This Beloved Arab Colony

It is funny how devious these hindus are, esp when it comes to the question of LINGA. Here is what the hindu scriptures say:
Lord Siva seduces the Pine Forest sages` wives and is cursed for this immoral behavior. Origin of the holy Linga which is commonly worshipped in Hindu temples:

``When the sages saw Siva naked and excited they beat him and they said, `Tear out your linga.` The great yogi said to them, `I will do it, if you hate my linga`, and he tore it out and vanished.`` -- Kurma Purana 2:38:39-41; cf. Haracaritacintamani 10:74; Yagisvaramahatmya 26a. 14. In another version, the sages in the forest quote the legal texts regarding the penalty for seducing a guru`s wife when they punish Siva:``You false ascetic, let your (Siva`s) linga fall to earth here. A shameless and evil man who has seduced another man`s wife should be castrated; there is no other punishment ever. A man who has seduced his guru`s wife should cut off the linga and testicles himself and hold them in his hands and walk until he dies.`` -- Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 10:187-90; cf. B. K. Sarkar, pp.234-5.
Here is another origin of the holy Linga: ``... He (Siva) agreed to this and laughed, for he was secretly amused, and he said to Brahma, `There is no good use for this linga except for the creation of progeny.` And as he said this he broke it off and threw it upon the surface of the earth. The linga broke through the earth down to the subterranean hell and went to the very sky. Visnu sought the end of it below, and Brahma flew upwards, but they did not find the end of it, for all their vital effort. Then a voice arose out of the sky as the two of them sat there, and it said, `If the linga of the god with braided hair is worshipped, it will certainly grant all desires that are longed for in the heart.` When Brahma and Visnu heard this, they and all the divinities worshipped the linga with devotion, with their hearts set upon Rudra (Siva).`` -- Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 49:23b-46, 74-86.

It is absolutely false to claim that Sati is not sanctioned by hinduism or that no known hindu personality had performed sati. These are a few examples of important hindu godesses who performed sati:
The first woman known as Sati was the consort of Lord Shiva. She burnt herself in fire as protest against her father who did not give her consort Shiva the respect she thought he deserved, while burning herself she prayed to reborn again as the new consort of Shiva, which she became and her name in the new incarnation was Parvati.

Here are some quotes from hindu scriptures:
``A king died childless, and his wife wept bitterly and embraced his corpse until a bird told her that she would have seven sons if she mounted her husband`s funeral pyre. She obeyed, and as she entered the fire the king arose and flew into the sky with her, by his power of yoga. When the queen entered her fertile period, the king felt it his duty not to neglect her. He made love to her in the air, and his seed fell down from the sky. Then he went with her to the world of Brahma to dwell eternally. But the wives of the Seven Sages saw the cloud-like seed falling from the sky into a flower, and they thought it was Soma. Wishing to be young forever, they bathed ritually, honoured their own husbands, and drank the king`s seed. The moment that they drank it [having thus unconsciously violated their chastity] they lost their holy lustre, and all their husbands abandoned them immediately as sinners. They gave birth to the seven Maruts (Storm Gods).`` -- Vamana Purana 46:4-22.
The Vaisnava Dharmasastra gives the widow two choices:``(Now the duties of a woman are as follows): After the death of her husband, to preserve her chastity, or to ascend the pile (funeral pyre) after him.`` -- Visnusmrti 25:14.
It is believed that sati originated because the Hindu needed his companions in the next world/Hindu heaven. This concept is illustrated in the Valmiki Ramayana; after Lord Rama murdered the relatively innocent Vali from ambush, Vali`s wife Tara requests if he can kill her as well so she can join her husband:

``[Tara:] `(Pray) actually kill me with that very arrow with which my darling has surely been killed (by you). When killed (by you) I shall reach his presence. Vali may not feel happy without me. Even on coming in contact with celestial nymphs and gazing on them with curiosity he would certainly not love those nymphs though adorned with a chaplet of red flowers of every description and clad in a many-coloured costume, unless he sees me (there), O prince…` `` -- Ramayana 4:24.

Also, because there are many apsarases (celestial nymphs) in the Hindu heaven, sometimes the wife thought it would be best to get there quickly so that her place isn`t taken entirely.

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

#ali 282

I understand you have problems with accepting the role of symbols and symbolism in religious matters. This would explain your apparent inability to understand the points made by some Hindu chowkies. But try to bear in mind that:

1. There is a vast difference between traditional social practices - many of which society has, or should have, outgrown - and religious beliefs. Sati, etc., are not a part of what Hinduism sanctions. Sati in particular is the product of a patriarchal society in which a ``dishonoured`` woman thought it better to die rather than face moral outrage in the wake of successive invasions, which left many young widows at the mercy of rapists, plunderers and slave traders. Thereafter it became a very convenient way of disposing off further claims on patrilinear property - get rid of the widow and you wouldn`t have to bother about giving her the rightful share of the family property, not to speak of having to look after her. The caste system evolved out of a division of labour, with each caste supposed to perform certain social duties, and each caste being equally necessary to social well-being, and deserving of respect. In the beginning it wasn`t hereditary at all, and even as late as the epic period (e.g., the Mahabharata), when social evils were very much entrenched, you do have people referring to caste as a label to describe personality traits or as a class to which you belonged because of your occupation. Of course things didn`t remain long in this situation. Society has always seen a continuing battle between the powerful and the powerless, and it was very much in the personal interests of certain better-off classes to retain their power by pretending to give it a religious veneer. It suited the powerful to make the powerless feel there was no way in which they could change things. This is particularly obvious when you think of the way women have been treated in male-dominated society anywhere in the world. Think of the Christian/Jewish myth of Adam and Eve, for example. It`s always been a case of cherchez la femme - blame the woman.


