Women in Religious Scriptures

Debate rages over women and Sharia

By Jane Little
Religious affairs correspondent

Stoning for adultery and the introduction of vice and virtue squads were
hallmarks of Afghanistan`s Taleban regime.

Now the debate over Islamic law is raging globally, among Muslim women`s
groups alarmed by cases in Nigeria and Pakistan.

``I believe in the justice of God. So if justice is not done to me here on earth it
will be done in the hereafter,`` says Amina Lawal.

Ms Lawal, divorced mother-of-three, retains a strong faith in her Islamic
religion, even though she has become what many see as a victim of Islamic
law.

She was sentenced to death in March 2002 by a Sharia court in northern
Nigeria. Her crime was getting pregnant out of wedlock. The man has not been
charged. But she is now appealing against being buried up to her neck and
stoned to death.

Last week, her second appeal against the sentence was adjourned. It will be
heard at a later date. Her case has provoked international outcry and cast the
spotlight on what many see as the barbaric and discriminatory penal codes in
Islamic law. Or the interpretation of Islamic law.

There are four schools of Islamic law and the one in northern Nigeria - the
Maliki one - is particularly strict.

Dawud Noibi, a Nigerian scholar of Islamic law, says: ``The provisions of the law
are such that rather than being punitive, it is a deterrent, it`s meant to be a
deterrent.``

He adds that the law encourages repentance which will attract forgiveness
from God.

We do not have in modern times any state which has
introduced Sharia and has been able to respect women`s
rights
Ziba Mir Hosseini


But human rights groups say that is not how it is being implemented in northern
Nigeria. At the same time they fear that the government of North-West Frontier
Province in Pakistan, which is implementing Sharia, will violate the rights of women.
Are there real grounds for concern?

According to a human rights report in Pakistan, of 1,800 women in jail, 80% are
there for so-called ``huddud`` offences.

Huddud is the part of Islamic law dealing with punishments for crimes such as
``illegal sex`` - or sex outside marriage. There is no equivalent number of men in jail
for the same offences, which raises the question: who are these women having sex
with?

But is Islamic law inherently mysogynistic? No, it is the men who interpret it, say a
growing number of Islamic women`s networks, which are hitting back at those they
say are abusing the law for their own political ends.

The law, which is regarded as sacred, is based on the Koran and the traditions of
the Prophet. It does outlaw ``zina`` or illegal sex, but to prove such sex has taken
place is, according to the classical texts, almost impossible.

It requires four witnesses - often interpreted to mean four male witnesses - to the
sexual act. So that in practice should mean that few end up in court for such an
offence.

According to Zainah Anwar of Malaysian advocacy group Sisters in Islam, this law
was intended originally to protect a woman`s reputation against slander, but it is
being distorted.

``What was particularly outrageous in the law was that a woman who reports she
has been raped will be charged for slanderous accusation and flogged 80 lashes if
she is unable to prove the rape,`` she says.

``Under the huddud law you have to produce four pious male Muslim eyewitnesses
in order to prove illicit sex has taken place and it`s impossible.``

Perversely, if there were four witnesses to a rape, they would have been
accessories to the crime.

Justice and equality

Ziba Mir Hosseini, author of Islam and Gender, says: ``We do not have in modern
times any state which has introduced Sharia and has been able to respect women`s
rights.``

She says nowhere does the punishment of stoning appear in the Koran. She adds
that pre-modern interpretations of the Sharia, which often have a heavy overlay of
cultural prejudices, are not in keeping with the spirit of Islam, which is about justice
and equality.

So what is the answer? For some it is to get rid of patriarchal structures and allow
women to act as jurists.

But in the meantime, Amina Lawal in Nigeria has to hope that the non-Islamic
appeal court will overturn her conviction. In her culture, the shame will be more
difficult to remove.

#312 by m_souza on June 7, 2003 6:13pm PT

yes, you probably read about that in the Koran so kindly published for your reference by vedic socitey

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

#311 by Tipu on June 7, 2003 2:20pm PT

And the tawayaf concept? the `rakhalis`? mujraa? harems?

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

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

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

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

#302 by m_souza on June 6, 2003 7:18am PT

good to see you in a lighter mood.

#302 by m_souza on June 6, 2003 7:18am PT

My intention is not to prove wether hinduism is Horrible or not. Just to put the facts in proper prospective to counter your glossing over.

YOu are obssed with the Great Great ancesstors. If I had ancesstors from the theiving tribes of Madhaya Pradesh I still would have to be proud of them? Or the Prostitute communities of Andhra, would their Porgeny have to express pride about thier ancesstors.

Your line of Logic is simply silly.

I have no problem with the dress code. However the argument given is not of Uniformity but of tradition and ritual ie the right dress is the Saree. YOu could wear a salwar Kameez and go and that would not be right.

I remember some of older ladies of South whom I know were Prohibited to wear the Salwar Kameez and It was considered scandalous to wear one instead of the regulation Pavade (Lehga and blouse with a thin duppatta like covering the breasts somewhat in a fashion of a saree only it was smalleer and consisting of a single layer) for the Unmarried girls and for the married girls a Saree. Looks like they did not have much freedom of choice earlier.

#301 by dost-mittar on June 6, 2003 1:45am PT

I agree that this new militancy is not in line with what is acceptable by both muslims as well as rest of the world. However one does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Iranian revlution is a product of the colonial and Neo-Imperialist actions against the people of Iran. However to say that the iranian revelution is some how a danger to the rest of the world is plain wrong.

The Americans and the west tried to demonise Iran to hide their complicity in over throwing a legitimate govt and replacing it by a Monarchy which handed over the controls of the countrys wealth to the western intrests.
Im sure that if India undergoes such a situation there will be unpredictable reaction from some section of the socitey or the other.
Remember that when the Shah came to power he prohibited the Friday prayers, In a country which had severe financial problems he forced banks and financial institutions to give first priority to bussiness like Cabrets, Bars in what was essentially a conservative socitey. Just think what will happen if one gives permission to dozens of Cabrets in small towns of India in 70`s.
Most people fail to appreciate the cultural assualts of the west in Muslim countries in this century. It is intresting as to how blatant the west was in attempting to change the social and cultural landscape of Muslim countries with the convivance of the subservient and rootless elite.

#301 by dost-mittar on June 6, 2003 1:45am PT

Singapore..
this kind of notinal equtiy is of no use. what matters that religious rights and other fundamental rights are adhered to. The life and property and right to livelyhood are protected.

This is the bottom line. The concept of Unbridled freedom while basic neccesties and equites are denied is a western imposed concept. Even the west did not grow this way.
I spoke to a friend of mine in Qutar and another in Dubai (both hindu)yesterday. They mentioned how safe those countries are for ordinary people. This is a reccuring theme in conversations with non-muslim as well as muslim people whenever I happen to Interact. It goes to show what are the priorities of people. I have Hindu friends who lived in Iran for more than a decade they also report the same so the Islamic revolution was certainly not a problem for them. In fact they point out to the deep friendships they made. One of my colleauges has joined us after being on an assignment In Jordan for a year. He and his wife recall the days with nostalgia saying that that was the best experience of their life.
All this hardly sounds like the Ummah is threatning to others.

#301 by dost-mittar on June 6, 2003 1:45am PT
the concept of Dar- Ul Harab was true and reflected the realites of earlier times where in europe and what was Bayzantine(now Iran) where mere profession of another or even a slightly different belif system meant prosecution or expulsion To this was added the concept of removing taranny(at least in some cases this was met with releif with the concured populaces). It was misused of course for personal ends as everthing in this world tends to be.
However todays countries are quite different the inter-religious tolerance as muslims genrally practiced (as did the hindus with exception of the tarrany of caste) has become a world wide phenomena(and surprisingly some of the muslim countries showing regression in this aspect).

