Women in Religious Scriptures

Sridhar # 109:

You are partly right in your observations.

Call it insensitivity or lack of interest, but the liberal and progressive kind has better things to do vs. carrying religion on their shoulders all the time. Many times too much emphasis on religion is also a good plea to escape from the challenges of life. I personally do not find that as a good justification for changing one`s course of life. Also, one may come into contact with one aspect of the guidelines defined in one`s religion, but one may not experience other clauses at all in one`s life time.

How can you learn everything just by reading the scripture?

You have to be able to live through certain things in life in order to realize the essense of those guidelines. I hope I am making sense.

Also, many times, in a so called Muslim Society ``i.e. Pakistan``, the fairness/unfairness is not necessarily the result of having good/bad Muslims around. It`s the result of what is being produced there.

I would not use the term ``educated`` since there are very well educated extremists all around us. Their research and analysis can outwit many, but that`s the choice they made in life. Those who fell into the pool of religious wars were not idiots. They believed in something and went into that with full conviction.

On the same lines, the extreme maniacs in India, who wanted to build a temple where a mosque was destroyed, could not be controlled by any. Their extremism could not be pacified by a potion of peace and tranquility.

You are missing a point on another end: All Muslim Countries do not practice Islam in the same stride. The religious norms may be performed in the same manner, but there is a strong influence of culture. Comparing the state of Palestinians with that of the Afghanis is not comparing apples to apples.

And, in the context of Islam, the writer`s assertions are quite weak and sweeping.

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

#52 Layman

{{Manu Smriti is a smriti, written by a man Manu in the material world. It is thus a reflection of society, not Hindu religion, in my opinion.}}

To make the point again, Manu Smriti is a *smriti*, not a *shruti*. Thus it is regarded as *humanly authored* rather than `divinely revealed`, by those (i.e believers) who attach any credence to the curious notion of `revelation`.

The well-known Indian feminist Madhu Kishwar has written a most interesting article `From Manusmriti to Madhusmriti: Flagellating a Mythical Enemy`, that forcefully makes the point that the alleged canonical status of Manusmriti as the ultimate fount and origin of Hindu law is a *British colonial invention*.

Kishwar`s thesis is that when the British found themselves, in the middle of the 18th century, fortuitously catapulted from traders to rulers, they faced the necessity of having to administer law among their newly acquired subjects. Personal law in India, particularly for Hindus, had been community-based, varying from region to region and among the myriad of communities within each region. A community traditionally retained the right to modify its customary laws to suit changing times. There was simply no single authoritative source of canonical law. The British administrators found this situation most frustrating, believing that they were at the mercy of pandits who, they suspected, dealt out laws as they pleased or made it up on the fly for a consideration. Therefore they first hired their own team of pandits to compile a digest of laws to govern civil disputes. The unsatisfactory nature of this first attempt lead Sir William Jones to work on a definitive code of Hindu law for the use of British administrators. He went on to translate Manusmriti, and the India Office apparently made the conscious decision to project it as the authoritative source and fountainhead of Hindu jurisprudence.

That the view of Manusmmriti as authoritative now predominates among India`s educated elite is symptomatic of the degree of brainwashing and deracination they have undergone. There are of course those, in the West and elsewhere, who have an stake in insisting on the canonical status of Manusmriti for their own far from disinterested reasons.

Ms. Kishwar`s article can be found here:

http://free.freespeech.org/manushi/117/manusmriti.html

Zahra, All,

While I understand that the intentions of the writer are to discuss how certain interpretations explicate roles for females, I think it is crucial to this and other discussions to research and think about how women interpret and explicate their roles within religion. For my three years on Chowk, I have read many interacts written by men on laws that affect females, and very little by female interactors on their opinions and experiences of the impact of these interpretations on their lives. I can only speculate as to why that is.

An interactor once suggested that I study Islamic scripture and interpretation to understand it. At that point I was under the impression that he wanted me to study current interpretations that are being practiced in Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, etc. I am less interested in studying these texts as I am in reading what women had/have to say about the role of religion-as our study of these texts will probably shed a great deal of light on our discussion of gender inequity and religion- and it beehooves us to find these texts as social and political as well as spiritual action.

I understand if your attention is directed elsewhere. However, I repeat my request of those Chowkies who might have names and institutions where female Islamic theological text might be found.

Thanks.

Dear Writer,

Another very critical point that was overlooked in my previous posts:In order to appear cool dudes some clerics will portray women as some kind of mesmerizing creation of God. And, they will go at length describing them as Aphrodite, Artimus, Gaea and other well known goddesses, only to pacify women`s ego. These ``blanket`` tactics work very well on women who are insecure and get easily enticed into such webs.

Lastly, some women can be the most foolish creatures on planet earth as well. Firstly, they do not take care of themselves and are unaware of their own identity and potential. Interestingly, some of them think that managing their servants and cooks and drivers is perhaps the biggest favor they are doing to themselves and their families. The others are actively busy in producing babies for that`s what God has created them for. To each their own, I guess.

Secondly, they make demigods out of men, who ought to be treated like equal beings! Scripture gave men importance only for one reason.

