This Beloved Arab Colony

ali87

[quote]
you are making a fool of yourself... by this discussion... every year there are jathas of sikhs going to pakistan
[end-quote]

What a laugh !! You ethnically cleanse the population and then allow a few hundred back. I agree it is SOOO kind of the pakistanis to allow a few of the ethnically cleansed sikhs back for pilgrimage. Somehow it has only happened after the Khalistan movement began. Hmm, must be a coincidence, the pakis are so full of love for other traditions.

I am sure Modi and Togadia would be happy to ethnically cleanse all indian muslims and allow a few back for ``pilgrimage``. Is this your high standard of tolerance???

This is the third time I am going to ask my SIMPLE question. Afghanistan and N-W India (currently Pakistan) had a hindu and buddhist civilization (100% of the population) for 1500 years BEFORE the advent of Islam. If islam is always so tolerant, how come not a SINGLE major religous or cultural object survives from that period. How come Afghanistan and Pakistan are less than 1% buddhist or hindu toady? Even till 1940, Pakistan was 20% hindu and sikh. Please answer or be exposed as a crude Bukhari/Togadia type demagogue.

Your evasions around the murderous rhetoric found in the Koran are now public for all too see. It is clear that you treat your own traditions in manner very different from the way you dealt with materials from ``hindu`` traditions. Fortunately, hypocrisy and two-facedness cannot go far in a public forum.

Your further evasions about the ``tolerant`` record of islam in N.W.India are soon to follow.

re:#261 by urbashi
Thanx for your post.
I did give a befitting reply to this Syed guy but my post was perhaps deemed too obnoxious to be posted by the ``powers that be`` in Chowk.
I had pasted an article about the popular myth (or truth?) among Hindus about Kaaba in Chowk sometimes ago. One version is that Arabs needed a symbol and saw Shivling as a powerful symbol and took it to Kaaba. It is hidden and no one is allowed to see it. Makka (called Makkeshwar in ancient times) is known to have footprints of Mahavishnu. If you go to:
http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/aditichaturvedi
You can access ``Vedic past of Preislamic Arabia. It is well researched by Aditi Chaturvedi. Most of the things she has written are plausible and difficult to refute.
Sridhar

re:262
Does Islam allow for suicide? Is it islamic to blow oneself up as the suicide bombers are doing?

no.

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

Being a fair minded person as you belive yourself(and me too?) to be would you apply this same pudding test to the IRA, The LTTE, The people(Hindus?) who killed 3000 sikhs in delhi roits, Killed 2000 muslims in Gujrat. Kill at least few hundred(if not a thousand) Dalits everyear, those who Bombed the Kanishka(Leaders of which group are now freely roaming in india back from thier canada soujurn)

As you can see matching Rethoric with Rethoric is a very easy job. We could continue to this for years if it amuses you.

#261 by urbashi on June 29, 2003 8:05am PT

I agree with you. No problems in accepting what you say. Except what is hindu religon? not mahabharata, not vedas, not the shankaracharays, in the absence of any such it is just what people accept and practice. Which is what you seem to say. Therefore the if people associate hindu religon with what the people practice is it too much to say that they are agreeing what you say?

I fully agree that Hinduism as we know grew out of a various dispariate belifes. John Keay in his history of India outlines how various cults of indenigous people were incorporated into what can be called loosely hindu mainstream.

I have little quarrel with most hindus I have no problem in accepting that the caste factor is steadily loosing its strength. However when people choose to put a spin to it I would like to put it in properprespective.

