Women in Religious Scriptures
Sushil Bhatnagar May 15, 2003
#251 Posted by Ali87 on June 2, 2003 12:59:55 pm
#235 by sadna on June 1, 2003 10:51am PT
I think that most people will appreciate that for 1400+ years what we call now modern concepts have been propogated by Islam and to a large extent been followed by muslims and extended to all those under the influence of mulsims.
The concept of racial equality which US realised in its present form is less than 50 years. Similarly the concept of equality of people free from caste division(Which did lead to inhumuan deprivation of a certain section of people, despite the illustrated caveats presented by you earlier) has been practiced by muslims while temples were destroyed they were also built and funded, The jews were protected, Churches rebuilt in the middle east, even a ruler dispsosed because he brought down a church.
Being human they have also strayed from the path outlined in the Quran many times justifying religoin as basis of many wrong things but if judged by their times muslim rulers have been many times better than others and only some times worse. But the principles were never denied nor the message changed thought many justifications were attempted by rulers to make exceptions or put a spin on what they do so that it is deemed to be accepted to be within the Islamic framework.
Even on the postion of women was not largely bad in the documented history as known to man. Muslim women had a fairly good treatment. Consider this, at all times the expense of raising children always remains with the man no matter wether he is divorced or not. A woman has the inalienable right to her earnings, property, gifts. Islam enjoines education of religious scriptures as well as other knowledge by women.
(However I belive that this is one major aspect in which muslims have failed to live up to the Islamic principles except for a short time during the prophet and shortly after him)
Another basic aspect in the shpere of life ie of marriage and family all that is modern has its basis in Islam. Consider this remarriage of widows, that the marriage is a social contract between the man and woman, That the divorce is possible and even a right to divorce by woman on sexual dissatisfaction is possible. What the west preens as new heights of modern emancipation ie of prenuptial contracts is also outlined in Islam as one of the contractual terms before marriage.
As always Muslim women have had the right to inherit albeit in a smaller share which was denied to hindu women and even christian women till recently.
Today in the modren world the muslim can live still live his life and organise the socitey which is modern (sic.)and will not go against any principle of Islam wihch cant be said of other religons who have had to subustantially edit, modiy or add to their religous dogmas. (im not counting the cultural remantnts which are not part of Islam here)
...YOur claim of unfettered freedom is a bit of a problem it is not as if people had total freedom to belive in what they wished and that there was total acceptance in socitey. For examples the shudras (a subustantial portion of socitey) could certainly not belive themselves as equals for as long as there is recorded Indian history. That the practice of sati was not usuallyvoluntary, that the rituals of widowhood were practiced as late as 1000 years back till last 2 decades. It was instead unfettered freedom for the elite to belive inwhat they wanted and to impose what they wanted on others
your deleination of the scriptures into smiriti and shruti sounds nice but what are the practical implicatons of those?
as you yourself said that there is freedom so this freedom could take the course of accetping what is there in the shruthi or smiriti in toto. Which is in fact what is happening in India presently.
That the Shruti is meant for a particular time is hardly accepted by many Indians. Just conduct a small survey yourself and you will reach appropiate conclusions. That the philosophy sounds good and even may be well applied in the hands of a few evolved articulate souls is what I accept but as everyone knows that the large majority are simply not capable of making these disctinctions.
Also your reference and quoting the shankaracharays is a self contradiction of your own arguments. Since he is not the designated authority as as per your own admission there is freedom to do what ever one choses why would all people accept shankaracharys take on this? certainly there is proof that most hindus today dont accept the view that you have articulated. Just go in a public gathering in India and tell that the various smirits are not for this age and youll know the dificculty in your argument.
There is no difficulty in understanding the fact that people may go in an eternal search of the truth. Even muslims are enjoined to go in a innersearch of truth albeit of their actions and the blessings of god. I think you need to understand Islam operates on two levels one is the spritual and other is the worldly.
The spritual gives the basis of making worldly judgments. While the spritual observance is outlined very clearly its judgement will certainly is in the hands of Allah. The worldly life and how to go about it is another matter while the general principles come from the basis of the spritual values the accent is on practiablility. Therefore there is a need to ensure that social order remains within the ambit of reason and basic humuan values. While you go about doing living your daily life your spritual aspect will come into play but the judge of that will be Allah However there aspect of social order is enjoined on the muslim socitey in a very humuane manner so that there is no anarchy nor injustice. A humuan could possibly follow all the injuctions of worldly behaviour as required by the social and state context and still not be a pious muslim or the best of the belivers at least in theory.
While all that you say about hinduism sounds nice it is precicely the lack of order or at least a basic common expectations that are to be followed that thas lead to the prevelance of Sati, Caste opression and even some of the weirder practices like humuan sacrifices, Tantra etc. That some of these are extreme and now rare is not the issue the issue is that they are considered by your argument as one of the paths.
I have no issue in every one taking the path he suits fit. what happens when one persons belifes comes in the way of the life of others? That is some thing that the current hindus fail to appreciate. What is the doctirnal response to a child sacrifice? would you still be telling that it is a rare occurance but there every one is free to follow what ever they want. As practice has shown this is not the case. The sociteal action kicks in. However when such cases happen on a larger scale what happens where there are on one hand a large and powerfull section of socitey who wish to follow the doctrine of complete unfettered belifs without incorporatioing the principles of humuan values then you have resluts like Sati, contition of women earlier, of the caste issue.
As you will see that for day to day life one needs some basic rules and regulations which regulate the relation of humuan beings with each other absence of which have lead to many of the practices earlier prevalent but now dropped by hindus.
Now you will appreciate that the Islamic principles which obviouslly are based on humuan principles have withstood the test of time. Where hinduism stood for unfettered freedom and subsequent consequences on the other hand most of chiristianity stood for the codified rules and regulattios but subject to whims and fancies of the chruch.
Both have had to abandon their stands and follow what is called modern way which infact is Islamic way.
Indeed it is for this that the Koran says that the path of the muslims is the middle way. We referred to as the the middle nation those following the path of balanced humanity. It heartens me that the world has accepted these principles even if the call them their own.
...The verbal triple talaq is a law in India.
Unfortunately..
....ali87, if you donot consider the issue of Muslim law wrt women or various injunctions in Sharia to be a problem, well I do have serious problems with some of these injunctions - as a nonMuslim its not my business - but as a nonMuslim I also donot accept these injunctions to be Godgiven and perfect. ...
Well you are an exception as most of hindus now (perhaps to the prevalant hindutva wave)do consider it their problem that muslims can marry more than one. talk of jealousy (Im all for this rule being extended to others) consider this if Indian(the so called modernists)accept serial monogamy, or the raving aritcles in the press how women have become emancipated and are seeking extramaratial sex or the acceptance at least by the media of acceptance of such values as seen in the various soaps on TV indicate acceptance of those values then it is hypocirtical of them oppose a muslim marrying more than one.
However if you belive that im one of those who advocate men marrying at the drop of the hat let me assure you I am a firm beliver of the instituion of marriage and of largely mongamus marriage. At times there may be conditions that may justify a polygamous marriage. Indeed I have seen some very happy co-wifes of earlier generation. In fact one of my friends talks of the extreme understanding as well as comfort (because of company)that his two mothers had and of his greatfullness and love to his surviving stepmother. (this is not to say that there always things are hunky dory in such situations involvoign every one)
However just think that many richer men tend to get involved in other women (You will agree that this is mostly the case however unjust) the conflict this kind of relations cause are great, there is a psycological taruma of it being not accepted by socitey and the legal implications in terms of family property etc. not only that there is a implicit hatred of the situation by both the women involved and to tell nothing about the situation of the childeren of one or the other women.
What does a child feel when he is comes across a stiuation where his/here dad is having an affair and posssibliy a child with another woman. In some cases at least where the two women are reconciled if the socitey can give some legitimaticy to this affair it has a great positive physcological impact. I can understand that as woman you would find this solution horrendous but I belive that there may be cases where allowing the marriage may be better for all involved.
The west (and Indians who now follow more or less the trends set by the west) has no penalites for extramaratial affairs, recognise the rights of the child born out of such an affair (in terms of inheritance, child maintainance etc)but come down on hard on bigamy where even both the woman are willing I find this very illogical. You recognise the child born out of marriage, you recognise the right of couples to have children out of wedlock and even for commercial conception for money. Lesbains having artificial insemination to have a child. But a man marrying two wifes who consent to the marriage is considered a scarallige and an indication of medival culture!!