Today the muslim religon as well as other religons can be practiced in all countries with some noteable exceptions. The existance of Dar Ul Harab cant be justified. Though there may be some here or there who make some hairsplitting and convulted arguments for it is accpeted by most muslims and their ulema that the concept for Dar Ul Harab at least on a genral scale is rendered not applicable due to changed cricumstances of the world.

#300 by ali87 on June 5, 2003 11:27pm PT
So much for freedom to do what you want.....

Tirupati temple imposes dress code
------

dress code...that`s very good..no `bhed-bhaav` ..uniformity with no display of fashions etc..

Anyway..Ali ji...maan gaye...the wealth of knowledge you have about Hinduism
..either
1. Your great great ancestors were Hindus..so u are mysteriously drawn towards it.
2. You were a Hindu in your previous incarnation..hahaha
3. Your secret desire is to become a hindu(this will `ruffle` u)
or
4. Your more secret desire is to change(`mutate` as u said in gujrat post) all Hindus into muslims, by highlighting how horrible hinduism is

But if it is just your `General Knowledge` about one of the religions of your Great country...then ..keep it up..no harm..

ali87(#?)
I could not respond to you earlier because I did not have access to my computer. So, here goes.
I agree with a number of things you said in your post to me. No one can have anything against a benign, fraternal ummah as you have experienced. It is when this concept is married to that of a dar-ul-harb that it assumes a different dimension. This ``marriage`` was more or less dormant until about the Iranian revolution and, especially, the fatwa against Rushdie. Muslims in the West until then were treated no different from others. But dormant does not mean absent. The Kashmiri muslims` desire for secession from India against their self-interest, as you concede, is a less benign manifestation of this marriage,as is a similar desire by muslims in Philippines.
BTW I am surprised that you did not find anything wrong in Singapore denying muslims the right to join its air force.

So much for freedom to do what you want.....

Tirupati temple imposes dress code

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Tirupati+temple+imposes+dress+code&id=38928

Friday, June 6, 2003 (Tirupati):


Devotees will have to dress in traditional South Indian clothes to get a darshan of the Lord of the Seven Hills at Tirumala.

Starting this week, devotees coming for special pujas have been asked to follow a dress code. They have to necessarily wear traditional South Indian attire -- sarees for women and dhoti, angavastram for men.

``When you sit before God for such a long time, obviously you need to have basic respect for the temple`s traditions,`` maintained Ajeya Kallam, Executive Officer, TTD.

As of now, those seeking a general darshan have been excluded. But it is only a matter of time before this rule applies to all pilgrims.

``If the TTD prescribes a particular dress code for entering a particular puja, I am totally in support of it,`` said a pilgrim.

However, there is reluctance among some people.

``Both should be allowed -- sarees as well as salwars. I am unmarried and cannot wear a saree and go to a temple,`` said a devotee.

With the practice of tonsuring very popular among visitors here, it would seem an unwritten hairdressers code is already in place. With the new sartorial code, Tirumala joins other temples in South India where traditional dress is a must for getting a glimpse of the Almighty.

an examination of how things started and how they end.. which need not happen

#52 by Layman on May 21, 2003 6:40am PT


In Islam / Christianity etc, God is a He (God made Man in HIS image, Praise Be Upon HIM), whereas we have Lakshmi, Saraswati, Parvati... The most powerful mantra is the Gayatri mantra... Manu Smriti is a smriti, written by a man Manu in the material world. ........ It is thus a reflection of society,not Hindu religion, in my opinion.
...

My frist post was in response to two things one that Allah is HE and other that the treatment of women is ``reflection of society,not Hindu religion,``

This was my frist post::




#70 by ali87 on May 23, 2003 9:32am PT
#52 by Layman on May 21, 2003 6:40am PT

that you call yourself layman is apt. better say you are not aware.

Allah is has no gender. No description, Only some of his attributes are discribed. Like Rahim, Rahman , Jabbar etc.

As regards Manusmiriti Hindu religon is what is practiced for thousands of years to say now that Manu codes are not part of your religon is to say that for thosuands of years hindus (with many famous saints etc) have got every thing wrong. If such is the case what garuntee is there that your presents views reflect genuine hinduism.

Also if you read your religous Puranas and the various stories in it they clearly reflect the life being lead according to manus codes and even gods , saints aknowledging those codes including the now popular god ``Rama`` in the famous episode of eklavaya.

you will be left with the question then what exactly is real hindu religon? Ill leave that question to be answered by you and not venture into that teritory.


....


Note the last line....


The next post was



#148 by ali87 on May 28, 2003 10:16pm PT
#131 by tahmed32 on May 27, 2003 9:19am PT

Despite Gujarat and numerous other incidents Indians(I assume that you mean hindus here) are not as rabid as the bunch you see here on chowk. These guys take cue from the chirstian zealots in US. I fact some of these guys when they intially start critizing Islam they usually use the same references and points that US chirstian zealots use and only later on with more interaction etc they become more sophisticated in their barbs and insults. However one thing remains common is they all refuse to conduct an exhaustive comparitve analyiss of both the religions when challenged usually taking recourse to anger etc. to avoid indepth comparison


obviously some of you took that that as a challenge.. Only there wasnt any.. just a my view point about some on this board(you decide if it is true.) to tahamed32



... I saw M_souza posting this...



#128 by m_souza on May 27, 2003 6:52am PT
No need to panic over rights and wrongs of your religion now. You have the saviors approaching you for you salvation. Read this.
And then ...no harm in this...i suppose..
pehle hindu se muslim baney they naa...ab muslim se christian ban jao...
----------



quoting some of the old evagilical tirades..suitable for westerners(obviously souza has not come across this nor read the postions of the various orientialists in early 17th centrury thrugh early 18th centrury)

So I responded with::




#149 by ali87 on May 28, 2003 10:16pm PT
#128 by m_souza on May 27, 2003 6:52am PT

dont be so happy about this. This information is old hat. NOt many arabs are going to be too shocked about ``demon-possessed pedophile`` as except for ignorant americans and some westerners most socites in the world used to accept low marriage age as low as 12-15 just a few decades back Infact many arabs may have mothers or older female relatives who were married very young just as many hindus have know this just generation back in fact even present generation hindus in villages find nothing ethically wrong in marrying off young girls.

......

#154 by rsridhar on May 29, 2003 8:36am PT
re: #148 by ali87

The beauty of ``Sanatana Dharma`` (or Hinduism) is that individuals in this great religion still have a free choice. They are not bound by any rules or dogmas. No preacher can tell me what to do. I can go and seek God on my own term if i want to. I have scriptures and preachings of thousands of sages and seers to help me in that process.

....
outlining the free choice as per your understandign..

My response was:

#159 by ali87 on May 29, 2003 11:28am PT
#rsridhar
Sure there are rabid mullahs every where just as there are rabid brammins, pandits, sadhus etc.

....
On the tactics adopted by hindus on chowk I was not refering to the hindutvavadis in India. I clearly mentioned that the hindus on chowk adopt the postion of chirstain zealots of US meaning that they have the hate but no first hand information about muslims and choose to follow the stance and use the arguments of US christan zealots many times such arguments or stands would simply not be taken in india because the misinformation about Islam is less prevailant there and also some of the paractices critized by the Christian zealots are quite common in India in both Hindus as well as Muslims so it is funny to see inept hindus using those as basis of criticizim of Islam and muslims while the hindus themselves follow many of these practices

....
YOu had given example of christians adopting hindu practices probably hinting that muslims should do the same or trying to say that the christians are more reasonable than hindus because they adopt hindu practices..
I continued..

..on the matter of chirstians adopting hindu pratices you dont need to be too hopeful. They even do the same in Muslim countries have muslim names, pretend respect for the Quran and even going to the extent of observing Ramzan etc


I went on to jusxtapose how many odinary hindus I interact with find some aspects of Islam pretty nice and also highlighted the various aspects of Hindu culuture that I belived you tried to gloss over in you ``freedom to do what one wants`` argument Including the caste system etc.
This had two purposes , one to show how the particpants (ieMost)hindus are different from the normal hindus one meets in life as well the hindutvavadis(in using the christian borrowed terms references to attack Islam).