Unless (wo)men do not realize their own worth, it`s useless to blame anyone else, be it any scripture or those who tweak the scripture for their own purposes. Scripture only provides a guideline; and the worst thing anyone can do with the guideline is to see only that picture of women which portrayed their role as a wife. A baby girl is not born as a mother or a wife. She goes through her course of development in which she develops her own identity and cannot be automatically considered in a certain role described by any scripture. If that`s the case, then a baby boy should also be evaluated from that angle and scrutanized with a magnifying glass. According to the scripture, there are several clear cut items laid out for men ``the knights in shining armor``. Do men follow all of them 100%?

I would conclude my sermon with the following vichaa`r:

- Women have been playing the role of both a partner in crime and a victim. It`s on them to choose their future path.

- Yes, some women are more privileged and have more control on their lives vs. others. But each person is gifted with certain attributes and traits and must utilize them to the fullest vs. mourning their inadequacies.

- Scripture has laid out certain guidelines. Men are tweaking and will tweak those guidelines to their own convenience and per their own limitations. By the way, who is producing these men? They are not falling from the sky. Women are also not doing a good job in inculcating the right values in their offsprings.

So, women ought to take the onus of improving the quality of their own life. No one else will. No one else should. And, I care less on the take of any theologists and their tribes...they bore me to death. That`s it from my end on this subject unless someone comes forth with a unique point of view that requires further discussion.

Have a nice day all.

Hamidm,

:)

Tahmed,

Can you ratchet it down a bit? I hate to see two of my fav. interactors insulting each other. Hamidm does have a great sense of humor as do you...in fact, both of you seem quite sensible..

Mr. Tahmed, again you resort to silly insults. I actually did post a reply, but for some reason it wasn`t posted. Anyways, I myself do not wish to get into silly name calling and intimidation like yourself ``In real life, a couple of slaps is all that would take to put your kind in your place ``. The fact of the matter is truth still remains unchanged. If mirza ghulam ahmed did die while taking a crap, i cant change it. Its all a matter of how people percieve the truth. Now to your belittling of the great Islamic scholar Ibn Katheer. If i had given the explanations of the verse you quoted to any objective person, guess who would he/she rather believe. Ibn Katheer was a scholar of the arabic language, scholar of the Quran, hadeeths, seerah and a historian. You on the other hand rely on a translation, which in fact is also an interpretation of the translator. Quran should be read in its true context, and you can`t be selective when you quote certain verses.
“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85]
The only way you can reconcile this verse and the verses you quoted is by accepting the explanation given by me.

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

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

tahmed mian,

...... your reaction to my criticism of islam is the kind of attitude that reslults in balsphemy laws and book burnings ...........when it comes to defending the faith, seemingly reasonable people like you are not a whole lot different from the mullahs that they profess to despise ....... why? .... because by definintion, if you are a ``true`` muslim you have bought into the claim that the koran is the infallible word of god and therefore above any reproach or reform ......... in this respect it is not too different from medieval christianity which resulted in the horrors of the inquisiton..... however, it is a lot more dangerous..... why? ...... because the inquisition was conducted by the officials of the church and the common man just went along .......... islam is different because it officially sanctions and empowers the common man to act as the grand inquisitor - and that is why it is so dangerous ...........

......as for: ``If you really despise desis so much, why dont you fu!ck off and join some white supremacist web site``............ i can assure you that some of my best friends are desis and even my wife and two lovely daughters are as desi as can be - jazakallah khair!..........i love desis and everything desi even though i think that indian food (other than paye and nihari) is terrible when compared to french cusine or take-out chinese .......... and i am a staunch cultural muslim - i take off two days every eid and am never late for eid prayers, give lots of money to imran khan (even though i think the guy is an idiot for jumping into politics), i still eat with my fingers even though it is rather disgusting, i have spent more time at data darbar and bari imam and consumed more bhang and charas than a mid-level malang, i religiously celebrate basant when i am in pakistan and always say mashallah when i see a beautiful woman ............ so what else does one have to do to be a good muslim? ......... i am not willing to follow the four basic tenets of classical islam: prohibition, misogny, interest free banking and hatred for the poor pig (and infidels)................

#108 by hamidm2 on May 25, 2003 3:57pm PT
++i can dig up ten that categorically show that it is inherently intolerant and preaches hatred and death for the infidel.......... ++

Yes..that is what happened in the subcontinent..
The invaders came with `Hatred and death for the infidel hindus`...and converted them...or killed them..and destroyed their religious places..and we all still bear the consequences..in form of babri/godhra etcetc..


++VIII.39-42: ``Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.`` ++


This is the reason, most fo the converts in the subscontinent are scared and afraid of..
that if they in any way associate with hinduism then they are doomed...that only if they say their ancestors were syeds then they are true muslims..
Islam kind of petrifies it followers..it says..by coming to islam you have done the only right thing..till now you were in total darkness..

