The Book is also Just a Book

Ajeya,

Whatever. Point was she was happy and highly strong and ``undamaged`` for her young marriage (6, 14, whatever it was). Burden of proof is now on you to say why it was wrong then. I can think of reasons for now, but for then, the burden is on you.

---

dost,
``You have a point there, although Jesus did have enemies and was crucified as well.``

Right, and if he said peep against the Romans, his handful of followers would have been instantly gone. Romans were not a bunch of clumsy bufoons...

``But then, shouldn`t Muslims stop saying that everything in the Book is valid for all times to come? To me, this is the crux of the problem.``

Well, the core message is timeless...period. Much though depends on context, and from there we rely on analogy. Now, I would like to hear your interpretation of what is (uniquely) our ``problem``...but please don`t confuse this with what annoys you....

``The verse is not an isolated verse, the Book is full of several very harsh verses for
non-believers.``

ALL of them? Who in particular? Pardon me for the quiz, but that is not incidental...

``the website I use to gain knowledge about Islam is mostly chowk.com, which has so far not been dubbed an RSS site.``

Well...if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ;-) Sorry...couldn`t resist...

``When people are not willing to discuss and scrutinise a deceased person`s life, calling him flawless while insisting that he be considered a role model, to me this is plain worship.``

That is core belief, not worship. This is by association to the object of worship, namely God, and not of any of his ``human`` qualities which are quite irrelevant in this respect. Next you will tell us that we worship the Kabba...perhaps to the untrained eye, but then that simply tells me you`ve never really worshiped anything....at least not like we worship our God....

dost-mittar #291: You have, as usual, still not validated any of your points..........You have not even initiated a debate on them........

All I can say is you need to do quite a bit more research on Islam, if you want to form solid views about it. Neem hakim, khatra-e-jaan, neem mullah khatra-e-iman. You and Urstruly and both neem mullahs from opposite directions, when it comes to Islam. And that makes both of you dangerous, since there maybe other individuals who listen to what you are saying.................You, of all people, should be extremely sensitive about this, considering the recent Hindu-Muslim violence and the rise of BJP in your country of birth......I can well imagine, people getting violent if they are told that Muslims are, by their religion, commanded to kill them..........Which is what you seem to be stating again and again.......Seriously speaking, if I didn`t know you better, I would have confused you for a spokesperson for the BJP...........

Shariah is a relative term. There is, in fact, no set Shariah in Islam. For the simple reason that Islam does not recognize the concept of clergies. Everyone is a Brahmin and a Pope in Islam. No one person or group`s Shariah is binding on anyone else. There is no one, who can instruct me to do something, in a binding manner, when it comes to Islam. Neither can I instruct anyone to do as I want them to do, in Islam.

I can tell any maulvi to go climb a tree, regardless of his status. And he can do the same to me. I can, as a Muslim, go and lead the prayers at the largest of Muslim congregations at at Badshahi mosque. As can any other Muslim............

This right and ability to analyse a whole religion, just on my own, sitting in the comforts of my study room, with no binding reliance on any, ``aalim`` or any, ``religious`` expert, is an extremely liberating experience. There is no religious beauracracy between me and my God. This is why the clergy, historically, has never had the same hold on power in Islam, as it has had in various other religions.......

This, and its concept of egalatarianism is what has always attracted me to Islam. Bilal, a black slave became the Governor of Syria (which is a country). This was more than a thousand years before a Black man would become a mayor of evan a city in the USA..........If today, say, you became a Muslim, tomorrow you could go to the Kaaba and lead the prayers.........

Believe me, all of this is very liberating, for people who do believe in the concept of God and the concept of religion. Does this mean that Islam is some sort of perfection, which everyone should adopt. No. If for no other reason, because it is so abstract that it can have many variations. But, it also does not mean that it is what you keep trying to portray it to be............

If you don`t want to follow Islam, don`t. That is your choice. But you have no right to badmouth it (or badmouth any religion) without first getting your facts straight...........

Re: #294 by Vertex

Hey Vertex,

I`m eagerly waiting for you to shred my ``stupid logic`` to pieces with your incisive and brilliant logic.