I have no intentions at all about defending the indefensible, which is social abuse of whatever kind. But the point is that social practices should be differentiated from religous faith. And don`t say that the Hindus can be judged only by what they practise, because they don`t have a single Book, pontiff, whatever. This gives rise to so many never-ending and frequently vicious arguments about your-practices-being-worse-than-mine, you`re-so- much-worse-than-me, etc, etc.

2. Everyone has the right to be disrespectful about anything, including other people`s religious beliefs. But when they pass comments about another`s beliefs and convictions they should be prepared to have others slamming them, and much more viciously. So don`t you think that instead of attacking each other`s religions Hindus and Muslims in particular should point out the social evils in each society instead? The problem is of course that Hindu society isn`t homogeneous. But that gives others all the more leeway to point out the flaws!

3. The Arya Samajists, the Brahmos, etc., don`t believe in idol worship, certainly. And remember that both proclaim a return to the pristine roots of the Hindu religous traditions. But Hinduism is large enough to include all kinds of worship, including animism, and even an atheist or agnostic is accepted as Hindu. The Arya Samajists also engage in conversions, which is very much against the traditions of Hinduism. That doesn`t stop them from being Hindu. The Middle Ages also saw many conflicts between the Vaishnavas and the Shaivas, but that didn`t stop them either from being regarded as Hindus. Basically, as Ramakrishna Paramhansa, the late-19th-century/early-20th-century Bengali sage pointed out, all are different ways of reaching to God. BTW, Ramakrishna for some time was a a fervent believer in Islam and in Christianity, but remained a great Hindu throughout. Again, this kind of looseness is very difficult for the Semitic mind to accept. Why don`t you just take it as a sign of the incurable Otherness of the Hindu and leave it at that!

4. No, I`m afraid the worship of the Shivlingam won`t dwindle and go away, for it is ultimately a symbol of the force of creation. Similarly with worship of the Mother Goddess, Vishnu, etc., etc. It`s much easier for the mind to focus on a symbol rather than contemplate the indefinable. Go to all the religious traditions, and you`ll see the truth of this. I don`t want to offend, so won`t go into specific examples from all religions. Traditionally the Hindus have tended to anthropomorphomize various aspects of God in order to make it easier for the average (and especially ignorant/illiterate/unthinking) mind to relate to the divine force. Swami Vivekananda called this tendency an integral part of trying to understand the relation of the jiva to the atma. But the more philosophically inclined minds also attempted to contemplate the indefinable, the Ishwar, whom Muslims, as you point out, call Allah. So what is the quarrel all about?

#278 by pmishra2 on June 30, 2003 8:55am PT

Dont you consider it Ironic that you feel free to say ``forget about the absurd idea of a final prophet``
and consider yourself respectful while accuse me of disrespect if I consider the idea of worhsip of sexual organs absurd?

I dont need to respect the religous practices of the Hindu for that would be hypocritical of me but I can certainly be respectful of the right of the hindus to follow their religous practices. I can see the difference between the two apparently you cant.
By your argument the muslim would have had to show respect to the traditon of Sati a hundred years back and of the caste system too. That the hindus have abanonded both does it not stirke to you that this is a silly expectation. It is wholly right to expect the right to follow own religous practices and not to respect the practice itself. YOu call for the latter.
Intrestingly you forget this ``disrespect`` was shown by hindus themselves in the frequent conflict between Shiavites and Vishnuvites.
What is your opinion about the Araya Samaj movement which rejects the Idol Worship? Are they similarly disrespectful of the Hindu religon? and you yourself say that there is little doctirnial rule among hindus so would then a theoritical person who rejects all Idol worship and worships in the Manner of Islam and calls himself as Hindu be accepted by the hindus as a true and genuine Hindu??!!

#276 by nb on June 30, 2003 1:02am PT
#275 by Maharana on June 29, 2003 5:50pm PT


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

Dont mistake Islamic/muslim references to sex as if there is a inherrent revulsion of sex by muslims. There is not. Islam recongnise Sex as a very basic need of humans and propogates in enjoyment but within the confines of home and within marriage. In fact medival europeans found Mulsims at fault and accused them of licentousness because sex was considered a basic human need as well as the marriage a social contract which can be dissolved. Now of course enlightned(?) europeans have swung the other way and accuse Muslims of Prudery!! I am amused that you keep borrowing from the west its accusations and its point of view to accuse muslims.

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??).

Is it not mentioned in the Rig veda that the creator is one who cant be defined and neither begetts nor is begot(or something to similar effect?)who is eternal? Obviusly the gods that are worshipped are not the creator but as claimed by many only symbols of god hood(creator) or as many tell symbols which help foccus devotion or a partiuclar trait. Now how one who cant be defined is given characterstics of concrete nature? I know the various extensive arguments on this my intention is not to get into those but to just remind you that withinn hindu thought it self the nature of creator(whom muslims call god/allah)itself is called undefineable.
That muslims prefer to keep that thought in the way is their choice which you can suerly find easy to understand(?) 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.

#274 by rsridhar on June 29, 2003 5:50pm PT
#273 by rsridhar on June 29, 2003 5:50pm PT

Next time you critize me why on my critisizm of hindus please find the many times I have mentioned that the most of the hindus I meet here are quite differnt to those who who I normally encounter in real life :)

While you say that majority of hindus are ashamed of what happened in Gujrat while Modi comes back to power(on what minority vote?) suppourted by the national leadership including the NDA and congress and other parties refusing to take Modi/Tagodia on this issue(who survies on minority vote?)