I sometimes just pity the followers of Islam..how it scares them..

hamidm2 #108 I really dont care what you think. If you think Islam is an evil philosophy (as you keep repeating) then why dont you renounce Islam and be done with it? If I believed what you believe, I would certainly have done so a long time ago. I have read the Quran carefully, and I am satisfied that it was indeed totally different from the maulvis vicious version of Islam. The problem is not in the book, it is in the characterless individuals who have reduced Islam to their own narrow frame of reference.

Actually, your problem is not Islam but desis in general. Your whole life seems to be consumed by the regret that you were not born a white man from Kentucky. If you really despise desis so much, why dont you fu!ck off and join some white supremacist web site? Plenty of those around. Just dont tell them you are one of the ``mud people`` and you will be fine. Those guys are so dumb, you will fit right in.

Honorable Syed #105 I read your response to Hamidm and I see that now it is his turn to be labelled an Ahmedi. And I also read the filth you wrote that was designed to insult Ahmedis - first if was hindus, now it is ahmedis. AND you do this after I have taken the trouble to show you how you are violating the Quran by ridiculing the faith of other people.

I have wasted more time with you on chowk than I would give to you in real life. In real life, a couple of slaps is all that would take to put your kind in your place (if you live in Pakistan, i.e. - in the US the law protects scum like you). How dare you write this filth that you wrote and quote from the Quran at the same time?? The hell with you and your kind. I will not be responding to any more posts from you (unless I change my mind).

hamidm2 #108:
Why it is difficult for you to understand that Islam is a religion of peace as a strategy for survival. This is not the first time religions have used this tactic. When catholics were butchering natixe americans, missionaries used the same tactic of love and peace to convert surviving natice americans. Again when catholics had their backs against the wall dealing with popular uprisings in south america, they used liberation theology. What ever happened to liberation theologans after the fall of communism?
It is a trick to keep the faithfuls in line when every damn infidel is beating the sh1t out of Muslims in wars, in education, in economy, in public service, in justice, in equality, in industry, in banking, in progress,......it s nothing more than raising white flag and live to fight another day when conditions might be more favorable - in 300 - 500 years. Islam becomes a religion of peace when beaten up, in retreat and on the run. The Sufis used it in subcontinent to survive and proselytize simultaneously in dangerously isolated areas with little muslim population or force to handle any majority non-Muslims onslaught. No major Sufi ever got killed in subcontinent because of this trick. Even ariel sharon and yasser arafat would become peacenik if their backs are against the wall.

Religions are cheap inventions of human mind to fool people, take the credit when things are good and do not share the blame when going gets tough. Every fuking religion has a reason why a child is born disabled and all of them false. Every time, something is provable with current level of knowledge, we find religion had been teaching exactly the opposite. Even rolling a dice by seers would have had better chances of luck with reality than induced trance or hallucination.

P.S. I am not blaming tahmed for using this as a trick. He actually believes it.

re: Islam and peace
I have always held the view that Islam is inherently a peaceful religion. Some of its adherents (past rulers, mullahs) have twisted and misused the message.
One can always read more than one message from a passage in any scripture. People interpreting these messages are ordinary mortels. I had posted a verse from Geetha sometimes ago, that could be interpreted to mean that violence was OK. But one always needs to put the message in the right context and ask the question: who was the message addressed to? Who is the audience? Is this message valid in this day and age?
Clearly, the verses in Qoran that seem to favor Jehad are misinterpreted. That is my view and i may be wrong. The same goes for suicide killers. Does Qoran say explicitly if a faithful kills as a religious duty, he will go to heaven and enjoy with 72 virgins? I am not sure but a lot of young muslim men in the middle east (as well as in Pak and Afghanistan) are being brainwashed by mullahs into believing so.
I just finished seeing 60 minutes on NBC channel. The program showed 2 young men from Gaza who were caught by Israelis before they could commit the act of suicide bombing. They were reportedly ecstatic before the act and firmly believed they were doing a great service to Islam. They did not mind killing innocent people since, as one of them put it, ``they are jews``. This bothers me a lot. Why are educated muslims not helping spread the right message (if there is one)? Why are they not protesting? Above all, it is the silence of good men in the Islamic world that is so deafening.
Sridhar

tahmed

......... you represent the most dangerous type of muslim - the type that keeps on pushing the idea that islam is a religion of peace, that it allows freedom of religion and can coexist peacefully with people of other faiths .......... we all know that it is a falsehood - a big fat lie! ..............for every ayah that you can dig up to show that there is no compulsion of religion in islam, i can dig up ten that categorically show that it is inherently intolerant and preaches hatred and death for the infidel.......... your selective reading of the koran is silly, to say the least............people like naqshbandi and the honorable syed are easier to deal with because they don`t lie and cheat and try to deceive folks into believing that islam is a benign ideology - far from it .........and don`t give us this convoluted crap about how the verses have to be put in context and try to tell us what god really meant ........ how about this:

(IX. 5-6):``Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them``

IV.76: ``Those who believe fight in the cause of God``

VIII.39-42: ``Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.``

IV.74: ``Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward``

............. now go out and kill an infidel so that you can get the forty buxom babes in jannah and stop spouting off all this nonsense about how islam is a religion of peace .......... we can read for ourselves and we don`t buy your wicked interpretation ..............