The Book is also Just a Book

Re: #338 by Mantolives

[Islam is based on as much an untruth as whatever religion you follow is based on untruth. My guess is that you are a Hindu... then should we even start by dissecting Hindu mythology? ]

There is a difference between mythology and history.


[So here is the deal... I am a Muslim and I will leave Islam for the reason you`ve enumerated provided you denounce your own religion and tell Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and everyone else to renounce all religions immediately. ]

As far as denouncing Hinduism is concerned, point out to me the things you feel I should denounce, and I’ll denounce those, if appropriate.

I do not gain much in this “deal” if one person such as yourself leaves Islam. There are thousands of others that cannot or will not be persuaded. If you renounce Islam, you should do it because you feel that you must, not because of what everybody else is doing.

And you should not have to leave Islam because it is based on an untruth.

You might of course, as a self-respecting individual, and one who is vehemently opposed to pedophilia, rape of innocent war-victims etc. decide not to base your life on the words and credibility of someone like Mohammed.

I really don’t care, and neither should anybody, what nonsense ANYONE believes in, as long as it is not harmful to others.

But Islam IS harmful to others. It SPECIFICALLY instructs its followers to convert the world into Dar-us-Salam by violence as necessary, and assign second-class or dhimmi status to all non-believers. These unfortunates are supposed to pay taxes as the price for not being persecuted. This is a worldview that is intolerable for people of every other religion, and should be for the decent people amongst the Muslims as well.



[Because as far as I can see... you`ve provided me with no evidence which suggests that Islam is in any way different from any other religion.]

As far as theological issues go, I don’t care whether it is the same or different. I could, of course, spends hours writing about it, but it is irrelevent in the current context.

But politically and sociologically Islam is much more dangerous than any other religion. Because it aims to take away the freedoms we enjoy today.



If you feel that another religion is threatening to take away your freedoms, then you have every right to engage people of that religion in dialogue and persuade them to leave that misguided path.

Re: #345 by dost-mittar

[ajeya:

There is no inconsistency. I have already said that he is not MY role model. But I do believe in respecting other people`s sentiments. This whole thing started when I tried to make a distinction between respecting a religion and its adherents. I still believe in respecting people, even when I don`t respect their beliefs.]


I ONLY RESPECT THOSE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH DESPICABLE ACTS OR CONCUR WITH DESPICABLE BELIEFS.

Ajeya is right on the mark. You cannot respect a pedophile. Imagine having a known pedophile Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or a Prime Minister, or a President or a Pope or a Teacher. What respect you have for such a person? You just tolerate that person because of the position he/she/it holds.

It would be like that despicable creature Musharraf punishing pakistanis who break the law and commit a crime. He himself has broken the law and commited a crime and he is going to punish pakistanis for doing the same and should be respected and listened to and followed, from the heart?

ajeya:

There is no inconsistency. I have already said that he is not MY role model. But I do believe in respecting other people`s sentiments. This whole thing started when I tried to make a distinction between respecting a religion and its adherents. I still believe in respecting people, even when I don`t respect their beliefs.

#340 by dost-mittar

[Ajeya:

Let me respond to some of your points from a non-muslim perspective.

Regardless of Hazrat Mohammad being a prophet, I think that it is unfair to criticise him for marrying a child; age at marriage is a cultural thing and child marriages take place among Hindus in Rajasthan even today.]

It is not unfair at all. A 50-year-old man wanting to have sex with a little child is perverted, no matter what the culture. He did not HAVE to do it, just because some people in that culture did it. He should have been setting examples. (And I am not even talking about him raping MANY slavewomen while being married to a dozen or so women. Some of the women he had sex with – he had killed their husband that same day. Respect? You must be joking.). I don’t want to hear ANYTHING he has to say.

In Rajasthan, child marriage does take place. There children marry other children. Don’t try to obfuscate.

You can respect whoever you want. But the fact is, I would not even let a person like him into my house.



[ You would have been on a firmer ground if you had objected to his banning a teen-age Ayesha and his other wives from remarrying after his death; fortunately, he explicitly forbade Muslims to use him as a role model in this particular aspect. ]

I am on VERY firm ground. It is muslims who do not have ground beneath their feet.



[You do not have to consider someone flawless to respect him or her. I deeply respect my parents even though I don`t think that they were infallible. Most Hindus wouldn`t say that Ram did the right thing in banishing Sita from his house, but it doesn`t prevent them from opening the Ramayan or worshipping, let alone, respect Ram. ]

Having a few human flaws is one thing. But pedophilia is quite another. As I said, you can respect whoever you want. But the world never will. Unless there is a knife to their throat.



[Manto is right about the differences in various sects wrt the Prophet. In my opinion, the ``worship`` of the Prophet is mostly a desi thing and is probably due to the influence of Hinduism. I believe that perhaps the only differene between Deobandis and Wahabbi Arabs is wrt the position accorded to the prophet. Desi muslims asked for and got a holiday for the prophet`s birthday, Id-ul-Nabi. I wonder what would have happened if the picture of the prophet was permitted in India as it was at one time permitted in Iran. I heard from some desi muslims that the Arab security people would lightly hit desi pilgrims trying to offer prayers at the Prophet`s graveyard in Madina. This was some years ago and may not be true now.]

Again, all these sect-related issues are irrelevant and obfuscatory. No Muhammad, no Quran, no Islam.

