Women in Religious Scriptures

Thank you brother Ali, you are one of a select few who come up with sound explanantions coupled with a logical analysis of all arguments presented. The problem more often that not, is that people who hate Islam and Muslims in general never substantiate their claims (as in the case of dost_mittar and msouza), they tend to judge religion by its people than by its scriptures. If any person is sincere in his/her curiosity of the religion, he/she goes out and researches before judging it, which is one quality i have not seen by dost-mittar and msouza.

#232 by dost-mittar on June 1, 2003 7:24am PT

Better if you give some explanations ,reasoning or logical analyis. What you think or hallucinate is not the problem of others.

#221 by Tipu on May 31, 2003 10:23am PT

This is not a story this is their imagination. When they run out of aruguments on some religious debate they resort to evasive action. Typically the list include is t
hat you are a hateful person,
If you happen to be Indian you are a paksitani suppourter

and all this because somebody refuses to accept the glossing over of hard facts in present day religon and simple logic that if religion is the divinely given path(which is what hindu religon claims by the way) then why is it that the hindus modify that path because they find some thing very wrong in it. If it is not a divinely given path then why is it that they cant just call it their custom or tradition. After all everyone is free to follow whatever he wants wether religion or no religion or simply traditions or customs.

For instance for decades in fact centuries Hindus have been calling the cow their mother and scared. Now a shankaracharya accepts that hindus ate beef during the vedic period(His words were ancient, which could mean anything from 500 years to 5000 years) but they do not now because they are not strong enough. So he has in directly said that it is because of holiness that hindus dont eat beef. (Incidently Hindus of Kerala eat beef and dont consider it a taboo) there are many non bhramins who eat beef much to the concsentration of poor muslims which had caused an increase in cost of been in India. However Hindus see it fit to ban even buffallo meat which is not cow as any one knows and even bull meat which certainly cow.
One thing hindus of present day dont give credit to muslims is that most muslim rulers gave due consideration to this belif of Hindus and in deference they did not eat beef this is seen in many cusinees which simply do not have any old beef dishes. even today there are millions of muslim families who simply have never tasted beef even once in their life time wether of cow or buffallo or bull. Perhaps admitting this would give lie to their recent rantings of complete opression during rule of Muslim kings for nearly 700-1000 years. If muslims were so intent in commiting genocide why did they give in to the sacred belifes of hindus and avoid beef to a large extent?

ali87:
If you dont see any problem, then we are in a bigger mess than I thought!

#223 by sadna on May 31, 2003 10:23am PT


.....And I have seen a Muslim widow with shaven head too- when a local Muslim community felt this widow was behaving badly they forcibly shaved off her hair....

you might have seen that, did you read any of that being sanctioned in any book? that is the difference between Hindu and muslim religion

...Where is the dignity in asking a woman to produce 4 witnesses to her rape and convict her for adultery if she cannot?...

There is great controversery about this law which is implemnted in pakistan and probably a few other countries in this fashion. The athucentity of this law and its source and form being debated by muslims.


....Where is the dignity in allowing a woman`s husband to simply say 3 words to divorce her?...

The shias dont accept this kind of divorce at all neither do some other schools of thought. The original instructions were that there should be a one month gap after each pronouncement. It a attempt at reconciliation is called for in between each period by either the couple themselves or the socitey or even the state can make it compusulry to have a mandatory consulleing by authrised people after each prouncement of divorce.
In the interim of each waiting period the it is obligatory for the husband to provide shelter and all necessary comforts as before and he does not have the right to cohabit with her till he withdraws the divorce.

It is a matter of shame that Singapore implements this law in this exact form with mandatory state counselling after each divorce pronouncemnt which should be accompanied with written papers in front of a govt appointed functionary. Malaysia is debating to follow this process though there is resistance from the usual suspects.

....Where is the dignity in stoning to death? Where is the dignity in cutting off hands? These things are MUSLIM LAW...

There is a view among some scholars that stoning to death punishment be used in extreme cases only and only to cause fear also that it is possible for the state to choose not to implement this punishment of course most do not agree with this. However more study in to the historical ie during the prophets time implemntation of this punishment is going on (such of need never aroze earlier as this was accepted by socitey both muslim as well as others)

Cutting hands off was a very rare punishment and its implementation it self was rare and could be with held indifentily. In a socitey which had very little capability to sources of food and survival keeping of prisoners was a punishment to the other people themselves. However the almost crimefree nature of many muslim states where this law is implimented is seen as something that goes for it as it keeps the socitey safe. Also this law is not for first time offenders it was meant for repeated offenders.

