Does Islam, in fact, Encourage Paedophilia?

'#467 Posted by KaalChakra on July 31, 2007 9:33:12 am

Those descriptions are needed'

kaal,

YOU said the word 'NEEDED'. That's why the question why 'needed'.

The key is to not to sprinkle too much 'wisdom' but to focus on the question asked. Remember kaka's background.. kaka wasn't born yesterday. Most of his questions are styled as, 'why do you think..'

Again..

Why do YOU think the monkey description is used if no monkey man in the flesh existed.

See if you can explain this without mentioning sattar..

Kaka, signficance is entirely in connecting to a tradition, in the sense of paying homage to that tradition.

God cannot be bound by monkey men or punjabi prophets (in a non-faith tradition).

kaka, nothing is "needed" in a post/non/beyond faith framework. The monkey man was just one way of doing it, one creative outlet. It could be a pig (actually, that too has been done).

"Faith" is a silly word in this context, unless we modify its meanings substantially. For faith means something entirely different to sattar sahib, who fights his battles regarding what should or should not be done in today's huamn affairs based on something eons ago.

Faith in a non-faith context is at best one way of concentrating attention, a measure of confidence, of believing that one too follows a way to connect to the Great "God."

Let me give you an example. As a little kid, my mon would ask me to go get some dirt from outside (we lived in a village). Then she will make "God" out of that before which we will "pray." Aftere we are, the little motherly masterpiece would be gotten rid of, to be made anew when another occasion arose.

"Faith" was in the methodology of worship, not in particular methods. Methods are important while they are used, not per se.

sattar, sure you may find the violence bit unsavory, when it is directed against you, but that itself does not make it undesirable for others or for mankind, does it?

Wish faith was so dependennt on what each one of us likes, but it isn't. Surprisingly, while pushing the case for faith, you don't don't get that, or prefer not to get it.

Rest of your central-asia and north-east zambia stuff is irrelevant.

kaal,

Why do you think this description of 'monkey' was 'needed' in the religious books?

What does 'faith' in this 'non-monkey' individual mean? Faith that this guy existed? Faith that this guy is significant?

Kaka,

I didn’t know that this account from Abu Sufyan was so well-known. And there is no cap on prophethood. But don’t be surprised if within the next century, Ahmadis too start chanting that Mirza Sahib was the last prophet, as they demonize the next prophet (then Ahamdi-Muslim faith would become more palatable, and very logical to kaal, I suppose … [the irony here is hard to miss!])

”Reason to believe” may mean different things to different people: some have their reasons, some don’t, and life goes on. And I am not sure what you mean by half monkey, half not-monkey … so can’t comment ...

And you may still try … mass conversions may or may not happen in your lifetime. But you may get beaten up by the nay sayers. If I were you, I’d make sure I have at least a half-decent HMO plan …

+++

Kaal miaN,

Sadly, you still don’t get it (shaking my head again yet again). This is all very disappointing. Once again I have to try to educate you … (sigh).

I don’t have a problem with zee’s faith: he may accept or reject any prophet, a half-monkey, a quarter-buffalo, or a 13% spider. It is only this violence bit that he supports that I find unsavory. That’s all …

Apparently, appearance of prophets between Adam and Muhammad was logical; but any more is illogical. Your logic leaves a lot to be desired. And the Muslim world awaits a prophet from two thousand years ago, to descend from above the clouds, on shoulders of two angels. Not that I have a problem with any of this, but you’d be better off fighting your hollow battles with them … armed with your equally hollow, though self-aggrandized, principles of logic.

But first, pray tell us more about semitic faiths insulting other faiths. What’s so illogical about it that upsets you? We may be on to something here, as it may explain your obsessive behavior.

What’s next in the cards? Are you also upset about invaders from central asia? Bhai, all that was centuries ago! It’s now time to pick up your baggage, and I dare say, to move on …

Note: That view is not to pull down anyone else's faith. Just to depict the non-faith/beyond-faith point of view.

kaka

We have monkeys even on chowk, but no there was NO monkey or half or a quarter of a monkey the way it is described in 'religious' books.