If we were conducting such a dialoge say 150 years back no doubt there would have been many defenders who would have defended the Sati, and The Caste explotiation. Now the Most educated and modern hindus find that wrong agreed. 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. So why should others who find the practice distasteful be accused of bigotory? Dont get upset with my dialoges with certain persons they are not directed at others..Just matching rethoric of some with some rethoric of my own(which necessarily will be exxagarated)

#265 by dost-mittar on June 29, 2003 8:05am PT

I think you miss the main point there. It talks about the kafirs(Pagans?)who go back on treaties(which they agreed to) and help your enemies against you. Is it really so difficult to get that message??!!!
I wonder why you missed those parts of the verses which says be true to your obligation in respect to treaties signed with the kaffirs? If you conclude that the sura appliedonly to those who converted? what do you make of the verse says that grant assylum and take to a safe place the Pagan who has asked for refuge? No talk of repentence or conversion in that?
Usually it is accepted in modern law and intrpretation(incidently the modern law adopted somewhere in 1700 used 4 laws as its sources one of them being Islamic law) as well as by earlier Muslim Jurists that what is granted in a doucment in one part cant be taken away in another part of the text even if the text reads so. While grants are specific the restrictions also need to be specific even if when if they read to be genraly individually.

For instance if one were to sign a agreement which says that the use of photos in a contest gives grants the contestant right to copyright of it with exception of use with prupose releated with the promotion of the contest or the company organising the contest and if later on(in a differnt part of) the agreement says that the company has full, exclusive(ie the contestant cant use his own photos) and undeniable rights to the photos. It is agreed that what has been granted in one part cant be taken away in another part. This is usually the broad agreement of law.

The verse refers to Pagans who voilated the treaties, helped enemies in their fight against you and on the other hand asks the muslims to remain steadfast to their agreements with the pagans(does it not clearly indicate that one can sign agreements with pagans, and have to honor them). What is the purpose of signing agreements with people whom you are supposued to fight, make accept their mistake and convert? does not your argument seem contradictory?
Does it not seem to you that you are trying to read into it what you expect to find even if there is clear text to the contrary?? Perhaps you need to be aware of your bias while reading the Quran??!!

Incendently the Meccans were pardoned and given ammesty after they were defeated even if it was bloodless. Their acceptance of Islam(which did not come at the instant of defeat)came probably because of this amenesty and it was not that they accepted Islam therefore were given amenesty.

As you can see that one can know, read but still reach radically different conclusions than what is plainly obvious in it. What does it say about this kind of phenomena?
Would being aware of the biased goggles (so to say) help in a more accurate reading??? I dont know that is your call to make.

#258 by rsridhar on June 28, 2003 11:11pm PT

You are getting emotional about nothing. What I was trying to point out that when you compare caste system with other discriminations you are end up comparing the theoritical (ie as should be or as what you say need not be as appossed to the reality of effect of caste system in India)with the comparatively minor discriminations.

Before you pontificate about the black slavery.... mentioned in the link lets see who is frontpagemag..

some of the gems from its site..


The fact that 83% of commencement speakers at our schools are going to be liberals, Democrats, or leftists is stunning! There is no balance of ideas there and this list is mirrored at universities all across our nation. It’s time we ended the forty-year reign of leftist academics on our campuses and restore common sense and free speech to our campuses -- it’s time to TAKE BACK OUR CAMPUSES.
Please support me in this battle today with a contribution of $25, $35, $50, $100, or more, if possible. Remember! Your gift to CSPC is tax-deductible. Thank you.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=38

My friend, there is a Fifth Column in America, an enemy within. It`s the so-called ``peace movement.`` Sign the e-petition to EXPOSE THE ENEMY WITHIN to editors and producers of the nation`s largest newspapers, news magazines, and network newsrooms.

Is ``All-American`` Un-American?
By Larry Elder
Townhall.com | June 27, 2003

In an article justfying firing of non-whites by a corporation this website mentioned these..

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8618

Abercrombie & Fitch, a chain that some say markets a ``classic American look,`` faces a lawsuit, filed by a group of ``civil rights organizations,`` aided by a law firm that specializes in ``anti-discrimination cases.``

Why? The clothier allegedly suddenly either fired or demoted Hispanic and Asian floor salespersons in favor of women possessing this so-called ``all-American look`` -- presumably blonde surfer types. (Note: A friend recently visited an Abercrombie & Fitch store and noted at least two Asian saleswomen.)

Abercrombie & Fitch, according to the lawsuit, suddenly terminated an Asian-American floor saleswoman, with three years experience, longer than any other employee in their Costa Mesa, Calif., store. Similarly, management allegedly asked Hispanic workers to either accept non-visible positions, such as stock clerk, or to leave the company altogether.


