Women in Religious Scriptures

tahmed 32:
Thanks. I am glad you mentioned about your father`s book. If additional information is available on the book, please let me know I will give you my e-mail address.
I have felt all along that the monetary and organizational power that Muslim clerics have possessed over the educated Muslims has done harm to the image of Islam. There are many radical Hindu priestly people (really, politicians masquerading) but they have been neutralized to a larger extent due to absence of conversion in Hinduism and greater prevalence of westernized education. There is hardly anything comparable to Muslim Madarsas in Hindu religion.

Ali87:
I called the discussion ``riot`` not to comment on the nature of participants but because instead of asking each other questions to learn about the other person`s religion, the exchanges consisted of hurling accusatory statements. Let us face it there is bad blood between the Hindus and Muslims but the thing to do is not to point out each others faults. Rather interreligious dialogs should make effort to understand other religion`s adherents. My comments to you are equally for Sadna and Sridhar.

It is common knowledge that women of both religions have been kept down. We need to interact not only to identify why the situation exists the way it does but also try to understand why religious men have often problem with women. Why Hindu followers of various Gujrat sects require men and women to be in different sides in the temple and why the masjids do not even permit women inside the building. My thesis hints at the reasons in the conclusion section but the Hindu-Muslim ``riot`` has so occupied the attention that no one has paid any attention to gender-interaction and its relationship to the theories underlying the scriptures, irrespective of the specific religion.

260 by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 6:20pm PT

Lets see some of the points you made..... Very Intresting.

Two families both indulging in Gambling. One of the men gambles away his wife. Or rather the common wife of his brothers....

The other family whose men disrobe the won over wife in public..

My MY what Dharma (righteousness)!! Thousands are killed to uphold this Dharma of gamblers who give away their wife. Indeed what a way these upholders of Dharma treat the woman great.

I would say she is better off in a veil under protection of Gazhni.


...That advice to Arjuna was given in a certain context, when all peaceful efforts for reconciliation between the warring sides had failed

You mean to say that while the above illustrated example (and many such similar examples) was a example where the hindus were exhorted to fight when all efforts for reconciliation have failed... and thus you want to say that either Islam simply exthorts one to fight in a blood thirsty way or that there has never been any indication that the muslims have been on the side of righteousness.

I know that you have particpated read many disucssions on this forums where plenty of details on Quranic injuctions regarding War have been given and disucssed. Ill Jog your memory once again. I know that you will promptly forget these and will be needed to reminded again.. But that is ok after all you have got the burden of remembering so much from so may texts as sadna said ``even a single line of the Bhagavad Gita can take a lifetime to really LIVE upto sincerely`` .

here again for your reference

: [22:39] Permission is granted to those who are being persecuted, since injustice has befallen them, and GOD is certainly able to support them.

[ 22:40] They were evicted from their homes unjustly, for no reason other than saying, ``Our Lord is GOD.`` If it were not for GOD`s supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed. Absolutely, GOD supports those who support Him. GOD is Powerful, Almighty.

...[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

...[9:12] If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism - you are no longer bound by your covenant with them - that they may refrain.

The covenant here refers to the treaty of peace and mutual suppourt with non-muslims.


...one need to ask in what context was that said and if a set of values and codes that existed 14 centuries ago are still valid. Such an advice would serve well for bedouin tribes of Arabia at the time but now-a-days, we have state apparatus to take care of injustices.

Till 60 years back the US did not recognise the rights of Blacks, The apartheid regime suppressed a majority just for the sake of their skin color. The women in India were forced into the inhuman rules and rituals of widowhood, Gandhiji was ceasly fighting for the cuase of Dalits. This was not 14 centuries ago. dont be in such a hurry to say that the Quranic values and codes are outdated.


.....Religion, in fact, should best be left to individuals. When it gets into hands of a State or religious clergy (as has happened with Islam and as was the case with Christianity in middle ages), the results have been disastrous.

What exactly was the disaster in case of Islam? do you read a broad spectroum of histories or just the histories approved by Murali Manohar Joshi?

You end up contradictiong your self in every post. That sati was prevalent (ok ok not every woman was being burnt, but remember it had some nice alternatives) You agree that the dalits were opressed(now remember that they even now constitute about 70 % of hindus) so you have it that a extremely large portion of population was under inhuman treatment ie the dalits who constitiute the majority and the women who are half of the total population. All this while the the beautiful freedom to choose your way in a individualistic fashion was present (as per you and sadna) for centuaries.
Does it not strike you that for centuries the Individual freedom to religion has lead to this while Islam has been able to make men equal to each other. Given rights to women, called for the minoriites and others to be protected.
In fact this is what the Quran says

.[ 22:40] If it were not for GOD`s supporting of some people against others, , churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed.

here is the Quran saying that God suppourts some people against others (those who voilate peace, do not belive in any righteousness and god)so that not only majsid but monasteries, churches & synagouges are protected....
Certainly it does not sound to me as something evil.. to protect the monasteries, churches and synagouges. That these were protected is borne out in history. Not only that chirstians of various denominations as well as Jews found refuge in mulsim countries escaping the prosecution in europe.
I dont see in light of this why you consider religion should necessarily result in religous wars.