Those descriptions are needed only for other monkeys (or for the monkey within all of us). Monkey see, mokey do. People have always known that.

What can this individual do for us?

Nothing that we cannot do for ourselves. From non-faith (or call it beyond-faith, if you will) point of view, even what "faith" does, we do ourselves. We merely avoid the burdens, positive and negative, of individual responsibility.

#463

Abay, everyone knows about the 'Hazrat' Abu Sufwan testimony. It is probabaly a fabrication. Anyways, you don't have to spell out the most basic references.

While the Quran was being collected, there was little reason to believe Mohammad as a nabi; during Mirza's lifetime there wasn't sufficient proof and now kaka has to die before any mass balieving in kaka happens *sniff*. BTW, is there a cap on the prophethood, or does kaka still have a chance?

kaal,

Here's your chance to dazzle:

1. Was there, at any point in history, a half monkey, half not-monkey individual in the flesh?

2. What can this individual do for us?

sattar, you, xyz, or I may not *LIKE* Zee's faith, but zee's faith is logical GIVEN a few basics are accepted on *faith.*

Once you remove the issue of finality, you enter an entirely different (unislamic from zee's and other Muslim's point of view) world of religiosity.

Kaka has raised a key issue. All I am interested in seeing is if you are anywhere as clear about those issues as Zee (or any other Muslim) is about his religion. That's all that matters here.

Kaka,

“Mystery” may be a loaded term. That is not to say that the issue of accepting a prophet is necessarily completely cut and dry either. The claimant’s character is one aspect of it. In the case of Mirza Sahib, eclipses are another aspect of the issue (somewhat similar to “splitting of moon” by Prophet Muhammad). If ahadith mention town of Qada, that too may play a part. A natural disaster may influence people’s thinking. Character of claimant’s opponents and their propaganda may factor in as well.

Ok, so you know about Muhammadi Begum. Factor her in. Then there are Pandit Lekh Ram and Alexander Dowie, etc, to name a few. Factor in these as well.

A single piece of information or evidence does not prove or disprove much. Various pieces put together may present one scenario or another as the more plausible one. Some may call it mystery, while some may argue that there is method to this madness.

+++

I am not aware of Mirza Sahib saying anything about those who die denying him … one way or another. But my understanding is that a person is answerable to Allah alone … not to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), not to Mirza Sahib, not to anyone else.

A person may have his own reasons for rejecting a prophet. However, if he is deliberately hurtful and deceitful in his ways, that may count against him in Allah’s eyes. However, in final analysis, Allah will decide as He sees fit, based upon totality of this person’s thoughts and actions.

If a person died “proving” Mirza right, again, his salvation will rest with Allah alone. While his denial, followed by death, may support truthfulness of a prophet for some, it would be going too far to conclude that this person is now damned. This applies to people who perished in the Punjab plague, or Noah’s flood, or Battle of Badr. This also applies to Judas and father of Muhammadi Begum. In the same vein, Allah will judge Maudoodi and Israar Ahmed, in view of all their thoughts and actions, and not merely on basis of one issue alone, or another.

Merely rejecting a prophet does not doom a person … just as merely accepting a prophet does not guarantee salvation.

[A side note: I don't think Quran supports the idea of eternal damnation. Hell is a temporary abode, where one pays his dues ... before moving on.]

++++++++++++

Kaal, fair comments … which you should’ve directed to tahmed instead. And the way things seems to you may be the result of your own hang-ups; you are chasing your own tail here. But don’t worry - Don Quixote too was an entertaining character. Moving on …

Re #450: See now what you have done! You have betrayed your buddy zeemax by bashing his faith (Lord, oh Lord … what is the world coming to ?? [shaking my head]). You are starting to reveal more about yourself; we should do this more often (grin). Perhaps you should now go back to zee, apologize, and leave yet another set of lip-imprints on his rear (wide grin)! You two are simply made for each other. Good luck.