It lists Ann Coulter as a esteemed contributor...

By the way the page which you gave the link to gives a link to antislavery site and this is what is found in that antislavery site...

http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/campaign/bondedinfo.htm

about bonded labour in India.

I am beggining to wonder who you are if these are the kinds of places you depend on info.. Perhaps I can then quote from Dalistan.org???!!!!

Dont get too exited about black slavery. It is was hilarious to read ``Black people have been enslaved on such a scale that the term black has become synonymous with slave.``
Dear Sridhar the white man thinks that blacks are automatically the slaves.

I expected you to have more knowledge...
The white slaves from the defeated people of what is now Balkans formed a key part of the Janinisaries of the Ottoman Turks.. so much so that the regions from where the slaves came was being called Slavic reigon.

Looks like Muslims were not discriminatory in finding their slaves...

Ill quote Bernrad Lewis in his recent book....The Middle East .A breif history of the last 2000 years. Page 122.
``When Suleyman the Magnificient was invested with the sword of Osman in 1520, ...The men who ruled and the men who fought -were his perosnal slaves; privileged and immune against the mass of the people , but tottaly without right against the will of their sovergin.

page 124.
The corps of Jannisaries(the slave army, literaly those willing to offer their lives) was a closed corporation, enjoying great power and bound together by a strong esprit de corps. At first they were recruited exclusively from the Christian captives and slaves ..

... quoting a regulations of the jannisary corps... it has been unlawful for janissaries to marry. Only officers married as also private soldiers who were old and definitely unfit for service and then only on application the sultan. The state of Jannissaries is a state of celibacy and for that reason barracks were built for them..

.. He writes further..
The decline of the corps started when it began to recruit by inheritance and by purchase... The first breach was as a consequence of increasing practice of marriage by janissaries...
There after a subustaintial poroportion of the janissaries, private soldiers as well as officers were married men living with their familes.
marriage also meant children and it was natural that fathers who belonged to privileged goupus should try to obtain same previleges for their sons..

Pag 125..
The new Janissaries.. the sons of Slaves as they were called, to distinguish them from real slaves were neither carefully selected nor as rigourously trained..

Quoting a historian .. a vile rabble fo contemptible interlopers entered the respected house hold an dthrough bribery, the regiments of janissaries were opened to peasent, farmers....

quoting memmorialist Kocu Bey.. , himself recrutied form gorista in macedonia was deeply distressed at this degradation of the Corps and reminded the sultan that he had no need to fill his armies with such riff-raff ``In Bosnia and Albania thre are stil men ...... with brave and strong hearted sons...``
Page 211...
The legal rules rgualting the inferiority of the slave and the woman and the unbeliver didn ot always conform to the high moral and religous principles of Islam. But at the same time the social realites of all there were sometimes better than the legal rules. The dhimmis wer inferiour to muslims, bu we find dhimmis enjoying great wealth, exercising great power, and even on occasion politacal power, though this is rare. Women were inferior to men, but we find women exercising authority in the home, in the market, and in the palace. Slaves are inferior to the freemen, but through the centuries of Islamic history ever growign numbers of slave soldiers, slave commanders, slave governors and even slave monarch

Looks like muslims were eager to join the ranks of slaves as well as others from slavic regions as Lewis writes later in his book(it is too tedious to find and type it in)

This is what the Infamous Daniel Pipes has to say about this book..``Remarkable ..Mr Lewis has a knack for vignette, the turn of pharse and tellling quotation....``

You must realise Sridhar what you are trying to compare... lack of admmisions in colleges and perhaps a little bit of disadvantage at jobs.
and the above described slave system and the slight discrimination within muslim socites and the caste system where even a shadow of a dalit on the Brahmin brought him inhuman punishment and this for centuries..
This has been condemmed by recent hindu leaders also by you but dont try to say this is the same as other things it is futile exercise.
Your quote of the of the frontpagemag gives very negative idea of where you come from in this debate... I hope that you are not a parivarist pretending to be a moderate..

your quoting about the sale of afghan girls is also without any effect I could qoute the killings of dallits in Tamil Nadu in the last few months as well as the sale of Nepali girls and say that it is because of hindu religion. The first you will agree is because of the hindu religon as understood(and as is??... not my call) by hindus for centuries the second is not.

