This Beloved Arab Colony

Alephnull#297
The essence of my post was that Islam is the faith of over a billion people. There is evidence everywhere that the believers are becoming more devout than ever. There is also a battle raging between the fundamentalists and moderates as to how some of the controversial verses of the quran are to be interpreted. For the sake of humanity, and not just those billion+ muslims, I would be happier if the moderates win this debate regardless of the true meaning of those verses.
And let`s not forget that Muslims have by no means a monopoly over irrationality. Have you watched the TV evangelists lately selling their snake oil and curing people of incurable diseases. Go to India and see the TV programs and pravachans (sermons) of hindu religious leaders or the astrologers on tv and the number of educated urbanites who watch them; or the disciples of sai baba who believe he is God (I must admit that I admire their sense of community service and also their good taste in devotional music). And there is no dearth of NRI hindus who prostate before any visiting mataji/guruji/santji many of whom are no more than charltans.
Islam is not going anywhere, nor is quran. If a `revised, improved` version of quran is not possible, then our only hope is the victory of those who can put a positive spin on it wherever possible.

Syed, I don`t know whether there is any point in trying to interact with you, because you have such a closed mind and simply won`t admit that you might ever be wrong. Anyway, this is a last attempt, and as likely to be futile as all the others.

Yes, there is every reason to check out the source of one`s information, because the internet is full of sites that offer you incorrect and selective information. I could very well have quoted from the numerous anti-Islam sites to say all kinds of things about your religion and your Prophet, insisting that they were true just because someone had put it up on some site. But I don`t. First of all because I have the decency not to deliberately offend people, and secondly because I haven`t read the Koran for myself. though I do have many Muslim friends, strange though it may seem to you. And may I inform you that you are full of strange tales which you insist form part of Hindu mythology but which I at least, and all my Hindu acquaintances and most people on this site, have never heard of. Still, since you say you`ve got them from somewhere I`m prepared to believe that you really have read them, they really exist somewhere and not simply in your imagination.

You should also remember that the myths don`t ``form the basis of hindu theological beliefs``. They are merely a means to explain the greater truths of life and existence to people who might not be capable of abstract reasoning and thinking. (So far you haven`t shown that capacity, but perhaps that`s another matter.)

I never said that the concept of sati was introduced by invaders. Try to read before you react. You can only think in terms of stereotypes like ``devious Hindus``, to which a Hindu could respond with other stereotypes about Muslims, probably just as false, such as treacherous, violent, cruel, etc. But I won`t. I said that it came into practice as a result of the rape, loot and slavery that women were vulnerable to as a consequence of the invasions. It was a matter of death before dishonour. Because Sati was the ideal wife, who died when her husband was insulted, this practice was called sati. Where on earth did you get the idea that sati was introduced to prevent wives from poisoning their husbands or preventing their husbands from being welcomed in heaven by apsaras? The apsaras aren`t part of heaven, nor are they the other-worldly rewards for good men. You definitely are thinking of the houris! Hindu men, traditionally, would be expected to be reborn, not become a courtier in Indra`s court! And none of your weird theories have been justified by any myths. You can quote from whatever site you want to, but that won`t change facts. And expect abuse of your religion and your Prophet quoted from other sites. Have you seen the Jewish sites, btw, which suggest that Muslims are subhuman? Just because they`re on the internet, does that mean that Muslims ARE subhuman? You say that you`ve been born and raised in the West. You seem to have learned nothing from the openness of Western society. Do you ever express these views in a Western newspaper/journal/talkback radio? But I forget, you`re a Syed and don`t need to learn anything. You were born perfect and fair-skinned and the Caucasians of the West wish they looked like you.

About the British banning sati, I would suggest that you read your history books properly. Read the books that weren`t written before the middle of the last century (which were inspired by the colonials, who wanted to have some moral justification for the enslavement of their colonies) but some more recent ones based on proper historical research - especially by postcolonial writers and subaltern historiographers. Of course, this would be difficult for someone who believes that the ``historical`` information of sites such as mughalistan is the last word in truth.