Period.


Anyway talking to you guys is like like straightening a dog’s tail. You let it go, and it curls up again. There is no end to this..

People who would respect such a man have very LOW self-esteem.

That’s the end of it.


And you seem rather schizophrenic. Are you trying to make up for your sacrilegous comments earlier? If you are, it is already too late. You have already switched over from the Dar-us-salam to Dar-ul-Harab (or some such nonsense). There’s eternal hellfire and all kinds of bad things (cold coffee?) waiting for you in the hereafter. It’s no point.

And if you are trying to recover your previous Chowkie status, you can`t. Urstruly would happily slit your throat in the prescribed manner in a second.

Isn’t this essay about Quran Flushing? Why is this other debate going on?

I wonder why such a big deal about Quran in the toilet? Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t Muslims believe that other scripture (e.g., Torah, the Old Testament) have been altered? Do you think that that is not an insult to tell others that their holy books have been altered? If it is sanctioned by your belief system, then toilet is the right place for your books. Use a plunger (Hadis) to unclog whatever is left of it.

masanmuthu#341

I am not apologetic about Hazrat Mohammad and he is not my role model. But one should be objective in one`s criticism, especially of someone who is held in such high esteem by more than a billion people. And I dont see what the Prophet marrying a six year old had to do with jihadis flying planes into WTC.

Ajeya:

Let me respond to some of your points from a non-muslim perspective.

Regardless of Hazrat Mohammad being a prophet, I think that it is unfair to criticise him for marrying a child; age at marriage is a cultural thing and child marriages take place among Hindus in Rajasthan even today. You would have been on a firmer ground if you had objected to his banning a teen-age Ayesha and his other wives from remarrying after his death; fortunately, he explicitly forbade Muslims to use him as a role model in this particular aspect.

``IF you as a muslim cannot respect him, then WHY would you even listen to him, and therefore why would you even open the Quran?``

You do not have to consider someone flawless to respect him or her. I deeply respect my parents even though I don`t think that they were infallible. Most Hindus wouldn`t say that Ram did the right thing in banishing Sita from his house, but it doesn`t prevent them from opening the Ramayan or worshipping, let alone, respect Ram.

Manto is right about the differences in various sects wrt the Prophet. In my opinion, the ``worship`` of the Prophet is mostly a desi thing and is probably due to the influence of Hinduism. I believe that perhaps the only differene between Deobandis and Wahabbi Arabs is wrt the position accorded to the prophet. Desi muslims asked for and got a holiday for the prophet`s birthday, Id-ul-Nabi. I wonder what would have happened if the picture of the prophet was permitted in India as it was at one time permitted in Iran. I heard from some desi muslims that the Arab security people would lightly hit desi pilgrims trying to offer prayers at the Prophet`s graveyard in Madina. This was some years ago and may not be true now.

Re: # 340

dost-mittar:

``Regardless of Hazrat Mohammad being a prophet, I think that it is unfair to criticise him for marrying a child; age at marriage is a cultural thing and child marriages take place among Hindus in Rajasthan even today. You would have been on a firmer ground if you had objected to his banning a teen-age Ayesha and his other wives from remarrying after his death..``

---

LOL.. Why are you feeling apologetic??.. The fact of the matter is the character of Mohammed.. Ajeya is raising valid points.. I don`t have any serious affiliations to any religion. We`re not discussing about Ram or Sita. I think Sita should have kicked Rama`s a** when he asked her to go thru fire.. But I`d discuss about that when followers of Ram fly planes into buildings for spreading Ramrajya.. (the equivalent of jihad)

If you read Mohammed`s life-history from a non-biased perspective, he comes out as one smart dude, who had lots of fun in his life, waged wars,, took sex-slaves, married lots of wives including a 6 yr old.. all the time preaching some BS about talking to angel , getting revelations etc.. :-)). Now I don`t have any problems with people following his smartness. As a matter of fact people should convert to Islam when they are 50, see if they can pickup some young chicks.. just kidding.... :-))

Re: #338 by Mantolives


[Ajeya,

About the academic side of the debate... I am pointing out that several sources contradict the dolls story...]


Here’s some quotes:

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
`A`isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah`s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).`` what you know of the Quran (by heart)`
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated `Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with `Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the proof.
Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated `Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for `Aisha`s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said ``But I am your brother.`` The Prophet said, ``You are my brother in Allah`s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.``



[ but I think the discussion should move beyond what Muhammad was or wasn`t. ]

You cannot. Without Mohammed, there is no Quran. Without the Quran, there is no Islam.



[I am not aware as to what prescription ``Quran`` has for people like me. Please enlighten me.]

I will, tomorrow, if you REALLY want to know. But only AFTER you concede my “central point”.

The prescription is not very pleasant, though. I remember some of it, but I would like to give you exact quotes. I have to go do some things now.



[As far as I know the idea that the Prophet is not infallible is the basis for several sects some of them exceptionally extremist like the Wahabis... maybe your knowledge isn`t that great. ]

Sects can do whatever they want. The basic facts are VERY simple. No Mohammed, no Quran, no Islam. Period.



[Islam is based on as much an untruth as whatever religion you follow is based on untruth. My guess is that you are a Hindu... then should we even start by dissecting Hindu mythology?