#259 by pmishra2 on June 28, 2003 11:11pm PT
I can see how easy it is for you to get hilrarious.. I envy such simple pleasures..

The verses explains and even the one which you quoted that kill the pagans who have voilated their treaties and suppourted enemies against(in their efforts to kill or extrimiate??)you.
Sounds pertty reasonalbe to me if someone voilates a treaty and suppourts your enemy in their efforts to kill you then you be pretty ruthless with this someone(the treaty defing pagan). It seems a pretty standard method even today in any country in the world. A traitor is usually killed. The quran however says that if they repent then let them be because even as they were stepping their efforts to kill you by joining your enemies they were ``men who do not understand``

you are making a fool of yourself... by this discussion... every year there are jathas of sikhs going to pakistan. There was till the taliban came a pertty satisfied community of Sikhs in afghanistan. and if you remember the taliban destroyed a few(not all)statues of buddha just last year.
But however curious thing is you say that buddhists were in majority.. and what happened to them? they are now less than 1% in india while they flourish in china, japan, Srilanka.. Genocide?? What happened to them before the muslims came to rule India?
you have a talent to open your mouth and put your own feet in it...
But you are capable of doing better.. as are all humans so do a study of Quran it might solve your simple mindedness..

ali87 (&rajanjua):
Thanks for that painstaking effort in elaboration. After reading your post I went back and read the entire 9th sura (chapter) of quran again. I must admit that I found it harsher than your commentary suggested. To me, it appears that the message to spare kafirs applied only to those who accepted their mistake and become muslim and that too after ensuring that their conversion was genuine and not fake. This however did not apply to ahl-e-kitaab who were to be fought until they accepted defeat and started paying the jaziya. I am, of course, willing to concede that your interpretation may be the proper one, since it is your belief and faith we are talking about.
BTW as you are no doubt aware, this is the only sura in quran which does not start with a `bismillah`. Does this have any consequence (for example, less weight to be given compared to the other suras)?
You did not provide the historical context. I had read somewhere that this sura was revealed just before the prophet and his armies reentered Mecca. It is said that the victory was bloodless and the Meccans accepted Islam. Thus, the violent aspect of that sura was not implemented in THAT PARTICLUAR CASE.

re: #260

``...this whole idea that islam teaches violence is bull-crap. koranic verses on the subject are quoted out of context by miscreants of all faiths but unfortunately mostly by muslims themselves``
You may be right but the proof of pudding is in the eating. Who crashed the planes into the twin towers? To what religion do the terrorists incarcerated in Guantanama Bay belong to? Who beheaded Pearl? To what religion do the jehadists blowing up themselves along with other innocent people belong to?
I asked a question about Islam sometime ago in Chowk. Does Islam allow for suicide? Is it islamic to blow oneself up as the suicide bombers are doing? Nobody has given me a reply so far.
Sridhar

After reading #260, where we are told we should protest against wrongdoing/injustice, etc., I feel that even though I had concluded that it is pointless to expect any rational ideas or arguments from the Hon (?) Syed, I have to comment about what he says in # 222 at least:

And you are absolutely wrong when you tell me that casteism has been abolished in india. there are daily incidents in UP, Bihar, AP, etc.. of lower caste people being subjugated, raped and killed. Wake up and smell the coffee!