At the same time you keep telling that muslims(? or allude indirectly) approve of 9/11 or of killing of innocents some times you accuse that the muslims Scholars of not having the guts to stand up to traditonal or dominant thinking. Perhaps you have not heard of Ali Shiriati a leadign Iranian clerik who was only recently reeased after nearly a decade in jail for opposing the the from or the whole context of the concept of newly formulated ``Fiq e vilayati`` on basis of which the theorcratic govt of Islam came to power and retains its present involement in Iranian politic.
You havent heard of the proseqution of various clerics as well as their different stand on many issues from Al-Azahar.

You did not read of the many times given statements of various muslim and Islamic leaders in India who decry that when they want to give statements in respect to incidents and happening in India the press is not intrested in attending the called press conferences and if some do attend they do not publish those statements. Instead they choose to potray the Sahi Imam of Delhi as the spokesman of Muslims or else to to Shabana Azami or her likes who while going against even the basic tents of Islam regardign prayer, fast, HaJ, Zakat. even dress code is potrayed as repesentative of what a progressive muslim should be. I recall you in another post claming on some topic that you find it retrogade that muslim leaders have not given statement on a particular issue of concern. Did you bother to findout wether any statement was given or wether it was given and not reported or highlighted by the press?

On the other hand you yourself admit that gujrat was shameful and you give yourself credit in saying that most hindus were ashamed of it and the various roits including the sikh roits. However going by the self admitted failure to prosequte the preprators (wether they are politicians or not, was dara singh a politican?) But what If one intrepets the facts on the ground as they appear to a distant observer that nobody has been prosequted for the roits. No prosection is expected for the killings of the Dalits in the recent harayan case of cowskins and Indeed the VHP as well as the other parivar orginasation including those leaders of BJP holdign dual membeship of these organisations have none on record to say that they have no regret of the incident and have said that it will happen again if needed. and what has the govt done? nothing.

What have the political parties in power done about the incident and the subsequent statement? noting? what are the people who on whose suppourt these parties come to power and stay in power going to do? Do you want to guess if the BJP will come to power next election?? What about the press statements? nice.. very nice.. that is talk. what about results? or is it just a result of the press prefering to publicise those statements?

You have your answers to what a distant observer(as you are to the muslims going by the knowledge displayed by you) should think about Hindus. Will you still continue to make judgments(such as those you have made) about muslims in this light? If you are honest (as I hope you are)you will not.

You yourself make statements pointing out to Tahamed etc and depict the diversity of thought among muslims and then in the same time say that muslims dont have courage to stand up to traditions. so which is it? diverse opinons or no courage to stand up to a monolith traditional interpration?

I think you have succintly pointed out the essential difference is the practiced religon between Islam and Hinduism. Ie while one finds its high point(or is relevant mainly?) in company of Sages the other is for all and includes the mundane activity apart from the spritual.

Perhaps this is why the various practices now abondned(perhaps not agreed to by some sages)were Prevalant and while Islam choses to instruct in day to day life and was able to probhit those and preach the brotherhood of man, the importance of providing justice to all and the avoidance of Unnessary (captial U there for not all rituals)rituals etc.

The comparison with Martin Luther is not relevant here as when around the time of Martin Luther christian europe was seeking to incoprorate the rationalism and the structre of Muslim socitey so that their own socitey could become more tolerant(it is another story that the muslims have gone back on thier own acheviments since then) Moreever the christian socitey riddled with hate towards others and centuries long internal conflict as well as conflict with sicence and technology as well as rationalism in daily matters is quite different from the present day muslim situation where the muslim only needs to abondan his ignorance of the sprit of justice, mercy, tolerance of Islam.


While I dont want to quibble with you on the number of communal Hindus I agree(perhaps for the nth time here) that there are hindus who are tolerant and I will go a step further, there are those who are communal some times but not always, and then there are even those who suffer remorse on their voilent acts (or suppourt of voilent acts). Further I belive even those perprators of voilence are capable of realising their deeds(thus are not Evil )and understandign how they were wrong.
You will no doubt reflect on the fact that a person with a muslim name has just to explain the concept of Jihad in different light(or even not agree that Jihad is evil and a grave mistake on part of Islam/Muslim)than as understood by hindus to be called voilent, Pakistani, Intolerant. For that matter a person to with a muslim name has to disagree or offer a different point on any muslim issue or Islamic issue or even an Hindu Issue to be called a hindu hater and a pakistani lover(not that there is any thing wrong in that).

Here many on this board talk about the bias of media in US leadign to misreadign by general public regardign affairs of other countries even regardign India and of course about the pakistani media about India and thus its influence on the pubic of Pakistan, and in the same breath hold the opinon that there is no media bias regardign Pakistan in India and all that we here in the press or from our leaders or those pakistanis which the media chooses to highlight as gospel. While pontificating to those pakistanis who misunderstand India becuase they do not live here to see the reality there are people (you too?) think that you know all about Islam in general and Muslims in partiucalr and particulary are experts with deep personal knowledge of what is actually the ground reality inside pakistan. I hope you will reflect on this. This not to defend pakistan or pakistanis but I hold my judge. While it is ok to form a basic opinon about people and countries it is foolish to depend on this in critical matters.

My intention with Interacting with you at various times is not to prove that you are wrong or right but to highlight to you the bias in your own thinking and thus its contribution to your conclusions. I dont belive I myself am unbiased therefore while I do from opinons I remain aware that they may be based on incomplete information as well as inherrent difficult to remove biases. Too often people think themselves as being part of the solution while unwittilling being part of the problem.