You keep harping on the rigidity of muslims as well as Islam so I expalained how some of that is not true.


and ended with...

If you are satisfied with the santatam dharma it is your choice and if you think that Islam is restrective then I would Invite you to study Islam more deeply than what you know. It is pretty easy go to the right sources there are no preists in Islam nor will any one (except the most crude uneducated and unclutured muslims) try to impose one view or the other on you. All your requests for Information will be met with respect and I can assure there will be no pressure to convert if you want to gain knowledge about Islam.
..........



#171 by sadna on May 29, 2003 3:47pm
Sadna responded with reference to my mention of sati and tantric practicesI had mentioned (to show that the question of free choice in religion was not free to some )

...After a lifetime of living among Hindus, you have to be a very sick person to imply that these are normal practices among Hindus. Just who are you trying to fool here
..

Obviously sadna(and others) argument was that this is not part of hinduism, My stand was its practice for centuries (no matter if rare)and its mention in books and acceptance by the characters of the scriputures meant that it was part of hinduism at least in the past.

This is when all the heat started..

With arguments saying that the hindus are not required to follow any scripture that they dont want. My argument to that is sure but threre are a great majority who simply had no choice in this so if a powerful section of bhramins decided that the shudras were inhumuan then those shudras had no choice in that but to accept it. We went on to how actuall the shudras or women were or were not.

then sadna and others refered to the usual sucide bombing, Jihad etc I excused Islam for one and explained the other. we went on to treatement of women etc.

However all this is not the point at all

What is the point is that that and one which I have made earlier is there are many of us who calim to be very reasonable and free of blame of all the misunderstanding b/w Islam, mulsims on one side and hindus, and hindu religion on the other side. Always beliving that you dont contribute to this misunderstanding. My aim in participating in this debates is not to make religious brownie points but to show a mirror to those who think they are very moderate.

I belevive that is the problem in India the actions of people who consider themsevles to be moderate and how it contributes to the current stalemate(after all the rabid types are in a minority so where does the present suppourt to the sangh comes from?). Afterall there are those Sangh supppuurters in India represented in every section of the socitey.Why are they absent here? or Why are they reluctant to admit their ideology here. What I mean by that may be they themeselves dont realise howmuch they are part of the problem.

That is my goal here. In dissecting religion. I dont want to discuss it but nobdy seems to want to discuss anything else.

#293 by Inquirer on June 5, 2003 12:43pm PT


am still waiting for input from you about my inquiry in # 269.


.. I will when you come back

#296 by Inquirer on June 5, 2003 3:48pm PT
Acutally I feel discussing religon is a waste of time.. at least in this manner. But nobody seems to be intrested in anything else

To all active participants:Sridhar, m_souza and ali87: I just got your latest inputs. Unfortunately, I have to rush out for several days. Hence I can not respond to you individually but I am really heartened by the turn toward greater understanding and dialog.

WE NEED TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER AND THAT IS DONE BEST BY GIVING RESPECT TO EACH OTHER. I AM SURE WE ARE PEOPLE OF ABOVE AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE BUT WE NEED TO ACCOMODATE TO EACH OTHER.

Hoping, I would have pleasant things to read and we might even turn to the subject I would want all you guys (and gals, if you are interested) to talk about your own religion - not past each other - but to each other upon my return on Monday.

ali87

Firstly, I have always revealed myself for what I am. I don`t hate anyone. I don`t approve fo any riots thart happened..all I am saying is taht possibly thsi could have been a `built-up` reason for them...this too much of criticism of hinduism by muslims.

I have many muslim friends, including Indian muslims. When face to face with Indian muslims, and when I am in India..none of them goes on arguing about Shiva or Indra etcetc..we talk other stuff..
Actually..I am gaining my knowledge about all this from you and also honerable_syed..

Yes..the TV lately has become obsessed with showing every old epic tales
..but Mahabharta Ramanyana were good...so are the moral discourses by saints in the morning show...so are the excerpt sfrom Geeta....but I am sure you didn`t like these too...

In western countries..they show on TV..all the time..esp around Easter/Christmas..the epics and tales from Old Testament..all unbelievable things like jadoo-tonaa..
So what!!!...does that mean people are banned from watching it? or is it that they will lose their sense of judgement?
I myself was concerned once about one such issue so I studied Old testament of Bible..and also read Qurran...guess what!! I found them much worse. So better stick to hinduism and get all the nice things available for spirit..plenty there is..only u ignore it..

ali87 ...go through all your previous posts. You will yourself find yourself getting too obsessed about this `hinduism` issue. Why are you so very concerned about highlighting the ??

I mean ..are you actually concerned about the fate of hinduism?
are u worried about the fate of your country?
are you trying to say that everyone should convert to Islam?
are you trying to justify why so many indians converted to islam? OK they di..but why expect everyone to fell liek you do??

Even if ever there are a few drawbacks here and there in any religion..even then conversion is never an answer..Improving it and interpreting it rightly is the solution.
AFter all what the `converts` go through mentally for many generations is worse than selectively following your own relgion of your own country..

re:#282 by Inquirer
As far as the tone of my interaction is concerned, i set the tone depending on the response i get. Nasty posts cannot expect a decent response. I do not like it when people put down other religons to make a point. I have never criticised Islam or its prophet or the belief system. My criticisms have so far been confined to some of its practitioners.

You may be a new comer. So, you are not aware but we have discussed Mahabharat at length in one of the forums and i had posted the symbolic meaning of its characters and the story. You can search the posts. I do not have time to waste on people like Ali who are unwilling to see anthing good in religions other than their own.
Sridhar

ali87:
There is always the danger of misunderstanding and deterioration of level of conversation when you say things to ``just ruffle people.`` Religion is certainly not a thing for that kind of treatment. As a matter of fact unless we are discussing explicitly frivolously, it is better to maintain a dour and serious attitude.

PS
I am still waiting for input from you about my inquiry in # 269.

re: Problems with Islam
Problem with Islam is not with the religion but with its followers who seem lost as to how to reconcile modern belief system with their glorious (some real, some perceived) islamic past.
Islam has several good things to its credit. It brought emphasis on brotherhood among its followers and did away with slavery (in theory though Arabs, Mughal rulers etc continued to indulge in slave trade) at a time when it was the widely prevalent. Common prayer halls, simple belief system all made this a potent religion. Why is it in conflict with modernity then. The issue is discussed well in the following article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/56oct/husseini.htm

A religion which had spread rapidly across continents and which dominated the world in science and technology in the middle ages is finding it hard to reconcile and adjust to the fast changing world of technology. One Islamic Cleric traces the genesis of this problem: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1679397.stm
One idiot in this forum is criticising the seiral ``Om namah Shivayah``. Now, this is based on some ancient text and someone has made it into a serial and people are watching it for fun. They may or may not find it of any religious or spiritual value but they do not complain. We do not find Shankaracharyas shouting basphemy or some fringe group threatening violence because of this or any other such serials. Here is a perfect eg of how Hindus have managed to accept modernity and revive their ancient texts thr` modern innovations like T.V. An entire nation watched when Mahbharat and Ramayana were shown on T.V. A few got the symbolic message but for the most, it was just fun.
Hindus have learnt not to take their religion seriously. That does not mean they are not religous. You do not have to be pretentious to be religious. Hindus do not have to prove anything. Their belief system, which has survived centuries of exploitation and domination, is proof enough. All older civilisations of the world: the Aztecs, the Incas, the early Greeks, the early Romans, the early Egypt, all have gone by the wayside. Only Indian (Hindu) civilisation survives. Intact. all the Gods and Goddesses that you read about or see on the T.V serials have survived the faith of the followers. If you want to read about the Greek, Egypt or other ancient civilisations (there is a lot of talk about Babylon now-a-days after Iraq is conquered!), you have to turn to history books. If you want to learn about hindu civilisation, you only have to visit India. Now, that i think is some achievement.
I said the hindus do not take their religion seriously. By which i mean, serioulsy like the muslims or fundamentalist christians do. That is why politicians like L.K.Advani have to come up with some controversies that would arrest the attention of hindus. Modi had to unleash terror. All for votes. But hindus revel in their Gods and their antics and do not take any of this seriously.
While all this is going on, IT in India is booming. India is sending satellites in space and breaking new frontiers. An old nation is now coming on its own and doing this without discarding anything ancient or what it considers sacred. That i think is worth celebrating.
Sridhar

#285 by m_souza on June 4, 2003 10:02pm PT

well at least it leads you to drop your pretentions and reveal yourself as what you actually are.

