This Beloved Arab Colony

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Mr. mishra by stating:
``. Compared to them, indian casteism or european distinctions between peasants and commoners are quite egalitarian`` you have in fact opened up a pandoras box. Let me point out a few things and i will wait for your comment.
``People here whose behaviour is pleasant can expect to enter a pleasant womb, like that of a woman of the Brahmin, the Ksatriya, or the Vaisya caste. But people of foul behaviour can expect to enter the foul womb, like that of a dog, a pig, or an outcaste woman.`` -- Chandogya Upanisad 5:10:7.

``If a man of one birth (Sudra) hurls cruel words at one of the twice-born, his tongue should be cut out, for he was born from the rear-end. If he mentions their name or caste maliciously, a red-hot iron nail ten-fingerslong should be thrust into his mouth. If he is so proud as to instruct priests about their duty, the king should have hot oil poured into his mouth and ears.`` -- Manusmrti 8:270-272.

``If in the process of negotiating betrothal there are first ten suitors of the non-Brahmana varna for a woman (the marriageable girl), all of them lose their claims of marriage and, only the Brahmin, the learned one, if he grasps her hand would be her husband and only he. Not even the man of Ksatriya varna and not even the man of Vaisya varna but only the Brahmin is the husband of the bride in such cases of claimants of betrothal, and the sun, as it appears, revealing this fact to the people of five classes (4 varnas and the fifth avarna) rises up.`` -- Atharva Veda 5:17:8-9
``If a man of inferior caste tries to sit down on the same seat as a man of superior caste, he should be branded on the hip and banished, or have his buttocks cut off.`` -- Manusmrti 8:281.
``One-fourth of (the punishment for) Brahmin-killing is traditionally regarded as (the punishment) for the killing of a Ksatriya, one-eighth for (killing) a Vaisya, and it should be one-sixteenth for (killing) a Sudra who knows his place.`` -- Manusmrti 11:127.
``His (Purusa`s) mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were made into the Ksatriya, his thighs the Vaisya, and from his feet the Sudra was born.`` -- Rig Veda 10:90:12.
These are just a few quotes from your scriptures, now i would CHALLENGE you to find anything in the Quran or the authentic ahadeeth that teach anything even remotely close to this form of racist idealogy. Is this your version of an egalitarian religion?

hamidm #129: ``........it is disingenuous to suggest that muhammad did away with heriditary leadership by ........ the only reason abu bakr became caliph was because the prophet did not have any sons, and abu bakr was his favourite father-in-law and ayesha had a lot more clout than ali and his wife .......... the next three were also close relatives who fought tooth and nail for the crown ............ and remember, three of your four favourite calips were brutally murdered ..........so the battle did not start with the demise of ali - it started right after the prophet`s funeral and the tradition has continued to this day ............``

This is an interesting point. I am not quite sure what my ingenuity has to do with it however. I partially agree.

To the best of my knowledge and research, Muhammad did not announce who would succeed him after his death, and in no way indicated that it should be based on heridatory reasons. He could have appointed Ali the next Caliph, had he wanted to. But he didn`t. If you have information, suggesting otherwise, please point me to it.

I am not quite sure how you can say he would have passed on the leadership to his son(s) had they survived. This is mere speculation, since none of them survived. How can you thus be so sure, about an event which never occurred? You furthur go on to state that he did not pass it on to Ali, because Muhammad`s wife (Abu-Bakr`s daughter) was more influential than Muhammad`s daughter (Ali`s wife). This contradicts your point that he would have passed it on to his son(s), since it gives relative`s influence (Abu-Bakr) precedence over blood relationships (Ali). I also do not know of any information that suggests he passed it on in Abu-Bakr`s direction himself, and declared him Caliph, before he died, either.

According to the National Bestseller, ``Islam,`` by Karen Armstrong, Abu-Bakr was appointed as follows: ``

``Abu Bakr and Umar ibn-al-Khattab argued that the ummah must be a united community, and should have a single ruler, as it had under the Prophet. Some believed that Muhammad would have wanted to be succeeded by Ali ibn Abi Talib, his closest male relative. In Arabia, where the blood-tie was sacred, it was thought that a chief`s special qualities were passed down the line of descendents, and some Muslims believed that Ali had inherited something of Muhammad`s special charisma. But although Ali`s piety was beyond question, he was still young and inexperienced, and therefor Abu-Bakr was elected the first khalifah of the Prophet by a majority of votes.`` (page 25)

Three points stand out here: ``would have wanted`` (not actually wanted) - ``young and inexperienced`` (hence experience and age are given priority over heridatory relations) - ``elected...by a majority of votes`` (an election, which is anti-heridatory transfer).