Finally to people who want to learn about Islam or Muslims I would advice you to do so on a personal basis and with interaction with muslims from whom you can take comprehensive information over a period of time. This is not the place to do so. While the aim of the board is to get people to read think and write and perhaps where the hindu/muslim Indian/Pakistani sides can attempt to critizie each other and attempt to explain each other I think some people have been on this board long enough to go beyond that. From the stage of make accusations and getting explanations at least some can go on to thenext stage ie of finding common ground an looking at other problems that confornt the peoples of South Asia.
I have made this appeal many times and even once no one has bothered to comment on it.
While we find it easy to blame the politicians but the question to put to yourself is what has one achived that the politicians havent? Except in the negative sense in not creating more problems. If there cannot come even a couple of people in this board who can give direction and purpose to these discussions do you really expect the heaven and earth out of the politicians who work on even more complex issues? I have been observing discussion boards for the last few years and have noticed that even few people with the right values can give a direction such that the tone and content of a particular fourm are substantially different from others. In this light should we not blame the politician for his failures when we ourselves cant see such capability being expressed in even such a limited forum as this?
Im not saying that one should not disucss the hindu/muslim India/Paksitan issue and sweep the issues under the carpet. But is that all that we should do to the exclusion of anything else? Will a group of people on this board be able to show some leadership that they feel the politican is so lacking in the real world??

ali87#279
Thank you for your response. As I said earlier, I have already said more on this explosive topic than I intended to and will refrain from saying anything further.

#277 by dost-mittar on June 30, 2003 7:04am PT

after my last post I was feeling that I might have been a bit harsh on you and was wondering if you would get irritated. I must put on record my appreciation of you on not getting inflamed time and again(even thought you I think said elsewere that are not particular about religon muslim or hindu).

My knowldge of the history as well of Quran is sketchy at the best. I have heard of Maulana Maudoodi but dont know who he is or what are his works in details and certainly not much about his personality so I reserve my opinion about him.

9.07 seems to be a fair enough insturction If you remember the extreeme proseqution of the prophet for years and later on the allegience/conversion of convience by some groups who would change sides when they felt it was to their advantage.

As I said that I have not studied in detail the context of the verses mentioned. However the general opinon about them and thus my knowledge is as follows.
(Please bear in mind im not referenceing anything right now, even the link you have given.)

The first discourse,
This is the change that came about. The context of change is that earlier the instruction was to do nothing in face of proseqution. The prophet and muslims were exhorted to be patient and bear the porseqution. Now the instruction comes that one need not tolerate the prosequtors and remain true to those who are true to you. I find it very reasonable. It is some thing which will be accepted in any situation by anybody even in present times.


The second discourse,
This of course is logical in any leadership situation. Unless you are doubting the Validity of Jihad(which takes us to a different topic)I see nothing special in it(for a non-muslim to be worried about)


The third discourse,
again this is of not much significance it is a standard practice to know about hypocrites among yourself, to rebuke the lazy among you who enjoy the benifits of being part of the community but refuse to put in their bit. Im sure this is a standard trait of any group.

1. to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam
This is usually seen in light of the frequent alliences of conviences and because of the various tirbes who after signing treaties of suppourt, attacked along with enemies or made easy the attack or enemies. Thus because of this constant yo-yo ing it was realised that the only sloution is to have stronger control over whole of Arabia(which was necesary in opinon of most muslim for this nacent group who was prosequted freqeuqenty and betrayed when in relative power.)

2. to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
This is the avowed aim of Islam, and considering the exteme proseqution of people belonging to other faiths in those regions during prophets time and later on and the relifs offered to the minorities as well as other groups within conqured lands and often migration of minorites to muslim lands in search of protection. This is a fact that is recognised by the west and history. So much so that those entire centuries are now called dark ages because of the condtion of those regions including europe, what was then Bayzantne.(I wouldnt go in for the individual actions of muslim rulers later on in the centuries following the prophet, but treat this as a more general caseand certainly specifically true of the region bordering arabia.)

3. to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
I think I have covered this in 1 & 2

4. to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.
Islam gives to itself the unrestricted right to propogate Islam(not to coerce) as seen by the extreeme proseqution of the muslims for years in Arabia in the early years and of the minorities such as jews and other denomational christians and other people including ethnic majorites and minorities, Also the refulsal of the kingdoms in and around the small(initial) sphere within arabia to allow other faiths to propogate freely or even survive within their areas. This is seen in this light.

The refernces to christian, jew, and mushric arabs are not meant to be general but are read as those described as betrayers of treaties and those who suppourted enemies against Muslims and those who obstructed the conveying the message of Islam and those who prosequted their faiths other than their own within their countires or rules.

The whole non-muslim world, refered to here is indeed the reality of preseqution (refered to as dark ages by modern historians in light of the experience of the europeans in europe)of people for their faith. The Roman and Persian empires were Indeed mentioned not because they were just non-muslim but becasue they did not allow the word of Islam to be spread within their countries as thier policies were not to tolerate any other faith, or culture(even non religous culture)within their regions. The relif felt by the oppressed minorities as well as common people of those countries(of course this is realative)and the saftey that some notable communities like Jews and other denomination christians felt within Islamic lands is an indicator that the notion that generally the kingdoms around early Islamic arabia were indeed very vicious in their prosecution of all those who did not form the core rulign group and the reality of relif that these populaitons found under Islamic rule and the treatment and relif from proseqution the jews and christians found within islamic lands. It is important to understand the conditon of the countries around early Islamic (and if you read the history of presuction of jews and other denomination christian within Europe for more than a thouand years within Christan europe even after advent of Islam you will note the degree of problems people faced.)(These verses/explanations etc should be seen in context of the various times and locations, For instance the muslim raiders within india did not really have such a extreeme case to justify..of course people justify now because of the caste issue.. I wonder if this was the justification given then by those raiders what was the reality of India and perhaps other asian places was not so of those regions bordering arabia so these should be seen in that light.)