..But the way he goes on to put hinduism down with all those irrelevant obsolete connotations,...the `baal ki khaal utaarna`

Now who is to know what is obselete, what is connotations, what is Irrevant... Now dont blame me for using these words for your scriptures.
I did not present this baal up for discussion. If you present an incident then all aspects related to it are up for discussion not just what you extract from it. That after all is your view of it.

on the other hand what you call irrelevant, blah blah .. is not considered to be so by other hindus and probably I can find some post where you too havent considered it so.

Now consider something that is not considered as irrelevant and has millons watching it on prime time. Serial ``Om Namah Shiva`` There is a goddess or somebody celesital who is cursed and is born in a jungle as the daughter of a Sadhu. the little child desires to be united with Siva(read have a union.. whatever that can mean) and starts meditating from a very small age to the exclusion of every thing else. We are told told about the devotion incredible devotion of the girl in hushed tones with appropitate music. Narad passes by and notes this with satisfaction. He mentions this to shiva who (probably needs to be informed by some one else) who doesnt give much importance to it. We are informed that the girl is growing not yet an adolocent(probably b/w 10-13 going by the girl shown in the serial) Shiva hears about this girl again by another god and decides to view her. He is imppressed by her devotion as well as her good looks. The other god teases shiva about it who dismisses the suggestion. A few years later (the girl shown on TV couldnt be more than 15) narad with and few other gods bring the devotion of this girl to sivas attention (Probably Shiva has to release her from the curse of being born a human) . Shiva agrees is persuaded to view the devotion of this girl himself after great reluctance and goes down to earth with narad.
Siva is immediately smitten with this girl, his eyes roll he goes goggle eyed and lost to narad who smiles knowingly. Narad has to get shivas attention back to get him back to hevean. Shiva spends time dreaming about the girl(the scenes are seen to be belived)parvati is concerned and teases him if he is thinking of someone else(qutie prectiive) few days (or short period of time may be days , months whatever ) Shiva is completely besotted and unable to do routine work(or whatever , this is what parvati complaints to Narad who simply smiles beatificaly). Finally we are shown shivas (anguish, for what you can guess) and finally goes down to meet the girl who informs shiva that she is waiting to become one with him and that being the purpose of her being born. We are treated to some very very suggestive scenes of shiva unable to resist being near her and finally he connsumates the union.. End of the episode I couldnt watch the next installment.

Tell me what was the symbolism in this. That a god ,married is over come with lust and cumiliates a sexual union with another girl who seems to be quite young barely a teenager. Int his case the symbolisim was extreemly difficult to dechiper what came accross is what we say. Millions of sedate family people saw this and obviously accepted this as it must have been part of the acutal accepted texts. One of my friends with whom I say this jokingly told me bhagwan ka ye haal hai to ham to bechare insane hain. Obviously he did not get any higher symbolism that was hidden in the story.

Now would you hate me for this retellign this story. But why? this is your story not mine.Ie what you accept. why tell that it is irrelevant, It certainly wasnt irrelevant to the millons who saw it and im sure at least a few out of devotion.
you will hate me for even ackowledging the presence of your own scriptures or stories. But you are yet to mention wether why you consider why they are wrong.

IM confused here, do you consider that they are wrong? or do you consider my recalling them as wrong. Now you call them irrelevant , obselete, connotations, whose connations? (I hope you are not blaming me for inventing them) on the other hand you say that there is absolute freedom to worship in whatever way one wants (probablay the story above or similar stories are to be seen in context of this worship).

So which is it? what is your ideological position exactly. YOu may hate me for what ever you like I suspect that it doesnt take much for you to hate anyone. However that is besides the point here. There is very little I can do about your hate.

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

oops that should read agree insteadof disagree

#274 by Tipu on June 3, 2003 9:55pm PT

For the west our countries are a big dark area with some flags standing out like poverty, roits, Diseases or Missiles etc. they do not think of us leading normal lives.

there are many times where we can indicate the nature of our lives for better visulaisaton. What better to say that one can get a heart bypass surgery for $4000.00 to a 55 year old lady without job and insurance or savings and in possible need of a Bypass surgery in near future? It brings up all kinds of questions Like ``Oh they do bypass surgeries in India?`` This gives a chance to give some statistics like say 10000 thousand surgeries carried out last year at which point you can see the gears of visualisation whirring. the elephants and snakes seem to merge into modern hospital buildings. Then comes the questions that these must be govt sponsered operations the answer to that no it is market economics which determine the rates. You feel the sense of disbelief along with a hint of feelign that they are being shortchanged by the much publicised American Dream. Usually the question of education of doctors also comes up. I point out that like software engg the doctors are also available in plenty of number even in the US despite strict restrictons due to political reasons. I point out that the present doctor and nurse shortage as well as cost can come down drastically if Indian doctors are allowed to work here.

I have even advised quite a few poor and average students here to consider studying enggniering in India which may cost only 20-30 thousand in India. Or do their BCA and MCA (bachelors and masters in computer applications) which may only cost about 10 thousand dollars put together. This is more well recived. One white american and another afghan refugee kids are right now enquirng about the possibility.

#271 by sadna on June 3, 2003 7:11pm PT
ali87 #264

For the last few posts, I have found your attitude very demeaning to me and my religion. I donot need to take this cr_p from you and will not be wasting any more of my time on you.
-----------

sadna..thsi is exactly how I felt with ali87 many times..and so I wrote that he is pro-paksitani..because of his shrewd petty style and his demeaning attitude..the type shown by some pakis here at chowk

He may not like one of the major religions of his secular country ..it is all right..nothing we can do..
But the way he goes on to put hinduism down with all those irrelevant obsolete connotations,...the `baal ki khaal utaarna`..... it forces us to dislike his religion(which is after all not even one of the native relgions)

I can see now what led to `gujrat riots` after all...with people calling us kafirs and this and that..for how long can anyone maintain one`s cool....

#284 by ali87 on June 4, 2003 2:51pm PT
#282 by Inquirer on June 4, 2003 8:46am PT

I just like to ruffle people sometimes.
----------

This `ruffling` habit amongst muslims brought `gujrat riots` on them
For sure, It didn`t happen in one day. It was all slowly building up in the hindu hearts....over the years decades..nono...centuries...

what goes around comes around..keep it up...

Sadna

If you are still around Just check this reality of hinduism and its treatment of women. Present Indian socitey is a different matter as many people are only symbolic hindus. However this is an indication of the reality of the religion as it was very recently and as some of its adherents(who similarly gloss over facts) want it to be.

AVBP is not a small time player and sonia is not some small personality in Indian political life..



`Sonia violated Hanuman shrine sanctity`

http://headlines.sify.com/2431news3.html?headline=`Sonia~violated~Hanuman~shrine~sanctity`

Katni: Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha workers washed a Hanuman temple and its deity with Ganga water, alleging that Congress President Sonia Gandhi violated the shrine`s sanctity by offering prayers to the idol from proximity during her recent tour of Madhya Pradesh.

Meanwhile, Bharatiya Janata Party District President Chamanlal Anand and 40 other workers, who were shouting slogans, were arrested for disturbing the peace. They were later released on bail.

