Women in Religious Scriptures

sattar2 #178 ``with claims that only you got it right ``
OK...here we go again: please cut and paste my post where i say this. and cut and paste exactly where I have taken jibes at ahmedis. you dont accept my interpretation of the Quran, but i dont accuse you of taking jibes at sunnis. i suggest you try to be a man and stop hiding behind your ahmediism

and i see that being unable to respond to my earlier challenge to cut and paste any post from hamidm where he claims to be a fornicator and drugee, you try to be clever by trivialize your attempt to defame his character by saying i am getting bent out of shape on this issue. calling someone a fornicator is not a trivial issue - try saying that to someone in real life and i think you will see what i mean. as i said, check the part in the Quran where it asks the individual to be honest. what part of the phrase ``be honest`` dont you understand and need guidance on?? or perhaps you merely interpret it differently than i do, and what it REALLY means is ``be dishonest``. this would certainly be consistent with your earlier ridiculing of my statement that per the Quran ALL individuals are equal before God and that not be a muslim in order to be go to heaven. i think you are trying to be more clever than is good for you.

btw, ali78, if all you can say about Hinduism is to quote some obscure(and unreferenced/unverified) ritual from the Aswamedha, I do think you are quite sick.

Roshan,

Point is not what rights Muslim Women have! Point is where are those rights easily accessible to them ? Saying Islam says that a Muslim Woman must get xyz share of the property is great. But does that woman get that share of the property with ease in her lifetime? And, I mean any woman from any economic strata. A peasant woman should be able to enjoy the same Islamic Rights that a professional woman can cherish. Now, that`s where the issue lies.

No one can challenge the good points clearly defined by Islam as the rights of women. But no woman should have to fight for her rights if they are clearly slated out. Probably, the men in jurisprudence have been reading things upside down. Please read the excerpt I have quoted from a book. It clearly pinches the sensitive nerve by pointing out men in jurisprudence making it difficult for women to secure their legitimate rights. I mean these are basic rights of any human being and one should not have to fight for them. It`s sad and disgusting to even think about such hypocrisies. And, this should not be taken as male bashing. This is a great example of gender inequity.

Most of the Muslim Countries have made life way too diffocult for Women. Media takes advantage of those factors and points out the hypocrisies. And, then people become mush`tail.

!

Sattar2:

Personally, I would never like to indulge in a discussion pertaining to sensitive matters in religion regardless of my knowledge or ignorance. But, I cannot resist saying a few things:

- Why do you have to go and explain to any xyz on your stance about Islam?

I see your point that you want to make sure that Ahmadis are accepted as Muslims by the Non-Ahmadis and you are highlighting all the salient features of Ahmadis` belief system. And, you are approaching this in a very polite and decent manner, but I am not sure if it`s worth it.

When a Sunni can stand up and slap the other Sunni for being a Non-Brelvi or a Topi Wala Turram Khan;

When a Shia can look down upon a Sunni for not believing in their Moa`jzas as devoutly as they do; and

When the Sunnis can keep an arm`s distance from the Shias for they perform special rituals during the month of Muharram and many many other controversies.....how can you imagine that your polite interaction can change your opponent`s mindset?

It`s your prerogative to get into this discussion, convince or be convinced, but I just wanted to bring up a point.

Muslims are the most fragmented and disunited community on the sweet planet known as Earth! They have way too much ego associated with their religious leaning. If the ego is doing some good internally, that`s great. If it`s only a sham that`s pretty sad. Often times, people who are content within do not need to chant that much outside. And, most of the times, when there are internal conflicts there is a tendency to lash out externally. Just a few generic observations, exceptions are always there.

Sattar2:

Personally, I would never like to indulge in a discussion pertaining to sensitive matters in religion regardless of my knowledge or ignorance. But, I cannot resist saying a few things:

- Why do you have to go and explain to any xyz on your stance about Islam?

I see your point that you want to make sure that Ahmadis are accepted as Muslims by the Non-Ahmadis and you are highlighting all the salient features of Ahmadis` belief system. And, you are approaching this in a very polite and decent manner, but I am not sure if it`s worth it.

When a Sunni can stand up and slap the other Sunni for being a Non-Brelvi or a Topi Wala Turram Khan;

When a Shia can look down upon a Sunni for not believing in their Moa`jzas as devoutly as they do; and

When the Sunnis can keep an arm`s distance from the Shias for they perform special rituals during the month of Muharram and many many other controversies.....how can you imagine that your polite interaction can change your opponent`s mindset?