FYI, casteism has been legally abolished in India. Unfortunately, however, in remote and undeveloped areas it`s difficult to cast off social prejudices against Dalits (not other castes), and especially resentment against affirmative action in their favour. So there certainly are terrible acts that victimize them - not daily, no doubt, as you seem to think, but even once in 6 months is too often. And we have a vigilant and very free press, whose existence seems to depend upon castigating authority for their failures in every sphere, so you get to hear about these incidents much more forcefully that you would in any other free society (including the US). It`s not Indians who need to wake up and smell the coffee - it`s people like the Hon. Syed who need to know that India is not a seething cauldron of social unrest about to boil over any moment but a free, vast and plural society, in which there are bound to be problem spots but which is a functioning and democratic polity. It is a mark of our maturity that we are our harshest critics. Certainly Indian, and Hindu, society needs reform, but the point is that our laws, our great thinkers and our religious leaders all emphasize this. In this connection, I must put on record my appreciation of certain remarks by Muslims pointing out the evil TRADITIONS - remember, it`s traditions, not rules laid down in any holy book all Hindus believe came from God - in Hinduism, and accepting that there must be something very special about a way/ways of life that so many attempts to destroy it have not succeeded. And Hinduism is not a monolith. Everyone has pointed this out, I just don`t understand why this needs to be repeated again and again. But there`s none so deaf as those who won`t hear.

What is more surprising is why are you so attached to hinduism, when you are a south indian, who originally were Shaivites, distinct from Hindus.

How on earth did you imagine that Shaivaites are not Hindus? Or that all South Indians are Shaivaites? And this from someone who makes it a point to be disgustingly and contemptibly rude about the Shivling! ( BTW, you do know, don`t you, that many Hindus believe that Muslims themselves worship a Shivling in Mecca! Just as Muslims destroyed Hindu temples and set up mosques in their place - the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi is a well-documented example! - so they transformed an enormous Shivling into a place of worship too! Yes, I know, I know, what explanations Muslims have for the Kaba, and I think it`s unnecessary for Hindus to lay claim on that too! But that`s another story, and beside the point.)

When we the Muslims came to india we termed all of the population as Hindus (meaning dark skinned), which united all the people of india under one umbrella religion, when in fact they all followed different religions, including your ancestors

It was the Greeks who called all the people living here Hindus (unless you`d like to say that Alexander the Greek was an Arab Muslim). And NOT because they were dark-skinned (I wonder when Syed will get over his obsession with the colour of the skin! As Sameena Khan shows in her recent article, perhaps never), but because they lived on this side of the river Indus, the anglicized form of the name Sindhu, and they couldn`t pronounce Sindhu. It was the British (again, not the Muslims) who clubbed all the followers of all the home-grown religions/dharmas/ways of life practised on the subcontinent together as Hindus. It was they who invented the term Hinduism in the way it`s used now. Otherwise, a Hindu was simply a resident of the land east of the river Sindhu.

God never told anyone that he/they were descended from the head or the foot or anywhere. It was someone who was trying to explain why certain people had different abilities. Hindus aren`t the people of the book, you know - that`s why you call us kafirs, isn`t it? (Of course, this is a response to another post from him.)

Ali87, perhaps rsridhar answers your points and your attitude. I`d just like to tell you that Dronacharya`s treatment of Ekalavya was never commended. People use this story even today to point out how unfair even a guru could be. Dronacharya was emotionally blackmailed by his favourite student Arjuna, whom he`d promised would be the finest archer in the country but who was mortified to find that a simple forest dweller, without the help of a teacher but armed with single-minded dedication, had achieved more than he could. In order to keep his promise to Arjuna Dronacharya made Ekalavya cut off his thumb. This is one of the many black spots on Arjuna`s character as much as as on his guru`s. And the Mahabharata is an epic. It`s not religion.

re:#243 by ali87
``When people mention caste system they are not talking about theoritical aspects of seggration of labour etc they are talking about the exploitation. So accept that and not get involved in semantics.``
That is the most stupid thing i have heard. May be in your mind caste system automatically means exploitation; may be that is what you were taught in madrassa (or whereever it is you guys go for education).
In your scheme of things then, Brahmins, in virtue of occupying the highest caste order, should be most exploitative. Sounds logical does it not? It is utterly stupid.