However, the temple`s priest Sushil Tyagi said, ``Sonia was standing in that area of the shrine where women are permitted. That is also the place from where ladies perform `parikrama`. She gave me a garland which I offered to the deity.`` ``The BJP workers are presenting the matter wrongly,`` said Police Superintendent R B Sharma.






UNI

#271 by sadna on June 3, 2003 7:11pm PT

No you shouldnt have to suffer anything from me. But what is it that Im doing that you are not?

Sridhar.. various.

The difficulty in symbolism argument is that it seems as an explanation after the fact (ie of finding that the story,epic,scripture seems to conflict with the reasoning of the existing time.)
What was considered Ok at one time is not suitable for another time. However not every thing can be abandoned thus the symbolism argument.
But each to himself. As a muslim In not required to like your belifes neither do I need to hate you.
In fact im sure that if I came across you in real life I would like you a lot. I suspect that you may be a bit partonising but I would not have any problem with it, Im a pretty strong individual.

#282 by Inquirer on June 4, 2003 8:46am PT

I just like to ruffle people sometimes. sitting on a faceless board where we wear our masks of created personalities it is difficult to judge who is what. However in moments of anger we reveal a lot about ourselves. I try to remain within the envelope of the context of the position put by others only choosing to expand it a bit once in a while.

Sridhar is a nice guy I think. Of course that does not mean that I disagree with him on some things, those differences are minor.
Im yet to figure out Tahmed though. He refuses to take my bait. Though he did get a bit ruffled yesterday but the result is another post which could be plain manufactured emotion.

Sridhar:
You have a peculiar love/hate with Ali! After abandoning him with abuses and curses you wrote to him at least twice. I do not want to comment on your relationship but I would like the tone of your discussion to improve. You could have civilizedly explained Mahabharat instances. Imagine a non-Hindu how is he/she to determine what is symbolic and what is operative guidance?

tahmed 32:
Thanks for the e-mail address. I will contact you.

Tipu, #272:
You have made some revealing points. I agree that many Muslims may have come here (US) to escape discrimination and oppression in their home countries. But you need to understand the sources of irrational misogynism. The obvious and overt oppression of women is MAXIMUM in Muslim countries. Hence, the feminist voice is loudest from those countries. The point is not unbridled feminism rather it is adoption of principles of fairness and equality among the sexes. No doubt, there irresponsible women as there are men.

The thesis presented in the discussion is a summary of the full essay I have prepared. Some people have expressed interest in the detailed article. I can send the full text to those who would send me their email address.

Sushil

re:#263 by ali87

``Two families both indulging in Gambling. One of the men gambles away his wife. Or rather the common wife of his brothers....


The other family whose men disrobe the won over wife in public..

My MY what Dharma (righteousness)!! Thousands are killed to uphold this Dharma of gamblers who give away their wife.``

Looks like you have read some of this epic. You may be a moron but you can still be redeemed.
All characters in Mahabharata are symbolic. They are real if you want to believe in them. Most people would take the essence.
You come out as a person who does not respect other cultures, and take pleasure in hurting others. And you are an Indian muslim! Hard to believe. Perhaps, you have lived in a ghetto all your life and come to learn all wrong lessons.
Is that all you have seen in that great epic? Why do you even read it if you hate it so much. You must have read some of it to be able to quote from it.
Do i care if you criticise this or the other epic? It is meant for those who understand it. For the rest, it is as good as garbage. You can read Arabian Nights and feel kinship with your Lord and masters in Arabia for all i care. But, be sure in future to pass healthy criticisms that does not hurt other`s.
sridhar

re:#263 by ali87
I have always been curious as to who are the role models for Indian muslims like you. I know that the list definitely includes Ghazni, but does OBL have a place in that list? Just curious.
Sridhar

re:#263 by ali87
I have come to the conclusion that basically you are a moron. There is no use in interacting with you. So, be in your own hell, whereever that is. If you are convinced that rest of the world is delusional and that everything is fine and dandy with Islam today, then fine. You are allowed to be delusional.
Sridhar

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

inquirer #267 I will be glad to answer any additional questions you may have on the book. You can email me at tauheedahmed@hotmail.com or just post your question here.

re:#265 by ali87
Read Paul Brunton`s ``A search in secret India`` and ``The path`` to realise what one such God realised soul had done for humanity. They are not like politicians and do not advertise themselves.
If you go to Thiruvannamalai and go to Ramanashram (which i really doubt you ever will as you guys can only ask stupid Qs and expect intelligent answers), you will realise what i mean. Do some reseach on your own man. Read another spiritual classic ``Autobiography of a Yogi`` and find out what Yogananda has done for his fellow beings. Go to Calcutta and find out what mother Teresa has done for the poor.
You guys are simply pathetic!
Sridhar

#265 by ali87
``All the while majority of the people were oppressed. Perverse practices flourshised throughout.
and these guys were on their own trip saving their own skin towards salvation. I find that repungant``
I find it repugnant that product of Ghazni`s sperms are lecturing hindus about spirituality when all their co-religionists have done is rape and plunder. Perhaps, i was wrong about some religions. Some religons just do not get it. They need to be discarded like you discard a condom after you know what? Get the drift? Moron.
Sridhar

re:#263 by ali87
That is just an epic. Take it for what it is.
If you want to know the real meaning of that epic, study the 2 volume set of ``God speaks to Arjuna``. It is available in B and N and is a best seller. Once you have read that, we can talk about the real meaning of these epics.
I have written about the symbolism in these epics in my past posts. People who are demented or cannot think beyond superficialities only see what their mind tells them.
BTW, you have revealed your mindset and thereby lost my respect.
Sridhar

ali87 #264
I didnot ask why is the Quran memorized in Arabic, I asked ``Then why is it that the Quran is memorized in Arabic by thousands of children who donot understand the language, some of whom are then incited to jihad in the name of the injunctions of same Quran?``

For absolutely NONE of my points do you provide a honest or sincere answer.

`` Probably this can be expected of you since you are so confused about your own scriptures I cant expect you to make any sense in the Islamic methodology. ``

For the last few posts, I have found your attitude very demeaning to me and my religion. I donot need to take this cr_p from you and will not be wasting any more of my time on you.

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

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

ali87, #268: I am very interested in your involvement regarding a temple in Bangalore. I hope you would let us know more.

Regarding ``glossing over of hard reality of hindu paractices``: Let us know what is that you are thinking of. Hundus will benefit from a discussion of that. Possible, some explanation would augment your understanding.

#267 by Inquirer on June 3, 2003 1:43pm PT

I live among hindus, read some of their books, certainly read much of the cultural based popular stories with many references to Hindu practices incuding stories, comics. Of course the general prevalence of hindu ethos in India one cannt escape from knowing about the hindu religon. I even met a shankaracharaya, visited many temples, Asharams etc even acted as a conduit to funding a small temple in bangalore. this is not to say Im an expert or dont need to learn more.
However I dont like the glossing over of hard reality of hindu paractices. I am the frist to accept the failings of muslims.
on a differnt note Im glad I havent been called a pakistani sympthysier or hindu hater in the last couple of days (about 10 posts) that is a improvemment from earlier I should say... Just savouring the small pleasures of life...

tahmed 32:
Thanks. I am glad you mentioned about your father`s book. If additional information is available on the book, please let me know I will give you my e-mail address.
I have felt all along that the monetary and organizational power that Muslim clerics have possessed over the educated Muslims has done harm to the image of Islam. There are many radical Hindu priestly people (really, politicians masquerading) but they have been neutralized to a larger extent due to absence of conversion in Hinduism and greater prevalence of westernized education. There is hardly anything comparable to Muslim Madarsas in Hindu religion.

Ali87:
I called the discussion ``riot`` not to comment on the nature of participants but because instead of asking each other questions to learn about the other person`s religion, the exchanges consisted of hurling accusatory statements. Let us face it there is bad blood between the Hindus and Muslims but the thing to do is not to point out each others faults. Rather interreligious dialogs should make effort to understand other religion`s adherents. My comments to you are equally for Sadna and Sridhar.