It`s your prerogative to get into this discussion, convince or be convinced, but I just wanted to bring up a point.

Muslims are the most fragmented and disunited community on the sweet planet known as Earth! They have way too much ego associated with their religious leaning. If the ego is doing some good internally, that`s great. If it`s only a sham that`s pretty sad. Often times, people who are content within do not need to chant that much outside. And, most of the times, when there are internal conflicts there is a tendency to lash out externally. Just a few generic observations, exceptions are always there.

Asif,

I completely missed your posts and I guess it was mainly due to the succinct material you provided. I could not believe it that it came from you :) Just kidding.

Thanks for providing information on the book by Margaret Something on Rabia Basri. I have read about the Mughal Emperor`s daughter long long time ago. Thank you for the reference, but I have many many more things to read both for professional and personal reasons that the said book never come on my radar screen. Still, I will checkout the link. A click or two here or there does not hurt.

Regards,

#153 by Honorable_Syed on May 29, 2003 5:55am PT
Msouza, you seem to be contradicting yourself when you say that the ancestors of the people of the subcontinent were hindus. Actually you contradict yourself in your post.
``They hate it inspite fo the fact that thier ancestors were hindus..although they added surname `khan` or syed with thier new names ``
Yet you say ``so those subcontinental muslims who deserted hinduism because they thought the new relgion of the INVADERS was better`` do you see the contradiction. Most historians agree that when the Mughals, Turks, Persians, Arabs, etc.. came to the subcontinent, they did not come as individuals, they brought with them soldiers, cooks, traders, workers, etc..
-------------

When I say:``so those subcontinental muslims who deserted hinduism ``...here the `subcontinental muslims` are muslims only currently..today ....but when they deserted hindusim ..at that time they were hindus..

zara samajh der se aata hai syed jee ko..wo apne ko `royal` karaar karne me lagey rehtey hain..

So, you say..that most of the current day Indian muslims and even the mohajirs and locals of pakistan are the ancestors of `soldiers, cooks, traders, workers` of the foreigners like Mughals, Turks, Persians, Arabs, etc.
That makes it a worse case for acceptance in India..then they are foreigners...they donot belong to India..and these pakis(ex-Arabs and ex-turks) snatched a piece of land from India...

Imagine..If some of the Arabs currently living in Arabic lands start saying that they have Indian(hindu) ancestors and still love India more than arabia..but say that they want to continue staying in Arabic lands.., then you can guess what treatement they would get from arabs...
They would be told to go where they came from...

#154 by rsridhar on May 29, 2003 8:36am PT
``The beauty of ``Sanatana Dharma`` (or Hinduism) is that individuals in this great religion still have a free choice. They are not bound by any rules or dogmas. No preacher can tell me what to do. I can go and seek God on my own term if i want to. I have scriptures and preachings of thousands of sages and seers to help me in that process``
---------

Sridhar...I totally agree with you. I for one may sound blunt at times. But all this is due to the live experiences I had with muslims(not indian though)..really atrocious...

I was never an absolute believer of hinduism. Ever since childhood, I just knew the very basics of it and even questioned its teachings at times.
But after studying deeply about other religions and comparing and contrasting..I feel I am very much at the right place..a beautiful, large-hearted all embracing religion. There is sooo much to offer..so much peace I got in it now..and that too without any inhibitions, restrictions, strict rules..
Our priests etc don`t even care we go to `mandir` or not..we can follow any of the vast teachings in our home and even if we somewhat reject something..noone is going to punish us..
what is there in hindu scriptures is so very knowledgable and deeply spiritual that I was astounded when I finally read it properly...it is all original too..other religions could have copied from it..or learnt from it..but hinduism is genuine and the first and foremost...ages old..

#154 by rsridhar on May 29, 2003 8:36am PT
``The beauty of ``Sanatana Dharma`` (or Hinduism) is that individuals in this great religion still have a free choice. They are not bound by any rules or dogmas. No preacher can tell me what to do. I can go and seek God on my own term if i want to. I have scriptures and preachings of thousands of sages and seers to help me in that process``
---------

Sridhar...I totally agree with you. I for one may sound blunt at times. But all this is due to the live experiences I had with muslims(not indian though)..really atrocious...
So I feel like telling them what fanatics they are..for them religion is politics..an ego thing..