Now that you`ve thanked Allah for sending the Muslims and the British to improve the lot of Hindu women, how about praying to Him to do something for Muslim women too? But of course, being Muslims they don`t need anything. They`d be best off under the Taliban, wouldn`t they?

Urbashi:
It`s not a matter of where the information is coming from, as long as its true. Yes, it`s quite possible that this is mythological and not scripture, but the problem is these myths form the basis of hindu theological beliefs. As to your comment on the concept of sati being introduced by invaders, again this is just one of the theories promoted by hindu apologists like you, where in reality the stronger theory is that Sati was introduced to prevent wives from poisoning their wealthy husbands and marry their real lovers. Other theory says that Sati began with a jealous queen who heard that dead kings were welcomed in heaven by hundreds of beautiful women, called Apsaras. And therefore when her husband died, she demanded to be burnt on her dead husband`s pyre and so to arrive with him to heaven and this way to prevent the Apsaras from consorting with her husband. And whats sad is that these theories were justified by hindu mythology or scriptures whatever you want to call them.
Sridhar:
Yes its true that sati is banned in India, but do you know the history behind the banning of this practise, or you conveniently avoid mentioning it. Sati was first banned by the Muslims under the Mughal rule, although they met severe resistance, and since we Muslim invaders were more tolerant to hindu beliefs, but under the british it was totally outlawed in 1829, and thank Allah swt for the Muslims and the british this is banned in india, otherwsie who is to say this this could have still been practised.

re:#285 by Honorable_Syed
Sati was glorified in the past. Pundits may have found religious justification for it. Trust the brahmins to find a religious justificaition for anything! In some places, Sati became a cult, with women being forced into it for honor and chastity. Roop Kanwar`s case is the most recent one.
But none of this changes the fact that Indian Law does not permit it and this is unconstitutional. In a free India, Constitution is Supreme. Rest of the scriptures can take a hike. Quoting them, therefore may prove that it existed or some scriptures allowed it (Hindu scriptures is vast; it is not just one book like Qoran).
Let us talk about present times. Are you guys not killing innocent people by Suicide bombers? Islam is not only allowing this to happen but such vermins are even glorified as ``martyrs`` and promised 72 virgins (or is it 70; i am forgetting but it does not matter) in heaven. When, in the past, a hindu woman killed herself by sati, she may or may not have done it under her will but she did not take any innocent people with her. Besides, society has changed since those times and Sati is not glorifed anymore in Press or media. I hope your brain-washed mullah mind sees this basic difference.
Sridhar

re:#286 by Honorable_Syed
Linga is Shiva`s dick, man. Are you happy now? If one can worship the whole God, why not his dick?
Just kidding. But, i am happy that you are improving your knowledge of hindu mythology. See the essence. Forget the stories.
Sridhar

Dost-mittar #292, #290

Thank you for your reply.

You write:

{{However, what I believe is immaterial. To the believers, the quran is as valid today in Alaska -where one would have to observe a 24-hour roza during Ramzan- as it was in the sands of Arabia of the 7th century and this `validity`, in fact, `proves` that it was a revealed scripture.}}

This ‘validity to the believers’– as far as I can make out – ) is purely psychological. It cannot be established empirically. Nor can it be proved deductively, from a small ‘self-evident’ set of axioms (I discount the self-serving exercises in circular reasoning that pass for religious apologetics). I’d have far fewer issues with the claim to validity if it were to remain a private matter or be kept under wraps within a religious community whose members are at full liberty to defect at any time. In such circumstances it would be unkind and churlish to ridicule the shaky foundations of personal beliefs which, however irrational, may give someone else peace of mind.

But this is not the case with the Quran. It lays down detailed prescriptions for discriminatory treatment to be accorded to non-believers of various flavours, and to women. It is also quite consistent with the imperative to capture territory, political power and worldly influence for its believers. It therefore becomes essential for non-believers to examine whether belief in the Quran has any valid foundation at all, and to confront Muslims with their findings. So what you believe and think is certainly material.