It is common knowledge that women of both religions have been kept down. We need to interact not only to identify why the situation exists the way it does but also try to understand why religious men have often problem with women. Why Hindu followers of various Gujrat sects require men and women to be in different sides in the temple and why the masjids do not even permit women inside the building. My thesis hints at the reasons in the conclusion section but the Hindu-Muslim ``riot`` has so occupied the attention that no one has paid any attention to gender-interaction and its relationship to the theories underlying the scriptures, irrespective of the specific religion.

260 by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 6:20pm PT

Lets see some of the points you made..... Very Intresting.

Two families both indulging in Gambling. One of the men gambles away his wife. Or rather the common wife of his brothers....

The other family whose men disrobe the won over wife in public..

My MY what Dharma (righteousness)!! Thousands are killed to uphold this Dharma of gamblers who give away their wife. Indeed what a way these upholders of Dharma treat the woman great.

I would say she is better off in a veil under protection of Gazhni.


...That advice to Arjuna was given in a certain context, when all peaceful efforts for reconciliation between the warring sides had failed

You mean to say that while the above illustrated example (and many such similar examples) was a example where the hindus were exhorted to fight when all efforts for reconciliation have failed... and thus you want to say that either Islam simply exthorts one to fight in a blood thirsty way or that there has never been any indication that the muslims have been on the side of righteousness.

I know that you have particpated read many disucssions on this forums where plenty of details on Quranic injuctions regarding War have been given and disucssed. Ill Jog your memory once again. I know that you will promptly forget these and will be needed to reminded again.. But that is ok after all you have got the burden of remembering so much from so may texts as sadna said ``even a single line of the Bhagavad Gita can take a lifetime to really LIVE upto sincerely`` .

here again for your reference

: [22:39] Permission is granted to those who are being persecuted, since injustice has befallen them, and GOD is certainly able to support them.

[ 22:40] They were evicted from their homes unjustly, for no reason other than saying, ``Our Lord is GOD.`` If it were not for GOD`s supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed. Absolutely, GOD supports those who support Him. GOD is Powerful, Almighty.

...[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

...[9:12] If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism - you are no longer bound by your covenant with them - that they may refrain.

The covenant here refers to the treaty of peace and mutual suppourt with non-muslims.


...one need to ask in what context was that said and if a set of values and codes that existed 14 centuries ago are still valid. Such an advice would serve well for bedouin tribes of Arabia at the time but now-a-days, we have state apparatus to take care of injustices.

Till 60 years back the US did not recognise the rights of Blacks, The apartheid regime suppressed a majority just for the sake of their skin color. The women in India were forced into the inhuman rules and rituals of widowhood, Gandhiji was ceasly fighting for the cuase of Dalits. This was not 14 centuries ago. dont be in such a hurry to say that the Quranic values and codes are outdated.


.....Religion, in fact, should best be left to individuals. When it gets into hands of a State or religious clergy (as has happened with Islam and as was the case with Christianity in middle ages), the results have been disastrous.

What exactly was the disaster in case of Islam? do you read a broad spectroum of histories or just the histories approved by Murali Manohar Joshi?

You end up contradictiong your self in every post. That sati was prevalent (ok ok not every woman was being burnt, but remember it had some nice alternatives) You agree that the dalits were opressed(now remember that they even now constitute about 70 % of hindus) so you have it that a extremely large portion of population was under inhuman treatment ie the dalits who constitiute the majority and the women who are half of the total population. All this while the the beautiful freedom to choose your way in a individualistic fashion was present (as per you and sadna) for centuaries.
Does it not strike you that for centuries the Individual freedom to religion has lead to this while Islam has been able to make men equal to each other. Given rights to women, called for the minoriites and others to be protected.
In fact this is what the Quran says

.[ 22:40] If it were not for GOD`s supporting of some people against others, , churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed.

here is the Quran saying that God suppourts some people against others (those who voilate peace, do not belive in any righteousness and god)so that not only majsid but monasteries, churches & synagouges are protected....
Certainly it does not sound to me as something evil.. to protect the monasteries, churches and synagouges. That these were protected is borne out in history. Not only that chirstians of various denominations as well as Jews found refuge in mulsim countries escaping the prosecution in europe.
I dont see in light of this why you consider religion should necessarily result in religous wars.


...
Holy Qoran gives a way of being pious. Does it also tell you if these injunctions are to be enforced by a State or authority. If it does, then it is in clash with modernity...

the piety is some thing which god asseses the state is not required to assess it nor enforce it. However the matter of law and stability which any socitey needs is a different matter. I think that you dont have a clear Idea of the differnce between individual Piety (which leads to good deeds) and the need for just socitey and the laws to enforce justice. Islam makes this distinction and this is how it has been usually practiced a good ruler need not be the most pious person. It is sufficeient if he rulese with Justice and mercy and maintains order and fulfils his responsibility for providing a stable and fair framework for people (all people) to live thier lives.
This would include clamping down on practices like Sati, Caste opression etc.

#259 by sadna on June 2, 2003 6:20pm PT

...Then why is it that the Quran is memorized in Arabic by thousands of children

You ask questions whose answers are quite obvious im sure even to you.
the Quran is memorised so that the people can have access to the book themselves and not depend on others. Another function of the memorisation may be less obvious now is to ensure the availabiltiy of the Quran to larger number of muslims as the printing press is a recent invention. Those who memorise could rember and act as a spoken book to others thus spreading and safegaurding the quran and its contents against people who could own books or write books or disturbute edited or changed books. I would say this is one of the reasons why the muslim scriputure has remained as it was revaled and perhaps you will realise its important when you compare this with the condtion of the various hindu scriputres whose athuntectiy or time cannot be accertained so much so that most of what those books say can contradict each other (I dont belive this is because of the wonderful ability of Hinduism to have differnt views on the same issue many times compeltly conflicting that the religious leaders of every time have to say that one need not follow some smiriti or shruthi simply because you cant get a proper athuenctiy and flowing logic within the extensive books of scriputure of hinduism. )


Are you saying Pakistanis in Afghanistan and J&K who killed and were killed in the name of holy war were all Arabic scholars ?

This is an illogical statement. some thing you keep making. Im yet to understand the purpouse of such statements. I wonder if you belive that by simply making illogical statements which seem to hint of some illogic in the Islamic way you hope to prove some thing wrong with Islam. Ill defer my judgement for now and refute the text of your statement.

Those who go to Jihad need not be Scholars. I dont know in what context or with what reason you made that remark. Probably this can be expected of you since you are so confused about your own scriptures I cant expect you to make any sense in the Islamic methodology.
Amazing. Why do you have a Muslim Personal Law Board then, why donot Muslims of India hold referendums about Muslim personal laws.

.......

`always speak the truth, walk on the path of dharma`,

never wish another person harm in thought, word or deed.

....

Sure these are nice statements all religions state that.

However these undonditional statements dont tell you what to do when when certain sitiuation arises. What happens when a person who you never wished any harm in thought, word or deed attacks your family and injures your family?
would you still not wish to punish the person or at least stop him worrrying that it may harm him?

what is the answer of Hinduism to this delllima? I know what it is Ill let you speak for it.

#260 by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 6:20pm PT

Others find peace in the intellectual pursuit of studying the vast volume of scriptures and take pride in quoting them. Others will have nothing of these and swear by the path of Yoga alone. All these are acceptable paths. That is why, this religion has produced so many God-realised souls. They just sought out God without bothering about religion. Sometimes religion can be a shackle to the free spirit

What did those god realised souls did save their own souls and went after salvation, what ever that is.
All the while majority of the people were oppressed. Perverse practices flourshised throughout.
and these guys were on their own trip saving their own skin towards salvation. I find that repungant.

#255 by Inquirer on June 2, 2003 3:14pm PT
...Am I sorry that my thesis has caused this Hindu-Muslim riot?


I can assure you that we are not roiting but discussing some very difficult issues. However we are doing it quite peacfully and respectfully.