...
Holy Qoran gives a way of being pious. Does it also tell you if these injunctions are to be enforced by a State or authority. If it does, then it is in clash with modernity...

the piety is some thing which god asseses the state is not required to assess it nor enforce it. However the matter of law and stability which any socitey needs is a different matter. I think that you dont have a clear Idea of the differnce between individual Piety (which leads to good deeds) and the need for just socitey and the laws to enforce justice. Islam makes this distinction and this is how it has been usually practiced a good ruler need not be the most pious person. It is sufficeient if he rulese with Justice and mercy and maintains order and fulfils his responsibility for providing a stable and fair framework for people (all people) to live thier lives.
This would include clamping down on practices like Sati, Caste opression etc.

#259 by sadna on June 2, 2003 6:20pm PT

...Then why is it that the Quran is memorized in Arabic by thousands of children

You ask questions whose answers are quite obvious im sure even to you.
the Quran is memorised so that the people can have access to the book themselves and not depend on others. Another function of the memorisation may be less obvious now is to ensure the availabiltiy of the Quran to larger number of muslims as the printing press is a recent invention. Those who memorise could rember and act as a spoken book to others thus spreading and safegaurding the quran and its contents against people who could own books or write books or disturbute edited or changed books. I would say this is one of the reasons why the muslim scriputure has remained as it was revaled and perhaps you will realise its important when you compare this with the condtion of the various hindu scriputres whose athuntectiy or time cannot be accertained so much so that most of what those books say can contradict each other (I dont belive this is because of the wonderful ability of Hinduism to have differnt views on the same issue many times compeltly conflicting that the religious leaders of every time have to say that one need not follow some smiriti or shruthi simply because you cant get a proper athuenctiy and flowing logic within the extensive books of scriputure of hinduism. )


Are you saying Pakistanis in Afghanistan and J&K who killed and were killed in the name of holy war were all Arabic scholars ?

This is an illogical statement. some thing you keep making. Im yet to understand the purpouse of such statements. I wonder if you belive that by simply making illogical statements which seem to hint of some illogic in the Islamic way you hope to prove some thing wrong with Islam. Ill defer my judgement for now and refute the text of your statement.

Those who go to Jihad need not be Scholars. I dont know in what context or with what reason you made that remark. Probably this can be expected of you since you are so confused about your own scriptures I cant expect you to make any sense in the Islamic methodology.
Amazing. Why do you have a Muslim Personal Law Board then, why donot Muslims of India hold referendums about Muslim personal laws.

.......

`always speak the truth, walk on the path of dharma`,

never wish another person harm in thought, word or deed.

....

Sure these are nice statements all religions state that.

However these undonditional statements dont tell you what to do when when certain sitiuation arises. What happens when a person who you never wished any harm in thought, word or deed attacks your family and injures your family?
would you still not wish to punish the person or at least stop him worrrying that it may harm him?

what is the answer of Hinduism to this delllima? I know what it is Ill let you speak for it.

#260 by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 6:20pm PT

Others find peace in the intellectual pursuit of studying the vast volume of scriptures and take pride in quoting them. Others will have nothing of these and swear by the path of Yoga alone. All these are acceptable paths. That is why, this religion has produced so many God-realised souls. They just sought out God without bothering about religion. Sometimes religion can be a shackle to the free spirit

What did those god realised souls did save their own souls and went after salvation, what ever that is.
All the while majority of the people were oppressed. Perverse practices flourshised throughout.
and these guys were on their own trip saving their own skin towards salvation. I find that repungant.

#255 by Inquirer on June 2, 2003 3:14pm PT
...Am I sorry that my thesis has caused this Hindu-Muslim riot?


I can assure you that we are not roiting but discussing some very difficult issues. However we are doing it quite peacfully and respectfully.

At least I dont have any complaints from side about rsridhar and sadna.

I find myself in a very strange situation. On saturday I was defending the hindu and their practices by some very serious allegations by a jew and American convert to jewish faith (I thought that was Oxymoron, that too this lady with tight hot pants was talking about being a convert and if given a choice would be a Orthodox jew!! I wonder if she knew what she was talking about). Then I was assailed about the killings of mulsims and hindus by each other in India I had to assure them that all hindus were not killing muslims and even some of those who participated in or suppourted the roits were perhaps ashamed of themselves and their behaviour.
Then I had to explain that while India is quite poor it is not so bad as potrayed in the west. I ended up with an offer to arrange for a heart by pass surgery for one of them who was not insured for just $4000 (excluding air fare) only by some very competent doctors(they didnot take up the offer though:))!! )

Sushil (aka inquirer) #261 That was indeed a thoughtful piece you posted. I could not agree more with the writer (Asma Barlas). The most dangerous thing the world can do is to surrender Islam, and in particular, the interpretation of the Quran to the religious ``scholars``. My late father challenged this ``mullah interpretation`` in a book he wrote (``Quranic and nonQuranic Islam``) which was quoted in the US publication ``Current History`` Jan 2000 issue as being one of the two books that signalled the stirrings of reformation in Islam (the other book was from some Syrian writer). I am glad that there are many others, like Asma Barlas, who are also challenging this incubus of mullahism that is probably the biggest enemy of not just the muslim people but to the world at large.

SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE:

Islam, women, and equality — III

Asma Barlas

US-Americans have a stake in egalitarian readings of Islam and of their own religions (and secular ideologies, for that matter) because we need to devise more egalitarian modes of “knowing one another,” to use a Qur’anic phrase

(This is the final in a series of essays, deriving from a talk I gave at Ithaca College on my book, on March 19. The previous two were published on May 6 and May 20.)

If, as I have argued, the Qur’an does not endorse theories of male privilege and female inferiority and subordination, then the question becomes why haven’t Muslims read it as an antipatriarchal and liberatory text? I want to address this problem, as well as the larger issue of interpretation, in the last part of my talk.

I believe that the reason Muslims have failed to read the Qur’an as an antipatriarchal text has to do with “who has read it (basically men), the contexts in which they have read it (basically patriarchal), and the method by which they have read it (basically one that ignores the hermeneutic and theological principles that the Qur’an suggests for its own reading)” (Asma Barlas, “Challenging Patriarchal Interpretations of Islam,” Anderberg Lecture, University of Nebraska, 2002).

Much of the religious knowledge Muslims regard as canonical today is the product of a method that has been described as linear, atomistic, and hermeneutically flawed. However, because of how religious knowledge and authority came to be structured in Muslim societies historically, most Muslims continue to regard these interpretations and this methodology as Islamic.

Much of this religious knowledge also was produced by male scholars in the first few centuries of Islam which were coterminous with the medieval period of European history. Even though Muslim civilisation was at its zenith during this period of European decline, this was nonetheless an era of enormous misogyny that was cross-cultural and inter-national in its scope.

Added to this is the fact that many of the Qur’an’s provisions threatened existing relationships of power between women and men and between the rulers and the ruled and produced a strong conservative resistance that extended to deradicalising parts of its message very early on. For instance, Fatima Mernissi shows how many Muslim men tried to misread the verses that extended inalienable rights to women (The Veil and the Male Elite, New York: Addison-Wesley, 1991).

Similarly, Louise Marlow argues that as early as the second Islamic century, Muslim ulema had begun to dilute the egalitarian impulse in various parts of tradition, by justifying hierarchical “models of kingship” in a society whose Scripture extolled the virtues of egalitarianism. Thus, the ulema who had “gained incontestable possession of the moral high ground [refused to] translate the antihierarchical and antiauthoritarian moral at the heart of their scholarly tradition into an active social and political opposition.” Instead, they sought to justify not only hierarchies, but quietism as well, even though some of them “felt obliged to defend their quietism, since it was activism that had been suggested most strongly by early Muslim experience.” By the third Islamic century, even Qur’anic exegesis showed that the egalitarianism once associated with the Qur’an had lost its “subversive connotation” (Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977: 93; 66).

On its part, the early Muslim state also became involved in promoting certain interpretive practices and certain readings of Islam that were oppressive to women. This has been documented by several scholars, including Leila Ahmed, who also points out that different readings of the same texts yield “fundamentally different Islams” for women (Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate, Yale University Press, 1992).

All this suggests, of course, that hermeneutical and existential questions are connected and to the extent they are, it is reasonable to argue that one cannot read scriptures in liberatory modes by means of flawed methodologies and in oppressive and antidemocratic circumstances. Many people, including disillusioned Muslims, believe that Islam itself is antidemocratic, but I reject such essentialism because, as my own work shows, a religion is always polysemic (has a multiplicity of meanings) and we can read it in more than one way. To me, then, the more appropriate question becomes “why does a community come to regard certain interpretations and ideas as authentic, authoritative, or canonical?” And that takes us back to such issues as how knowledge itself is produced and the contexts in which it is produced.

If we look at Muslim societies today, we find a rather dismal picture. Most of the regimes in power are viewed by their own people as illegitimate, oppressive, and unIslamic. Moreover, as a result partly of Western support of such regimes and partly of the legacy of Western colonialism, Muslim societies have experienced modernisation not as economic development or political freedoms, but as a “coercive secularism” (Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, New York: Modern Library, 2000: 166).

This brings me to how nonMuslim Westerners view Islam and to the role of the US in keeping antidemocratic regimes in power in Muslim societies, and around the world generally. I have argued elsewhere that in spite of a 1,400 year long shared history, and in spite of the fact that Islam is as much a part of Abrahamic monotheism as are Judaism and Christianity, there is very little understanding of Islam in the US and the West. Even and perhaps, especially, in the Academy, only certain types of discourses on Islam get fore grounded that continue to perpetuate ignorant and damaging stereotypes about it.

My own view is that this ignorance “is cultivated, not accidental, and that it arises in an age-old politics of misrecognition that ‘confuses Islam with Muslims, disregards the role of political, economic, cultural, and historical factors in shaping not only Muslim attitudes and actions, but also their readings of Islam, and denies Western complicity in creating many of the conditions that are conducive’ to religious extremism and not just on the part of some Muslims” (Asma Barlas, “Jihad=Holy War=Terrorism: the Politics of Conflation and Denial,” American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, Winter 2003: 1).

In such a milieu, learning about Islam requires unlearning deeply entrenched modes of ignorance and nonrecognition and while some people are open to such a possibility, most can see no stake in it because of the instrumentalist belief that there’s no value in learning about things that don’t impact their own lives in immediate and tangible ways. However, one of the things 9/11 should have brought home to us — and I intend the pun here — is that even as we secure ourselves behind imaginary borders of inside/outside, in real life, what happens “out there” is likely to have repercussions “in here” sooner or later as well.