I was never an absolute believer of hinduism. Ever since childhood, I just knew the very basics of it and even questioned a few things at times.
But after studying deeply about other religions..books like Quran and Bible.. and comparing and contrasting..I feel I am very much at the right place..a beautiful, large-hearted all embracing religion, hinduism. There is sooo much to offer..so much peace I got in hinduism now..and that too without any inhibitions, restrictions, strict rules..
hinduism doesn`t scare its followers like many other relgions..it is so simple..
Our priests etc don`t even care we go to `mandir` or not..we can follow any of the vast teachings in our home and even if we somewhat reject something..noone is going to punish us..
what is there in hindu scriptures is so very knowledgable and deeply spiritual that I was astounded when I finally read it properly...it is all original too..other religions could have copied from it..or learnt from it..but hinduism is genuine and the first and foremost...ages old..

I am not saying it because it is my religion.no way. It is a deep feeling I have now which is there to stay..

ali78 #176

In my whole life, I have never come across ANYONE who supports sati so kindly stop lying here. I also have not come across a SINGLE Hindu religious book which supports sati. There may be such books, but there is no compulsion on Hindus to follow these religious books. Regarding the Vedas, even Adi Sankaracharya(whom Hindus DONOT have to listen to) said back in the 9th-10th century `if the shruti says fire is cold, disregard the shruti`. (shruti means `heard` scripture aka the Vedas)

Do people practice sati now? No. Do they worship satis from yesteryears?Yes. Why should you have a problem when you consider the sayings of the 7th century Quran to be eternally relevant ?

Simply because you are a Muslim doesnot make you god`s gift to creation. You are free to think you are god`s gift to creation, but its not incumbent on nonMuslims to think so too.

And please explain to me what is the reason and logic behind Islamic countries CREATING widows and orphans by encouraging suicide as service of God on websites and newspapers. This is also celebrated as national cause for which ordinary people and elite contribute money- the same elite and ordinary people who beg Western countries to provide funds for public education for their children and profess helplessness wrt 50% illiteracy and high infant mortality. At the same time they curse the West for its economic hegemony.

One leader Hafiz Saed who inspires these young men to commit suicide to win 72 virgins in heaven also conveniently marries some of the widows of these young men he sent to commit suicide. Others like him who send young men to commit suicide choose to send their own children to the West to study and others like the Taliban who refused to let women work or show their faces on count of upholding public morality would ALSO kidnap women to marry by force and pay to keep prostitutes for sex.

What is exactly the reason and logic behind this modern day social phenomenon which religious people like Imam Bukhari defend ?

I think you should remember what the Prophet Mohammed said. If I am not mistaken he said if you abuse others beliefs they will abuse yours, so donot abuse others beliefs.

Tahmed,

The issue at hand is your narrow interpretation of the Quran, combined with insistence that those who disagree with you are not Muslims. Such holier-than-thou attitude … with claims that only you got it right … is the basis of fanaticism. Such an attitude IS the problem of the ummah.

A few times we discussed Islam, I highlighted contradictions between your position and that of Quran … and that should have been a clue. You have understood Quran in a manner that suits your own biases … and have failed to take into account alternate viewpoints on the issue.

It is fine to have disagreements … but there is a civilized way of going about discussing and attempting to resolve them. Getting into the faces of others … taking uncalled for jibes at Ahmadis … only leads to more hatred and fanaticism. This clearly is not the way to resolve discrepancies. This is the simple point I am trying to make.

Instead to focusing on this issue, you are getting bent out of shape over my comments regarding hamidm (which you have misunderstood, and remains a side issue). Once you have addressed the issue of fanaticism at hand … we can discuss hamidm, Iraq’s interim government, and global warming. Deal?

Sattar

Ahmadiyyat is the divinely promised revival of Islam prophesied in the Holy Quran (9:33, 48:29, 61:10) and by the Holy Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

---

>>None of these refer to Ahmadhiat in anyway the only link that has been made is throught what the scholars say about Imam Mahidi can hardly call that prophesy in the Quran.
>>>
As regarding his personality he may well have been a kind and pious person.


` The Divine call for Initiation was answered immediately by those who had already recognised in Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) the Divine light and they rallied round him to be initiated at his hand.