{{But when someone raises some valid questions about the quran or the prophet, like you did in your post, he is more likely to be called a hatemonger or a bleshphemist (blessed are those who do not have this concept!) than get a proper answer.}}

The notions of blasphemy and apostasy, imbecilic though they are, are not central. They derive from the notion of revealed truth, on which the Quran crucially depends to establish its authenticity and assert its authority. The shakiness of the claim of revelation is the fundamental and devastating weakness in the foundations of the entire structure. This notion has become progressively more untenable with the passage of time, the development of logic, of the scientific method, and of a generally more sophisticated understanding of how we can know what we know. It is the untenability of the doctrine of revealed truth, and the skepticism with which this doctrine is usually regarded by those familiar with better-validated methods of acquiring knowledge, that should most terrify believers in Islam or any other revealed dogma.

Thanks Msouza & Rsridhar.

Ali 87,
# 282

``Well think again.. Have not the Arya Samaj movement abandoned Idol worhship? are they not Hindu?``

Forget Arya samaaj, look in Srimad Bhagvad Puraana and you`ll find a clear reference to idol worshipping. As Krishna states there that anybody who mistakes an idol for God should be considered a fool.
But the point is that an idol or image can be used at the same time to help a seeker meditate on an otherwise formless entity. An idol is usually a symbol for a worshipper to connect to the higher being or rather a representation of the same. If muslims turn to mecca five times a day to pray than its not called idol worship. If they consider it a pilgrimmage to go around kabba, why should a hindu or anyone else for that matter not make his/her own kabba for worshipping, or feeling sacred?
Look at arya samajis, do they go around killing other hindus/ buddhists or anybody else proclaiming they alone are correct?
You are not alone in this confusion. Jews and christians too get easily confused. Yours is a linear way of thinking dictated by a book, not by your heart or mind. You will find it difficult to understand that spiritualism is an expression of a soul yearning for union with truth, not blind obedience to a dictated credo. And hence each individual can walk and experience myriad ways of seeking the ultimate.
Ali, to better understand, ask yourself if you or any muslims would have required a symbol to turn to pray had kabba not existed? In light of that try understanding the significance of kabba.
Oh yes, arya samajis never abandoned idol worshipping. They were formed on the basis of worshipping fire as a symbol of God. That too is a symbol/idol.

``Why do you find a muslim not accepting the such public display of sexual acctivites and why do they not consider it scared and beautiful?? Perhaps for the same reason why I bet i will not find you doing this beautiful act of procreation on the street(or do you have other Ideas??).``

I never meant to say that sex is for public display or flaunting. Abrahamic tradidtions have held the issues of sexuality profane and devlish. Your logic is like bal thackeray, who sent his team of buffoons in front of Dilip kumar`s residence to protest. All these buffoons were dressed in underwears only. The protest was against dilip kumar`s decision to support a movie discussing lesbianism.
Forget espousing public display of sexuality, try freeing the females who live in veil in public, as if they would cause a a sexual riot. This has rendred the condition of women in India and Pakistan to a deplorable condition. Even the Hindu society has imbibed this aspect od purdah system from islam.

``Perhaps the gods are not the creator himself but representation of the undefinable by those who want to define some characterstis of the creator. So it would be better if the distinction between the creator and gods(of the Hindu Pantheon)be made and thus the god/creator that muslims refer to be seen in that light.``

That distinction is quite clearly made in numerous texts. But there is an esential difference between God/Allah of abrahamic faiths and the creator or Brahma(not brahmaa)/Purusha/paramatman/ishwar of subcontinental faiths. It is this differnence that has convinced the abrahamic faiths` that they alone are true paths.
Yahweh/God/Allah SPOKE to their respective prophets a set of rules/commandments to live by.
Brahma can only inspire an individual to ACT righteously according to the rigors of time. This makes the human more accountable for his actions/karma. This should tell you why the rules of living in a society are left to be made by humans, not to be fought about, as they do not have divine sanction. Caste system can be fought against, any other social evil can be fought, when the divine stamp on them is missing.
Try changing the justice system of saudi of chopping hands or heads every friday. Try telling the Taliban, that blowing off of Buddhaa does not serve any purpose to anyone`s personal faith to God. Try removing blasphemy law from pakistan.
You`ll know why I defend the liberty of spiritual expression as espoused in Hinduism.