This is why I believe US-Americans have a stake in the foreign policies that governments pursue in their names and which, for the most part, are conducive to oppression, not democracy. I also believe that US-Americans have a stake in egalitarian readings of Islam and of their own religions (and secular ideologies, for that matter) because we need to devise more egalitarian modes of “knowing one another,” to use a Qur’anic phrase. In the absence of mutual recognition based in mutual knowledge and understanding, we will be hard put to live peaceably together.

Asma Barlas is associate professor and chair of Politics at Ithaca College, New York

re: #252 by ali87

``If religon cant call the people to fight against Invaders then what is the purpose of religion, If it cant call to fight against the oppressors in suppourt of the oppressed then what is the use of religon. Are we to suppose that had germans been hindu it would have been appropirate for religon to give guidance to go and find god(for what purpose?)
why is it you think that salvation in itself a goal what is the purpose? is salvation just going and finding creative methods and objects to pray?
you however forget Krishnas advice to Arjuna on doing his duty. Why did you not find that Abhorrent?``
Religious conflicts are happening today because religious leaders have taken it among themselves tasks that are best relegated to the State. Who is to determine who is oppressed and who is not? In today`s day and age, we cannot let religion determine that. That is why democratic states have a constitution, a legal system to enforce laws passed by the constitution. Dalits have been long oppressed. Can we let religious pundits (mostly brahmins even today) to decide if they are oppressed or not. Despite best intentions, some shortcomings will creep in. That is why, even one of the founders of Indian Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar (a Dalit himself) strongly supported special status for dalits. They are still oppressed but that oppression is much less, thanks to the successful implementation of many reforms and their gradual empowerment. Last president K.R. Narayanan was a dalit himself. C.M of UP, Mayawati is a dalit. So, thinks have been improving mainly due to intervention of state. Religion has minimal role to play here. Religion cannot dictate the state, at least in a democracy.
The problem with a lot of Islamic nations is that religion (and mullahs) have been dictating terms to the state and quoting the scripture in support of their claim. This is not acceptable to most nations who are not islamic. That is why we see the conflict today. I would still exclude many nations like Indonesia, malaysia who are by and large secular but even they are facing problems.
So, if your Holy Qoran says it is O.K to fight oppression, one need to ask in what context was that said and if a set of values and codes that existed 14 centuries ago are still valid. Such an advice would serve well for bedouin tribes of Arabia at the time but now-a-days, we have state apparatus to take care of injustices. These should be strengthened. I already see this conflict happening with NWFP of Pakistan coming under rule of religious extremists who now want Shariat law in that province. What is wrong with that? you may ask. Nothing as long as thiefs do not mind their hands being chopped off for petty crimes and rapists do not mind getting stoned to death. There is, other than that, no problem at all.
Hinduism is an individual religion. Adi Sankara organised it many centuries ago to preserve some core values and gave it some kind of an organisational status. But head of these monasteries (or Matts as they are called) are just symbolic heads with no real powers (unlike the pope or some religious leaders in an islamic country).

Salvation (``Moksha``) is indeed the ultimate goal of people practising hinduism. It is the last of Purusharthas (aims of life), the others being Artha (earning a livelihood), Kama (enjoying life), Dharma (philanthropy).
If you are interested you can go to:
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/basics/nineb/index.html
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/basics/fourf/index.html
Indeed, Krishna`s advice to Arjuna in doing his duty, even though such a duty involved violence, cannot be considered abhorrent. Our religion does talk of using violence as a last resort to uphold Dharma (righteousness). That advice to Arjuna was given in a certain context, when all peaceful efforts for reconciliation between the warring sides had failed. Dharma was on the side of Arjuna. But no hindu today would site that as a pretext for violence. There is no concept for holy war or jehad in Hinduism.
``I think your problem is that you feel that religon is some thing estoric and should be relegated to the private sphere and man is basicalliy free to do what he wants in the other sphere. YOu feel that the task of religion is to guide you to god(for what purpouse? you dont seem to be clear) Islam on the other hand prescribes the prayer rituals so that a man may become Pious by addressing god and communitaitng with him and remebemereing his guidance.``
Religion, in fact, should best be left to individuals. When it gets into hands of a State or religious clergy (as has happened with Islam and as was the case with Christianity in middle ages), the results have been disastrous. Holy Qoran gives a way of being pious. Does it also tell you if these injunctions are to be enforced by a State or authority. If it does, then it is in clash with modernity.
Hindus are not governed by any central authority. They have books, scriptures and a number of commentaries by scholars, sages over many centuries to rely on. Above all, they are encouraged to find the truth themselves. There are some who feel satisfied by following some strict religious belief systems in a book (for eg some Vaishnavites of South follow scrupulously some belief systems laid down by their Acharyas like Ramanuja). Others find peace in the intellectual pursuit of studying the vast volume of scriptures and take pride in quoting them. Others will have nothing of these and swear by the path of Yoga alone. All these are acceptable paths. That is why, this religion has produced so many God-realised souls. They just sought out God without bothering about religion. Sometimes religion can be a shackle to the free spirit. These great souls are not different from many scientists in the West who seek out the truth in their scientific enquiries in a dispassionate manner: without any prejudice.
I have already said that the methods prescribed in Islam are also legitimate ways. However, i would strongly disagree if someone says that Islamic way is the only way and rest are full. Close to a billion Roman Christians also say the same. They feel you can be saved only by Jesus. So, who is right?
Sridhar

ali87 #258

``first mulsims are not exhorted to depend on the maulvi or mullah or the ulema for religious matters. It is infact the opposite they are exhorted to gaiin knowledge by themselves.``