Kaka,

I will address your latest post soon. But passage below may give more insight into the matter. It sheds some light on the issue, from somewhat of a different standpoint.

This is a narrated dialogue between Abu Sufyan and Heracles, a Roman emperor. Apparently Heracles had heard about Muhammad (pbuh) and was inquiring from Abu Sufyan, who knew the Prophet (pbuh) closely, though as an enemy.

+++

Hazrat Ibn Abbas relates that Hazrat Abu Sufyan related this to him.

“During the days that the Huddabiyah Treaty was signed between us and the Holy Prophet, I went to Syria on a business trip. I was still in Syria when a letter from the Holy Prophet reached Heracles, the Roman Emperor. The letter was brought by Dahyatul Kalbi who sent it to Heracles through the ruler of Basra. When the letter reached Heracles, he asked his people, ‘Is there anyone from the people of the Arabs who claims to be a prophet?’ They said ‘yes’. Thus along with the party of Quraish I was also called to see Heracles. When we arrived in the royal court of Heracles, we were made to sit facing Heracles. Heracles asked, ‘Is anyone here a near-relative of the Arab who to claims to be a prophet?’. Hazrat Abu Sufyan said that he responded, ‘I am his near-relative’. The organizers seated me (Abu Sufyan) right in front of Heracles, while the rest of the members of the group were seated behind me. Heracles called an interpreter and told him to tell the people sitting behind me that he will ask Abu Sufyan about the Arab who claimed to be a prophet. If he tells a lie you let me know through a gesture that he is telling a lie. Abu Sufyan said, ‘By God, if I was not scared that the people sitting behind me would let Heracles know that I am telling a lie, I definitely would have told lies.

Anyway, Heracles asked though his interpreter, ‘What is the lineage of your Messenger?’ Hazrat Abu Sufyan said that he responded, ‘He belongs to a very noble family’. Then Heracles asked, ‘Has there been any king in his forefathers?’ I told him, ‘No’. Then he asked, ‘Did you ever notice him telling a lie before claiming to be a Messenger?’ I replied, ‘No’. Then he asked, ‘Did the rich and the powerful accept his claim of the poor?’ I replied, ‘the poor and the weak have accepted his claim’. Then he asked, ‘Are his followers increasing or decreasing in numbers?’ I replied, ‘They are increasing’. Then he asked, ‘Did anyone renounce after becoming a Muslim considering it a bad religion?’ I replied, ‘No’. Then he asked, ‘Did you ever fight a battle with him?’ I told him, ‘Yes’. He asked, ‘What was the result of the battle?’ I responded, ‘Sometimes they had the upper hand, and other times we had the upper hand. Sometimes we were successful, while the other times they were successful.’ Then he asked, ‘Did he ever break an agreement or deal treacherously?’ I said, ‘Until now he has neither broken an agreement nor has dealt treacherously. However, we have just entered in a treaty with him, and I don’t know how he will behave regarding the treaty’. Hazrat Abu Sufyan said, ‘By God, throughout the conversation, except his last statement, I did not get any chance to say anything against the Holy Prophet. They he asked, ‘Did anyone else make such a claim before him in his people?’ I replied, ‘No’.