So here is the deal... I am a Muslim and I will leave Islam for the reason you`ve enumerated provided you denounce your own religion and tell Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and everyone else to renounce all religions immediately.

Because as far as I can see... you`ve provided me with no evidence which suggests that Islam is in any way different from any other religion.]

This is a very deserving question (although not connected to the previous point we were discussing). And I want to do justice to this. So since I have to leave now, I’ll post about this as soon as possible.

Re: #335 by Mantolives


[Ok I found the ``central issue``...


[According to sources both western and Islamic the key phrase was ``puberty``... so I am unwilling to accept that Ayesha bint-e- Abu bakr was 6 years of age (unless you find me a 6 year old hitting puberty... so either puberty has been delayed or 6 years doesn`t mean what it meant in that day). The narrations of her life are replete with examples of maturity. There are several works that contradict this 6 year claim... ]

She was a little child who used to play with dolls, for heaven’s sake.

[Still the point that you`ve raised is a valid one... should we look at great religious figures as infallible ? So let us accept your objection in principle.... and move on to the next point... ]

1) There IS NO moving on to any next point. Islam says that Prophet Mohammed was the perfect example of humanity. So Islam must be based on a basic untruth.

2) There is a prescription for people like yourself who say that the Prophet is not infallible. This prescription in mentioned in the Quran. Would you agree to such a prescription?

3) ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in the Quran came out of Mohammed’s mouth. IF you as a muslim cannot respect him, then WHY would you even listen to him, and therefore why would you even open the Quran?



[What is your next point? Should Muslims leave Islam because you allege/claim that the Prophet was pedophile?? ]

YES THEY MOST DEFINITELY SHOULD.

I would, if I was Muslim.

Re: # 337

Ajeya,

About the academic side of the debate... I am pointing out that several sources contradict the dolls story... but I think the discussion should move beyond what Muhammad was or wasn`t.

I am not aware as to what prescription ``Quran`` has for people like me. Please enlighten me. As far as I know the idea that the Prophet is not infallible is the basis for several sects some of them exceptionally extremist like the Wahabis... maybe your knowledge isn`t that great.


Islam is based on as much an untruth as whatever religion you follow is based on untruth. My guess is that you are a Hindu... then should we even start by dissecting Hindu mythology?

So here is the deal... I am a Muslim and I will leave Islam for the reason you`ve enumerated provided you denounce your own religion and tell Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and everyone else to renounce all religions immediately.

Because as far as I can see... you`ve provided me with no evidence which suggests that Islam is in any way different from any other religion.

Re: #333 by Mantolives

[And what is the central issue....please enlighten... ]

I already mentioned it in my post #332:

[(see my post #331 for the CENTRAL ISSUE)]

But I will mention it again, because I`m COMPLETELY sure you did not notice it. :-)


HERE IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE:

IT IS OBSCENE, PERVERTED, AND PEDOPHILIC FOR A 50-YEAR OLD MAN TO BE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO A 6-YEAR-OLD LITTLE GIRL.

WHETHER SOCIETY HAS LAWS AGAINST IT OR NOT.


KINDLY ADDRESS THIS CENTRAL ISSUE

Re: # 334


responded above...

Also please note that where I used the word ``phrase`` I meant ``word``.

Re: #326 by Mantolives


[You need to get a life and read what I`ve written above.... ]

I did. A bad attempt at obfuscation.


[Please inform me how Islam is different from any other religion given the objections that you`ve raised... ]


We will talk about whether and/or how Islam compares to other world religions, if you wish.

HOWEVER we will discuss that AFTER we have finished discussing the CENTRAL ISSUE here (see my post #331 for the CENTRAL ISSUE).


[The problem comes down to the Witchdoctors.]

We shall discuss witchdoctors AFTER the CENTRAL ISSUE has been discussed to conclusion.



I AM NOT BUDGING FROM THIS POINT UNTIL YOU GUYS ANSWER THIS.

Re: # 332

And what is the central issue....please enlighten...

Re: # 333

Ok I found the ``central issue``...


According to sources both western and Islamic the key phrase was ``puberty``... so I am unwilling to accept that Ayesha bint-e- Abu bakr was 6 years of age (unless you find me a 6 year old hitting puberty... so either puberty has been delayed or 6 years doesn`t mean what it meant in that day). The narrations of her life are replete with examples of maturity. There are several works that contradict this 6 year claim...

Still the point that you`ve raised is a valid one... should we look at great religious figures as infallible ? So let us accept your objection in principle.... and move on to the next point...

What is your next point? Should Muslims leave Islam because you allege/claim that the Prophet was pedophile??

If thats not your assertion then... you are merely obfuscating. My point comes down to the same thing... All religions are practically the same ... fallible, contradictory and wrought with problems... Here then we see that it is the witchdoctors who stand in the way of reformation.

-YLH

PS: My posts 321 and 323 had nothing to do with your discussion so please do feel free to get a life any time now.

Re: #328 by vertex


[When someone is being beat to a pulp, do they normally have such strong affection to their abusers? That is the point. Abuse is defined by *harm* done, and in this case I am hard pressed to find evidence of harm. That`s why the comparisons to incest/battery is simply misplaced.

I`m not interested in advocating child marriages, nor even defending them. In my cultural background, and in my particular social setup they`re frowned upon. I`m a big believer in urbanization, education, and all the stuff that goes with it so I actually oppose child marriages as not very conducive to progress.