Then why is it that the Quran is memorized in Arabic by thousands of children who donot understand the language, some of whom are then incited to jihad in the name of the injunctions of same Quran? Are you saying Pakistanis in Afghanistan and J&K who killed and were killed in the name of holy war were all Arabic scholars ? Amazing. Why do you have a Muslim Personal Law Board then, why donot Muslims of India hold referendums about Muslim personal laws?

``which is perhaps hindu religon is so difficult for its adherants to follow that they choose to give up . ``

If Hindu scripture tells me ``Satyam vada, dharmam chara`` - `always speak the truth, walk on the path of dharma`, I believe that this will take a lifetime get absolutely perfect in this.

If my scripture says ``never wish another person harm in thought, word or deed` - ahimsa paramo dharma - I think this is also very difficult to be perfect in throughout life and in all situations.

I can understand why someone would want to convert from such a religion due to these difficulties.

#247 by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 12:27pm PT

looks like Hindus are the only ones who belive in this powerful cleric business. or of the fatwas. the opinons become valid for implementation in a state context only when a state adopts them. in the salman rusdhie case it was Iran.
Notice the greatful statement of the ex british minister in a satement last week how the UK govt negotiated with Iran to have the fatwa (as adopted by the state of Iran withdrawn)which is to day that the fatwa of death penalty was considered right by a parituclar religous authority and adopted by the state who subsequently withdrew it on the basis of another fatwa stating that withdrawal of the death penlaty citing practical reasons and befifit to the muslim people as a whole in exchange of such a withdrawal of the death penalty.
However there is a opinoin by another religous authority which says that the death penalyt need not be withdrawn this however has not been adopted by the state of Iran

#254 by sadna on June 2, 2003 3:14pm PT


....I donot see anything different in Islam. Just like the ordinary Muslims couldnot/cannot read the Arabic Quran and were/are exhorted to depend on maulvi/mullah/ulema on religious matters, ordinary people couldnot/cannot read Sanskrit - they were infact barred from learning Sanskrit and reading the scriptures as were women too.

you see and yet you dont realise..

first mulsims are not exhorted to depend on the maulvi or mullah or the ulema for religious matters. It is infact the opposite they are exhorted to gaiin knowledge by themselves. For practical purposes they use the efforts of the Ulema. In fact people are always critized because of having to little knowledge.
The ulema is to be depended on in juristic matters. ie matters concerning Law which is the same as in any other socitey including the present.
any body can become a Ulema. the extortation is not to make pronouncement on basis of half knowledge but depend on people who have knowldge in case you want to get that knowldege then the most convinent institution of the free madarsas are present. contrast this to the system in the hindu religon

second you so easily write of the difference which you admit and the consequent impact of the ``BARRING`` of women and non Bhramins from readign the scriputure.
But I however dont understand why we are discussing this :))

...It will take many lifetimes to read all these, much less LIVE it - this when even a single line of the Bhagavad Gita can take a lifetime to really LIVE upto sincerely..

which is perhaps hindu religon is so difficult for its adherants to follow that they choose to give up .

or by another angle why is it sooooo... difficult to follow...
is it not a justification after the fact of making the religion so complex

#248 by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 12:27pm PT


....But the moment you say Jehad means go out and kill in self-defense, i will strongly protest. This is a regressive step, however justified the cause may be. On top of that, you are saying that Jehad usually has a State sanction(your quote: ``Jihad till now has been recognised as that can be called only by a legitimate Muslim state not individual organsation or people.``). That makes it bad twice over.


I often wonder at the hypocricy of people who find it ok for states to have armies to defend themselves but the same defence if its called Jihad bya muslim country it is not ok. I dont recall you ever stating such feelings to crusade.

I think your problem is that you feel that religon is some thing estoric and should be relegated to the private sphere and man is basicalliy free to do what he wants in the other sphere. YOu feel that the task of religion is to guide you to god(for what purpouse? you dont seem to be clear) Islam on the other hand prescribes the prayer rituals so that a man may become Pious by addressing god and communitaitng with him and remebemereing his guidance. Those who pray and are successfull in acheving piety are of better use to socitey as they follow the rules laid down by god. who commands you to be kind, gentle, just, truthful.
this also includes keeping order within the socitey and fighting oppression so that people may live in peace. The going out to Jehad as you say is not read in going out of your country and killing others. the going out refers to going out of your homes, daily lives and is addressed to the individual. Ie the indiviudal is exhtorted to particpate in a Jihad when his country is attacked by invaders or when a neghobouring country is attacked by invaders. The Jihad may be consturted as joining an army or action group which will repell the invaders of your country and possibliyy your neighbours. The other Injuction is conduction of Jihad in suppourt of the extreemely oppressed. For instance if US were a muslim country the intrevention it did in help of france in ww2 would be called Jihad. The present war with Iraq (as per american propaganda)would be called Jihad. I think that you are just upset with the word.
If religon cant call the people to fight against Invaders then what is the purpose of religion, If it cant call to fight against the oppressors in suppourt of the oppressed then what is the use of religon. Are we to suppose that had germans been hindu it would have been appropirate for religon to give guidance to go and find god(for what purpose?)
why is it you think that salvation in itself a goal what is the purpose? is salvation just going and finding creative methods and objects to pray?
you however forget Krishnas advice to Arjuna on doing his duty. Why did you not find that Abhorrent?