I mention this to you since you had earlier talked about the modern woman blazing trails in faishon, movies professions etc. Let me tell you that Islam has no issue with women in professions, In malayisa there are women Police cheifs, women in islamic clothes will be seen manning Toll gates there are women scientists in egypt. In Iran too women are active in many professions. In India you will see the most hardline (as per media and now popular perception)of mulsims espscially those beloign to the Tabliqui Jamath(those with the flowing beards, and women vieled) are the most progerssive as far as womens education and profession are concerned,you will find in their families wome with masters, Phd, in medical, engginering, social scineces.
As for your idolising the professions of faishon or movies let me tell you I have had some close contact with both these industries. I have been part of some theater groups, I have a friend who produced a couple of movies there is another who was the leading actor in a movie released a few months back, I know a few models in the bangalore faishon circuit albeit as girlfirends of my friends there are a couple of my class mates from college doing moderately well as male models in media. Both these professions are justexactly what they were a few decades back when the traditonalists used to describe earlier. While some of the people involved and their families accept the issues involved as normal others accept them under obligation of monetary pressure some accept them with hi sounding philosophy about professionalism. There are very few who are belive in the values of the middle class India and are still able to live by those values in those professions. women are required to present their bodies for male use to gain benifits or simply to keep in the loop.
Indians who do not accept these values and calling these professions as something of an achivement is just glossign over the facts. It is better to see them for what they are. However both these professions can be practiced with moderation in context of the values of Islam. It is possible I belive if one accepts that there are some restrictions on this.
After all which middle class indan family will be able to go to the faishon show in paris and still say that this is ok?
on the condition of women vis a vi the laws (presnetly accepted sharia) I do not say that I am satisfied with the laws. You say that the sharia be abandoned becaouse the form of some its laws one is not comfortable. However this is a wrong readign of the situation. The Sharia law has considerable scope for modification as this is how it was designed and meant to be. For instance in the scope of marriage law the right to divorce by women is right now in most countires non existant because except for cruelty and sexual dissatisfication there are no other grounds avaialble and even thouse are not freely and justly implemented. However there is an possiblitly of the right to divorce by the woman be included at the time of marriage which can give as much right to the woman to divorce as it gives to the man. Till now this was deemed to be a mutually agreed upon(thus rarely pracitced) rule. However a modern Islamic state can encourage its citizens to go in for such a clause in majority cases or even it can make this or similar modifications as a state policy(ie mandated law,).
The right to marry another woman in Islam is subject to approval of the first wife(s) with the condition being that the man can divorce the woman in case she disagrees with it. So a woman need not be in a bigamous or polygamous situation if she does not like it. I dont see how this is differnet form the western situation. A man or a woman can divorce without reason. same is the case in Islam (albeit the right of woman to divorce has to be obtained at the time of marriage).
IN the west If a man doesnot like a woman he simply divorces and subsequently marries another. If he wants to continue with his present wife and wants to have a few affairs and father a few children even then the he has the freedom. if the women involved do not know then there is no penalties at all. If the woman knows and accetps this situatin then also the law does not kick in. If a woman knows and does not like it she cannot stop it. what she can do is divorce him.
In Islam if a man wants to have sexual relations with another woman then he cannot do that freely or without the knowledge of the wife. In case he has an affair with another woman without giving his wife the chance to decide wether she wants to be with him or not then he is punished by the law.
I find this situation much better than the modern law that you gush so much about.
In Islam in case he decides to have sexual realtions with another woman and his wife permits him then the course available to him is to marry the woman and he is obligiated to suppourt her and her progeny(no need to go to the courts for this)
Tell me which situation is more demanding on the man and more fairer to the woman.
On the other hand there is a question of the woman divorcing here In Islamic law her choices are a bit limited however if the implemnetation either voluntary or through soical pressure or through law the marriage conntract gives the woman the right to divorce then her situation becomes the same as a woman in the west.
Ie if a woman wants to marry another man she will be able to do so by divorcing her present husband. However the distinciton here is that in all cases the responsibiltiy for the upbringing of the children remains with the father.
Now one would consider this much better than the present western situation.
In the present day situation in the west there is one difference is that of the alimony payments which are given (atleast theoriticly)by both man as well as woman whoever being the main breadearner.
If you claim that this is an emancipated age where women are equal to men then they should accept equal responsiblitly. So if a woman wants to divorce a man then he ends up paying for her till he dies (almost) exactly why is this so I do not understand. If two people are out of the social contract why sould one pay for the other? The idea that the woman (or the man as the case may be rarely) has put in her time in the marriage thus making possible the accumulation of wealth (and even in case not having accumulated capital, a share in future earnings) is a tottaly unjust for either woman or man and simply goes against logic.
Of course apart form this similarty there is a smaller issue of men getting the benifit of marrying more than one and women not having this benifit in Islam. This is partly due to the nature of humans (notice that even in the present so called period more women single partner than men) and to balance that the man has to provide for the children no matter what.
....
These people were breaking the law and I am not justifying these killings like you are apparently justifying the killing of Indians by Pakistanis...
perhaps you can read the law in pakistan as well as the so called terrorist countries where the law is clear and no different than any where else. If you can claim that the killings on such a large scale(in india) and those happenign with regularity in the last few decades in which hardly any one has been punished to date are not being suscribed by the state appartus or at least by the ruling elite(who obviously have the suppourt of the masses, India being a democracy) then why cant a muslim claim that these people who you blame for killings be they pakistanis or others are breakign the law of their respective countries?
Why is this distinciton?
Incidently you should remember that the christians in Lebanon(who fought the muslism at one time)as well as in Palestine suppourt the actions of these people only prefering to condem them as ineffective.
Also I would like you to do some introspection ,you can read this discussion and please point out where is my suppourt for pakistanis killing Indians. Were we even disucssing that issue? After you convince yourself that there is no such referrence much less suppourt posted by me you should ask yourself why is it that you thought that I suppurted this and in case you never thought that I suuppourted killings then you should ask yoursleves why did you accuse me of such suppourt . A reasoned analysis of this aspect of your actions will be very enlightining I can assure you.
I think that most people will appreciate that for 1400+ years what we call now modern concepts have been propogated by Islam and to a large extent been followed by muslims and extended to all those under the influence of mulsims.
The concept of racial equality which US realised in its present form is less than 50 years. Similarly the concept of equality of people free from caste division(Which did lead to inhumuan deprivation of a certain section of people, despite the illustrated caveats presented by you earlier) has been practiced by muslims while temples were destroyed they were also built and funded, The jews were protected, Churches rebuilt in the middle east, even a ruler dispsosed because he brought down a church.
Being human they have also strayed from the path outlined in the Quran many times justifying religoin as basis of many wrong things but if judged by their times muslim rulers have been many times better than others and only some times worse. But the principles were never denied nor the message changed thought many justifications were attempted by rulers to make exceptions or put a spin on what they do so that it is deemed to be accepted to be within the Islamic framework.
Even on the postion of women was not largely bad in the documented history as known to man. Muslim women had a fairly good treatment. Consider this, at all times the expense of raising children always remains with the man no matter wether he is divorced or not. A woman has the inalienable right to her earnings, property, gifts. Islam enjoines education of religious scriptures as well as other knowledge by women.
(However I belive that this is one major aspect in which muslims have failed to live up to the Islamic principles except for a short time during the prophet and shortly after him)
Another basic aspect in the shpere of life ie of marriage and family all that is modern has its basis in Islam. Consider this remarriage of widows, that the marriage is a social contract between the man and woman, That the divorce is possible and even a right to divorce by woman on sexual dissatisfaction is possible. What the west preens as new heights of modern emancipation ie of prenuptial contracts is also outlined in Islam as one of the contractual terms before marriage.
As always Muslim women have had the right to inherit albeit in a smaller share which was denied to hindu women and even christian women till recently.