.>>.Ferquently his personality is refered to as Divine. How can it logicaly be so.>>>

How is it that a person born in a small, unknown village in India, living in complete anonymity, became surrounded by devoted followers who left every worldly things behind them to be with him, acknowledging him as their Guide and beloved Master?

>>Porbably the Osho Rajneesh as well as the Sai Baba devotes spend more of their wealth than the ahmedhias are we to take this criteria as proof of the doctirne of ahmedias?<<

The great Maulana Maulvi Nurudin (ra) of Bhera, Royal Physician to the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir, one of the most eminent scholars of India,
>>why take this maulanas word for it? he may have been a pious muslim he couldnt have much affect or conviction on the Maharaja of J& K as regards religous belifs<<
Munshi Ghulam Nabi caught a glimpse of his face and this completely overpowered him. Prior to this occurrence he was busy delivering his usual speeches arousing the public`s animosity against the Promised Messiah (as). Having seen the radiant face of the Promised Messiah (as), he rushed towards him and seeing him approach, the Promised Messiah (as) extended his hand, offering greetings of peace

`How long were you in contact with Mirza Sahib, what proof of his truth appealed to you most and what feature of his character impressed you more than others?` Munshi Sahib replied very simply: `I knew Mirza Sahib even before he claimed to be the Messiah. I have never seen such a holy and luminous countenance. For me his luminous appearance and magnetic personality constituted the greatest proof of his truth. We were always eager to see his radiant face

The Quran mentions in 21:108 that the Prophet had been sent as a manifestation of God`s mercy to mankind. For this reason Muhammad the Prophet is held in the highest esteem possible for a mortal, by the adherents of this faith. However, the Prophet took great pains to educate his followers that he himself was just a man like themselves.

In his final days one of the Prophet`s main concerns was that he feared lest the Muslims should upon his death, assign him a position higher than other human beings, as had been done by the followers of other prophets. This is why during this period of his life he kept emphasizing over and over that he was but a man

>> why then does this site continualy talk about the divinity of the founder? how can you preach that Prophet Mohammed is just like a man and your founder is divinity. with people falling in love with his divine face? I must remind you that many people fall for such so called divine presnece this is hardly a proof of prophet hood. Take case of The Sai Babas, Osho Rajneesh with whoom people cite similar experienes in their presence>>>

....

The second tenet i.e. the Goal of Human Existence has been a question debated by philosophers since time immemorial. Islam also has a view on this issue. There was a purpose involved in creating the universe. The Quran states in 21:17-18, ``We created not the heavens and the earth and all that is in between the two in play. Had we wished to find a pastime We would surely have found it in that which is with Us, if at all We would have been inclined in that way.``

The purpose of the creation of the universe is to aid man in receiving the impress of God`s attributes and becoming a manifestation of them within the limits of his capacities i.e. he should become God`s image.

>>what is this Image of God>>? is this a recent prescription or what the founder said?>>

I would suggest to you that such is not the case, in this case. The prevailing social conditions in ancient Arabia (at the time of Muhammad SAW), closely parallel today`s modern times. The activities of a young man in Mecca in those days involved drinking, gambling and sexual promiscuity. All three of these pursuits exist today as well. Even though gambling may have presently been overtaken by other social concerns, drinking and sexual promiscuity still occupy a great area of concern within present day society

>>> Since the Ahmedias claim that they came to revive Islam ie correct the practice of Islam among muslims then I would say they have not been able to reach out much in nearly 150 years. Also to claim that sexual promisccuity and drinking is prevalent now among muslims is quite wrong.>>

On the other hand ahmedias follow most of the tenets of Islam if they err in some matters and they should not be dealth with logic and patience not voilence and certainly not public voilence

sattar2 #162 you write ``As for hamidm … if you read my post carefully … you’ll see that I am only ascribing to him what he projects himself as on Chowk. ``

You are not speaking the truth. If you disagree, show me one post from hamidm where he claims to be a fornicator or a drugee. And I see you ignored the second part of my question: even if he were to claim to be one, how is it relevant to drag that into the discussion? You are merely demonstrating the disgusting mullah habit of defaming individuals who disagree with you.

you write ``… you keep harping about Ahmadis worshipping humans … ``
You are not telling the truth. Cut and paste the post where I wrote this if you disagree. Read the Quran and see where it talks about being honest. Then come back and talk to me.