Why is it seemingly intellignet people come up with such emotinal and silly resposnes that to over and over again. This is not the first time we have discussed about Jihad.

That OBL etc have not had any islamic standing is to be seen. They have had some followers but if you look at 1.2 billion mulsims they you konw how few they have been this is not to say the cause they were suppourting needs to be abandoned just becuase they have choosen to act on it.

Please enlignhent yourself on the position of the various ulema and statements of the govt of may muslim govts, emminent reliogous personalites, emminent muslims in various fields on killling of civilians.


if you want people to give statements on Bombing of USS cole or Armed Settlers they you have a different issue. Even here there are statements condemming including by some Ulema. Also Jihad needs to have a viable and winnable goal usually the assessment is done not by indiviudal groups but by established state. As for declaring anything any body can do it even you can say you declare jihad on my behalf what does it count?

Before making accusations please do your research properly dont make statements again and again on basis of precived or notional belifes of yours.

#238 by dost-mittar on June 1, 2003 5:22pm PT
Thanks both to you as well as sadna for keeping the discussion civil. I can understand that some of this may seem as a direct attack on you personaly I can assure you that Im discussing concepts and practice in the broad generalities and not you as induviduals or narrow specifics though I refer to some issues to give a prespective. Im keeping im mind the reminder by sadna of the Prophets instructions. I hope I have not crossed the line.


let me tell you that I admire commonsense of the singaporeans and much more than that thier clear stand on some issues It is many times better than the US which professes some thing and does some thing opposite while at the same time trying to hold other countries to what it professes.
I have no complaints about singapore on the issues you outlined. Khutbas even in egypt and at times in Saudi are asked for submission for clearence. Not a good practice though I think.

The loyalty of the Ummah is based on some values as far as the inter-country relations are concerned. For instance if germans during Hitler opposed the govt and supppourted the allies we consider them morally as well as ethically right. Because no one can suppourt voilation of basic human rights.
Similarly if India has war with pakistan say on some issue which does not involve basic human(thus Islamic)issue there is not much problem in muslims being part of the army and fighting against Pakistan. similar is the case of a war between two muslim countries. However if India is going to war to subjugate pakistanis on account of their religon and to suppress the practice of Islam you will find that this case there will be no loyalty. This will aslo be recognised by the world as the right thing since curtailment of religious right and rituals(except where it is inhumuan and against others)is conisdered by all as human right issue.

Also there concept of making the adjustments or remaining aloof is sanctioned in Islam if it hurts a particular mulsim community it is certainly not against Islam to withdraw in a war or even enter into a compromise for saftey of people.

When we talk of modernity that we calim to have we also talk about the accompaning democracy etc. If we belive that the people have a right to decide whom to be governed by or whom to associate with then we have to give the right to people. For example Canada which put the Qubec`s decession to cecede twice I think.
The boundries of India are not written in stone neither are they the immutable truths. suppose today the whole (theoritaclly) tamil nadu wanted to become seperate(lets not discuss here why that is not possible, only accepting the possibility of almost complete majority) nation what will be our response in light of our modern,humane, democratic values? Logically the should be able to decide to give this right to the people (after all this is what is democracy all about.)better if the proces is peacfull and democratic and with necessary rules and regulations to accertain the wish of people.

If the kashmiri muslims wish to join pakistan or to be independent should be viewed in this context. If you are admitting this that kashmiri muslims wish to go to pakistan or be independent and we are stoppign them form excersiing this imporant right then it is a big step in understanding.
Obviously when we give the right for people to decide what they want we assume that they are mature enough to know what is benificial to them otherwise it sounds like the colonialists who wondered why Indians wanted to become free while there were many beinfits in remaining in the empire.
That the kashmiris constitute 90 percent of the population of kashmir valley and 70% of the population of the J&K is an important factor in noting this wish and responding to it.
It is true that kashmiris muslim or otherwise have many benifits to remain in India and as such this was a reason that kashmiris (at least it is belived the majority of them)decided to stay with India. However after some time (some say that the Sheik started acting smart, and adding conditions but that is irrelevant)the majority opinion was that they had been cheated and the would like to either get independence or join pakistan. I think that Indian establishments blame in this is great and now if they want freedom to either remain independent or join pakistan it should be seen in that light. However I think that they may agree for compromise. We as Indias often give the case that one section of people should not be given a different set of rules to the union and thus be brought under the same umbrella of rules should not be shortsighted. An india with kashmir with some different terms is certainly more acceptable than an India without kashmir at all(at least from Ideological point of view and theoritical point of view, reality of course is a different matter.)
if we see the case of Hong Kong where china took over Hong Kong with the slogan of one country two systems an accomodation with the kashmiris giving in even to the pre 1953 status is less radical the system remaining the same only some federal rights are curtailed and some subject to approval by the statelegisature.
Such a kashmir would be a compare very well when justaxposed with POK giving serious headaches to pakistan.