Adios

Alephnull#287
I have said it before that I don`t believe in either prophets or avtars. I have also said that the single biggest problem with the Quran is that NOTHING in it can be questioned or challenged which makes Islam quite rigid and potentially brittle. However, what I believe is immaterial. To the believers, the quran is as valid today in Alaska -where one would have to observe a 24-hour roza during Ramzan- as it was in the sands of Arabia of the 7th century and this `validity`, in fact, `proves` that it was a revealed scripture.
However, if a billion plus people want to keep believing in a 7th century code of conduct, I would rather that they take as tolerant an interpretation of those intolerant passages as is possible.

#277 by dost-mittar on June 30, 2003 7:04am PT
ali87#266
I think I have said more on this topic than I had wanted to and will refrain from saying anything else.
------

But very well said, dost-mittar ji. I also wished to know more about Islam before criticising it just because the whole world is doing so these days. So your post added to my knowledge

#284 by rsridhar on June 30, 2003 8:59pm PT
re:#275 by Maharana
A very nice post on the concept of Shiva-linga.
A very nice description is given in the Url: www.exoticindiaart.com (recent article).
Sexuality is a recurring theme in Hindu mythology. As hindu mythology and religion are closely interwoven, the confusion is exagerrated (to the uninitiated). As you rightly said, Shiva-Shakti as represented by the Yoni-Linga is the creative principle that sustains the Cosmos. Now, if some people feel ashamed of it (even many Hindus are ashamed to explain the concept truthfully), so be it.
Sridhar
--------
And I feel most of the Hindus, when in the temples.. don`t even vaguely and remotely have sexual thoughts when they are worshipping shiv-linga. It is like worshipping the eternal power, the creator.. God.

Alephnull [further on #287]
I think that there is a lot of truth to what muslims say about hinduism and a lot of truth to what hindus say about islam. The difference is that while hindus accept most of the valid shortcomings about their religion, muslims prefer to stay in a state of denial. Take the example of those fantastic stories about Shiva posted by Honourable_Syed: I bet that most hindus have never heard of these, but even if his sources are authentic, most hindus would probably say that those puranas are full of many cock-and-bull stories which should not be taken literally. But when someone raises some valid questions about the quran or the prophet, like you did in your post, he is more likely to be called a hatemonger or a bleshphemist (blessed are those who do not have this concept!) than get a proper answer. If anyone today claimed what Mohammad did, he would not get the time of the day from any rational person (sai baba devotees not included:-)), especially muslims, and most of them would find the revelations all too self-serving as you did. And yet, these same individuals have no trouble accepting without questioning that all this happened 1400 years ago.
It`s not for nothing that Marx called religion the opium for the masses!

#39, Inquirer and #43, Tipu:
A correct step is taken by Peshawar High Court Election Tribunal in disqualifying Mufti Ibrar for MNA of MMA seat from Kohat. My congratulations to all Pakistanis. Fittingly, Dawn has reported that the validity of the elections of 65 parliamentarians of MMA is questionable.

Salute to Justice Tariq Pervez. Hopefully, this a turn of events that will lead to greater sanity in Pakistan. The first step would be overturning of the UGC position of establishing equivalence between secular and madari education.

As a matter of fact, Musharraf`s 2002 General Election Order has set an appropriate precedent for a sensible operation of democracy in the Indian sub-continent by mandating the requirement of graduation from a secular educational institution for all members of provincial and national parliaments.

