the most. That to if he is successful in completing his journey as there are many detours available to get lost. Nothing can be claimed till we reach the goal by which time we would not be in a positon to do any talking with each other..:)