At least I dont have any complaints from side about rsridhar and sadna.

I find myself in a very strange situation. On saturday I was defending the hindu and their practices by some very serious allegations by a jew and American convert to jewish faith (I thought that was Oxymoron, that too this lady with tight hot pants was talking about being a convert and if given a choice would be a Orthodox jew!! I wonder if she knew what she was talking about). Then I was assailed about the killings of mulsims and hindus by each other in India I had to assure them that all hindus were not killing muslims and even some of those who participated in or suppourted the roits were perhaps ashamed of themselves and their behaviour.
Then I had to explain that while India is quite poor it is not so bad as potrayed in the west. I ended up with an offer to arrange for a heart by pass surgery for one of them who was not insured for just $4000 (excluding air fare) only by some very competent doctors(they didnot take up the offer though:))!! )

Sushil (aka inquirer) #261 That was indeed a thoughtful piece you posted. I could not agree more with the writer (Asma Barlas). The most dangerous thing the world can do is to surrender Islam, and in particular, the interpretation of the Quran to the religious ``scholars``. My late father challenged this ``mullah interpretation`` in a book he wrote (``Quranic and nonQuranic Islam``) which was quoted in the US publication ``Current History`` Jan 2000 issue as being one of the two books that signalled the stirrings of reformation in Islam (the other book was from some Syrian writer). I am glad that there are many others, like Asma Barlas, who are also challenging this incubus of mullahism that is probably the biggest enemy of not just the muslim people but to the world at large.

SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE:

Islam, women, and equality — III

Asma Barlas

US-Americans have a stake in egalitarian readings of Islam and of their own religions (and secular ideologies, for that matter) because we need to devise more egalitarian modes of “knowing one another,” to use a Qur’anic phrase

(This is the final in a series of essays, deriving from a talk I gave at Ithaca College on my book, on March 19. The previous two were published on May 6 and May 20.)

If, as I have argued, the Qur’an does not endorse theories of male privilege and female inferiority and subordination, then the question becomes why haven’t Muslims read it as an antipatriarchal and liberatory text? I want to address this problem, as well as the larger issue of interpretation, in the last part of my talk.

I believe that the reason Muslims have failed to read the Qur’an as an antipatriarchal text has to do with “who has read it (basically men), the contexts in which they have read it (basically patriarchal), and the method by which they have read it (basically one that ignores the hermeneutic and theological principles that the Qur’an suggests for its own reading)” (Asma Barlas, “Challenging Patriarchal Interpretations of Islam,” Anderberg Lecture, University of Nebraska, 2002).

Much of the religious knowledge Muslims regard as canonical today is the product of a method that has been described as linear, atomistic, and hermeneutically flawed. However, because of how religious knowledge and authority came to be structured in Muslim societies historically, most Muslims continue to regard these interpretations and this methodology as Islamic.

Much of this religious knowledge also was produced by male scholars in the first few centuries of Islam which were coterminous with the medieval period of European history. Even though Muslim civilisation was at its zenith during this period of European decline, this was nonetheless an era of enormous misogyny that was cross-cultural and inter-national in its scope.

Added to this is the fact that many of the Qur’an’s provisions threatened existing relationships of power between women and men and between the rulers and the ruled and produced a strong conservative resistance that extended to deradicalising parts of its message very early on. For instance, Fatima Mernissi shows how many Muslim men tried to misread the verses that extended inalienable rights to women (The Veil and the Male Elite, New York: Addison-Wesley, 1991).

Similarly, Louise Marlow argues that as early as the second Islamic century, Muslim ulema had begun to dilute the egalitarian impulse in various parts of tradition, by justifying hierarchical “models of kingship” in a society whose Scripture extolled the virtues of egalitarianism. Thus, the ulema who had “gained incontestable possession of the moral high ground [refused to] translate the antihierarchical and antiauthoritarian moral at the heart of their scholarly tradition into an active social and political opposition.” Instead, they sought to justify not only hierarchies, but quietism as well, even though some of them “felt obliged to defend their quietism, since it was activism that had been suggested most strongly by early Muslim experience.” By the third Islamic century, even Qur’anic exegesis showed that the egalitarianism once associated with the Qur’an had lost its “subversive connotation” (Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977: 93; 66).

On its part, the early Muslim state also became involved in promoting certain interpretive practices and certain readings of Islam that were oppressive to women. This has been documented by several scholars, including Leila Ahmed, who also points out that different readings of the same texts yield “fundamentally different Islams” for women (Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate, Yale University Press, 1992).

All this suggests, of course, that hermeneutical and existential questions are connected and to the extent they are, it is reasonable to argue that one cannot read scriptures in liberatory modes by means of flawed methodologies and in oppressive and antidemocratic circumstances. Many people, including disillusioned Muslims, believe that Islam itself is antidemocratic, but I reject such essentialism because, as my own work shows, a religion is always polysemic (has a multiplicity of meanings) and we can read it in more than one way. To me, then, the more appropriate question becomes “why does a community come to regard certain interpretations and ideas as authentic, authoritative, or canonical?” And that takes us back to such issues as how knowledge itself is produced and the contexts in which it is produced.

If we look at Muslim societies today, we find a rather dismal picture. Most of the regimes in power are viewed by their own people as illegitimate, oppressive, and unIslamic. Moreover, as a result partly of Western support of such regimes and partly of the legacy of Western colonialism, Muslim societies have experienced modernisation not as economic development or political freedoms, but as a “coercive secularism” (Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, New York: Modern Library, 2000: 166).

This brings me to how nonMuslim Westerners view Islam and to the role of the US in keeping antidemocratic regimes in power in Muslim societies, and around the world generally. I have argued elsewhere that in spite of a 1,400 year long shared history, and in spite of the fact that Islam is as much a part of Abrahamic monotheism as are Judaism and Christianity, there is very little understanding of Islam in the US and the West. Even and perhaps, especially, in the Academy, only certain types of discourses on Islam get fore grounded that continue to perpetuate ignorant and damaging stereotypes about it.

My own view is that this ignorance “is cultivated, not accidental, and that it arises in an age-old politics of misrecognition that ‘confuses Islam with Muslims, disregards the role of political, economic, cultural, and historical factors in shaping not only Muslim attitudes and actions, but also their readings of Islam, and denies Western complicity in creating many of the conditions that are conducive’ to religious extremism and not just on the part of some Muslims” (Asma Barlas, “Jihad=Holy War=Terrorism: the Politics of Conflation and Denial,” American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, Winter 2003: 1).

In such a milieu, learning about Islam requires unlearning deeply entrenched modes of ignorance and nonrecognition and while some people are open to such a possibility, most can see no stake in it because of the instrumentalist belief that there’s no value in learning about things that don’t impact their own lives in immediate and tangible ways. However, one of the things 9/11 should have brought home to us — and I intend the pun here — is that even as we secure ourselves behind imaginary borders of inside/outside, in real life, what happens “out there” is likely to have repercussions “in here” sooner or later as well.

This is why I believe US-Americans have a stake in the foreign policies that governments pursue in their names and which, for the most part, are conducive to oppression, not democracy. I also believe that US-Americans have a stake in egalitarian readings of Islam and of their own religions (and secular ideologies, for that matter) because we need to devise more egalitarian modes of “knowing one another,” to use a Qur’anic phrase. In the absence of mutual recognition based in mutual knowledge and understanding, we will be hard put to live peaceably together.