Muhammad`s father was not alive. He had no brothers. He had six children through his first wife Khadija (four daughtes, two sons), out of which four daughters survived. He had three sons, Qasim, Abdullah and Abraham - all of whom died very very young. He had a cousin named Ali, to whom he was very close. Two of his daughters were married to a merchant named Usman. And two were married to his cousin Ali (Zainab, the eldest daughter, married Ali, after Fatima`s (the youngest daughter) death).

Muhammad was married to Abu-Bakr`s daughter, Ayesha. He was also married to Umar`s daughter Hafsa. He was married to Abu-Sufyan`s daughter Habiba, as well. He had other wives, also. Abu-Sufyan`s descendents would go onto have much more influence (good and bad) on the Muslim world than either Abu-Bakr`s or Umar`s - though Abu-Sufyan, himself, is not as well-known.

I do not have the list of grandchildren Muhammad had from his daughters (some of whom had actually been divorced and then remarried, like Zainab).

In terms of blood relations, Muhammad`s hierarchy would be as follows (as viewed by today`s world):

- passing on the leadership to any of his wives
- passing it onto any of his daughters
- passing it on to his cousin and son-in-law Ali
- passing it on to his other son-in-law Usman (son-in-law twice over)
- passing it on to his male grandchildren, if any were alive (age is no limitation in heridatory transfers)
- passing it onto his father-in-law(s) and other relatives

If heridatory transfers were the idea, then Ali obviously stands out as the most deservable male. After him Usman. Yet they were the number three and four Caliphs. Infact, Abu-Bakr and Umar and Usman could have passed on the leadership to their children (I will have to check up on how many children they had). But they didn`t either.

The heridatory transfer started from the fifth Caliph, Muawiyah, who was the son of Abu Sufyan and a kinsman of Usman. His rule passed on to Yazid. Hence, there doesn`t seem to be any specific guidance from Muhammad, himself, to pass on leadership on a heridatory basis. Quite the contrary.

One can probably correctly state that there must have been a lot of politicking going on to get the top spot. This is normal and is common in politics nowdays, also. It just goes to show that all these individuals were normal humans, with normal human behaviors. Every one tries to use their influence to win political positions. However, there doesn`t seem to be any indication that the first four Caliphs did not accept each other`s rule.

The infighting problems started afte Ali became Caliph. By that time, Abu-Bakr, Umar and Usman were no longer alive. Ali`s appointment was not accepted by everyone. To the point that there was a battle for not avenging Usman`s death, in which, the Prophet`s wife Ayesha (with Muawiyah on her side) battled Ali` forces on the other side. Ayesha`s forces were defeated.

However, just a year after Ali had become a Caliph, there was an arbitration, which went against Ali, and Muawiyah deposed him and became Caliph. Hence, Muhammad`s closest male blood relative, Ali, was only Caliph for one year, and that two after three non-blood relatives. Ali was murdered four years after the arbitration, and hence must not have been Caliph at the time of his murder. His own son Hasan did not become Caliph either, after reaching an agreement with Muawiyah. Not quite what one would call heridatory transfers of power.

One of the biggest strengths of Islam, in my opinion, is that it does not justify heridatory rule (although, from Muawiyah onwards till today, the heartland of Arabia has had heridatory rule, or changes thru violence). However one of the biggest shortcomings of Islam seems to be that it does not define a method of changing governments, either. However, I think there is enough evidence (some of which is provided above) to suggest that it prefers elections over kingdoms. But how to change the govt?

If you follow the exact example of the first four Caliphs (and Muhammad himself), without taking the local culture/advancement of the world at that time into account, the only time to change govt. is when the leader dies. Muhammad died, Abu-Bakr died two years later. Or if the leader is assasinated. Umar, Usman and Ali were assasinated (though Ali was assasinated after he was deposed by Muawiyah).

But, nowhere have I been able to find (other than in your speculation about Muhammad passing it onto his sons, had they survived) that the transfer should be through heridatory rule, by Islamic definition.

It should be pointed out that for nearly all of Muhammad`s life, there weren`t that many Muslims around him. He migrated to Medina, ten years before his death. And he was accompanied by around 70 families. So all of Islam, ten years before its Prophet`s death, could have fit into one American street. I don`t know the exact figures of Muslims at the time of his death (though by that time he had become the most powerful man in Arabia and a lot of tribes had thrown their weight behind him). But, one can say with some certainity, that since they were from the same city/village, same to similar tribes, and close neighborhoods, Muhammad was probably related, in some fashion, to many, if not most, if not all, of the prominent Muslim figures around him, at the time of Hijrat and the early formation years of Islam. However, that does not equate to heridatory transfer. A direct heridatory transfer would have been from him to Ali, declared by him. Which never happened.