Today in the modren world the muslim can live still live his life and organise the socitey which is modern (sic.)and will not go against any principle of Islam wihch cant be said of other religons who have had to subustantially edit, modiy or add to their religous dogmas. (im not counting the cultural remantnts which are not part of Islam here)
...YOur claim of unfettered freedom is a bit of a problem it is not as if people had total freedom to belive in what they wished and that there was total acceptance in socitey. For examples the shudras (a subustantial portion of socitey) could certainly not belive themselves as equals for as long as there is recorded Indian history. That the practice of sati was not usuallyvoluntary, that the rituals of widowhood were practiced as late as 1000 years back till last 2 decades. It was instead unfettered freedom for the elite to belive inwhat they wanted and to impose what they wanted on others
your deleination of the scriptures into smiriti and shruti sounds nice but what are the practical implicatons of those?
as you yourself said that there is freedom so this freedom could take the course of accetping what is there in the shruthi or smiriti in toto. Which is in fact what is happening in India presently.
That the Shruti is meant for a particular time is hardly accepted by many Indians. Just conduct a small survey yourself and you will reach appropiate conclusions. That the philosophy sounds good and even may be well applied in the hands of a few evolved articulate souls is what I accept but as everyone knows that the large majority are simply not capable of making these disctinctions.
Also your reference and quoting the shankaracharays is a self contradiction of your own arguments. Since he is not the designated authority as as per your own admission there is freedom to do what ever one choses why would all people accept shankaracharys take on this? certainly there is proof that most hindus today dont accept the view that you have articulated. Just go in a public gathering in India and tell that the various smirits are not for this age and youll know the dificculty in your argument.
There is no difficulty in understanding the fact that people may go in an eternal search of the truth. Even muslims are enjoined to go in a innersearch of truth albeit of their actions and the blessings of god. I think you need to understand Islam operates on two levels one is the spritual and other is the worldly.
The spritual gives the basis of making worldly judgments. While the spritual observance is outlined very clearly its judgement will certainly is in the hands of Allah. The worldly life and how to go about it is another matter while the general principles come from the basis of the spritual values the accent is on practiablility. Therefore there is a need to ensure that social order remains within the ambit of reason and basic humuan values. While you go about doing living your daily life your spritual aspect will come into play but the judge of that will be Allah However there aspect of social order is enjoined on the muslim socitey in a very humuane manner so that there is no anarchy nor injustice. A humuan could possibly follow all the injuctions of worldly behaviour as required by the social and state context and still not be a pious muslim or the best of the belivers at least in theory.
While all that you say about hinduism sounds nice it is precicely the lack of order or at least a basic common expectations that are to be followed that thas lead to the prevelance of Sati, Caste opression and even some of the weirder practices like humuan sacrifices, Tantra etc. That some of these are extreme and now rare is not the issue the issue is that they are considered by your argument as one of the paths.
I have no issue in every one taking the path he suits fit. what happens when one persons belifes comes in the way of the life of others? That is some thing that the current hindus fail to appreciate. What is the doctirnal response to a child sacrifice? would you still be telling that it is a rare occurance but there every one is free to follow what ever they want. As practice has shown this is not the case. The sociteal action kicks in. However when such cases happen on a larger scale what happens where there are on one hand a large and powerfull section of socitey who wish to follow the doctrine of complete unfettered belifs without incorporatioing the principles of humuan values then you have resluts like Sati, contition of women earlier, of the caste issue.
As you will see that for day to day life one needs some basic rules and regulations which regulate the relation of humuan beings with each other absence of which have lead to many of the practices earlier prevalent but now dropped by hindus.
Now you will appreciate that the Islamic principles which obviouslly are based on humuan principles have withstood the test of time. Where hinduism stood for unfettered freedom and subsequent consequences on the other hand most of chiristianity stood for the codified rules and regulattios but subject to whims and fancies of the chruch.
Both have had to abandon their stands and follow what is called modern way which infact is Islamic way.
Indeed it is for this that the Koran says that the path of the muslims is the middle way. We referred to as the the middle nation those following the path of balanced humanity. It heartens me that the world has accepted these principles even if the call them their own.
...The verbal triple talaq is a law in India.
Unfortunately..
....ali87, if you donot consider the issue of Muslim law wrt women or various injunctions in Sharia to be a problem, well I do have serious problems with some of these injunctions - as a nonMuslim its not my business - but as a nonMuslim I also donot accept these injunctions to be Godgiven and perfect. ...
Well you are an exception as most of hindus now (perhaps to the prevalant hindutva wave)do consider it their problem that muslims can marry more than one. talk of jealousy (Im all for this rule being extended to others) consider this if Indian(the so called modernists)accept serial monogamy, or the raving aritcles in the press how women have become emancipated and are seeking extramaratial sex or the acceptance at least by the media of acceptance of such values as seen in the various soaps on TV indicate acceptance of those values then it is hypocirtical of them oppose a muslim marrying more than one.
However if you belive that im one of those who advocate men marrying at the drop of the hat let me assure you I am a firm beliver of the instituion of marriage and of largely mongamus marriage. At times there may be conditions that may justify a polygamous marriage. Indeed I have seen some very happy co-wifes of earlier generation. In fact one of my friends talks of the extreme understanding as well as comfort (because of company)that his two mothers had and of his greatfullness and love to his surviving stepmother. (this is not to say that there always things are hunky dory in such situations involvoign every one)
However just think that many richer men tend to get involved in other women (You will agree that this is mostly the case however unjust) the conflict this kind of relations cause are great, there is a psycological taruma of it being not accepted by socitey and the legal implications in terms of family property etc. not only that there is a implicit hatred of the situation by both the women involved and to tell nothing about the situation of the childeren of one or the other women.
What does a child feel when he is comes across a stiuation where his/here dad is having an affair and posssibliy a child with another woman. In some cases at least where the two women are reconciled if the socitey can give some legitimaticy to this affair it has a great positive physcological impact. I can understand that as woman you would find this solution horrendous but I belive that there may be cases where allowing the marriage may be better for all involved.
The west (and Indians who now follow more or less the trends set by the west) has no penalites for extramaratial affairs, recognise the rights of the child born out of such an affair (in terms of inheritance, child maintainance etc)but come down on hard on bigamy where even both the woman are willing I find this very illogical. You recognise the child born out of marriage, you recognise the right of couples to have children out of wedlock and even for commercial conception for money. Lesbains having artificial insemination to have a child. But a man marrying two wifes who consent to the marriage is considered a scarallige and an indication of medival culture!!
I mention this to you since you had earlier talked about the modern woman blazing trails in faishon, movies professions etc. Let me tell you that Islam has no issue with women in professions, In malayisa there are women Police cheifs, women in islamic clothes will be seen manning Toll gates there are women scientists in egypt. In Iran too women are active in many professions. In India you will see the most hardline (as per media and now popular perception)of mulsims espscially those beloign to the Tabliqui Jamath(those with the flowing beards, and women vieled) are the most progerssive as far as womens education and profession are concerned,you will find in their families wome with masters, Phd, in medical, engginering, social scineces.
As for your idolising the professions of faishon or movies let me tell you I have had some close contact with both these industries. I have been part of some theater groups, I have a friend who produced a couple of movies there is another who was the leading actor in a movie released a few months back, I know a few models in the bangalore faishon circuit albeit as girlfirends of my friends there are a couple of my class mates from college doing moderately well as male models in media. Both these professions are justexactly what they were a few decades back when the traditonalists used to describe earlier. While some of the people involved and their families accept the issues involved as normal others accept them under obligation of monetary pressure some accept them with hi sounding philosophy about professionalism. There are very few who are belive in the values of the middle class India and are still able to live by those values in those professions. women are required to present their bodies for male use to gain benifits or simply to keep in the loop.
Indians who do not accept these values and calling these professions as something of an achivement is just glossign over the facts. It is better to see them for what they are. However both these professions can be practiced with moderation in context of the values of Islam. It is possible I belive if one accepts that there are some restrictions on this.
After all which middle class indan family will be able to go to the faishon show in paris and still say that this is ok?
on the condition of women vis a vi the laws (presnetly accepted sharia) I do not say that I am satisfied with the laws. You say that the sharia be abandoned becaouse the form of some its laws one is not comfortable. However this is a wrong readign of the situation. The Sharia law has considerable scope for modification as this is how it was designed and meant to be. For instance in the scope of marriage law the right to divorce by women is right now in most countires non existant because except for cruelty and sexual dissatisfication there are no other grounds avaialble and even thouse are not freely and justly implemented. However there is an possiblitly of the right to divorce by the woman be included at the time of marriage which can give as much right to the woman to divorce as it gives to the man. Till now this was deemed to be a mutually agreed upon(thus rarely pracitced) rule. However a modern Islamic state can encourage its citizens to go in for such a clause in majority cases or even it can make this or similar modifications as a state policy(ie mandated law,).