Let us turn to what happened in Tamil Nadu in the last 50 years (i give this eg as i can relate only to Tamil brahmins, i being one of them). Brahmins, until the 60s were in control of everything in T.N. Well, almost everything. There was no reservation and selecton to professional colleges in Tamil Nadu was on merit. Brahmins, by their unique ability (being inheritors of a scholarly tradition for ages) had no problem getting selected to these colleges in huge numbers. So, almost all doctors, engineers etc from that state up until 60s were brahmins.
Dravidian politicians called this ``brahminical dominance`` and waged a war to reverse this trend. With DMK coming to power (in the 60s), a system of ``proportional reservation`` was put in place. Suddenly, brahmins found themselves at a receiving end. They had only 2-3% of seats in professional colleges set aside for them. Rest went to other castes.
Today, brahmins do not even count in T.N. That does not mean they have been decimated. They still control a lot of important things and continue to make useful contribution. But, by a system of political empowerment, they have been rendered ineffective. Nobody in T.N can blame brahmins for the plight of the poor there. Exploitation still goes on but brahmins are not involved.
What am i trying to say? Brahmins have been rendered irrelevant by a political process in Tamil Nadu that sought to counter their hegemony. This did not mean brahmins changed their caste and suddenly vanished. I hope you now see the difference between caste system as it exists as one`s identity as seperate from when it seeks to exploit.

Not all is rosy with Islam either. While a process of introspection has been going on among intellectuals in the Hindu society, which is in step with modernity thr` democratic process and rule of law, much of Islamic societies is mired in autocracy and dictatorship and there is little hope of any respite for many of the poor muslims.
What does Islam say about Slavery? Here is one man`s take on Slavery in Islam
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=4686


1. ``There are notable differences between the slave trade in the Islamic world and the trans-Atlantic variety. The former has been going on for 13 centuries and it is an integral feature of the Islamic civilization, while the influx of slaves into the New World lasted less than a third that long and was effectively ended by the middle of the 19th century.``

2. ``Contrary to the myth that Islam is a religion free from racial prejudice, slavery in the Moslem world has been, and remains, brutally racist in character. To find truly endemic, open, raw anti-Black racism and slavery today one needs to go to the two Islamic Republics in Africa: Mauritania and Sudan. Black people have been enslaved on such a scale that the term black has become synonymous with slave. The mixed-race, predominantly Negroid but self-avowedly ``Arabic`` denizens of the transitional sub-Saharan zone have been indoctrinated into treating their pure-black southern neighbors with racist disdain. (To this day it can be dangerous to one`s life to ask a dark-looking but Arabic-speaking Sudanese or Mauritanian Moslem if he is ``black.``)

3. ``For the pure-black populations of Sudan and Mauritania, independence from colonial rule marked the end of a slavery-free respite. Slavery was ``abolished`` several times in Mauritania since independence, most recently on July 5, 1980. Yet the Anti-Slavery Society`s findings (1982) and those of Africa Watch (1990) point to the existence of at least 100,000 ``full-time`` slaves and additional 300,000 half-slaves, all of them black, still being held by Arab-Mauritanians. Even the head of state from 1960 to 1978, Mokhtar Ould Daddah, kept slaves behind the presidential palace. The Mauritanian government has not tried to eradicate slavery and failed; it has not tried at all. Even the old Arab practice of forming slave armies is being revived in Mauritania, where thousands of Haratines were forcibly recruited, armed, and sent to take over black African villages in the south, where they massacred the inhabitants.``

The Arabian Peninsula in 1962 became the world`s penultimate region to officially abolish slavery, yet years later Saudi Arabia alone was estimated to contain a quarter of a million slaves. Thousands of miles away from Africa, in Pakistan`s Northwest Frontier Province, girls as young as five are auctioned off to highest bidders. Afghan girls between the ages of 5 and 17 sell for $80 to $100. The price depends on the colors of their eyes and skin; if they are virgins, the price is higher. The girls are generally sold into prostitution or, if they are lucky, they may join harems in the Middle East.``

So, what to make of all this? No doubt a lot of muslims in Chowk will repudiate me. I bring the above article to focus on the weaknesses that exist in all societies. What kind of sick mind will invent Slavery and perpetuate it for selfish interest and greed? Yet it goes on. It is the same sick mind that seeks to perpetuate the caste-system and exploit the weaker section thr` this system. Once you recognise it, you view these social problems in a different light and avoid bringing religion into everything.
Sridhar

#255 ali87


[quote]

You can appreciate that the even a basic reading of even a few verses (much less of a full sura) cant be done in such a forum.