However this specific case of alleged child-marriage is hardly cause for concern to me, as the ``victim`s`` attitude towards the alleged ``abuser`` is one of reverence and unquestioning love that by far outstrips mine. Call that whatever, but only the dishonest would call it ``abuse``. ]


Whether the victim of pedophilia develops feelings for the pedophile is an issue we can go into about AFTER THE MAIN POINT HAS BEEN ANSWERED.



[Such attitudes are very modern...can we at least be honest with that?]


Yes, we can be honest.

What is modern is the ENFORCEMENT and PUBLIC CONDEMNATION by society for acts such as this.

Just because society did not condemn it at that time it DOES NOT MAKE IT AN EXEMPLARY BEHAVIOR for that age.

And this guy is supposed to be an example for everybody for all ages!


BUT HERE IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE YOU HAVE BEEN SKILLFULLY AVOIDING:

IT IS OBSCENE, PERVERTED, AND PEDOPHILIC FOR A 50-YEAR OLD MAN TO BE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO A 6-YEAR-OLD LITTLE GIRL.

WHETHER SOCIETY HAS LAWS AGAINST IT OR NOT.



KINDLY ADDRESS THIS CENTRAL ISSUE

Flushing Quran is not as bad as mistreating women, practising misogyny, and keeping little girls down.

Vertex,

Is it not true that Muslims believe that the actions and life of the Prophet are an ideal example of how Man should live ? In this context his marriage to Aisha would appear to condone child marriages, as any muslim could justify the practice as simply following the actions of the Prophet.

If you believe that this was justified in 7th century Arabia but is incompatible in todays world, then you are implying that the message of the Qur`an & the Hadiths need to be interpreted in the light of modern sensibilities and is therefore not applicable for all times in its original form.

327,

shishapa,

When someone is being beat to a pulp, do they normally have such strong affection to their abusers? That is the point. Abuse is defined by *harm* done, and in this case I am hard pressed to find evidence of harm. That`s why the comparisons to incest/battery is simply misplaced.

I`m not interested in advocating child marriages, nor even defending them. In my cultural background, and in my particular social setup they`re frowned upon. I`m a big believer in urbanization, education, and all the stuff that goes with it so I actually oppose child marriages as not very conducive to progress.

However this specific case of alleged child-marriage is hardly cause for concern to me, as the ``victim`s`` attitude towards the alleged ``abuser`` is one of reverence and unquestioning love that by far outstrips mine. Call that whatever, but only the dishonest would call it ``abuse``.

``It is too big a gamble for a sane parent to play with your such a young child`s life, no matter which time and age and which geographic location.``

Such attitudes are very modern...can we at least be honest with that?

Re # 325

``how come she turned out a-okay, without even a hint of resentment? ``

I am not arguing facts here, but I think this logic is wrong. She turning out a-okay is
hindsight.

If someone beats to pulp their young helpless son or daughter now, can someone else say/predict, it is OK, he/she is going to turn out a-okay?

What I am saying is that, you just do not do such a thing just by wishing/hoping for the best in normal circumstances. It is too big a gamble for a sane parent to play with your such a young child`s life, no matter which time and age and which geographic location.

Ajeya,

LOL, come down...I could care less to `justify` anything...I don`t even know if the age is accurate. It`s one thing to advocate something, it`s another to villify it and use it to dehumanize others (which is what you are doing, btw)....not that it matters, cause I really don`t respect your opinion. But your spazing out aside, if you have a shred of honesty you`d answer why if it`s so darn awful...how come she turned out a-okay, without even a hint of resentment?


``Americans, Europeans, Indians, Russians, Chinese – ALL educated people think like this about muslims – everybody.``

a) This is deomnstrably false
b) So what? I can`t let other peoples hate drive me.

Re: #321, 322, 323

Here come the obfuscaters.

Re: # 324

You need to get a life and read what I`ve written above....

Please inform me how Islam is different from any other religion given the objections that you`ve raised...

The problem comes down to the Witchdoctors.

``It makes no sense. Religion for the Islamists is a political entity; the Quran is incidental to it.``
This line sums up everything and is true about religeon in general and will continue to remain that way till people start following logic and rationalism rather than magical beliefs which religeon instills into their minds and break the SHACKLES described by Manto in #321.

Dear Farzana,

A BRILLIANT article as usual... touching the nerves of those who live in symbolism.

Quran`s compilation defeated the purpose of the Quran... it merely replaced a old dogma with a new one. It is often forgotten that Muhammad came from the Hanif tradition which was the rationalist tradition of the time ... which rejected spiritual mumbo jumbo and idolatrous worship... the reigning dogma of the time. I suppose an equivalent of the Holy Prophet in today`s time would be a refusenik... whether Muslim, Hindu, or Christian...

But Farzana real humanity is in SHACKLES... and the keys are with the Mahatmas, Maulanas, Pirs, Fakirs, Pandits, Sanyasis, Padres and Rabbis.... these WITCHDOCTORS have spoilt the people...

People like you are a breath of fresh air.

Re: # 321

Well maybe not Mahatmas who are after all marginal... but the point stands...

#309 by vertex

[....you must question then how ``abusive`` such a relationship was if it produced such a powerful personality.]

Does the fact that Anais Nin became a highly celebrated writer justify what her father did?