The right to marry another woman in Islam is subject to approval of the first wife(s) with the condition being that the man can divorce the woman in case she disagrees with it. So a woman need not be in a bigamous or polygamous situation if she does not like it. I dont see how this is differnet form the western situation. A man or a woman can divorce without reason. same is the case in Islam (albeit the right of woman to divorce has to be obtained at the time of marriage).
IN the west If a man doesnot like a woman he simply divorces and subsequently marries another. If he wants to continue with his present wife and wants to have a few affairs and father a few children even then the he has the freedom. if the women involved do not know then there is no penalties at all. If the woman knows and accetps this situatin then also the law does not kick in. If a woman knows and does not like it she cannot stop it. what she can do is divorce him.
In Islam if a man wants to have sexual relations with another woman then he cannot do that freely or without the knowledge of the wife. In case he has an affair with another woman without giving his wife the chance to decide wether she wants to be with him or not then he is punished by the law.
I find this situation much better than the modern law that you gush so much about.
In Islam in case he decides to have sexual realtions with another woman and his wife permits him then the course available to him is to marry the woman and he is obligiated to suppourt her and her progeny(no need to go to the courts for this)
Tell me which situation is more demanding on the man and more fairer to the woman.
On the other hand there is a question of the woman divorcing here In Islamic law her choices are a bit limited however if the implemnetation either voluntary or through soical pressure or through law the marriage conntract gives the woman the right to divorce then her situation becomes the same as a woman in the west.
Ie if a woman wants to marry another man she will be able to do so by divorcing her present husband. However the distinciton here is that in all cases the responsibiltiy for the upbringing of the children remains with the father.
Now one would consider this much better than the present western situation.
In the present day situation in the west there is one difference is that of the alimony payments which are given (atleast theoriticly)by both man as well as woman whoever being the main breadearner.
If you claim that this is an emancipated age where women are equal to men then they should accept equal responsiblitly. So if a woman wants to divorce a man then he ends up paying for her till he dies (almost) exactly why is this so I do not understand. If two people are out of the social contract why sould one pay for the other? The idea that the woman (or the man as the case may be rarely) has put in her time in the marriage thus making possible the accumulation of wealth (and even in case not having accumulated capital, a share in future earnings) is a tottaly unjust for either woman or man and simply goes against logic.
Of course apart form this similarty there is a smaller issue of men getting the benifit of marrying more than one and women not having this benifit in Islam. This is partly due to the nature of humans (notice that even in the present so called period more women single partner than men) and to balance that the man has to provide for the children no matter what.
....
These people were breaking the law and I am not justifying these killings like you are apparently justifying the killing of Indians by Pakistanis...
perhaps you can read the law in pakistan as well as the so called terrorist countries where the law is clear and no different than any where else. If you can claim that the killings on such a large scale(in india) and those happenign with regularity in the last few decades in which hardly any one has been punished to date are not being suscribed by the state appartus or at least by the ruling elite(who obviously have the suppourt of the masses, India being a democracy) then why cant a muslim claim that these people who you blame for killings be they pakistanis or others are breakign the law of their respective countries?
Why is this distinciton?
Incidently you should remember that the christians in Lebanon(who fought the muslism at one time)as well as in Palestine suppourt the actions of these people only prefering to condem them as ineffective.
Also I would like you to do some introspection ,you can read this discussion and please point out where is my suppourt for pakistanis killing Indians. Were we even disucssing that issue? After you convince yourself that there is no such referrence much less suppourt posted by me you should ask yourself why is it that you thought that I suppurted this and in case you never thought that I suuppourted killings then you should ask yoursleves why did you accuse me of such suppourt . A reasoned analysis of this aspect of your actions will be very enlightining I can assure you.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#250 Posted by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 12:59:55 pm
re: Sanatana dharma-many ways to one God
Sadna in post # 235 wrote very succinctly about hindu belief system. I always felt that there is a spiritual free-market in hinduism (or sanatana dharma). Those who know how a free market concept works in US would agree that the good, bad and ugly all come with it and you are free to choose. This religon has produced a number of true seekers and God-realised souls. In the last century alone we have had men like Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharishi etc. Other thinkers who made waves in foreign shores include people like J.Krishnamurthy.
Only this religion says that there are a number of paths to the same God. If you are a devout christian or a muslim who has followed scriptures laid down in your religion and have always been a good soul, you are follower of the ``bhakti-marga`` (the path of devotion) and are sure to reach God. Men like Parahamsa, Meera, Andal etc followed a similar path of devotion.
If you are the intellectual kind, Jnana marga is prescribed. Ramana Maharishi followed this path. Sincere intellectuals, scientists working selflessly for the benefit of humanity (many such souls are to be found in the West) are more pleasing to God than a mullah or acharya who spreads hatred.
Then there are those who work tirelessly for the upliftment of poor people by physically serving them. Gandhiji, Vinobha Bhave, Mother Teresa belong to this category and are true Karma-yogis. They too can reach God, albeit on a different path.
Hinduism does not reject any concept if it is good. However,as in a free market, you will also find the bad and the ugly. Some people in Rajasthan worship rat. What can you do about it? You have to let them do what they want to do and hope someday they will graduate to a higher consciousness. Punishing them will not help. Hinduism does not know what religious persecution means. The recent trend of Hindutva is a political phenomenon that seeks to pass off as a religious revival. People of all faith have found home in India. Someday, when the world learns more about this religion, it will come to appreciate it.
Sridhar
Sadna in post # 235 wrote very succinctly about hindu belief system. I always felt that there is a spiritual free-market in hinduism (or sanatana dharma). Those who know how a free market concept works in US would agree that the good, bad and ugly all come with it and you are free to choose. This religon has produced a number of true seekers and God-realised souls. In the last century alone we have had men like Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharishi etc. Other thinkers who made waves in foreign shores include people like J.Krishnamurthy.
Only this religion says that there are a number of paths to the same God. If you are a devout christian or a muslim who has followed scriptures laid down in your religion and have always been a good soul, you are follower of the ``bhakti-marga`` (the path of devotion) and are sure to reach God. Men like Parahamsa, Meera, Andal etc followed a similar path of devotion.
If you are the intellectual kind, Jnana marga is prescribed. Ramana Maharishi followed this path. Sincere intellectuals, scientists working selflessly for the benefit of humanity (many such souls are to be found in the West) are more pleasing to God than a mullah or acharya who spreads hatred.
Then there are those who work tirelessly for the upliftment of poor people by physically serving them. Gandhiji, Vinobha Bhave, Mother Teresa belong to this category and are true Karma-yogis. They too can reach God, albeit on a different path.
Hinduism does not reject any concept if it is good. However,as in a free market, you will also find the bad and the ugly. Some people in Rajasthan worship rat. What can you do about it? You have to let them do what they want to do and hope someday they will graduate to a higher consciousness. Punishing them will not help. Hinduism does not know what religious persecution means. The recent trend of Hindutva is a political phenomenon that seeks to pass off as a religious revival. People of all faith have found home in India. Someday, when the world learns more about this religion, it will come to appreciate it.
Sridhar
#249 Posted by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 12:59:55 pm
re: #241 by Tipu
We will never know how Cow became Holy for the hindus. There are some theories that i have read.
The life of hindus in old days revolved around the cow. Cow`s milk, cow-dung all were used. But, there is enough evidence to show that Cow was also eaten in the vedic times. Brahmins of the time decreed that they should receive a Cow as gift from a king or a noble if they performed any rituals. During fire sacrifice, cow was being slaughtered. It is possible that cow started becoming scarce and threatened the daily existence of people who had come to depend on it so much. So, religous pundits of the day may have decreed Cow as holy to prevent it from being further slaughtered.
Another theory i read was that buddhism became popular as a social reformist movement rebelling against many of the evil practices like Sati and cow slaughter. Buddhism forbade slaughter of any kind. May be the brahmins, when confronted with losing faithfuls, decided to protect the cow and steal the thunder from the buddhists.
Anyway, today the cow is no more holy than a pig. There is nothing holy about a old, beaten cow walking with a swaddling gait on the streets of rural India. But, if there are people who think Cow is holy, i respect their wishes and would not like to offend them. State`s intervention in protecting the cow, to the detriment of interest of other religions, is outrightly ridiculous and should be condemned.
sridhar
We will never know how Cow became Holy for the hindus. There are some theories that i have read.