The King told his interpreter to tell me the following: ‘When I asked you about the lineage of the claimant of Prophethood, you stated that he belongs to a very noble family. Messenger always belong to noble families. I asked if there has been a king in his forefathers? You responded, no. From this I concluded that had there been a king in his forefathers, he might be desirous of regaining the kingdom of his forefathers. I asked you about his followers, where they are rich and powerful? You replied they were weak and poor. In the beginning, always the poor and weak accept the Messengers. I asked you, did you ever blame him for telling a lie before he claimed to be a prophet? You said, ‘no’. I was convinced that one who does not tell a lie to the people, how can he tell a lie about God? Then I asked you, did any of his followers apostatize after accepting Islam due to disliking of Islam? You said, ‘no’. This is the case with true faith. When someone accepts a faith with clarity of mind, it is very difficult for him to turn away from that faith. I asked you, whether they are increasing or decreasing in number? You said ‘they are increasing in number and steadfastness”. This is always the case with true faiths. I asked you, did you ever fight a battle with him? You said ‘we have fought several battles. Sometimes they had the upper hand in the battle and other times we had the upper hand. Sometimes we were successful while the other times they were successful’. This is the case with messengers of God. In the beginning, they went through many trials but ultimately they were triumphant. I asked you did he ever break an agreement or dealt treacherously? You said, no. Such is the high status of the prophets. They never break an agreement. Then I asked, did anyone from your people claim to be a prophet before him? You said, no. From this I concluded that since there had not been a prophet in his people, he is not imitating anyone. Hazrat Abu Sufyan said that then Heracles asked him “What did he command you to do?’ I said He commanded us to observe prayers, pay zakat, strengthen the ties of kinship, tell the truth, be pious and chaste”. Hearing this Heracles said, ‘If everything you have told me is true, then definitely he is a Prophet. I was expecting the coming of a Prophet. However, I did not know that the Prophet would be commissioned in your people. Had the circumstances permitted me, I certainly would have gone to see this Prophet. Had I visited him, I would have washed his feet. The kingdom of this Prophets will reach the land where I stand.’ ...

sattar,

kaka is hearing you say that it is really a mystery why anyone would think of Mirza as a prophet before all the prophecies/parallels came to pass (the same mystery should apply to kaka's believers). The gospels resolve this problem ridiculously by the 'transfiguraton' event. The booming voice from up above could have said ANYTHING about Jesus, but thankfully, it spoke to the concerns of anyone who was wondering what to make of this miracle worker.

With that in mind, (1) what did Mirza say about people who died after hearing this message, not accepting him as a prophet, like Mohammadi Begum's father did. Actually that fellow's death should be seen as a fulfilled prophecy meant to convince others (such as Mohammadi Begum's husband) that Allah was dead serious about letting peepz know about Mirza's authenticity. However, the poor fellow who died proving Mirza right, what was Mirza's informed opinion about his salvation? Here's another parallel for you to ponder: Mohammadi Begum's father was as important to Mirza's claim as was Judas was to the whole Jesus drama: they both were actors pushing the plot which was meant to be.

(2) What is your opinion of people's SALVATION not accepting Mirza as a prophet even after all the evidence presented until 2007? How about someone who lived the tareeqiyat of Mohammad (Maududi or Israar Ahmed) while disparaging Mirza? Don't get too distracted. The keywords are: YOUR OPINION, REGULAR MUSLIMS, THEIR SALVATION.

The question is; why this spiritual slavery engendering personality cult, having faith in 'reason of others'?

teshah ji, if I did not know you well enouogh, I would have suspected I wrote that myself...:)

Except that I used to be too polite to call spiritual slavery engendering personality cult a spiritual slavery engendering personality cult. I still find that unpleasant.

Arrey sattar bhai

I have ALWAYS had a lot of issues with harmful ideas. And this Ahemdi bit seems, to me, to be a very wrong and harmful idea.

And it's not personal when I say that ideas impact group behaviors and group-level characteristics.

If you notice, you have't yet answered Kaka's simple question. That's not your limitation. One is amazed how much you can personally spin based on so little.
--------------------

Why don't people leave you alone to your ideas? Just look at your ideas, sattar, and you will know. Understandably, you have always been reluctant to explain what you stand for. You should be.

ajeya (#452),

If your tone was measured, then I was mistaken … so sorry.

You seem bent upon converting me; what’s with this vehemence? We can go on citing accounts versus accounts, Quran vs. Quran, hadith versus Quran … listing pros and cons … views of different historians … Muslim and non-Muslims … and so on. I have no beef with your views; but you need to ease up. Otherwise you risk coming across as a fanatic, pushing his views. It is fruitless, and at worst, somewhat annoying.

If people are peaceful about their faith, why bother? Two individuals can look at the same information and conclude differently. And that’s fine. So pardon me if I remain reluctant to get into this pow-wow with you …