Romair #299

`` 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...........``

Explain to me why the BJP is any different from the Muslim League. I won`t even talk about the likes of the MMA.

`` 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. ``

One of the common demands of all Islamic groups is the imposition of Shariah or Muslim religious laws. If it is relative term you are calling the demands of those Islamic groups unreasonable. People with your position on Islamic law have been declared heretics and persecuted. So much for tolerance.

`` 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....... ``

There is a big difference between theory and practice.

`` 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......... ``

Blacks never step foot on US soil until the mid-1650s. That is a full 700 years after your Black Syrian governor. You are comparing a third rate country Syria that has no impact upon World history with a country that has been dominant in the twentieth century.

`` 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............ ``

It also means it can mean thousand things to thousand different people. Unfortunately an ideal legal system do not work that way. We would like one punishment for one set of crimes.

`` 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...........``

If you cannnot take any criticism you call it ``badmouthing``. If you cannot take the heat take a hike !!!

dost-mittar #313

`` Please speak for yourself, not for the whole world. If you haven`t come across muslims you didn`t like, it`s your problem, not theirs. It`s your right to like or hate islam, but you have no right to speak for other Hindus or Indians, let alone Russians, Europeans, etc. ``

I would not generalize. But there are anti-Muslim sentiments among sections of Indian Hindus, Israeli Jews, Russians, West Europeans, Americans and some East Asian states.

echoboom #279

``No matter how much unpalatable it would seem to you & no matter how much you are hoodwinked by the liberal/socialist/communist/humanist westernised-scum here, please understand that the more clear you/we are about this truth, the more we can live in peace & harmony--separate but together.``

What is wrong with a communist ? China would not be where it is without the Chinese communist party. Vietnamese communists liberated their country. They beat the Americans fair and square.

It took a socialist Labor Party to hand over power to India and Pakistani leaders in 1947. They acted in a more dignified manner than the Pakistani elite who have repeatedly refused to honor the results of the democratic process.

Ajeya,

You have asked some simple and straightforward questions and none of the defenders of this great faith have given any straightforward answers to them and nobody will because nobody has a courage to answer them. They will only go around the questions, counterquestion you, and even put the burden on you to answer them in order to evade answering them.

#313 by dost-mittar

[Ajeya:

``Americans, Europeans, Indians, Russians, Chinese – ALL educated people think like this about muslims – everybody. They may not tell you on your face because you are a muslim. But they ALL say this if muslims are not around.``

Please speak for yourself, not for the whole world. If you haven`t come across muslims you didn`t like, it`s your problem, not theirs. It`s your right to like or hate islam, but you have no right to speak for other Hindus or Indians, let alone Russians, Europeans, etc. ]



``If you haven`t come across muslims you didn`t like, it`s your problem, not theirs``

It`s NOT TRUE that I don`t like Muslims.

I said the following:

``Americans, Europeans, Indians, Russians, Chinese – ALL educated people think like this about muslims – everybody.``

By ``think like this`` I implied ``looking down`` on people who would idolize someone like this.

It is difficult to look UP to ANYBODY who condones and appreciates such behavior.

And yes, what I said is actually true. The West, for example keeps it`s mouth shut because it needs gulf oil. But the feeling amongst the population is rampant. You`ll see the truth come out when the middle-east runs out of oil.

#313:

I meant to say that ``If you haven`t come across muslims you LIKE, it`s your problem, not theirs.``

Sorry for the confusion of double-negative.

Ajeya:

``Americans, Europeans, Indians, Russians, Chinese – ALL educated people think like this about muslims – everybody. They may not tell you on your face because you are a muslim. But they ALL say this if muslims are not around.``

Please speak for yourself, not for the whole world. If you haven`t come across muslims you didn`t like, it`s your problem, not theirs. It`s your right to like or hate islam, but you have no right to speak for other Hindus or Indians, let alone Russians, Europeans, etc.

Re: #309 by Vertex

Ayesha being happy/succesful in her marital life DOES NOT JUSTIFY WANTING TO HAVE A PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A LITTLE CHILD FOR A 50-YEAR OLD MAN WITH 11 WIVES.

Not THEN and not NOW.

Period.

#307 by Raw_Dust

[DM sir: i think you are dangerously close to being put on ignore by Romair. He already put Ajeya on, i think.]


He hasn`t put me on ignore.

He has just run out of anything to say to refute my arguments. So he`s PRETENDING to have put me on ignore.

For him, there`s no other way out. Because he has chosen to push his head deep into the sand.

However, if that buys him mental peace, then that`s fine. What is not fine is that although he could not answer the questions he himself raised, he keeps on arguing with others as if nothing happened.

That is hard to respect.

RE: #309 by vertex

[Un-hunh. So, specifically, what was lost by the Prophet`s (pbuh) wife? Nothing she cared to mention...oh but ``she was in love``...duh...that`s kinda the point...

The buden of proof is still on you. Fact is, pose these questions to yourself and if you have no hidden agenda and a shred of honesty, you must question then how ``abusive`` such a relationship was if it produced such a powerful personality]



There`s nothing for me to ``prove``.

Carnal attraction to a 6-year old child that plays with toys MEANS ONLY ONE THING - PEDOPHILIA.

It is that by definition..

You don`t get it, and you won`t get it.

Because there is a fundamental difference between people of your inhuman ilk and people of my ilk.