...there was muslim constable who shot a DCP in the back of his head while patrolling during some roits in Hyderabad a decade back. This team of police people were going about shooting people in homes(muslims) and molesting women and even killed two children. What would you do if you were in such a positon? especialy if you except a handfull of people nobody had been prosecuted for roits in the 50 years since independence. The govt later on hushed the case to some extent and gave a nominal prison term to the constable fearing publicity on the doings of the DCP and his team. Im however not for such response though it may be justified. Islam abhors anarchy ie indiviudals taking things into their hands. The right waywould be to work withing the system and change it however hard it may be.

on basis of this soverginity of states will you also condemm the 1857 war of independence aka sepoy Mutiny?

I do not know what you understand by the concept of the ummah. perhaps your understanding is limited to the aspect suppossed help one country is expected to give in times of war. the concept of Ummah is much broader than that. It is true that muslims fight each other and often have taken sides of non muslims against muslims. Even in other aspects they do not give similiar right to immigrant muslims as the US does to its Immigrants. However this is not to mean that being a muslim gives automatic right for any muslim to get all the previiages of another country. this has never been the case. If it is given it is seen defientiely a good thing but practical issues are considered and accepted as legitimate differentiators.
On a more borader scale I encounter the the concept of Ummah all the time. Last feb I was In chennai at the time of EID not having any relatives or muslim friends I ended up in the home of a tottally unknown person whom I met in the masjid with whose family I continued to watch a world cup match that day after having a sumputus feast.
I have felt the concept of Ummah when I was with malaysians in singapore and the chinese muslims in the malaysian mosques. Here I have just moved to Austin last month and just by going to the nearest masjid I am unable to balance my social calelnder. I visited a person unknown to me who was in coma after a motorcycle accident and still is in coma, attended the graduation ceremony of anothers son, had dinner in ones persons home and tea in anothers becuase I couldnt go for dinner to both in the same day. have got tea and many times long conversations at the local resturant. Got free tire rotation and an transmission oil flush for 40 dollars, get to take movies for rent without deposit (expected from others)at the local movie library. Got to have lunch in Dallas at the home of someone who I never met but was commanded by my new aquaintance to make sure I visit while on a two day trip in Dallas. I met a black policeman while having coffee in an electornic store in california who asked me if I was Muslim and chatted with me for while and offered his card if I ever have any problem with anything.
I feel the ummah in action all the time much to the amusement and amazement of my hindu friends.
I meet with Iranis, Iraqis, morrocans, Chinese, egyptians, bangaladeshis, kosovans, Afghanis, pakistanis and even white as well as black americans and am instantly part of thier friends. I like that. Your arguments for abandoning this wonderful thing would take the fun out of life.

If something is a political manifestation of Ideology it is ok with you, If anything is an political manifestation of race (for eg the African council)it is ok with you. Why is it that religion should be treated as pariah? When the west talks of western values they are talking of the values of mainly chirstian whites not of brown hindus nor of muslim or buddhist or japanaese or african values these are the values that rumsfield says are right for the rest of the world and what he says should be implemented in Iraq. despite whatever slan that they give these are essentaially western values they cant be considered humuan values. you have no problem with that.
the hate of religion is a uniquely christian thing due to their problems with the church. However this was not the case with people in the rest of the world. the religion dominated the west so much that each and every aspect of life was soffocated by a rigid and harsh rules dreamt of or deviced by humuans claiming to have got the right from god. Neither Hinduism nor muslim relgion experienced such a soffacation in everyaspect of life. all thorught despite the wars, and even with the prevelance of caste syste and other rigidities many other aspects of life were flourshing without much restirction. true there were wars and great killings but these were not part of regular life. science floursished without restriction, other aspects of life florished,
the church had very restrictive doctrine even in enjoymnet to sex within marriage this being the most private part of a persons life the frequent wars and oppression by the chruch is what turned the west against religon. We did not go thorugh this phase so taking the extreme oppositon to religon as the west does is some thing silly. we need to see religon in the way we experineced. remember that if hindus were there in europe they would have been subject to extrimination and elemination contrast this to the asociation of various hindu nobles and others professional classe in muslim rule in India and else where. Non mulsims had access to the highest posts in Muslim socitey.(I do not deny there was a preference to muslims but there was no prosecution as long as the people accepted the rule of the concerned ruler.)

this is a remarkable contrast to what the west experineced in terms of religion thus their immense emphasis of the seperation of Chruch and State.
I would advise you to look at the issues in front of you with the prisim of our own historical experience not throough the prisim of western experinece. we are so used to seeing the world because of the education system which borrows heavily from the west and the western media on whom we depend on Ideas as well as issues of importance.