The complex family relationships lead to odd situations. If I have the geneological tree figured out correctly, it is interesting to note that Muhammad`s wife Ayesha, sided with Muawiyah against Muhammad`s son-in-law Ali, for not avenging Muhammad`s other son-in-law (Usman`s) murder. Muawiyah`s son Yazid`s forces would later kill Muhammad`s grandson Hussain. Interestingly, Muawiyah was the son of Abu-Sufyan, whose daughter, Habiba was married to the Prophet. Hence she would be Yazid`s aunt (phuphee), making Muhammad Yazid`s uncle (phuphaa). So Muhammad`s nephew Yazid`s forces, killed Muhammads` grandson Hussain, in a battle that has defined Islamic history.

#167 by stuka on June 23, 2003 9:55am PT
Syed_Dishonorable:

``You are a kafir, and please don`t disrespect the progeny of our rasool e kareem Muhammad saws. ``

Dude, is your claim to fame the fact that you may have been the progeny of an Arab camel herder called Mohammed? That is what your religion is based on??? Hell, Kafir is then a mark of pride for us then.
---------

I love being a Kafir (K capital letter to show respect)

Honorable_Syed: What is this!! I thought we had settled the issue many boards ago - namely you cannot be a muslim and claim you are a Syed at the same time. And here I catch you sneaking back in again, pretending you are a muslim. All that time I spent educating you has gone to waste.

I see that you now claim that you are believe in the equality for all. This is in direct contradiction to the very title of Honorable Syed under which you make this statement. Islamists, i.e. all those who seek to exploit islam (or indeed any other religion) for the sake of political power, money, or (in your case) ego-enhancement contradict themselves at every step. That is why you islamists are incapable of responding to simple questions.

#168 by arjun_m on June 23, 2003 10:31am PT
I can see an eminem rip-off...
i`m the real slim shady will be i`m the real syed

May I have your attention please?
May I have your attention please?
Will the real Syed please stand up?
I repeat, will the real Syed please stand up?
We`re gonna have a problem here

I`m Syed, yes I`m the real Syed
All you other Syeds are just imitating
So won`t the real Syed please stand up?
Please stand up, please stand up

Cuz I`m Syed, yes I`m the real Syed
All you other Syeds are just imitating
So won`t the real Syed please stand up?
Please stand up, please stand up
--------

Hey Hey you you...
Don`t leave me out..arjun
Tum akele ban baithe `Syed ` kyun

I too will stand up
ye dekho..Here I stand up
Coz` I am a Syed too
And more real one than you

I came to India ages ago
Sitting on my camel`s back
My country turned me `out`
So I came to a `Hinduland`
With all my invaders and band(baaja)
And turned these `kafirs` into `momeens`
Now they say they too are syeds like me(o! wat a shame )

Agar yaqeen na ho meri baat par
Then you can test my DNA
And that will tell the truth
That I am higher that you
That I am superior to you

Here I stand on a pedestal high
In my regal blood so supreme
Come hither, come hither
Thou lowly ones, thou `kafirs`
Bow your head to me
And seek my blesssings

#179 by dost-mittar on June 23, 2003 1:03pm PT
Hon-Syd#166
``All that bull crap of manu smiriti not being part of the hindu religion is again a load of ``tatti````

Spoken like the true progeny of the greatest man on earth who created the concept of calling anyone who questioned his claim to be Rasool, a kafir or a blasphemist.
---

But from the mouth of the descendents of the only true messenger of God, even words like `kafir` non-beleiver or `tatti` sound heavenly

Moghul Writes: Were the first Islamic armies forces of Arab imperialism, they would have imposed a Hejazi (Western Penninsular Arabian) culture in uniformity – or they would have attempted to do so. But instead, their Arabic and their culture, even in contact with other Semites, also changed to a large extent, so much so that an Arab from Morocco cannot understand an Arab from Qatar, unless they speak in formal Arabic. The vernaculars are all but unintelligible.

So let me get this straight. By attacking another country and establishing a new government of a ruling minority and telling folks that you are doing it in the name of God is not Imperialism??!! So like in Egypt Syria Iraq Persia and the Maghrib the Arabs arrived dancing and handing out Bakhlava. Soon enough the natives joined them singing songs of joy preserving to this day in their own vernacular, the living memory of that friendly dance party that ushered in an era of Islamic delight.