The difference is that you adore such a man, and consider him the perfect example of humanity, whereas I would not let him into my house or anywhere near my children.

Your ENTIRE existence depends on the words of such a man.

This is why educated people who are non-muslim LOOK DOWN upon you and your religion.

You would like to think of it as hatred for muslims. BUT IT IS NOT. It’s just plain disgust, and amazement that educated people such as yourself could stomach this, and even admire such a character. That’s all.

Americans, Europeans, Indians, Russians, Chinese – ALL educated people think like this about muslims – everybody. They may not tell you on your face because you are a muslim. But they ALL say this if muslims are not around.

dost,

``I have no desire to cut-and-paste verses that have been often quoted-misquoted-spunaround at chowk before. If you have missed them, I would suggest that you do a google search by entering the words quran, non-believers, pagan, kafir...you may also add islamic websites to go to authentic muslim sources.``

LOL, the point is you ARE claiming that the verses relate to all non-Muslims. Who is misquoting, btw? Are you accusing Muslims here of misquoting?

I need not search for anything...I have the knowledge. The challenge is to you. I don`t think you understand said verses...that was the point. I am well aware of them, and the history behind each. I am also aware of the spectrum of thought that is often projected onto them. The question is, are you?


``I have frequently criticised the hindu religion and hindus at chowk, people disagreed with me but did not call me anti-hindu;``

I am not calling you anti-Muslim, just that the polemic you raised is often one raised unthinkingly by such people.

``Here, I used an example from the quran to make a general point about the incompatibility of various religions and some people lost no time in putting a label on me. Thanks, anyway.``

That is in your head. Please stop playing the role of victim.

---

Raw_Dust,

How so?

---

Ajeya,

``It would take too much time for me to explain to you what a little girl loses when she loses her innocence so young.``

Un-hunh. So, specifically, what was lost by the Prophet`s (pbuh) wife? Nothing she cared to mention...oh but ``she was in love``...duh...that`s kinda the point...

The buden of proof is still on you. Fact is, pose these questions to yourself and if you have no hidden agenda and a shred of honesty, you must question then how ``abusive`` such a relationship was if it produced such a powerful personality.

Romair: read your posts but was having too much fun on this long weekend...did not had energy to post my comments. Not that this thread is dying, we will talk about ti some other time but want to say few obvious things.

What is a ``logic`` that depends upon muslim, hindu or sikh viewpoint? Logic is Logic no matter which viewpoint you look at it. ``your muslim viewpoint`` assumes something, something very big..that Allah has sent the Quran exactly as it is written and kept in heaven....then onwards you try to justify everything else..that is a big assumption...fact is you know about Quran and everything in it ONLy through Mohammad. There is no OTHER witness to this communication/transaction. Henc utmost resepct/faith in him. once you start doubting HIM you are on a slippery slope.

Lot of people believe or partially give a benefit of doubt that THERE is a GOD. That does not mean these people start accepting every airraq gaira nathoo khaira`s words ke ji God has said this to him. You can not dismiss the opposing view jut by saying it is a atheistic viewpoint.

Secondly from your comments on Qoran, Hadith and Shariah,....wow...my friend we are talking about adifferent Islam...your personal one...good for you but there never was a Islam of Romair...what is out there is Islam of Mohammad.

vertex dude -
seeing Mohammad`s making out with Ayesha as something BEYOND suspect is in my book amount to WORSHIPPING Mohammad.
Dost-Mittar sahib is right on the money.

DM sir: i think you are dangerously close to being put on ignore by Romair. He already put Ajeya on, i think.

Romair#299:

``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 am worried about you. This is what the naive Pakistani professor thought when he said that the Prophet`s parents were not Muslims or that he was not circumcised as it was against the practice of his tribe. We all know what happened to him.

``Believe me, all of this is very liberating, for people who do believe in the concept of God and the concept of religion.``

You read the quran and find Islam very liberating. I read the same book and am queasy about certain passages. I guess it all depends upon one`s perspective.

``Seriously speaking, if I didn`t know you better, I would have confused you for a spokesperson for the BJP...........``

You give BJP spokespersons too much credit. Barring a few individuals like Arun Shourie, their knowledge of Islam does not go beyond Aurangzeb, Ghazni and Babri masjid. In any case, I do not reject anything just because its source is the BJP, or Milligazette for that matter.