On the other hand I suppose you have no qulams of hanging people or shooting people to death. There is nothing called humuane death when you kill a person the result is he is killed weather by electric shock, or poison or whatever. The purpose is to keep rest of socitey safe and be a detterent to people from comming henious crimes.


..Please let me know where exists this Muslim utopia where women are treated well as equals?

I agree that there is no muslim country in present times which treats its women well However this need not be an Indictment of Islam rather of its followers.
I would say that in the last few centuries this is where muslims have sevierly lacked in standign up to the sprit and Ideals of Islam however with the exception of the last 50-60 years the condition of muslim women was much better than any of her counterparts.

#225 by sadna on May 31, 2003 11:03am PT

you mean to say because muslims have been promised 72 virgins for Jihad they go around killing people indiscriminately?

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

What was promised to the hindus who burnt busses and shops and killed a few people because Doordarsan on their own accord decided to start a 5 minute Urdu bulletin in Bangalore?

What was promised to the Hindu LTTE to kill tens of thousands of Buddhists people in SriLanka?

Jihad is prescribed for selfdefence some muslims misuse this for offense and for terrorist activites and in earlier times for attacking other countires that does not mean that self defence it self a bad thing.

#227 by dost-mittar on May 31, 2003 8:41pm PT

......The way I see Ummah, and correct me if I am wrong, it is a concept of a nation of islam divided into many countries but bound by the sovereignty of Allah and the constitution of quraan. This goes directly against the concept of a nation state where a sovereign nation is composed of many communities whose various identities are subservient to a national identity. ...

What is the problem in that? is the concept of nation states written in stone? and in what way is that not good for non muslims? If muslims or mulsim majority counties want to constitute themselves into a Ummah why should it be a problem for any body. If NATO is not a problem for anybody, if ASEAN is not a problem for anybody and even the G8 grouping is not a problem for anybody.
Also if I may point out that the muslims states treated the minorities in within thier own boudraies much better than any other states of their time. I dont see why muslim states cant do the same by todays standards(at least theoriticaly)

The concept of Dar Ul harb and Dar Ul aman was the reality for quite some time after the Muslim Nation was formed. In many parts of the world belogning to another religion was just meant either expulsion or death. However todays nations states are a differnt matter here in most states there is no great threat to a muslim as far as his religion is concerned and practice of Islam with the extent that quite a few counties also give the freedom to muslims to be governed by most of the aspects of their personal law.

As I see there is no issue on either of the things.

Sattar:

Thank you for reading between the lines.

Regards.

Hon_Syd
``Which is what i pose to you, if you believe that the Holy Quran contains things which should be rejected, then i would urge you to present it.``
It is for muslims and muslims alone what, if anything, they want to reject. But it`s ironic that the post preceding yours (#223) had raised some of the very issues. In any case, you can follow any of the many threads on Islam on Chowk - there are excellent postings on this issue by some very articulate muslims and I don`t think that I can add to them.

I`ll stick to generalties: There are two aspects of issues of concern relating to Islam. There are issues of the kind mentioned in post#223 which are really internal to Islam and should largley concern muslims alone. The second type of issues, which are of legitimate concern to non-muslims relate to muslims` interaction with them, especially where muslims are in a minority. The two main issues in this category that I would point out are the concepts of Umma and dar-ul-harb. The way I see Ummah, and correct me if I am wrong, it is a concept of a nation of islam divided into many countries but bound by the sovereignty of Allah and the constitution of quraan. This goes directly against the concept of a nation state where a sovereign nation is composed of many communities whose various identities are subservient to a national identity.
The second concept is even more problematic. The concept of the dar-ul-harb or the world of discord makes Huntington a Johnny-come-lately with his theory of the clash of civilizations - he is merely rehashing a theory propounded by your prophet 1400 years ago [of course, if you are a believer, the theory belongs to Allah, the prophet was merely transmitting it]. Jihad and the associated violence are a natural corrolary of this concept. As a non-muslim, I would be a lot happier if muslims decided to revisit such concepts, it will also take away much of the unpleasantness expressed towards muslims in the western countries these days.