The life of hindus in old days revolved around the cow. Cow`s milk, cow-dung all were used. But, there is enough evidence to show that Cow was also eaten in the vedic times. Brahmins of the time decreed that they should receive a Cow as gift from a king or a noble if they performed any rituals. During fire sacrifice, cow was being slaughtered. It is possible that cow started becoming scarce and threatened the daily existence of people who had come to depend on it so much. So, religous pundits of the day may have decreed Cow as holy to prevent it from being further slaughtered.
Another theory i read was that buddhism became popular as a social reformist movement rebelling against many of the evil practices like Sati and cow slaughter. Buddhism forbade slaughter of any kind. May be the brahmins, when confronted with losing faithfuls, decided to protect the cow and steal the thunder from the buddhists.
Anyway, today the cow is no more holy than a pig. There is nothing holy about a old, beaten cow walking with a swaddling gait on the streets of rural India. But, if there are people who think Cow is holy, i respect their wishes and would not like to offend them. State`s intervention in protecting the cow, to the detriment of interest of other religions, is outrightly ridiculous and should be condemned.
sridhar
#248 Posted by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 12:27:31 pm
re:#215 by ali87
Your posts have confirmed what i have suspected. You have a jehadi mentality.
I abhor this concept of Jehad, even though followers of Islam are saying Jehad is desirable.
As long as you say Jehad is a mental concept and it is to be fought in the mind, we are O.K with that definition. But the moment you say Jehad means go out and kill in self-defense, i will strongly protest. This is a regressive step, however justified the cause may be. On top of that, you are saying that Jehad usually has a State sanction(your quote: ``Jihad till now has been recognised as that can be called only by a legitimate Muslim state not individual organsation or people.``). That makes it bad twice over.
Religion is meant to show way to God. By closely linking jehad (a religous concept) with the state and sanctioning violence as a legitimate religious act in the name of jehad, practitioners of Islam have made a mockery of their religion. I have always believed that the concept of Jehad has been misinterpreted. I may be wrong.
Which state does Al-Qaida, Hizbollah etc represent? Whose instructions were Md Atta and his gang following when they blew up the twin towers? State`s or OBL`s? Was that an act of jehad or not? If OBL does not have a State`s sanction, how can he declare jehad against US or any other state. Why has he not been condemned by the Islamic clergy?
The simple fact is that there is no place for justification of violence in a religion. It is simply wrong to kill in the name of God. If Islam sanctions in in some circumstances, that practice is not acceptable to non-muslims today. That practice was misused in the middle ages when the hordes of Ghaznis and Ghauris massacred innocent people in the name of Allah. This cannot happen today. We live in a different age. Much of Islamic world seems to be out of step. I am surprised even you seem the same way as a rabid mullah in Saudi arabia would see.
I say this for BJP as well. They are wrong in misusing religion for political purpose. At least some of us can hope that they would be punished for their sins in Godhra by the public in the next elections. Who is going to punishe OBL?
Sridhar
Your posts have confirmed what i have suspected. You have a jehadi mentality.
I abhor this concept of Jehad, even though followers of Islam are saying Jehad is desirable.
As long as you say Jehad is a mental concept and it is to be fought in the mind, we are O.K with that definition. But the moment you say Jehad means go out and kill in self-defense, i will strongly protest. This is a regressive step, however justified the cause may be. On top of that, you are saying that Jehad usually has a State sanction(your quote: ``Jihad till now has been recognised as that can be called only by a legitimate Muslim state not individual organsation or people.``). That makes it bad twice over.
Religion is meant to show way to God. By closely linking jehad (a religous concept) with the state and sanctioning violence as a legitimate religious act in the name of jehad, practitioners of Islam have made a mockery of their religion. I have always believed that the concept of Jehad has been misinterpreted. I may be wrong.
Which state does Al-Qaida, Hizbollah etc represent? Whose instructions were Md Atta and his gang following when they blew up the twin towers? State`s or OBL`s? Was that an act of jehad or not? If OBL does not have a State`s sanction, how can he declare jehad against US or any other state. Why has he not been condemned by the Islamic clergy?
The simple fact is that there is no place for justification of violence in a religion. It is simply wrong to kill in the name of God. If Islam sanctions in in some circumstances, that practice is not acceptable to non-muslims today. That practice was misused in the middle ages when the hordes of Ghaznis and Ghauris massacred innocent people in the name of Allah. This cannot happen today. We live in a different age. Much of Islamic world seems to be out of step. I am surprised even you seem the same way as a rabid mullah in Saudi arabia would see.
I say this for BJP as well. They are wrong in misusing religion for political purpose. At least some of us can hope that they would be punished for their sins in Godhra by the public in the next elections. Who is going to punishe OBL?
Sridhar
#247 Posted by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 12:27:30 pm
re: #218 by m_souza
Thanks for your post. I now see which way the wind is blowing. I used to think that justification of violence as Jehad is a regressive concept and at least educated muslims will reject it. I was wrong.
Sridhar
Thanks for your post. I now see which way the wind is blowing. I used to think that justification of violence as Jehad is a regressive concept and at least educated muslims will reject it. I was wrong.
Sridhar
#246 Posted by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 12:27:30 pm
re: #229 by ali87
Here is the problem with Ummah as i see it.
Let us say Pak goes to war with India (or vice versa) for whatever reason. Now, Pak is an islamic state. Let us say a powerful muslim cleric in India gives acall toevery Indian muslim that as muslims they are duty bound to support Pakistan. What does your religon say about this? What would be the duty of an Indian muslim in such a situation?
sridhar
Here is the problem with Ummah as i see it.
Let us say Pak goes to war with India (or vice versa) for whatever reason. Now, Pak is an islamic state. Let us say a powerful muslim cleric in India gives acall toevery Indian muslim that as muslims they are duty bound to support Pakistan. What does your religon say about this? What would be the duty of an Indian muslim in such a situation?
sridhar
#244 Posted by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 11:37:59 am
re: #212 by ali87
Invaders often interpret the religious books to suit them. British made a big deal out of Manusmirti, not realising that much has happened since Manu wrote that code of ethics many centuries ago. Macauley`s children continue to make a big deal of Manusmriti. Smriti, by definition,is a code of ethics and is not binding.
Most early works are written in an archaic sanskrit ``vedic sanskrit`` that is difficult to interpret even by sanskrit scholars, leave aside foreigners. German Indologist Max Mueller, could not converse in sanskrit and yet he is looked upon as a scholar in the western world. So, when we have to rely upon what happened many thousand years ago by translations from people whose scholarship is doubtful, we have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
Was sati prevelant in the old times? No doubt, it was. Was it a common practice? Here, people differ. No amount of google search will give you the right answers. I was only giving my theory. It is well known that caste-system, which had existed for many thousand years, became very rigid under a foreign invasion. It was not so in the beginning. I have posted a number of references and posts in the past to justify what i was saying. It is not inconceivable that Sati, like other bad practices, would have gotten strengthened under the onslought of a foreign rule.
You need to understand how hindu society worked in early times. When one king attacked the other in a neighbouring state, it was very uncommon that he ever pillaged or plundered the common man. Megasthenes, the Greek writer who travelled with Alexander, is said to have recorded how the peasants continued to do their work uniterrupted as the neighbouring armies marched against one another. He recorded the that the prosperity of that time owed a lot to this practice. It was simply unethical (not soldierly) for armies to plunder a hapless populace.
Undesirable practices existed even then. Probably, sati existed too and was sanctified by brahmins as something desirable. The vily brahmins interpreted the scriptures to their own advantage. After all they were the only interpreters.
The first major onslaught to hindu way of living came from Buddhism. It was an atheistic religion but, in one stroke, it did away with all the social prejudices that existed then. Women monks were admitted, untouchability was shunned and many other practices considered holy in Hinduism, were shunned in Buddhism. So much so that buddhism spread like wildfire and India became a buddhist country for a thousand years until hinduism was revitalsed by many scholars, most notably Adi Sankara.
Buddhism may have led to some introspection among the pundits of that time but it did not abolish the caste system, which continued.