***********************

All that above is just an possible discourse and attempt at questions and answers.

To conclude going beyond the topic itself there are a few points to be noted which can be gleaned from this interact.

You had the question(for your own understanding or to check my understanding?.. anyway)wether muslims take the verses in the Quran literaly or do they look(there actually a need to?) into the context of the verse and also in some cases the history in which it was revealed.
Second was my contention that a large number of verses explain/qualifiy each other (was it met with speticisim? by others too?) often they were revealed at different times at different situations.
You have also discovered that the verses belonging to different suras were revealed in different times and at times not in a serial order and even had verses which are in different suras were revealed interspered with each other(relative to time or relevation.)

The last conclusion (perhaps you will consider this subjective..)I would like to make is that the terms Jihad, Non-muslim, to attack Jews, christians, Mushriks and to levy Jaziya are not absolute but are to seen in actions of those mentioned people in the relevant context(this I can assure you if you do a study have been accepted by muslims in that way) of the time and also place.

A final intresting hypothesis.. Is it possible for a non-muslim country to be non-muslim accept freedom of choice(propagation of message of Islam.. not conversion perse) and not have any need to pay Jaziya(which people belive muslims understand as compulsary on all countries without any exclusion) and remain out of the fold of Islam as well as have good realtion with an Islamic(say a historical entity say a thousand years back....thus derive relevant lessons for today?) where each treats other with respect and honor?.... Well do some research on your own and find out... YOu will be surprised at what you find.

As you can see I had outlined the method to study and understand Islam and Islamic principles from the quran is to do a personal study, then have an Knowledeable Introlocutor who can answer questions(a netural frame of mind is also necessary) only then it is possible to say with any definiteve claim to have studied at least the basic principles of Islam and their application as you can see with this exchange this kind of fourm is not feasible for such a exercise.

``Follow the Messenger who is gentle and compassionate and your greatest well-wisher, and trust in Allah, the Lord of the Universe``. 128 - 12

Apparently those in pakistan during the time of partion failed to take into acccount of this advice. The responsibility of the Islamic or even a muslim state(as well as others) is to protect the lives and property and honor of its citizens no matter who they are. We can see that Pakistan ie. its rulers(perhaps its citizens too?)have repeatedly failed in this wether it is in the immediate aftermath of Partion or the 1971 bangladesh war or the various other incidents not in the least the bombing of homes of civillians(muslims or otherwise) in Karghil or other places.
I can appereciate your patience and goodwill considering the personal experiences that you went through.

#275 Maharana

Thanks for your comment. In my view, each religous tradition has some strong points and weak points. I am a strong critic of the weak points of ``hindu`` traditions. Use of varna and jati to deny education and employment is one major example. I am also a strong critic of the weak points of the islamic tradition. Hostility towards other faith traditions, religously justified violence towards kafirs is one major example.

Each tradition has been understood carefully and within the context in which it grew. Our friend Ali is all too willing to extend this care to his own tradition. Notice how much scholarship and analysis he has extended to the blood-thirsty passages from the Koran.

But he is unwilling to extend this courtesy to ``hindu`` traditions. He has no awareness that hindus have few doctrinal ``rules``; they have no prophets (forget about the absurd idea of a final prophet) at all. The behavior of hindu ``avatars`` is far from blameless and nor is it meant to be !!! I can still recall my grandmother explaining to me that Krishna`s behavior in the Mahabharata was not always correct. And that he was killed in a certain brutal way was one dharmic consequence.

This two-faced behavior makes Ali a propagandist and a hypocrite. PERIOD. Unfortunately, we have all too many hindus, christians. muslims who behave like Ali and make all kinds of silly and hurtful statements about other traditions.

My catholic friends tell me that at ``mass`` they eat a cracker symbolizing the body of christ. Does that mean that they are actually secret cannibals? Or that they have some other deviant purpose? Only a Togadia or a Bukhari would make such an argument.

But this is the kind of argument our friend Ali is makiing about Shiv Linga. Again, no respect for the context of the tradition. No respect for what the worshippers actually believe in. Only crude derision and disrespect. But his own traditions? Oh, those are sooo special, they deserve care and respect and should not be treated ``childishly`` !!!

Who is behaving like a child here and who is not? Let the reader decide...

ali87#266
I wish I were as certain about the meaning of these verses as you are and I hope it`s not entirely due to my preconceived notions and prejudices. I do not deny that I could have these prejudices. Who wouldn`t, given all that the world has been witnessing these past years and in my case, I also happen to be carrying the additional baggage of the personal victimhood of partition. So, if you want to ignore the rest of this post or take it with a grain of salt, I wont blame you.

In my opinion, all of the verses of the Al Tauba do not appear to be in the context of the treaty of Hudbaiya. Some of the verses relate to christians and jews who were not part of the quraishis. To me, the following verse (9.07) clearly defines the pagans who were to be spared:
“How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).”