Should I be holding my breath?

vertex:

``I was not aware of Jesus or Buddah engaging in a war for survival.``

You have a point there, although Jesus did have enemies and was crucified as well. But then, shouldn`t Muslims stop saying that everything in the Book is valid for all times to come? To me, this is the crux of the problem.

``I reckon based on your aloof bandying about of quranic passages that allegedly tell Muslims to kill ALL unbelivers (your reading, not mine) that context is meaningless to you except in hindsight.``

Please re-read what I had said, I did not use the ``ALL``. The verse is not an isolated verse, the Book is full of several very harsh verses for non-believers. And I use either my Urdu translation of the Quran bought from outside the Jama Masjid of Delhi or translation by Yusuf Ali; the website I use to gain knowledge about Islam is mostly chowk.com, which has so far not been dubbed an RSS site.

``Flippant remark aside, you`ve dodged the point. Muslim emoting equates to worship how?``

When people are not willing to discuss and scrutinise a deceased person`s life, calling him flawless while insisting that he be considered a role model, to me this is plain worship.

dost-mittar:

Did you read this link to the Quran??.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/quranindex.html

You can find out how Mr. Muhammad wants the believers to treat idol-worshippers/kafirs etc.. :-)).. Welcome to the club, BTW..

Regarding Prophet`s marriages, I think there are a lot of wealthy arab sheiks (prophet wannabes) still scouting around Hyderabad for young gals for marrying.. I`ve read they visit hyderabad, pay-off some money to the poor parents, marry their young gals


...Sitting on the floor of her dishevelled home, the size of a broom cupboard, in Old Delhi, Bano recounts her precocious achievements. She was married at the age of 10 and had her first child when she was 11. Her daughter was 12 when she married and 13 when she had her own child, making Bano a grandmother at 24. ...
Nevertheless, marrying girls at puberty is much more prevalent among Muslims than Hindus. In addition to the inexorable logic of poverty and culture, it enjoys the powerful sanction of religion and the Prophet’s own example. Muhammad’s favourite wife, Aisha, according to her biographer, was six when they wed, nine when the marriage was consummated....
Hussain and scores of Muslim activists are seeking to bring Muslim Personal Law — designed for tribal, warrior and nomadic Arabia 14 centuries ago — into line with modern sensibilities. They are outraged (though not surprised), at the board’s demand; its record for supporting all the excesses perpetrated against India’s 60 million Muslim women in the name of Islam is unsurpassed...
The custom of getting girls married the moment they menstruate has made the predominantly Muslim city of Hyderabad in south India a favourite hunting-ground of rich, old Arabs in search of Lolitas. Most Indians still remember the 1992 scandal of Amina Fatima, 11, who was married to a 70-year-old Arab by her father, a poor auto-rickshaw driver..


I don`t remember Madam Farzana writing about these evils.. Maybe because threer is a precedent set by her leader (Mr. Muhammad), she might not think of this as an evil..

Re: #294 by Vertex

[Ajeya,

Stupid logic. By that logic no one can truely love another untill they`ve loved everyone so they know for sure. Whatever. Fact is, no matter what the age of marriage, she hadn`t suffered a bit. How many women in India have ever led an army? ]

Whether my logic is stupid or not remains to be seen.

But what you are trying to prove is the following point:

In spite of her marriage at an young age, she was HAPPILY MARRIED to Mohammed.

HOWEVER, HER BEING HAPPY DOES NOT JUSTIFY HIS WANTING TO MARRY A LITTLE CHILD.


You still haven’t answered my question:

1) WHY DID HE WANT TO MARRY A 6-YEAR OLD CHILD AT 50 WHEN HE ALREADY HAD 11 OTHER WIVES?

And now I add another one:

2) WOULD YOU GIVE YOUR 6-YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IN MARRIAGE TO A 50-YEAR OLD MAN, IF YOU KNEW HE WOULD TREAT HER WELL?



[Child marriages in India are historic. They continue to happen, and are mostly in rural areas outside the reach of the law.