Under the onslaught of muslim rulers, some of whom plundered the common man, caste system became more rigid. Pundits not only sanctified the earlier practices but now these practices became necessary for the very survival of the religion. It is not inconceivable that practices such as Sati became commonly prevalent when the caste system itself became more rigid. Brahmins declared themselves as the saviors, prescribing rigid rules and punishments for the violators.
Imagine, why else would these brahmins label the muslims as ``mlecchas`` (worse that untouchables) in one stroke when no such thing was done to the Sakyas, Kushans, Mongols all of who preceded the muslims as invaders. The difference was that the previous invaders assimilated into the Hindu society. Kushan king Kanishka was a buddhist but his grandson became a hindu. When the king converts, usually the whole kingdom he ruled is influenced by that decision.
Muslims came as a force that threatened hinduism`s very survival. There was no way the 2 religions could accomodate. They were the very antithesis of each other. One revelled in idol worship and multiplicity of Gods and symbolic worship while the other said that such practices should be punished with death of practitioners. Hindu religon became close and went into a kind of hibernation under the impact of islam.
Something similar is happening to Islam today. Why do the suicide bombers feel that they are doing service to Islam by killing innocent people. Is it a kind of extreme reactions to the prevalent real/perceived social injustices in the society. Faced by a much stronger enemy, suicide bombers seem to say that this is how we will respond. Does this have a religious sanction? No mullah has so far protested against these bombers.
At least Sati did not kill innocent bystandes though as a social practice, it was and still is abhorrent.
Phallic worship as you call it is a worship of a symbol of God. It has nothing to with Sati which is a social evil. You should be careful about what you say if you have not studied these aspects well. Ignorance is better than being stupid.
If fatwa is so innocuous, why was Salman Rushdie running for safety. Try explaining what Fatwa means to him and see what he says.
Listen, i have nothing against muslims being conservative. I respect that. But such a practice should be by freewill and should not be forced. I will not pass any judgement if many practices like Hijab etc are voluntary or forced upon by the society. Are the muslim women given a choice?
``What is so great about faishon, dance and movies I can assure you that many of the people who get in to this business are close to prostitution.``
Do you distinguish art as a ``freedom of expression`` and art as a ``distasteful exhibition of vulgarity``. The latter is happening in the west and beginning to happen in movie industries in India.
My sister learnt one form of Classical Indian dance for 7 years. One of my cousins runs a dance school in Madras. There is nothing vulgar about this. But, i agree that art in the west seeks to titillate and has become vulgar. Actually, did you watch a program by MSNBC (by chris Matthews?) about where American popular culture is going. Even the older generation of Americans are not happy about the recent trend in arts.
Sridhar
Invaders often interpret the religious books to suit them. British made a big deal out of Manusmirti, not realising that much has happened since Manu wrote that code of ethics many centuries ago. Macauley`s children continue to make a big deal of Manusmriti. Smriti, by definition,is a code of ethics and is not binding.
Most early works are written in an archaic sanskrit ``vedic sanskrit`` that is difficult to interpret even by sanskrit scholars, leave aside foreigners. German Indologist Max Mueller, could not converse in sanskrit and yet he is looked upon as a scholar in the western world. So, when we have to rely upon what happened many thousand years ago by translations from people whose scholarship is doubtful, we have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
Was sati prevelant in the old times? No doubt, it was. Was it a common practice? Here, people differ. No amount of google search will give you the right answers. I was only giving my theory. It is well known that caste-system, which had existed for many thousand years, became very rigid under a foreign invasion. It was not so in the beginning. I have posted a number of references and posts in the past to justify what i was saying. It is not inconceivable that Sati, like other bad practices, would have gotten strengthened under the onslought of a foreign rule.
You need to understand how hindu society worked in early times. When one king attacked the other in a neighbouring state, it was very uncommon that he ever pillaged or plundered the common man. Megasthenes, the Greek writer who travelled with Alexander, is said to have recorded how the peasants continued to do their work uniterrupted as the neighbouring armies marched against one another. He recorded the that the prosperity of that time owed a lot to this practice. It was simply unethical (not soldierly) for armies to plunder a hapless populace.
Undesirable practices existed even then. Probably, sati existed too and was sanctified by brahmins as something desirable. The vily brahmins interpreted the scriptures to their own advantage. After all they were the only interpreters.
The first major onslaught to hindu way of living came from Buddhism. It was an atheistic religion but, in one stroke, it did away with all the social prejudices that existed then. Women monks were admitted, untouchability was shunned and many other practices considered holy in Hinduism, were shunned in Buddhism. So much so that buddhism spread like wildfire and India became a buddhist country for a thousand years until hinduism was revitalsed by many scholars, most notably Adi Sankara.
Buddhism may have led to some introspection among the pundits of that time but it did not abolish the caste system, which continued.
Under the onslaught of muslim rulers, some of whom plundered the common man, caste system became more rigid. Pundits not only sanctified the earlier practices but now these practices became necessary for the very survival of the religion. It is not inconceivable that practices such as Sati became commonly prevalent when the caste system itself became more rigid. Brahmins declared themselves as the saviors, prescribing rigid rules and punishments for the violators.
Imagine, why else would these brahmins label the muslims as ``mlecchas`` (worse that untouchables) in one stroke when no such thing was done to the Sakyas, Kushans, Mongols all of who preceded the muslims as invaders. The difference was that the previous invaders assimilated into the Hindu society. Kushan king Kanishka was a buddhist but his grandson became a hindu. When the king converts, usually the whole kingdom he ruled is influenced by that decision.
Muslims came as a force that threatened hinduism`s very survival. There was no way the 2 religions could accomodate. They were the very antithesis of each other. One revelled in idol worship and multiplicity of Gods and symbolic worship while the other said that such practices should be punished with death of practitioners. Hindu religon became close and went into a kind of hibernation under the impact of islam.
Something similar is happening to Islam today. Why do the suicide bombers feel that they are doing service to Islam by killing innocent people. Is it a kind of extreme reactions to the prevalent real/perceived social injustices in the society. Faced by a much stronger enemy, suicide bombers seem to say that this is how we will respond. Does this have a religious sanction? No mullah has so far protested against these bombers.
At least Sati did not kill innocent bystandes though as a social practice, it was and still is abhorrent.
Phallic worship as you call it is a worship of a symbol of God. It has nothing to with Sati which is a social evil. You should be careful about what you say if you have not studied these aspects well. Ignorance is better than being stupid.
If fatwa is so innocuous, why was Salman Rushdie running for safety. Try explaining what Fatwa means to him and see what he says.
Listen, i have nothing against muslims being conservative. I respect that. But such a practice should be by freewill and should not be forced. I will not pass any judgement if many practices like Hijab etc are voluntary or forced upon by the society. Are the muslim women given a choice?
``What is so great about faishon, dance and movies I can assure you that many of the people who get in to this business are close to prostitution.``
Do you distinguish art as a ``freedom of expression`` and art as a ``distasteful exhibition of vulgarity``. The latter is happening in the west and beginning to happen in movie industries in India.
My sister learnt one form of Classical Indian dance for 7 years. One of my cousins runs a dance school in Madras. There is nothing vulgar about this. But, i agree that art in the west seeks to titillate and has become vulgar. Actually, did you watch a program by MSNBC (by chris Matthews?) about where American popular culture is going. Even the older generation of Americans are not happy about the recent trend in arts.
Sridhar
#243 Posted by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 10:17:21 am
re: #208 by Honorable_Syed
It is of no use to quote Vedas (translated by one Kane?) to argue that Sati existed in the past. Is anyone disputing that? I only said that what was considered a sacred act in the remote past became a more accepted ``social practice`` (nay, social evil) after the society was occupied by foreign invaders. The practice, like the caste system, was there but it became more prevalent under the occupation of a foreign force. There is nothing to suggest that women of the past performing Sati were forced to do so. I am really not defending this ghastly practice. I am only stating what i thing are the facts. I may be wrong.
It is not uncommon to hear of many Rajput women (especially of the royalty) perform ``sati`` or ``jauhar`` (jauhar is when a group of women perform sati) to save their dignity and honor. The best chronicled case is one of Rani Padmini of Chittor but there have been others.
What is happening today is what matters. Sati is illegal and there the matter stands.
Sridhar
It is of no use to quote Vedas (translated by one Kane?) to argue that Sati existed in the past. Is anyone disputing that? I only said that what was considered a sacred act in the remote past became a more accepted ``social practice`` (nay, social evil) after the society was occupied by foreign invaders. The practice, like the caste system, was there but it became more prevalent under the occupation of a foreign force. There is nothing to suggest that women of the past performing Sati were forced to do so. I am really not defending this ghastly practice. I am only stating what i thing are the facts. I may be wrong.