I am no fan of Maudoodi but he was no detractor of Islam and is acknowledged to be quite a scholar of quran. According to him, this sura was revealed in three stages and chronically, the first third came last. He has described the context of the verses in detail which can be accessed at: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau9.html. Here are some excerpts:
--------
The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa`adah A. H. 9 or thereabout. As the importance of the subject of the discourse required its declaration on the occasion of Haj the Holy Prophet despatched Hadrat Ali to follow Hadrat Abu Bakr, who had already left for Makkah as leader of the Pilgrims to the Ka`abah. He instructed Hadrat Ali to deliver the discourse before the representatives of the different clans of Arabia so as to inform them of the new policy towards the mushriks.
The second discourse (vv., 38-72) was sent down in Rajab A. H. 9 or a little before this, when the Holy Prophet was engaged in making preparations for the Campaign, of Tabuk. In this discourse, the Believers were urged to take active part in Jihad, and the shirkers were severely rebuked for holding back their wealth and for hesitation to sacrifice their lives in the way of Allah because of their hypocrisy, weak faith or negligence.
The third discourse (vv. 73-I 29) was revealed on his return from the Campaign of Tabuk. There are some pieces in this discourse that were sent down on different occasions during the same period and were afterwards consolidated by the Holy Prophet into the Surah in accordance with inspiration from Allah. But this caused no interruption in its continuity because they dealt with the same subject and formed part of the same series of events. This discourse warns the hypocrites of their evil deeds and rebukes those Believers who had stayed behind in the Campaign of Tabuk. Then after taking them to task, Allah pardons those true Believers who had not taken part in the Jihad in the Way of Allah for one reason or the other.
If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:
1. to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,
2. to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
3. to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
4. to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.
1. Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam. Therefore the following measures were adopted:
1. A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months.(vv. 1-3). This declaration was necessary for uprooting completely the system of life based on shirk and to make Arabia exclusively the center of Islam so that it should not in any way interfere with the spirit of Islam nor become an internal danger for it.
2. A decree was issued that the guardianship of the Ka`abah, which held central position in all the affairs of Arabia, should be wrested from the mushriks and placed permanently in the hands of the Believers, (vv. 12-18) that all the customs and practices of the shirk of the era of `ignorance` should be forcibly abolished: that the mushriks should not be allowed even to come near the ``House`` (v. 28). This was to eradicate every trace of shirk from the ``House`` that was dedicated exclusively to the worship of Allah.
3. The evil practice of Nasi, by which they used to tamper with the sacred months in the days of `ignorance`, was forbidden as an act of kufr(v. 37). This was also to serve as an example to the Muslims for eradicating every vestige of the customs of ignorance from the life of Arabia (and afterwards from the lives of the Muslims everywhere).
2. In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.
3. The third important problem was to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, who had hitherto been tolerated in spite of their flagrant crimes. Now that there was practically no pressure upon them from outside, the Muslims were enjoined to treat them openly as disbelievers (v. 73). Accordingly, the Holy Prophet set on fire the house of Swailim, where the hypocrites used to gather for consultations in order to dissuade the people from joining the expedition to Tabuk. Likewise on his return from Tabuk, he ordered to pull down and burn the `Mosque` that had been built to serve as a cover for the hypocrites for hatching plots against the true Believers.
4. In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a` conflict with the whole non-Muslim world. That is why those people who had lagged behind in the Campaign to Tabuk or had shown the least negligence were severely taken to task, and were considered as hypocrites if they had no plausible excuse for not fulfilling that obligation. Moreover, a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim`s faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine. (vv. 81-96).
If the above-mentioned important points are kept in view during the study of this Surah, it will facilitate the understanding of its contents.
------------
Topics and their Interconnection
This portion deals with the sanctity of treaties and lays down principles, rules and regulations which must be kept in view before breaking them, in case the other party does not observe them sincerely. 1 - 12
In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behaviour. 13 - 37
In this discourse, the Muslims have been told clearly and explicitly that they will inherit the rewards promised by Allah only if they take active part in the conflict with kufr, for that is the criterion which distinguishes true Muslims from hypocrites. Therefore true Muslims should take active part in Jihad, without minding dangers, obstacles, difficulties, temptations and the like. 38 - 72
This portion deals with the problems of hypocrites and lays down rules and regulations governing the treatment that should be meted out to them and points out their distinctive marks from true Muslims. 73 - 90
This portion deals with the case of those who remained behind and did not accompany the Holy Prophet for Jihad to Tabuk. For this purpose they have been separated in different categories, that is, the disabled, the sick, the indigent, the hypocrites, the believers who realized their guilt and punished themselves before the return of the Holy Prophet from Tabuk and those who confessed their error. Their cases have been dealt with in accordance with the nature and extent of their offence. 91 - 110
In order to make their noble qualities look all the more conspicuous and dignified by contrast, the characteristics of the Believers have been mentioned, and they have been reassured that Allah, the Sovereign of the Universe, is their helper and guardian. Accordingly, because of their sincerity, He has forgiven the Three Believers who did not take part in the expedition. 111 - 118
In the concluding portion, general instructions have been given to the Believers for their guidance. 119 - 127
This is the conclusion: ``Follow the Messenger who is gentle and compassionate and your greatest well-wisher, and trust in Allah, the Lord of the Universe``. 128 - 12


I think I have said more on this topic than I had wanted to and will refrain from saying anything else.