I am noticing that the issue of Syed ancestory is a hot one. Why is this so? Because if one were to admit that they are not Syed or some Arbee lineage, it would imply that they were a conquered people. But the joke is the joke is that at the SAME time these weird Islam obsessed invidivduals want to tell us that nothing imperial came out of Arabia! It was all just one peaceful caravaan of peaceful ideas! But please hang on because I am going to make this point.

The point is that why ThEN is Syed or Arab Ancestory such a HOT TOPIC in the subcontinent? Because in their hearts everyone knows that Islamic warriors did infact conquer and conquer they did in an IMPERIAL Manner. SO this ancestral fantasy is actually a desire to join the Conquering Imperial RACE, While asserting on places like CHOWK that CONQUEST AND imperialism are alien to ISLAMic History!! So the game plan is to reap the benefits of Islamic conquests, aquire the affectations and swagger of a conquering race, while living in America and telling Gora saab that Islam was peaceful to begin with!

In his next article Mr. Moghul will be selling the Clifton Bridge and Mr. Romair will be buying it.

H_Syed Mian # 178,

``but does windows teach us how to live our life, does windows provide us with rules and regulations to follow to live a spiritually content life? The answer is no... ``

If you or others like you need a book on ``A Dummy`s guide to live your life``, then Kafirs like me are glad, we can live without such instructions.
On spiritual contentment, I think you need to settle down with your christian and jewish brothers to decide which one of you speaks the truth and whose rules are absolute.
Till then allow us Kafirs to derive contenetment from other spirits. We`re more content just exploring so many different spirits, without judging fellow drinkers about their brand of spirit, not to mention the vineyards they were derived from.

Adios

Hon-Syd#166
``All that bull crap of manu smiriti not being part of the hindu religion is again a load of ``tatti````
Spoken like the true progeny of the greatest man on earth who created the concept of calling anyone who questioned his claim to be Rasool, a kafir or a blasphemist.

m_arjun:
Have you heard of the cliche ``its like comparing apples and oranges`` We are discussing religion, not some technology related issue. Yes more people use windows or would than have read the Quran, but does windows teach us how to live our life, does windows provide us with rules and regulations to follow to live a spiritually content life? The answer is no. If you had read my quote a little further, it says: ``This list may be further extended but all these three tests of greatness are eminently satisfied to the highest degree in case of Prophet Mohammad.`` The list is much greater, and alhamdulillah our nabi e kareem fulfulled all these tests.

This Syed nonsense

Is this why the Chowk Staff pulled up this article to the top of the list a few days back?

Enough is enough, very true, but Mr. H.Syed (I presume he`s a male for women know better), Sir, you should retract the following:

[``...Msouza: You are a kafir, and please don`t disrespect the progeny of our rasool e kareem Muhammad saws. ...``]

First off, who are you to judge? You`ve used the word KAFIR in a pejorative spirit. It`s not the word`s meaning (which may be quite acceptable to many) but the implied snide and the self-righteousness you conveyed that grits the civic sensibility of many.

Let me ask you this: How is that Syedness only travels down through the father and not through the mother?

If a Syed man marries a European woman, their child is considered a Syed. No problems. But if a ``true`` Syed`s daughter gets married to a kemmi kameen like me, then the child of that union is not a Syed.

Yet you Syeds claim to have descended from Mohammed, who, I hate to remind you, had only three sons none of whom lived beyond childhood. His DNA survived through his SEVERAL daughters. Yet only Fatima`s line is recognized. How absurd....

...SR

...SR

Stuka, you contradict yourself.
`` If all and sundry believe d that he was the greatest man on earth, there would be no such thing as a Kafir for all would believe. ``
Then you go on and say``
``Everything that you say today is due to one reason only. You just happened to be borm Muslim. Period.``
Do you see the contradiction, this same principle could be applied to all the people who didn`t revert to Islam, once seeing the light, just because they were born hindu, christian, jew, etc.
HaHa

Syed:

``There are plenty of examples, but this should suffice, this camel herder was the greatest man on earth, accepted by both kafirs and muslims alike. ``

You contradict yourself here. If all and sundry believe d that he was the greatest man on earth, there would be no such thing as a Kafir for all would believe. Fact is some non Muslims may believe that he was a great man (as opposed to greatest) and others may not believe that he was great at all. Fact that he has 1.3 billion aherents now means nothing. Most people follow the religion of their birth. Others convert due to a variety of reasons, mostly unspirtiual. Everything that you say today is due to one reason only. You just happened to be borm Muslim. Period.