Syed,
You answered your own question.Sati did not burn herself when her husband died,she committed suicide.In modern times,we would say it was a domestic dispute because as you rightly say,her father would not respect her husband and she did not want to choose between the two men she loved.Vishnu smriti is a smriti again,which is not binding,and in any case gives widows the option of remaining chaste(which in any case,I am sure you would expect all women to be-I think the `virtue` of female chastity is another chauvinist control device),not just sati.Don`t forget that this was and is an agricultural society and most land holdings could not take divisions and subdivsions.None of what you quoted proves that sati as you know it is sanctioned.Don`t just cut and paste,read what you post.
Again,there are many different myths for why the linga is worshipped.you yourself posted 2 different ones,one of which is entirely harmless,so what are you trying to say?That proves straightaway that this is mythology you are talking about,not scripture.
``These Hindus are devious``,Syed?You will never learn anything,will you?With such a closed mind,I wonder if you will ever learn anything new about other ways of thinking.But then of course,you need not,like the invader who burnt down libraries and said if they only contained what was in the Koran,they were useless and if they contained other things,they should not exist anyway.You must feel very smug, knowing that you never have to learn anything.
Ali87,
If you have the right to disrespect the religious traditions of others,ask yourself how you feel when others disrespect your religion.Other people have the same right and you cannot get upset when they call the Prophet the names that some people have.It is just much easier in a multicultural,multi religious society if we all agree to respect others religious practices.Why were so many people upset with the Satanic Verses then?I know the answer to that because I read it and Karen Armstrong`s ` Mohammad` almost at the same time.If you can say that that book(Rushdie`s ,not Armstrong`s!) did not upset you at all,only then should you expect Hindus to accept your disrespect of their traditions.Muslims not only in India but in the West do not like being told not to instal loudspeakers for the namaz-why does that upset them then,since Muslims can say what they like about other religious practices?
I don`t think I ever said I wanted to have sex in public,I am not a porn star!:)But again,I would like to add that if it doesn`t offend the onlookers,it is no one else`s business-even if I were a porn star,it would be no one else`s business.However,worship is personal,not public.Prayer is between you and your God,not you and the neighbour`s uncle`s mistress and her uncle.....Do you really want everyone to listen in on your prayers?I`m sure you`d be pretty embarrassed if they ever did.I am aware that Europeans used to accuse Arabs of promiscuity but it was more because they couldn`t get over the harems more than anything else.Personally,I think they were jealous-men,after all!
I still see nothing wrong with idol worship.Personally,I find my mind strays unless I have some thing to focus on.Most Muslim homes I have ever been to have a picture of the Kaaba or Ajmer Sharif or verses from the Koran.Even words are symbols,even more so when in Arabic script.These are all forms of idol worship,though you may not want to see it as that.When I was at school,teachers would ridicule idol worship but they would then cross themselves in front of the Virgin Mary(I have to admit I still do that too).No religion can do without symbols.Otherwise the Babri Masjid was just another old building,we break them down every day so that a developer can make a quick buck,what is the difference?
However,I still don`t understand why you cannot just leave Hindus and everyone else alone and pray for our souls instead,like the nuns did!

Hon. Syed, You have such a closed and mulish mind, it`s unbelievable. Not only do you not know how to interact logically and politely with people, you refuse to think, and keep on repeating yourself ad nauseam. And your so-called knowledge is just taken from the Internet, not from any personal study on your part. Not that I`d expect you to study anything about Hinduism, but surely you should know what you`re talking about when you write something.

Once again, you confuse myth with scripture. Look up the meaning of these words. I`m sure you`re educated enough to do that on your own. The smritis and the puranas are not scripture, and have never been regarded as such, as has been pointed out so many times by so many people.