I just don`t get it.Why this obsession with the Shivlinga?
No,ali_87,I don`t think the worship of the Shivlinga will ever go away.It is different from sati,which has no religious sanction.Even if you want to talk about the great epics,there is no mention of the major warriors` wives committing sati after their husbands` deaths.It has only been recorded after several invasions of India,which left women vulnerable to rape and slavery.There are very few South Asian women even today who would not choose death over gang rape,and this,by the way, is an issue which needs to be addressed,as it is high time a woman was respected for more than her so-called`virtue`.This is where honour killings all over the subcontinent(and beyond) come from.The Shivlinga has existed from the time of the Indus valley civilisation. I have always maintained that there is no absolute proof for any religion and that is what faith is all about.So why not let other people have their beliefs?What is wrong with the Shivlinga?Where do you think life comes from?Could humans have sex if God did not want them to?Not all of us were brought into the world by storks.

re:#267 by ali87
Yes, Ali. Now you have touched on subjects close to my heart. If your research my posts (i hope you really do that) you would find that i have been extremely critical of the Gujarat carnage and castigated the local population and BJP for colluding with them. I think Gujarat riot was a blot on the name of secular India. You only have to reopen the thread where i interacted with a number of Chowkies. Most Indians were ashamed of the happenings.
I had also criticised the Delhi riots in the past. I should know how painful that was because i was right there in Delhi. I was an Intern in Safdarjang Hospital when all hell broke lose after Mrs Gandhi`s death was announced (from AIIMS) that fateful evening. What happened in the next few days was shameful. We had loads of Sikh patients who came with multiple wounds (to make matters worse for me, i was posted in the ER at that time). Hindus and other non-sikhs chipped in to save lives of many of our sikh friends. Many of our sikh colleagures stayed on in the male hostel fearing for their lives but came to no harm.
And, what can i say about Dalits. We all know they are oppressed.
But none of these change some facts.
Sikhs have bounced back politically. They rule Punjab (Indian) today. The people who perpetrated crimes against them (people like Tytler, among others) are non-entities today. They should have been hanged but then when was the last time a politician was hanged for any crimes in India?
All these riots have convinced most hindus that these are politically motivated. Consider how riots spread fast pre-election and gave Modi the needed victory. Rioters knew the addresses of muslims in their locality and even did not spare an MLA. But following the terrorist attack on Akshardham (Swami Narayan?) temple later, no such riot occurred. A riot following terrorist attack (all terrorists were muslims) did not serve the purpose of politicians. These riots did not happen because hindus hated muslims. If that was the case, the carnage would have been far wider and spread to neighbouring states. These occurred because of cold calculated political brinkamship.

If future riots are to be prevented, minorities have to form a broad-based coalition with secular minded parties and strengthen local communities. I had posted a research done by an American Indian (Varshney) from US Institute of Peace as to the cause of riots in India. These happened again and again in some major cities and in areas where muslims were most vulnerable.
Url: http://www.usip.org/events/2002/es20021114.html
Here is Varshney`s take on riots:
``For example, research of cities in India which have proven to be less riot prone indicates that the interethnic bonds and communication structures facilitated by organized professional associations have proven to be a valuable tool in stopping rumors before they reach critical mass within the community. Such social structures have also been shown to provide a vital unofficial channel of communication to leaders and opinion makers in both ethnic communities that can be used in crisis management, Varshney noted. Research indicates that neighborhood-level social structures can provide an important opportunity for everyday interethnic interaction that is helpful in combating perceptions by individuals that all members of a certain ethnic group think or felt the same way about controversial social, religious, economic, or political issues.``

By and large, the media was fair during Gujarat riots. If you had listened to the T.V and English dailies, you would have known how much the media tilted against the rioters.

But you need not believe me. Listen to what a muslim MP who visited Pak (along with some other Indians like Kuldip Nayyar) has to say:

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/ (political economy)
( i am posting the relevant para)

``Harbingers of Peace
......
Shahid Siddiqui is a member of Lok Sabha. He is Secretary General of Muliam Singh`s Samajwadi Party. He belongs to a family of nationalist Muslims from Ghazipur (UP). He is editor of Nai Dunya, Nai Zameen and Daily Awam.

PE: Is it your first visit to Pakistan?

SS: No, I have visited Pakistan with Rajiv Gandhi earlier, and I also came here to attend a seminar.

PE: How do people of India look at Pak-India peace movement?

KN: I have come from Uttar Pardesh (UP) which has suffered most because of partition. UP people suffer a lot due to tension between India and Pakistan, as they are unable to travel and meet their relatives in Pakistan.

My party has always advocated for friendship with Pakistan. We have always advocated for treating Pakistan as an equal, respectable and honourable neighbour, and we have also believed in a larger confederation of all these countries on the pattern of the European Union.

I believe that all the countries of this region should be given equal respect and should have equal status. They should be able to flourish and develop economically, socially and politically in their own way, respecting each other`s sovereignty, territorial integrity and individuality.

PE: What is the reaction of Indian Muslims after Gujarat carnage?

SS: Indian Muslims have suffered a lot after the partition of the Sub-Continent. They have paid a very heavy price of the partition. The Muslims of India had to struggle a great deal to come out of the psyche of partition, and today they are prospering in every field of life.

I am not denying that communal riots do not take place in India. What happened in Gujarat was shameful, but in Gujarat it was the Hindus of India who stood up and fought the communal forces. For one communal Hindu there are ten secular Hindus in India, and they stand by Muslims.