#171 by sadna on May 29, 2003 3:47pm PT

er who is the sick person? one who does not accept that humuans need to have order and logic as their guiding force and not unbridled freedom to do what ever they want.

I notice that you dont forget the practice of Sati for ages and also being mentioned in various scriptures. Perhaps a glance thorugh the vedas on some of the rituals of Ashvamedha (ie horse sacrifice) Here the king lets loose a horse whose wandering determine the border of his kingdom and one of the part of some of the asvamadhea mentioned in the vedas is the copulation of the Horse with the kings wife. Of course this is not followed now a days.

However check out the sati mata temples in malad in Mumbai or the resentement against ban in sati in rajhistan as reported in the national press promently a couple of years back.

Just because I live among hindus and point out the truth which you chose to gloss over doesnot mean that I hate hindus some of whom also do not accept this practices however many still do. I notice you didnot mention these practices as sick,

Having spent my child hood in Andhra pradesh where child sacrifice was reported almost 4-5 times a year and having read of such tantric practices prevalent in Bengal please dont blame me for being sick I think you have plenty of introspection to do before you call others sick.

ali87 #148 I am sure that ordinary people in real life, whether they are in India or in Pakistan, have more important things to be concerned with than expressing hate for one another. And when they meet, generally it is with both curiosity and warmth. A sikh friend in fact told me how there is a chap in Lahore who invited him and a number of other sikh pilgrims for dinner - and that he does it routinely since his great grandfather or someone was some kind of adviser to ranjit singh.

I also read your other post concerning conversions to islam in the west. A few comments: first, there has clearly been a great surge of interest the past few years with books on islam. Western writers like Karen Armstrong, Huston Smith, Joe Esposito are best selling authors and have I think done a great job of educating people in the west on Islam and muslim societies. I had the chance to chat with Esposito last year in fact, and he was joking about how when he chose to focus his studies on Islam, his roman catholic folks from New York told him he would never get a job this way - and now he said his schedule is booked months in advance for seminars, talks etc. While this is true, I think this does not mean all these people are converting to Islam: in the west, there is an enormous book reading public who are simply trying to understand what islam is all about. The actual conversions have in fact not taken place, and indeed even among pakistani muslims I have sensed a revulsion against the ``mullah islam`` after 9/11. I know of a son of a friend of mine who shaved off the beard he had proudly grown in college within a few hours of the 9/11 disasters.

My second comment is that the important thing is not converting people to islam, but for us muslims to catch up as human beings with the rest of the world. Let us have the humility to see facts as they are, and the fact is that in terms of morality and decency, the west has far, far more to teach muslims today than vice versa.

Sushil:
[Justaju jis ki thii usko to na payaa hamne,
Is bahane se magar dekh li duniya hamne.

I had hoped that the discussion will bring about a dispassionate discussion of various protagonists. But obviously, this was chowk, not a hallowed hall of a University. ]

Most universities would not spend a dime on this topic except theological schools and seminaries due to the absence of any possible planned and systematic approach. This is not science!!!

It is a stalk of hay and villagers know it how to find the lost ring in the stalk of hay - either flying off the hay falling everywhere or setting fire to the hay. The scriptures are a mumbo jumbo and best way to find status and role of women is to look at the history of the that period. You may find lot more information in Arnold Toynbee`s or Will and Ariel Durant volumes on history. If you like a sympathetic view of Judeo-Christian influence, try Paul Johnson or Paul Davies and about sympathetic Islamic view of this topic, try Karen Armstrong. If you like more sympathetic or biased view, try some Muslim authors such as Shibli Nomani or anybody starting with Al-.
Here it is like scriptures hitting the fan and one or two sentences on pieces of paper falling on everybody. A piece with peace written on it has happened to fall on one while rest missed that piece. Now one can run with ``peace`` by using it in any sentence or form and those who got alif-laam-meem piece are scratching their head for using it in some form. Now if you add goat to the equation, number of factorials go up by one and then random distribution of leaves..........and probabilities accoeding to guassian.......and then from two dimentions to three dimentions and use of polar coordinates followed by integration over all time with no information on endtime. Then make all ``justuju`` independent of space and float it in the universe with infinite probability of leading it nowhere. So blame it on everything including goat, leaves, fan, America, Jews, Hindus..........because zero factorial is one............take revenge and die happily everafter.