#224 by Honorable_Syed on May 31, 2003 10:26am PT
Dost_Mittar,
First of all do you see a logical flaw in your argument. If you admit that your scriptures contain certain things which are jahalat of the worst kind and should be abandoned, then the whole scriptures and the religion falls into the gutter, since how can God condone an act which is jahalat.
----------

If any Hindu says something negative abt his religion or if he accepts its by-gone fallacies..then muslims get a double chance to rebuke it. Any elements fo `jahalat` in hindu scriptures are anyway getting so outdated and obsolete..with only a very few following them... day by day

But the vast elements of jahalat in Islam is...firstly, not admitted by muslims..they feel if we admit thier is jahalat.. then others will make fun of them..so better deny it(and remain stuborn idiots)

So if based on existing `jahalat` the relgion should go to `gutters`..it should be Islam..

ali78 #222
``Im sure many do, I have seen many Dhobis in andhra worship a donkey like animal(the dobhis donkey)``

Yes, and those people will not kill you for the sake of 72 virgins - learn to appreciate that. You can even curse them and their religion, you can justify a declared jihad against them, they will still not kill you. But donot count on it, soon it may be too late and these people will catch up with you enlightened types.

Dost_Mittar,
First of all do you see a logical flaw in your argument. If you admit that your scriptures contain certain things which are jahalat of the worst kind and should be abandoned, then the whole scriptures and the religion falls into the gutter, since how can God condone an act which is jahalat. Moving to your question on Quran, i sincerely believe that there is nothing in the Quran which is jahalat or erroneour for that matter, we Muslims believe the Quran to be perfect in all its aspects, including its teachings, its eloquence, grammar, scientific facts, etc. Now i am sure that there are people with biases who knowingly will distort facts, so the question arises, can you logically, objectively and reasonably clarify and explain those distortions. Which is what i pose to you, if you believe that the Holy Quran contains things which should be rejected, then i would urge you to present it.

ali87 #212
Where is the dignity in asking a woman to produce 4 witnesses to her rape and convict her for adultery if she cannot? Where is the dignity in allowing a woman`s husband to simply say 3 words to divorce her? Where is the dignity in stoning to death? Where is the dignity in cutting off hands? These things are MUSLIM LAW.

Why do you ignore MUSLIM LAW IN MODERN TIMES but mention LONG OUTLAWED things like Sati and TOTALLY IRRELEVANT things like Aswamedha Yagna which has not been held in the last thousand years?

And I have seen a Muslim widow with shaven head too- when a local Muslim community felt this widow was behaving badly they forcibly shaved off her hair.

Please let me know where exists this Muslim utopia where women are treated well as equals?

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

#219 by sadna on May 30, 2003 9:43pm PT


you mean to say that the US is holy and not to be cirtuqued that honor falls on the muslims alone?

..........
and you are satisified and happy to wait Indias turn to gain that honor

#217 by sadna on May 30, 2003 4:28pm PT.

Im sure many do, I have seen many Dhobis in andhra worship a donkey like animal(the dobhis donkey) I have no problem with it. I think that I have said even in this post so I dont see why you are complaining.

#218 by m_souza on May 30, 2003 4:28pm PT
dont blame me for being ingorant about hinduism. to date most hindus themselves dont know what is hinduism. some time in march one of the sankaracharays said that it is true that beef eating was mentionedint e vedas and hindus ate beef earlier but they cant do it now as they dont have the strength(Idont know what he meant by this)
of earlier hindus. So you can see that he is infact admitting that the cow is not scared but the hindus are now not capable of eating it as they lack the strength.

Now lets see if the periyar decried hinduism he would be loyal to pakistan?
I Like the logic that the defenders of hinduism have.

lets see what the worship of what got 2000 muslims killed in gujrat recently.
Perhaps if the LTTE spoke unintelligible mumbo jumbo lakhs of sri lankans wouldnt have got killed.

ali87 #215
Why are you dragging the US in? Did I blame sati on the West? People can be angry at the US AND against jihad. Most Indians I know, even those who rarely take interest in politics I was surprised to see, were very vocally opposed to the US for waging recent Iraq war(for example) - and they also bring up the US`s blind support of Israel in the Middle East.

I for one blame the US(as well as Pakistan) for what happened in Afghanistan since 1979. And what to speak of nursing a dictator in Pakistan now like it nursed Saddam Hussein earler.

BUT as of now, US citizens are not being offered heaven and 72 virgins to kill Indians.