It is not uncommon to hear of many Rajput women (especially of the royalty) perform ``sati`` or ``jauhar`` (jauhar is when a group of women perform sati) to save their dignity and honor. The best chronicled case is one of Rani Padmini of Chittor but there have been others.
What is happening today is what matters. Sati is illegal and there the matter stands.
Sridhar
#242 Posted by Urstruly on June 2, 2003 8:09:43 am
Dost-mitter # 238
It is an undeniable fact that two brothers, even identical twins, born to the same mother, take very separate routes in life based on their opinions and outlook towards life; whereas two people who are born in different parts of the world may join hands and pursue common goals because of the shared values, opinions and outlook towards life. Qura`n elaborated this common sense rule by declaring whole humanity as the progeny of Allah. This is what makes you or even an Eskimo in Alaska my brother, but what separates us is our opinions and outlooks.
This is the golden principle and enviable humanistic value that Europeans have only now learned after centuries of wars, genocides, two most ferocious wars in the history of mankind and a nuclear holocaust. What they have learned only now, the hard way, was told to us 1500 years ago. This is not an ideology that only lives in the books but it was implemented the very first time by our Holy Prophet (pbuh) in the first ever charter of human rights declared in the last sermon of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). It was implemented, practiced, and thrived for centuries.
It is wrong to assume that Islam only promotes a sense of brotherhood (ummah=one nation) only among the faithful. Faith becomes a secondary matter in the matter of human relations as Qura`n guides us in verses 2:256 - 257 that there is no compulsion in religion. This is also not just an idealistic value but was first implemented by Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself when he compiled the first ever written constitution in the history of mankind- the Medina Pact . The very first article of the constitution defines Muslims and their non-Mulsim allies as Ummah, the one nation in these words:
1. This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummat.
This golden principle has kept the ummah - the Muslim and their allies together for centuries. This concept has a proven history of success for the past 1500 years until the cancerous concepts of Nation and Nation States based on ethnicity, color, and race were fed into Muslim lands by the western colonial occupation. As long as we believed in an ideology based on our shared values we stood united and as we started changing to the western ideologies of nation states based on arbitrary concepts we are divided. Westerners had to suffer through two world wars to finally realize that ``N`` (nationalism) is an ugly word. That is the reason Muslim stress on concept of Ummah to save us from the fate of Europeans. Since ideologically all the Muslims around the globe are closer to each other than their non-Muslim counterparts, therefore, the first call for a united Ummah (one nation) is towards the Muslim. But this invitation is not exclusive, as the popular misconception is, it is most inclusive and as egalitarian as it could get.
#241 Posted by Tipu on June 2, 2003 12:11:40 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#240 Posted by sadna on June 1, 2003 6:51:05 pm
dost-mittar #239
You are welcome! I`m learning myself - in real life I donot remember ever spending so much time thinking about or discussing religion as we do on chowk.
You are welcome! I`m learning myself - in real life I donot remember ever spending so much time thinking about or discussing religion as we do on chowk.
#239 Posted by dost_mittar on June 1, 2003 5:22:29 pm
ali87:
Maybe, I was a little abrupt with you in my post#232. So, here is my elaboration.
The concept of an Umma and the extraterritorial loyalty it implies has created many a problem for muslims wherever they are in a minority. For example:
-Singapore, which never lets political correctness come in the way of commonsense, does not (or did not until recently) allow muslims in its air force and stated explicitly that this is because it cannot rely upon their loyalty in case of a confrontation with a muslim Malaysia. The imams in the mosque also face strict censorship on what they can say in their khutbas.
-My guess is that there are not many muslims in India`s security and intelligence services.
-Many Kashmiri muslims, and ONLY muslims, want to join Pakistan even though NONE of their Pandit, dogra, sikh or buddhist Kashmiri brothers wish to do so, and even though they have nothing to gain economically, socially, politically, culturally and everything to lose (including perhaps the waters of their rivers!) from joining Pakistan as opposed to staying with India.
-An American muslim soldier kills his comrades on the battlefront against a muslim country.
-Muslims face much harsher scrutiny than others in almost all non-muslim countries.
The only other group which behaves in a similar fashion is the jews living outside Israel. But they can get away with this because of the residual guilt the western countries have for the Nazi holocaust and because they have enough money and brain power to influence the western media and policy makers. Muslims are not in the same situation.
The comparison of OIC with other orgaizations like NATO is not valid. Such organizations are based on geopolitical interests and their membership can change - SEATO and CENTO are dead now and countries like Poland and Hungary, which were formerly the enemies of NATO, are now themselves part of that organization. OIC, on the other hand, is a political manifestaion of a religion.
Still, I am all for the continuation of OIC. Indeed, it is the ideal organization to start the process of introspection in Islam, instead of wasting its time in passing useless resolutions on Palestine, Chechna and Kashmir.
Hope this helps.
Maybe, I was a little abrupt with you in my post#232. So, here is my elaboration.
The concept of an Umma and the extraterritorial loyalty it implies has created many a problem for muslims wherever they are in a minority. For example:
-Singapore, which never lets political correctness come in the way of commonsense, does not (or did not until recently) allow muslims in its air force and stated explicitly that this is because it cannot rely upon their loyalty in case of a confrontation with a muslim Malaysia. The imams in the mosque also face strict censorship on what they can say in their khutbas.
-My guess is that there are not many muslims in India`s security and intelligence services.
-Many Kashmiri muslims, and ONLY muslims, want to join Pakistan even though NONE of their Pandit, dogra, sikh or buddhist Kashmiri brothers wish to do so, and even though they have nothing to gain economically, socially, politically, culturally and everything to lose (including perhaps the waters of their rivers!) from joining Pakistan as opposed to staying with India.
-An American muslim soldier kills his comrades on the battlefront against a muslim country.
-Muslims face much harsher scrutiny than others in almost all non-muslim countries.
The only other group which behaves in a similar fashion is the jews living outside Israel. But they can get away with this because of the residual guilt the western countries have for the Nazi holocaust and because they have enough money and brain power to influence the western media and policy makers. Muslims are not in the same situation.
The comparison of OIC with other orgaizations like NATO is not valid. Such organizations are based on geopolitical interests and their membership can change - SEATO and CENTO are dead now and countries like Poland and Hungary, which were formerly the enemies of NATO, are now themselves part of that organization. OIC, on the other hand, is a political manifestaion of a religion.
Still, I am all for the continuation of OIC. Indeed, it is the ideal organization to start the process of introspection in Islam, instead of wasting its time in passing useless resolutions on Palestine, Chechna and Kashmir.
Hope this helps.
#238 Posted by dost_mittar on June 1, 2003 5:22:29 pm
sadna#235
I learn a lot about hinduism whenever you are in this mode. Thanks!
I learn a lot about hinduism whenever you are in this mode. Thanks!
#237 Posted by dost_mittar on June 1, 2003 5:22:28 pm
ali87
[contd. from previous post]
I should add that in practice many muslims do not believe in the concept of an Umma. Thousands of muslims join Indian army and have won its highest honours, with the full knowledge, that they are likely to be fighting their fellow muslims in any likely war. This is true even at the state level. The two muslim axis of the Bush axis of evil, Iraq and Iran both have more cordial relation with India than with Pakistan.
My argument is why not give up something formally which has become irrelevant and is causing more harm than good.
[contd. from previous post]
I should add that in practice many muslims do not believe in the concept of an Umma. Thousands of muslims join Indian army and have won its highest honours, with the full knowledge, that they are likely to be fighting their fellow muslims in any likely war. This is true even at the state level. The two muslim axis of the Bush axis of evil, Iraq and Iran both have more cordial relation with India than with Pakistan.
My argument is why not give up something formally which has become irrelevant and is causing more harm than good.
#236 Posted by sadna on June 1, 2003 10:51:26 am
ali87 #various
Firstly, YOUR concept of religion as unchangeable book + Prophet is not a Hindu`s concept of religion. This is not a concept in Buddhism or Jainism either, neither is it in Taoism or Shintoism. The idea of unchanging book + Prophet/Messenger, of final judgement, and God dealing out judgement/punishment on that day for infringement of his words is a ABRAHAMIC RELIGIOUS CONCEPT.