Universally, though, the practice is on the wane and the average age of marraige for both men and women is increasing for education, new modalities of employment, etc etc.]

All this HISTORY stuff is IRRELEVANT.

LET ME REPEAT:

We are talking about an exemplary character whose example is to be followed. Correct? He should have been setting exemplary standards, not happily following despicable practices that were prevalent at the time.

dost-mittar,

I was not aware of Jesus or Buddah engaging in a war for survival. The romans were content with leaving Christ to the Jews. The pagans had no such fate in mind for Muslims. Early days of Bhuddism were quite uneventful too.

I reckon based on your aloof bandying about of quranic passages that allegedly tell Muslims to kill ALL unbelivers (your reading, not mine) that context is meaningless to you except in hindsight.

Flippant remark aside, you`ve dodged the point. Muslim emoting equates to worship how?

---

Ajeya,

Stupid logic. By that logic no one can truely love another untill they`ve loved everyone so they know for sure. Whatever. Fact is, no matter what the age of marriage, she hadn`t suffered a bit. How many women in India have ever led an army?


Child marriages in India are historic. They continue to happen, and are mostly in rural areas outside the reach of the law.

Universally, though, the practice is on the wane and the average age of marraige for both men and women is increasing for education, new modalities of employment, etc etc.

Dost-Mittar

People do a great disservice to themselves and to Muslims when they do not tell the truth. You have taken a most remarkable step. I hope at least some people will give your words the consideration they deserve.

#290 by vertex

[Ajeya,

Bwahahaha...wow you got me there you rascal. Oh wait...now it turns out we have some seriously loving commentary about said person from this ``little girl`` when she was all grown up...now what does that do to your critique? What`s it`s purpose, then? ]

He is the ONLY man she ever knew. Of course she would fall in love with him.

But you still haven’t answered my question – WHY DID HE WANT TO MARRY A 6-YEAR OLD CHILD AT 50 WHEN HE ALREADY HAD 11 OTHER WIVES?


[But no, Hindus never ever ever married ``under-aged`` children in history...ever...right.]

Those Hindus, who at 50, marry 6-year olds ARE NOT CONSIDERED EXEMPLARY CHARACTERS. They are thrown in jail.

And it may have been the custom in Saudi Arabia back then, but we are talking about an exemplary character whose example is to be followed. Correct? He should have been setting exemplary standards, not happily following despicable practices.

And no, I`m not a rascal.

Romair#286:

``Would you be suggesting that, according to Islam, I am living in sin, since I haven`t killed a Hindu?``

As far as I know there is no huddood punishment for that, so you are safe.:-)

For the record: I should have added that the instructions about killing a pagan is frequently interpreted as contextual. Even the statement itself says that anyone willing to accept the supremacy of Islam and paying jaziya should be spared his life. As I have frequently stated in the past, the life of a Hindu or any other Muslim under the Muslim rule was not always bad as long as they accepted a second class status. While sharia is not the rule of law in Pakistan, non-muslim Parsees are making quite a hay by going into businesses which are banned for the faithful.

vertex:
``So by your own logic, then, those who follow Bhudda, Jesus, etc. are direlect in their faith because they`re not willing to kill for offenses to said figures.``

I am not aware of Jesus or Buddha asking their followers to kill anyone for whatever reason.

Ajeya,

Bwahahaha...wow you got me there you rascal. Oh wait...now it turns out we have some seriously loving commentary about said person from this ``little girl`` when she was all grown up...now what does that do to your critique? What`s it`s purpose, then?

But no, Hindus never ever ever married ``under-aged`` children in history...ever...right.

Re: #288 by vertex

Oh good. Here’s a thinking man making logical arguments.

Umm… Could YOU tell me WHY Mohammad wanted to marry a 6 year-old little child when he was 50 and already with eleven other wives?

I’ll come to the million other points after your response.

Romair,

``This is an interesting comment........I have met hundreds of Hindus in my life. Perhaps thousands. According to your statement, I should have killed all of them..........``


Yarr...the retort to this is so obvious it`s painful....``then obviously you`re not a good Muslim``...har har har.