vertex#300:

````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... ``

I have no desire to cut-and-paste verses that have been often quoted-misquoted-spunaround at chowk before. If you have missed them, I would suggest that you do a google search by entering the words quran, non-believers, pagan, kafir...you may also add islamic websites to go to authentic muslim sources.

``Well...if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ;-) Sorry...couldn`t resist...``
I have frequently criticised the hindu religion and hindus at chowk, people disagreed with me but did not call me anti-hindu; I have suggested on this or another live thread that the sikh gurus may not have always practised what they preached; again people disagreed but did not call me anti-sikh. Here, I used an example from the quran to make a general point about the incompatibility of various religions and some people lost no time in putting a label on me. Thanks, anyway.

Islam is the most obdurately inegalitarian religion, bar none. It`s distinguishing characteristic is that it completely lacks any philosophical or moral basis to even question its own inegalitarianism.

Re: #300 by vertex

[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.]


It would take too much time for me to explain to you what a little girl loses when she loses her innocence so young. You can question this only if you are completely heartless. A nine-year-old girl – what does she understand about her body, about love. What kind of a mind does she have? What kind of a man wants to put his 50-year-old hands on a little child?

I am a man. So I understand what kind of a mental make-up is required to do such a thing.

Then AND now.

The burden of proof is on me, eh?

You should be ashamed of yourself. If you had any self-respect, you would be posing these questions to yourself, and should be asking yourself what’s wrong with your own mindset that this seems like an appropriate action to you, for ANY time, for ANYBODY, let alone a man who is supposed to be an EXAMPLE to others.

Just because society did not prevent it, does not mean he had to do such a thing. He should have been the one to change this aspect of society, instead of becoming one of its worst examples.

i see that romair has not bothered to respond to this...what happened?

[In fact, there are so many things in the Quran, itself, which would have been impossible for an illiterate man (even for a prominent scientist of his time, much less an illiterate man) in 7th century Arabia to have come up with. Many of which would only be proven hundreds of years, later.......... ]

Name ONE.

It’s mind boggling that flushing of a book will create such a drama in the Islamic world. Two days ago, 20 people were blown to pieces in Bari Imam shrine in Islamabad. I wonder is there was any desecration of Quran during the blow up session, and wonder a little more if there will be protests against such killings from Morocco to Malaysia (as was the case with the news of flushing). It’s sad that a Book holds more value than a life.

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.

Romair#280

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.

Regarding the ``worship`` of the Prophet, I am quite aware of the technical position. But 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. To a Non-Muslim, the Muslim dearer-than-life-love-and-devotion of their Prophet is nothing but a more extreme worship than the most extreme worship of their icons by other religions. 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.

#276 by HP on May 28, 2005 4:11pm PT


(Luckily, Fox is not appreciated in my club.)


What club is that? cab drivers watching TV at a newspaper stand club?

romair: you are wrong. your post itself contains statements disparaging the Beloved Messenger whixch might well be blasphemous. To criticise the Prophet IS blasphemy and it makes one a kaafir and an apostate. This is accepted by ALL schools of Islamic Law, Sunni and Shia. To attribute even a single error (nauzubillah) to Allah`s Messenger is blasphemy and kufr. The MUslim belief about the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam is that he IS perfect and infallible [ma`sum] and everything he says is true and from Allah. To attribute ANY imperfection to him is indeed kufr.

This, below, is the Islamic position:


[quote]...and there is consensus that the slanderer of the Prophet Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam is a Murtadd. ``The ibarat of Shifa is as follows: Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir held that the consensus of the scholars on the matter that the slanderer of the Prophet Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam should be executed (killed). And others who said so are Malik ibn Anas, Layth, Ahmed ibn Is-Haaq and so is the Madh-hab of Shafiyi and it is also the ruling of Hazrat Abu Bakr RaDiyallahu `Anhu, and neither is his Tawba (repentance) accepted. Others who said so are Abu Hanifa and his followers (AS-Haab) and Thawri and the Scholars of Kufa and Awzayee.....`` (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.294)

``And the summary of all this is that there is Ijma`a (consensus) that he who insults the Prophet Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam is a Kafir.`` (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.294)

Elsewhere he (Ibn Aabideen) says: ``I say, and I have seen it in Kitaabul Kharaaj by Imam Yousuf that if a Muslim slanders the Messenger Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam or belies him (kadhdhaba) or finds fault (`aaba) or degrades (tanaqqasahu) be it known that he has disbelieved in Allah Ta`aalah and his wife goes out of his Nikah.. (Baanat minhu imra-atahu)`` (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.291)

``It is clear from this that those who slander the Angels or any of the Prophets (Alayhimus Salaam), he is declared a Kafir. And this is that type of Kufr where he is left off if he does Tawba, else he is executed (killed).`` (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.292)

And this is real Muslim belief about Our Beloved Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam:


How Are The Prophets Protected From Error And Sin?

I come from a Christian background and so I was raised to think of the prophets (except for Jesus) as capable of sin. And I actually don`t think that it would be so terrible if occasionally some of the prophets said ``Do as I say, not as I do``. But I think my real difficulty with the issue is that it seems like I`ve often heard the claim that there is agreement (ijma) that all the prophets are protected from sin to some degree but 1) I`m not sure of what the limits are of that protection. And I`m not sure where this principle is found in the Quran and sunnah. Can you please clarify?

Wa `alaykum as-Salam,

Ibn al-Juwayni (Imam al-Haramayn) said in al-Irshad (p. 298-299):