Neither Shiva nor Shakti/Sati/Parvati were ``Hindus`` at all, but mythical beings who symbolized certain aspects of God. These stories about them were meant to explain certain things about the process of creation and destruction to people who did not have the time or the understanding to do it for themselves. The term ``sati`` is derived from ``sat``, which might be very loosely translated as truth, virtue, chastity, etc. And a woman`s virtue in a patriarchal society traditionally lay in her absolute fidelity to her husband. So Sati as the consort of Shiva, at once the creator and destroyer, is not merely a symbol of the divine principle, as the perfect woman she is the perfect wife who must die for the sake of her husband`s honour. There are of course as many interpretations of this myth as you might want, but this is one of the more common ones.

Historically, however, the practice of Sati - the burning of widows on their husbands` funeral pyres - began only with the invasions of India in the medieval period, when women imitated Sati`s suicide to prevent themselves from being dishonoured in other ways by the marauding hordes. As I`ve pointed out, this soon became a potent tool in the hands of men who thought it would be a marvellous way of getting rid of inconvenient women, by persuading them that they would only be following Sati`s example if they killed themselves when their husbands died.

No Hindu wife thinks of her husband enjoying the attention of apsaras in heaven - that`s a pleasure meant not for mortals but for Indra and his court! and again that`s the stuff of myth, not of religion. BTW, aren`t you confusing this with the Muslim notion of the houris in paradise?

Dost-mittar #265, #277 etc.

You have bent backwards, almost double, perhaps out of a misplaced sense of deference to various ‘religious traditions.’ Your initial assessment of the Sword Verse (9:5) is perfectly good.

Simple explanations for the Sword Verse and for the rest of the stuff in the Quran can be found if you read it with the normal skepticism you would apply to such an item today. Regard the Quran not as ‘uncreated’ and ‘eternally existing’ but as a tribal cultural artefact, which bears the stamp of its manufacture at a particular place and period in history.

Consider the facts of the case: a middle-aged merchant in a credulous tribal society who reports experiencing visual and auditory hallucinations – alleged ‘revelations’ from a ‘divine’ source. Oddly enough, these ‘divine communications’ apparently do not contain elegant proofs of astonishing mathematical theorems – stunning in their depth and complexity; or the General Theory of Relativity (‘revealed’ to Einstein); or the Periodic Table of the Elements (‘revealed’ to Mendeleyev); or tables of spectral lines; or detailed architectural plans and diagrams of the innards of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh – subsequently confirmed to be accurate down to the last detail; or the map of the human genome; or any of a myriad of possibilities which might provide some tangible evidence to skeptical minds that the Perfect Man had authentic access to special ‘truth’.

What one has instead – through two decades of this man’s subsequent career as exile, caravan raider, military leader and politician, etc. – are ‘revelations’ that are stupefyingly sordid and mundane in their concerns. There is first of all the centrality of this alleged being named Allah, and, oh so conveniently, of Muhammad as his messenger. This and much of the rest is exactly what you’d expect from an ambitious tribal politician/shaman trying to carve out a domain for himself and a growing band of followers, to administer it, and to make his own commanding position in it unassailable through ‘divine sanction’. The fixation with People of the Book – and especially the bitter hatred directed at the Jews - is a predictable reaction to the influence and prestige they enjoyed in Arabia, which would lead a would-be Prophet to pine for their seal of approbation and fiercely resent their derision. The convenient ‘divine revelation’ that allowed the Prophet to marry a woman, already married to his adopted son, who took his fancy, requires no explanation. There is precious little that cannot be explained through a common-sense and cynical understanding of normal (and normally abnormal) human behaviour, pursuit of worldly self-interest, will to power, typical politics, etc. The Prophet Muhammad comes across as human, all too human, with typically human traits, thoroughly a man of his time, a sagacious politician, apparently an effective rhetorician, with a febrile and obsessive but utterly commonplace imagination. It is of little consequence whether he was a sly impostor or a sincerely deluded wannabe-Nabi.

The one thing one should not do to understand the Quran is enlist the services of a ‘knowledgeable interlocutor’. This is merely designed to brainwash and bludgeon weak and susceptible minds into a willing suspension of disbelief and to reinforce the Faith of the True Believers in the Majesty of the Revealed Truth. For people with a functioning intellect it is a waste of time.