[end-quote]

heh,heh ! Now your shamelessness, hypocrisy, and double standards stand exposed. I guess it was so much fun taking pot shots at other traditions. Faced with the bloody mindedness and aggressiveness of your own religous texts, you have produced a long-winded mess of evasion (which includes the hilarious idea that somehow missing punctuation is to blame !!!).

To summarize your point of view: hindu texts should be viewed ``directly`` without benefit of interpretation or historical contexts or scholarship. Your own traditions should be viewed very differently; they should be interpreted with great care to derive the meaning that you want them to have. People who read them literally are ``childlike`` and foolish. But you have every right to pick up any pieces of text from ``hindu`` traditions and interpret them literally !! Shameless hypocrisy of the highest order.

BTW, you still haven`t answered my simple question: if Islam is always wonderfully tolerant, where are the hindu and buddhist temples and religous structures of Afghanistan and Pakistan? After all, these regions were hindu and buddhist for more that 1500 years before Islam. And where are the hindus and buddhists of these regions???

How come they have ALL somehow ``vanished``??? Not even 1% of the region is now hindu and buddhist. Is this some special type of tolerance that the rest of us dont understand?

re: tahmed
thanks.

re: dost-mittar
koran requires muslims to fight against injustice and in self defense only - and there are strict rules of engagement (which donot allow any collateral damage). i see nothing wrong with that. we are taught that if you see something wrong or unjust we should take action against it - if we cannot take action then we should speak out against it and if that is not possible then atleast acknowledge that injustice is being done. this whole idea that islam teaches violence is bull-crap. koranic verses on the subject are quoted out of context by miscreants of all faiths but unfortunately mostly by muslims themselves. i think i explained it to jay saab once - i didn`t realize at that time that i was wasting my time. tell me dost-mittar ji, no muslim ever told you this stuff before.

re:#243 by ali87
I just stated what i perceived to be true. Caste system does exist in various forms in different societies. That is not to say that i am defending it. I have always said caste system is a bane on Indian society because it has become exploitative. With gradual empowerment of people who are getting exploited because of caste, one would hope that it (the exploitation) would go away.
Do i sincerely believe caste system will ever go away in India? I do not. I think people will continue to identify themselves with a particular caste as long as they live. Nothing wrong in that as long as it does not automatically give them priveleges.
Sridhar

re:#241 by tahmed32
Dear Sir,
At last we come to some agreement. You say caste system is not good. Agreed. I only qualify that statement by saying that caste system is bad when it exploits. Otherwise who cares? Brahmins would be brahmins or Yadavs would be yadavs as a means of identifying some sect of people. We cannot turn back the clock of history. Caste system has come to stay in India. I think you mistook me when you thought i was trying to defend it. By no means.
Human tendency is such that when someone moves up the ladder, he/she starts expoiting people below him/her in hierarchy. I know that this is true at least in India. Yadavs of Bihar were downtrodden at one time. Thr` political empowerment they have become wealthy and powerful (C.M of Bihar is a Yadav). They behave now like the neo-brahmins and exploit those below them in hierarchy. And so the struggle goes on.
Some day caste in India will become truly irrelevant. Globalisation, education and increasing opportunities to all sections would mean people would be able to better their lot without any hindrance from their caste. At that time, caste would remain only as a means of identifying people. Or may be even that will disappear.
Sridhar

#254 by dost-mittar on June 28, 2003 8:15am PT

It is clearly recognised by even a basic student of quran(as appossed to a child/childlike reciter) That the Qurans verses explain each other. Ie one supports/qualifies/explains another. Morever a verse needs to be qouted in full and often with the ones following it and preceding it and also sometimes the context(often historical, ie pertaining to a particular situation so if a partiucalr situation occurs then the advice in the sura becomes valid.) at times some verses are explained/qualified elsewere in the quran.

This is what pmishra2 has quoted..