I feel proud that Indian Muslims are powerful enough to establish or topple a government. In most Muslim countries, common Muslims have no say in the formation of governments. Indian Muslims play an important role in Indian politics and they are emerging as a very respectable segment of the society.``

I hope you will be fair in judging the hindus. To reiterate what the muslim M.P said:
``For one communal Hindu there are ten secular Hindus in India, and they stand by Muslims.``
Next time you criticise Hindus, i hope you never forget this fact.
Sridhar

re:#270 by ali87
Your questions are legitimate. Let me explain why i ask some questions pertaining to Islam. To some people, this may seem like a propaganda but believe me, i am not here to insult any religion. You will not find me in religious discussions involving Islam most of the time as i know very little about it.
By posting the article on Slavery, i was trying to make a fine distinction between religion and social evil or evil practices sustained in the name of religion. I am sure there is no justification of Slavery in Islam and Qoran. Yet, it happened and, per that report (however dubious the source may be), is still happening in some parts. A social evil is being perpetrated in the name of religion.
Similarly, muslim rulers (who are so much glorified in text books in Pakistan) did a great disservice to Islam. They invaded with the sole purpose of loot. In their effort, they found a useful ally in mullah who distorted the teachings of your Prophet. Violence was justified in the name of God. In each case, some people were benefitted at the expense of others.
I have otherwise nothing against Islam itself. I have often pleaded in the past that its teachings should be interpreted in the context of modern times. In Chowk itself, i see some interactors like tahmed interpret teachings of Qoran in a different manner. Some like Syed are more dogmatic.
As one goes up the spiritual ladder, these religous texts just become a sort of roadmap. But one has to know how to read the map well. In this regard, Inner voice or Spirit is a better guide and helps one to interpret these holy texts in the proper context. I had posted a few verses from Bhagwat Geetha in the past to show how these could be taken to mean that violence was O.K. But it has not been so interpreted by hindu sages who solely went by their ``Intuition`` and not by logic of words.

Very few Islamic schloars seem to have the guts to challenge the traditional views. Muslim world may have to wait for a Martin Luther to come by and reinterpret Qoran. Until then, this debate will go on.
Sridhar

Pmishra & rsridhar,
Various #
You`ve both been providing excellent ripostes to minds which have been rendered incapable of thinking originally without the help or context of a book. Remove the book and there is no way for such humans to live by or think/feel morally and rationally.

Ali 87, # 266

``Will there be a point in time say 150 years from now there will be hindus accepting that the worship of Shivling wrong? Is that a certainity? I dont know. Is that a possibility? Well going by the dramatic changes seen it is possible. ``

I hope not.
The day it happens Abrahamic morality of social hypocricy and perversion will supercede everything. For the record, let me make it clear to you and many other muslims who are inacapable of comprehending this concept of Lingam-yoni. Its Lingam-yoni as opposed to just a Lingam. The Yoni being a representation of female. I`m sure by now the thousands of years of indoctrination of relegating sex to an ungodly activity and yet the continouos falling of prey to it would be befuddling your mind all the more. Lingam-yoni and its worship is a celebration of life, of bringing two opposites, poles in union, to become one with everything.
Is there is a bigger miracle than the cration of life itself through such a union ? No. Has any prophet of any religion created this miracle of life out of nothing?Then why are people scared of talking about a creative part of their being, the only part which ensures the propagation of their species? Why should killing in the name of God be held higher then procreating in the name of God in some religions? Why shouldn`t the act of procreation considred to be an equally divine activity? Isn`t Lingam-yoni the only potent symbol of creation of life in this universe? You need to answer all these questions to yourself, not to me, in order to begin appreciating why for thousands of years people of different civizations have expressed the divinity of craetion itself by the emans of lingam-yoni.
But then God is separate, disparate from all these activities of mankind for you and your brothers, sitting high above and judging every one else. How could he be involved with such a lowly disgusting activity? If you say that he is everywhere, then tell me if his inspiration is present in the act of intercourse as well? Oh that would be anathema to your likes to even think like that. After all he is pure and asks his followers to dirty their hands, be it in killing others or stoning or prosetylizing. So its his followers, who through thousands of years of indoctrination have become immune to their own conscience and killed, maimed, looted, enslaved, converted millions all in his name. Never knowing that, doing all that were decimating the same spirit whom they were hoping to seek.

Whether its the representaion of Lingam-yoni or Yin-yang, all these symbols point to a fact the realization of truth is not contained in useless verses of any books, but in experiencing the unity of poles by the seeker.

Adios

re:265
in the first ten years, the prophet and his followers restricted themselves to preaching. and in the process endured extreme hardships without fighting back - one can say that they were more christian-like in those days than most christains are during their lifetimes. it was after the migration to medina the first veses on taking up arms were revealed. the meccans had confiscated the property of muslims who had fled to medina. abu sufyan was taking the merchandise to sell it in syria i think. once the verses were revealed muhammed led an army to intercept the caravan. when the call to raise arms against the kuffar is made in those verses it is quite obvious that they are specific to kuffar-i-mecca for reasons which are clearly elaborated - the meccans were the opressors - any other interpretation would be idiotic. bin laden and his kind think it gives them license to kill all non-believers for all times to come, since they take the words literally and for them koran is final for all times to come. this sort of nonsense is not unique about islam. why do you think the state of israel exists today.

may i ask why you need to rely on chowkies like shah ji or ali87 to get such basic information. surely there are better means, e.g., a reading of muhammad by martin lings would answer some of your questions if not most - a non-sula author on islam worth reading is annemarie schimmel.

#262 by rsridhar on June 29, 2003 8:05am PT

Sridhar Intelligent as you seem to be why is it too difficult for you to do a google search and go to a number of websites giving out muslim stand. You will find more reasoned and more comprehensive answers there.
Why ask that question here?? are you already aware about the answers and this is only exercise in propaganda? Or are you so much ignorant about Islam?? Really is it too difficult to find that out on the web and then come here to find common grounds? Or ask muslims if they confirm/are aware that is the standard position of Islam(as expounded by the websites)
Does it not point that your posing such questions is possibly not for sake of knowledge but base propoganda?
Or are you admitting that you take the least effort to know about muslims and Islam and thus your judgements on Islam and muslims do not even deserve to be addressed??