Asma Barlas is associate professor and chair of Politics at Ithaca College, New York

re: #252 by ali87

``If religon cant call the people to fight against Invaders then what is the purpose of religion, If it cant call to fight against the oppressors in suppourt of the oppressed then what is the use of religon. Are we to suppose that had germans been hindu it would have been appropirate for religon to give guidance to go and find god(for what purpose?)
why is it you think that salvation in itself a goal what is the purpose? is salvation just going and finding creative methods and objects to pray?
you however forget Krishnas advice to Arjuna on doing his duty. Why did you not find that Abhorrent?``
Religious conflicts are happening today because religious leaders have taken it among themselves tasks that are best relegated to the State. Who is to determine who is oppressed and who is not? In today`s day and age, we cannot let religion determine that. That is why democratic states have a constitution, a legal system to enforce laws passed by the constitution. Dalits have been long oppressed. Can we let religious pundits (mostly brahmins even today) to decide if they are oppressed or not. Despite best intentions, some shortcomings will creep in. That is why, even one of the founders of Indian Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar (a Dalit himself) strongly supported special status for dalits. They are still oppressed but that oppression is much less, thanks to the successful implementation of many reforms and their gradual empowerment. Last president K.R. Narayanan was a dalit himself. C.M of UP, Mayawati is a dalit. So, thinks have been improving mainly due to intervention of state. Religion has minimal role to play here. Religion cannot dictate the state, at least in a democracy.
The problem with a lot of Islamic nations is that religion (and mullahs) have been dictating terms to the state and quoting the scripture in support of their claim. This is not acceptable to most nations who are not islamic. That is why we see the conflict today. I would still exclude many nations like Indonesia, malaysia who are by and large secular but even they are facing problems.
So, if your Holy Qoran says it is O.K to fight oppression, one need to ask in what context was that said and if a set of values and codes that existed 14 centuries ago are still valid. Such an advice would serve well for bedouin tribes of Arabia at the time but now-a-days, we have state apparatus to take care of injustices. These should be strengthened. I already see this conflict happening with NWFP of Pakistan coming under rule of religious extremists who now want Shariat law in that province. What is wrong with that? you may ask. Nothing as long as thiefs do not mind their hands being chopped off for petty crimes and rapists do not mind getting stoned to death. There is, other than that, no problem at all.
Hinduism is an individual religion. Adi Sankara organised it many centuries ago to preserve some core values and gave it some kind of an organisational status. But head of these monasteries (or Matts as they are called) are just symbolic heads with no real powers (unlike the pope or some religious leaders in an islamic country).

Salvation (``Moksha``) is indeed the ultimate goal of people practising hinduism. It is the last of Purusharthas (aims of life), the others being Artha (earning a livelihood), Kama (enjoying life), Dharma (philanthropy).
If you are interested you can go to:
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/basics/nineb/index.html
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/basics/fourf/index.html
Indeed, Krishna`s advice to Arjuna in doing his duty, even though such a duty involved violence, cannot be considered abhorrent. Our religion does talk of using violence as a last resort to uphold Dharma (righteousness). That advice to Arjuna was given in a certain context, when all peaceful efforts for reconciliation between the warring sides had failed. Dharma was on the side of Arjuna. But no hindu today would site that as a pretext for violence. There is no concept for holy war or jehad in Hinduism.
``I think your problem is that you feel that religon is some thing estoric and should be relegated to the private sphere and man is basicalliy free to do what he wants in the other sphere. YOu feel that the task of religion is to guide you to god(for what purpouse? you dont seem to be clear) Islam on the other hand prescribes the prayer rituals so that a man may become Pious by addressing god and communitaitng with him and remebemereing his guidance.``
Religion, in fact, should best be left to individuals. When it gets into hands of a State or religious clergy (as has happened with Islam and as was the case with Christianity in middle ages), the results have been disastrous. Holy Qoran gives a way of being pious. Does it also tell you if these injunctions are to be enforced by a State or authority. If it does, then it is in clash with modernity.
Hindus are not governed by any central authority. They have books, scriptures and a number of commentaries by scholars, sages over many centuries to rely on. Above all, they are encouraged to find the truth themselves. There are some who feel satisfied by following some strict religious belief systems in a book (for eg some Vaishnavites of South follow scrupulously some belief systems laid down by their Acharyas like Ramanuja). Others find peace in the intellectual pursuit of studying the vast volume of scriptures and take pride in quoting them. Others will have nothing of these and swear by the path of Yoga alone. All these are acceptable paths. That is why, this religion has produced so many God-realised souls. They just sought out God without bothering about religion. Sometimes religion can be a shackle to the free spirit. These great souls are not different from many scientists in the West who seek out the truth in their scientific enquiries in a dispassionate manner: without any prejudice.
I have already said that the methods prescribed in Islam are also legitimate ways. However, i would strongly disagree if someone says that Islamic way is the only way and rest are full. Close to a billion Roman Christians also say the same. They feel you can be saved only by Jesus. So, who is right?
Sridhar

ali87 #258

``first mulsims are not exhorted to depend on the maulvi or mullah or the ulema for religious matters. It is infact the opposite they are exhorted to gaiin knowledge by themselves.``

Then why is it that the Quran is memorized in Arabic by thousands of children who donot understand the language, some of whom are then incited to jihad in the name of the injunctions of same Quran? Are you saying Pakistanis in Afghanistan and J&K who killed and were killed in the name of holy war were all Arabic scholars ? Amazing. Why do you have a Muslim Personal Law Board then, why donot Muslims of India hold referendums about Muslim personal laws?

``which is perhaps hindu religon is so difficult for its adherants to follow that they choose to give up . ``

If Hindu scripture tells me ``Satyam vada, dharmam chara`` - `always speak the truth, walk on the path of dharma`, I believe that this will take a lifetime get absolutely perfect in this.

If my scripture says ``never wish another person harm in thought, word or deed` - ahimsa paramo dharma - I think this is also very difficult to be perfect in throughout life and in all situations.

I can understand why someone would want to convert from such a religion due to these difficulties.

#247 by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 12:27pm PT

looks like Hindus are the only ones who belive in this powerful cleric business. or of the fatwas. the opinons become valid for implementation in a state context only when a state adopts them. in the salman rusdhie case it was Iran.
Notice the greatful statement of the ex british minister in a satement last week how the UK govt negotiated with Iran to have the fatwa (as adopted by the state of Iran withdrawn)which is to day that the fatwa of death penalty was considered right by a parituclar religous authority and adopted by the state who subsequently withdrew it on the basis of another fatwa stating that withdrawal of the death penlaty citing practical reasons and befifit to the muslim people as a whole in exchange of such a withdrawal of the death penalty.
However there is a opinoin by another religous authority which says that the death penalyt need not be withdrawn this however has not been adopted by the state of Iran

#254 by sadna on June 2, 2003 3:14pm PT


....I donot see anything different in Islam. Just like the ordinary Muslims couldnot/cannot read the Arabic Quran and were/are exhorted to depend on maulvi/mullah/ulema on religious matters, ordinary people couldnot/cannot read Sanskrit - they were infact barred from learning Sanskrit and reading the scriptures as were women too.

you see and yet you dont realise..

first mulsims are not exhorted to depend on the maulvi or mullah or the ulema for religious matters. It is infact the opposite they are exhorted to gaiin knowledge by themselves. For practical purposes they use the efforts of the Ulema. In fact people are always critized because of having to little knowledge.
The ulema is to be depended on in juristic matters. ie matters concerning Law which is the same as in any other socitey including the present.
any body can become a Ulema. the extortation is not to make pronouncement on basis of half knowledge but depend on people who have knowldge in case you want to get that knowldege then the most convinent institution of the free madarsas are present. contrast this to the system in the hindu religon

second you so easily write of the difference which you admit and the consequent impact of the ``BARRING`` of women and non Bhramins from readign the scriputure.
But I however dont understand why we are discussing this :))

...It will take many lifetimes to read all these, much less LIVE it - this when even a single line of the Bhagavad Gita can take a lifetime to really LIVE upto sincerely..

which is perhaps hindu religon is so difficult for its adherants to follow that they choose to give up .

or by another angle why is it sooooo... difficult to follow...
is it not a justification after the fact of making the religion so complex

#248 by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 12:27pm PT


....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.


I often wonder at the hypocricy of people who find it ok for states to have armies to defend themselves but the same defence if its called Jihad bya muslim country it is not ok. I dont recall you ever stating such feelings to crusade.

I think your problem is that you feel that religon is some