In Hinduism, there is no God`s will set down in words, the quest for truth is understood to be neverending (for an individual until moksha) and philosophers/scriptures are only guides to this quest.
Scriptures in Hinduism are generally divided into `shruti` which means `heard` (3 or 4 of the Vedas )- which are held to be divine and `smriti` (`remembered`).
`Smriti` means history/memory which is understood to be related to a certain time period, not meant to be eternally true. People like Rama, Krishna, Parasurama are supposed to be avatar who set examples , and their histories are `smritis` - relevant for that time. Even the Bhagavad Gita is held to be a `smriti`.
`Shruti` which means that which was heard, is held to be eternal, but as I quoted before, Adi Shakankaracharya said if `shruti says fire is cold, disregard the shruti`. In the BhagavadGita this is said about the Vedas :
9:20-21
Knowers of the prescribed rituals of the three Vedas, purified of sins by remnants of the heavenly Som, worship Me indirectly by such offerings of sacrifice to the demigods, they aspire for entry to the heavenly sphere, where after reaching as their reward the world of Indra, enjoy the celestial pleasures of the demigods in heaven. Having enjoyed extensively the heavenly spheres, the results of their pious activities being exhausted, return to the worlds of mortals; thus following the doctrine of righteousness in the three Vedas, desirers of sense enjoyment receive only the cycle of birth and death.
Basically, the Gita is saying that following the letter of the eternal Vedas is not going to help you attain salvation if all you are interested in is personal gain of heaven.
What it boils down to is, as you pointed out, there is conceptually `unbridled freedom` - people are free to seek their salvation as they wish.
So some delve into Vedantic or other Hindu philosophy, some renounce the world and become sadhus, some shun idol worship like Arya Samajis, some pray to their local god or goddess, some consider the tools of their trade to be sacred, some respect the donkey that helps them earn their livelihood, some pray to forces of nature, some consider doing charity as religious duty, some are plain atheists. Only the contemporary law (passed by general consensus) restricts the unbridled freedom.
This conceptual unbridled freedom means conceptual unbridled freedom for Muslims (for example) too, conceptually Hindus consider Muslims(and Christians and others) own quests to seek THEIR salvation in the way THEY wish to be as valid as Hindus quest - UNTIL, in my view Muslims(or others) start abusing Hindus for the same `unbridled freedom`.
Being a Hindu, I believe that everyone has a right to pursue salvation as she or he pleases - and the whole world DOESNOT NEED TO SUBSCRIBE TO CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM world views and religions simply because followers of these religions aggressively declare other religions and world views to be invalid and false and want the followers of these religions to think so too.
If you are implying that those of us who are not Christians and Muslims must satisfy Christians and Muslims about our religions and world views then might as well prepare for civil war in India and world war between Abrahmic religions on one side and other religions on the other.
Actually I hope evangelical Christians and evangelical Muslims kill off each other in mutual jihad and crusade so that the rest of us can get on with our lives without their unceasing badmouthing of our religions.
The verbal triple talaq is a law in India.
http://www.islamicvoice.com/august.2002/perspective.htm
ali87, if you donot consider the issue of Muslim law wrt women or various injunctions in Sharia to be a problem, well I do have serious problems with some of these injunctions - as a nonMuslim its not my business - but as a nonMuslim I also donot accept these injunctions to be Godgiven and perfect.
``on the other hand I would like to ask what was promised to the hindus who killed 3000 in Delhi that to sikhs, what was promised to the hindus in Gujrat that they killed 2000 muslims ``
These people were breaking the law and I am not justifying these killings like you are apparently justifying the killing of Indians by Pakistanis. The only person I am aware of, (apart from that horrible statement of Rajiv Gandhi )who defended the Congress for 1984 Sikh pogrom on a public platform was Manmohan Singh who blamed the RSS - a statement which his fellow Sikhs didnot appreciate.
Firstly, YOUR concept of religion as unchangeable book + Prophet is not a Hindu`s concept of religion. This is not a concept in Buddhism or Jainism either, neither is it in Taoism or Shintoism. The idea of unchanging book + Prophet/Messenger, of final judgement, and God dealing out judgement/punishment on that day for infringement of his words is a ABRAHAMIC RELIGIOUS CONCEPT.
In Hinduism, there is no God`s will set down in words, the quest for truth is understood to be neverending (for an individual until moksha) and philosophers/scriptures are only guides to this quest.
Scriptures in Hinduism are generally divided into `shruti` which means `heard` (3 or 4 of the Vedas )- which are held to be divine and `smriti` (`remembered`).
`Smriti` means history/memory which is understood to be related to a certain time period, not meant to be eternally true. People like Rama, Krishna, Parasurama are supposed to be avatar who set examples , and their histories are `smritis` - relevant for that time. Even the Bhagavad Gita is held to be a `smriti`.
`Shruti` which means that which was heard, is held to be eternal, but as I quoted before, Adi Shakankaracharya said if `shruti says fire is cold, disregard the shruti`. In the BhagavadGita this is said about the Vedas :
9:20-21
Knowers of the prescribed rituals of the three Vedas, purified of sins by remnants of the heavenly Som, worship Me indirectly by such offerings of sacrifice to the demigods, they aspire for entry to the heavenly sphere, where after reaching as their reward the world of Indra, enjoy the celestial pleasures of the demigods in heaven. Having enjoyed extensively the heavenly spheres, the results of their pious activities being exhausted, return to the worlds of mortals; thus following the doctrine of righteousness in the three Vedas, desirers of sense enjoyment receive only the cycle of birth and death.
Basically, the Gita is saying that following the letter of the eternal Vedas is not going to help you attain salvation if all you are interested in is personal gain of heaven.
What it boils down to is, as you pointed out, there is conceptually `unbridled freedom` - people are free to seek their salvation as they wish.
So some delve into Vedantic or other Hindu philosophy, some renounce the world and become sadhus, some shun idol worship like Arya Samajis, some pray to their local god or goddess, some consider the tools of their trade to be sacred, some respect the donkey that helps them earn their livelihood, some pray to forces of nature, some consider doing charity as religious duty, some are plain atheists. Only the contemporary law (passed by general consensus) restricts the unbridled freedom.
This conceptual unbridled freedom means conceptual unbridled freedom for Muslims (for example) too, conceptually Hindus consider Muslims(and Christians and others) own quests to seek THEIR salvation in the way THEY wish to be as valid as Hindus quest - UNTIL, in my view Muslims(or others) start abusing Hindus for the same `unbridled freedom`.
Being a Hindu, I believe that everyone has a right to pursue salvation as she or he pleases - and the whole world DOESNOT NEED TO SUBSCRIBE TO CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM world views and religions simply because followers of these religions aggressively declare other religions and world views to be invalid and false and want the followers of these religions to think so too.
If you are implying that those of us who are not Christians and Muslims must satisfy Christians and Muslims about our religions and world views then might as well prepare for civil war in India and world war between Abrahmic religions on one side and other religions on the other.
Actually I hope evangelical Christians and evangelical Muslims kill off each other in mutual jihad and crusade so that the rest of us can get on with our lives without their unceasing badmouthing of our religions.
The verbal triple talaq is a law in India.
http://www.islamicvoice.com/august.2002/perspective.htm
ali87, if you donot consider the issue of Muslim law wrt women or various injunctions in Sharia to be a problem, well I do have serious problems with some of these injunctions - as a nonMuslim its not my business - but as a nonMuslim I also donot accept these injunctions to be Godgiven and perfect.
``on the other hand I would like to ask what was promised to the hindus who killed 3000 in Delhi that to sikhs, what was promised to the hindus in Gujrat that they killed 2000 muslims ``
These people were breaking the law and I am not justifying these killings like you are apparently justifying the killing of Indians by Pakistanis. The only person I am aware of, (apart from that horrible statement of Rajiv Gandhi )who defended the Congress for 1984 Sikh pogrom on a public platform was Manmohan Singh who blamed the RSS - a statement which his fellow Sikhs didnot appreciate.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- dost_mittar: KaalChakra: This is from your... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- sadna: kaal For many years I've... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- mohar11: countless maass murders have... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: first, and to what... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: I think our discussion... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: rahul, there has never... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- rahul_capri: sadna,I just read it,thanks.I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: Sadna, ok, a question. We... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