Sura 9:5 says, ``Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war.``

The full verse is this...

http://islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/9.htm#5

``But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.``

Notice the fullstop included by Mishra at the end of the quote. and the semicolon in this transalation and the Qualifier ``but`` and then the rest of the verse. Also there is some thing ahead of the quote which he quotes.

here is the verse which precedes the verse quoted by Mishra

9.4``(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.``

....So here is the verse preceding which says that those treaties established with pagans are not dissolved where the pagans have not failed in observing their side of the treaty nor have aided any other enemy against you.
Meaning that if pagans have signed a treaty with you and hold true to you and also do not aid your enemies you are commanded to ``fulfil your engagements with them`` because ``Allah loveth the righteous``

The next verse which mishra quotes then explains how to deal(which should be obvious to even the simple minded)with those Pagans who have voilated your treaties(usually these are life and death issues in a very voilent land) and/or have aided your enemies against you(this is also significant ``aided any one (ememies)``... against you ie helping the enemy in fighting you).

The next verse says...

9.6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

This is self obvious.. ie even among those who have betrayed you if any ask for Asylum grant him and escort him wher he can be secure.... these people are not (evil) they are ``men without knowledge.``

The next verse goes on...

9.7. ``How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.``

Briefly this says that there cant be a league with pagans except those whom you made a treaty with(``near the scared Mosque``...Thus one needs to know the historical context too) you and are true to the treaty. One is exhorted to be true to your treaties because ``Allah doth love the righteous``

The next verse is..

9.8. ``How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.``

....Ie it explains further the previous verse (ie why there cant be a league with pagans.. those who break treaties... not others) These pagans respect neither ties of ``Kinship`` or of ``Covenant`` they are scheming ``With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you`` It furhter says ``most (ie those who dont remain true to their treaties ie even among those Pagans who dont fulfil their own treaties most ... ie not all)of them are rebellious and wicked.``

next verse says..

9.9 ``The Signs of Allah have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done.

The next verse says..

9.10. ``In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds``

...ie those Pagans respect neither ties of kinship or of covenant(ie treaty) with the Belivers(in partiuclar ie with an intent to harrass the muslim in partiuclar) ie these pagans are singlingout the muslims in particular.

The next verse says...

9.11. But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.

.... here it says they repent (ie the Pagans who are Trangessors of treaties and ties of kinship), establish regular prayers(now is that a conditon or is it sufficient if they repent) and practice regular charity they are your Brothers in Faith.

Now this will be diffiuclt to interpret for a lay person like me. What does that mean? If a Trangressor repents he should also simultaneously establish regular prayers(Islamic?) and practice regular charity(muslim kind or any charity?) to qualify his repentence. It further goes on to say that ``we explain the Signs(of repentence? of trangressors?) in detail (which is why there is series of verses ..not one) for those who understand(?)

This is where the limitation of reading translations of Quran become obvious and also reading it in parts and without the historical background and knowledge of the slightly different classical arabic (of the times of Prophets time and the particualr dialect followed by tribes living there.) becomes Important. This is where the role of the scholar comes in..


You can appreciate that the even a basic reading of even a few verses (much less of a full sura) cant be done in such a forum.
People like Mishra are hatemongers who delibrately distort and misquote (even when they are aware of it) to potray the Quran and thus muslims as some kind of Uncivilised eager to kill people.

While it is clear form even a cursory readign that the particular sura guides the muslim to be aware of those Pagans who delibrately reject signed treaties and ties of Kinship and the verses in the sura extort to be ruthless with those pagans (at a time when the muslim community was nacent and was indeed suffering many attacks to their life and property) but even so most verses keep reminding that there should be no trangression on part of the muslims and asks the muslims to honor their treaties ``because Allah loves the righteous`` and to be kind to those who repent and further explains that they do this acts not because they are ``Evil`` but because they are not men withouth Knowledge(Like Mishra??)

In a world which lives comfortably with the likes of Bush and Rumsfield (whom the Parivar is particularly enthused by .. and Mishra too) who brand entire nations as ``Evil`` it is no wonder that muslims take pride in their religon.

I hope that this is a lesson to you Mishra......