The fact is, it seems like a once reasonable interactor has visited a few RSS anti-Islam sites, LOL.

Taking the versus in which the Quran is talking about the battles between the Prophet(pbuh), and the pagans who were bent on Muslim genocide and extending it throughout all time and space is a bit silly...but hey, if all they understand is quack-quack, what to do?

Now even the retort to this is obvious, namely that all that matters is what the fanatics are doing (who are convienently heald up as the exemplars of Islam), and according to them these versus apply universally. Problem is, even for that ilk they don`t apply as-is, and from Checnya to Palestine to Kashmir, the Islamists always cetner their rhetoric around abuses by non-Muslims against Muslims (`course we are meant to turn a blind eye the abuses these guys are metting out to Muslims and non-Muslims alik), and THEN invoke said passages from the Holy Book.

For anyone who has been ``jhukk-marrowing`` on chowk for someitme, there is nothing new or suprising in your post. You and I are both aware that there are verses in the Qur`an where Allah instructs the believers to kill those who join Allah with other gods (i.e, practice shirk) for whom the worst torments are awaiting in hell anyway. Now, please tell me how anyone who believes this to be an instruction from Allah can respect a religion whose adherents do precisely that, without some spin-doctoring that they are really not idolators? Now, switch to the other side - how can any adherent of those religions respect a religon whose God says such awful things about their beliefs, regardless of what their religion says regarding all paths to God being true paths? On the other hand, it is easier to respect people because most adherents are innocent ineheritors of those faiths or beliefs.

dost-mittar,

``Regarding the ``worship`` of the Prophet, I am quite aware of the technical position.``

Yarr, ths is the position from the heart, not from some bearded academic who is spewing how things SHOULD be.

``Say anything negative about Ram, Krishna, Jesus or even Allah before a Hindu, Christian or Muslim and you would hardly cause a ripple. But say anything critical about the Prophet before Muslims and you wont have to wait for the afterlife to get a taste of hell.``

So by your own logic, then, those who follow Bhudda, Jesus, etc. are direlect in their faith because they`re not willing to kill for offenses to said figures. There is more to worship than how people emote around holy figures. This changes nothing in my previous posts, and the fact remains the mimicking of the Prophet (pbuh) is hardly worship. Unless, of course, you think the only facet of worship worth considering is how quickly people will spaz out for offenses against respected figures.

So it`s not a matter of walking and quaking like a duck...but of walking and talking like men and yet being told you`re waddling and quacking...

Dost-mittar #284: ``You and I are both aware that there are verses in the Qur`an where Allah instructs the believers to kill those who join Allah with other gods (i.e, practice shirk) for whom the worst torments are awaiting in hell anyway.``

This is an interesting comment........I have met hundreds of Hindus in my life. Perhaps thousands. According to your statement, I should have killed all of them..........If you and I would meet, are you suggesting that according to Islam, I should kill you? If I decide against killing you, what exactly would be my punishment, according to Islam? Since you seem to have such in-depth knowledge of the subject, I assume you would know the answer.

In fact, I might as well pack it up right now, as far as religion is concerned, since of the hundreds of Hindus I have met, I haven`t killed a single one. I haven`t even attempted an assassination.

Would you be suggesting that, according to Islam, I am living in sin, since I haven`t killed a Hindu?

Dost-mittar #284: I will ask you to validate your examples, again. You have yet to validate a single one. You keep making statements, yet you never validate them. Yet you hold such strong views, about Islam. Whenever I ask you to validate them, you provide run-of-the-mill examples, like, ``if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, at least some people are going to call it a duck.``

This is your explanation!!

Religions span over many centuries. All religions. In one century, they may look like a duck and in another they may look like a chicken. If you want to study any religion, you need to forget about the chickens and ducks, and study and debate the religion.

Unless, of course, you intention is to try to convince everyone that something is a duck, because you want others to think it is a duck............In which case, there is no argument I can give to you that can convince you otherwise............

``I am quite aware of the technical position.``

If you are aware of the technical position, then why aren`t you accepting it. The technical position is the real religion.