``As for sins that are considered small, according to specificity as we shall explain, the minds do not deny them [as possible for Prophets]. I did not come upon a categorically explicit transmitted proof either negating them or asserting them [as possible]. For explicitly categorical proofs come either from explicit texts (nusus) or from consensus (ijma`) and there is no consensus [either], since the ulema differ over the possibility of small sins for Prophets. The explicit, unambiguous or un-interpretable texts that would categorically establish the principles pertaining to this issue are simply not found. So if it is said that since the matter is conjectural, what is the strongest conjecture in the matter in your opinion? We say: Our strongest conjecture is that they are possible. The stories of the Prophets in many a verse of the Book of Allah Most High bear witness to that [conjecture]. But Allah knows best what is right.``

Imam al-Ghazzali said the same in substance in al-Mankhul (p. 223), a youthful work consisting of his class-notes from Imam al-Haramayn.

But Imam Taj al-Din al-Subki said in his Qasida Nuniyya:
``They said Allah precludes small sins from Prophets and in our [Ash`ari] School are two positions.
``Preclusion is narrated from the Master(*) and al-Qadi `Iyad, and it is the strongest position.
``It is the position I take and was that of my father [cf. Taqi al-Din al-Subki, al-Ibhaj 2:263], exempting their rank from any defect.
``Al-Ash`ari is our Imam but in this we differ with him one and all.
``And we say that we are on his path but his companions are split in two parties over the matter.
``Some Ash`aris even said Prophets are completely free of forgetfulness.
``Yet all are considered al-Ash`ari`s followers. This dissent does not expel them from that status.`` (*) The Master = Abu Mansur `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, author of Usul al-Din, al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq, and other important works of doctrine.

Source: Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (3:387-388).

So the conjecture of Imam al-Haramayn (d. 478) and his student Hujjat al-Islam (d. 505) was NOT retained by later Ash`aris nor earlier ones other than al-Ash`ari himself. Instead, the majority of the ulema including the Imams of the Four Schools of Law followed what they considered to be the stronger position, namely that Prophets are protected even from small sins.

Thus al-Amidi said in al-Ihkam (1:171) that all but the Khawarij concur Prophets are protected from the minor sins if the latter bear on their character. If, however, it comes to a rare word spoken out of anger, then the majority of the Ash`aris and Mu`tazilis allow it.

Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa` said that the Jumhur of the Jurists from the schools of Malik, al-Shafi`i, and Abu Hanifa, agree that the Prophets are protected from all minor sins because one is required to follow them in the minutest matters. It is even reported from Malik that this is obligatory to believe.

Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini`s (d. 418) position was that no sin great or small issues from Prophets whether deliberately or by mistake and this is also our position.`` (Taj al-Din al-Subki Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Wusta as cited in the Kubra (4:260)).

Imam al-Zarqani said in his monumental commentary on al-Qastallani’s al-Mawahib al-Laduniyya (5:361) [Al-Qastallani’s original text is in parentheses):

<<(And among his Mu`jizaat [stunning miracles] is that he is immune from sins) before Prophethood and after it (both great and small, both by deliberate commission and by mistake) according to the soundest view, outwardly and inwardly, in secret and in public, in earnest and in jest, in contentment and in anger. And how not, when the Companions were unanimous in following him and faithfully imitating him in all his acts? (As were the Prophets) Al-Subki said: ``The Umma concurs on the true immunity (`isma) of Prophets, in what pertains to conveyance and other, from grave and small, contemptible sins as well as persistence in small sins but there is disagreement over small sins that do not detract from their rank. The Mu`tazila and many others allow them. The preferred view is that they are precluded because we have been ordered to follow them in what issues from them; how then could something inappropriate occur on their part? As for those that deemed it possible, they did not do so on the basis of any textual stipulation or proof.`` That is, they only clang to externalities which, if they followed their logical conclusions, would lead them to violate consensus and take positions no Muslim takes, as expounded by `Iyad [in al-Shifa`].>>

They concurred that a necessary attribute of Prophets is absolute trustworthiness (amana):

``And essential for them [Prophets] is absolute trustworthiness``

(Jawharat al-Tawhid, verse 59)

which necessitates true immunity (`isma) or from haram, makruh, and inappropriate acts, speech, or thoughts (khilaf al-awla) (and even some of the mubah or indifferently permitted) except for a necessity of legislating a law, because Allah Most High made them our qidwa - obligatory paradigmatic model to follow without exception - and He does not want us to follow any haram, makruh, and inappropriate acts, speech, or thoughts.

{Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last Day, and remembereth Allah much} (33:21).

Further, Allah Most High praised and literally exalted the Prophet’s character in no uncertain terms:

{And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature} (68:4).

The apparent counter-examples found in the Qur’an all without exception have interpretations that confirm the over-riding principles derived from the above verses and the conclusions of the majority of scholars (jumhur) I have just documented. For example, our liege-lord Adam’s “disobedience” (upon him peace) meant forgetfulness, or he was given Prophethood after he was forgiven. The consensus is that Prophets were sinless but were not necessarily created so nor made so from the very beginning of their Prophetic mission.

Yet such verses are a mercy from Allah Most High and His confirmation of other verses to the effect that the Holy Prophet is one of mankind, not an angel, and so were previous Prophets, so that mankind will have no excuse such as the claim that he and they were impossible to imitate or understand etc. - and Allah Most High knows best.

As for the question whether protection (`isma) from sin is the absence of volition, i.e. that the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, ``could not`` rather than ``would not`` sin and that he was devoid of free will in this regard, this is incorrect. We may describe isma in terms of Wilaya, Nubuwwa, Wahi, Tawfiq, Hifz, and others but not as absence of free will. And Allah knows best.

The closest text to this issue is probably the following explanation of the hadith of the removal of the black clot from the heart of the Prophet, upon him peace. I came across this beautiful passage in Ibn al-Subki`s Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al- Kubra (10:266-267):

``I heard my father - Allah have mercy on him - say, when he was asked about the black clot that was removed / from the heart of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him – in his childhood, at the time of the splitting of his breast, and the statement of the angel to him, `This is Satan`s lot from you (hâdhâ hazhzh al-shaytâni minka)`:

<