Im glad that you realise that a common platform is needed for Muslims not just limited to OIC to sort out the issues of Islam and its relation to conditions and challenges in present time. There is a need to look at issues and many laws where time has given some rust to them they need to be removed of the cultural tehters at times and to be based more on the spirit of Islam and proper guidence given in the Quran.

ali87 #249
``...YOur claim of unfettered freedom is a bit of a problem it is not as if people had total freedom to belive in what they wished and that there was total acceptance in socitey. For examples the shudras (a subustantial portion of socitey) could certainly not belive themselves as equals for as long as there is recorded Indian history. That the practice of sati was not usuallyvoluntary, that the rituals of widowhood were practiced as late as 1000 years back till last 2 decades. It was instead unfettered freedom for the elite to belive inwhat they wanted and to impose what they wanted on others ``

I donot see anything different in Islam. Just like the ordinary Muslims couldnot/cannot read the Arabic Quran and were/are exhorted to depend on maulvi/mullah/ulema on religious matters, ordinary people couldnot/cannot read Sanskrit - they were infact barred from learning Sanskrit and reading the scriptures as were women too.

Over the centuries, the Brahmins basically integrated popular mythology and beliefs into Hindu practice/theology/smritis as well as disseminated religious principles among the unread population through mythologies and smritis. I think the best simile is from music, the way Indian classical music derives from folk music as well as informs musical tradition in its own turn.

The centuries/milleniums old custom of home temple, personal religious observance and community deities does give some measure of religious autonomy, it means(IMO) that individuals and communities donot need to depend on single philosophical or religious source, or on single community like Brahmins for its religious observances and prayer, only for important rituals like death rites.

Each community even the shudras were strictly bound by the temporal laws of their own community (jati) - and while individuals were limited by the social/religious inclinations of the community, there was mobility of entire communities.

Another thing was that if you became a sadhu or holy man, then your jaati ceased to matter. This was apparently the case for pilgrimages too, though I am not sure.

Between these different jaati groups it was obviously accepted there would be different customs and rituals, different deities which they gave primacy to for worship, - this was diversity and coexistence of different beliefs - while the position of the community in the caste hierarchy depended largely on local conditions.

For example if the entire community decided to stop being warriors and become grazers(as apparently happened for example with a NIndian warrior community called Ahirs)there was noone to prevent them. The rulers in many regions were not originally warrior caste -and for example Nairs, the powerful community in Kerala are said to be shudras if I am not mistaken. The ancestor of the present Maharaja of Gwalior was said to be a shudra/vaisya too, if I remember right.

This jaati mobilty in the heirarchy became severely limited when the British brought large portions of India under common law and administration- then the pecking order became more monolithic and unchangeable.

IMO, the Dalits on the other hand were perpetual outcastes. In modern India, you can see in some parts the way these communities are coming into mainstream Hinduism, - they have their own chosen deity, they build temples to these deities, celebrate the festivals, have community activities - where they are present in large numbers, this growth of identity and mobility is more successful - though IMO things like intermarriage are still difficult.

As for unfettered freedom - firstly I will say(which is a generalization over the vast diversity in Hinduism, but a largely true one according to me) that even in this unfettered freedom, Hindu dieties are generally not vengeful, they are worshipped for being `kalyankaari` or `doing good`.

Even Kali quoted often as a fierce goddess is never described as being vengeful towards her devotees or those who donot choose to pray to her, she is described to be vengeful only towards her own enemies. Of course HINDUS like all humans were certainly vengeful and would prob. worship Bhavani and Kali and Durga or other gods before going off kill their own enemies.


According to me this comparitive lack of vengeance and anger in Hindu deities comes from the common concept in family of beliefs and practices under the Hinduism umbrella which says `kaN kaN mein Bhagwan` which means god in every particle.

These family of beliefs also have representation of the following :
Buddhism which says `Bhagwan hai hi nahin` meaning there is no God,
Jainism which says `prakiti mein Bhagwan` meaning Nature is God,
Sikhism which says `Nirgun Bhagwan` meaning God is formless featureless and Islam and Christianity which say `Swarg mein Bhagwan` meaning God is in Heaven.

``Just go in a public gathering in India and tell that the various smirits are not for this age and youll know the dificculty in your argument. ``

What are you talking about, I donot understand? Did I say smritis are not considered relevant for this age? Well if so I didnot put it right. I meant smritis are not meant to be of unchanging relevance.

So while many in modern age look up to Krishna or Ram or Sita as role models, and feel inspired by their life histories and worship them as deities, they are not required to do or emulate word for word what is described in these histories.

This implies Hindus are not saying these puranas are perfect and complete in every respect, Hindus are not saying that every bit of worldly knowledge is contained in these books so we must research Gandharas(the heavenly musicians) or those demigods who keep showering flowers or set up science institute to rediscover Brahm Astra - nor are they saying a kingdom headed by an ideal King and following word for word the 20,000 verses of Yoga Vashishtha(scripture recording the conversation between King Ram and Sage Vashishtha on good governance) must be reestablished.

The historic authenticity of these puranas may be fervently believed in by large numbers of people, but its ONLY in the last 10 years, wrt the Ram Mandir, that the historic authenticity of Ramayana has become a very serious public issue. And I still donot say anyone saying Ramayana is a Shruti equivalent to the Vedas.

So I donot see why it should be a problem to call a smriti a smriti in any public gathering in India - this is commonly understood - thats why some Muslim chowkies` favorite Hindu holy book to quote from called Manusmriti is called ManuSMRITI.


Please take time out and contrast this with how if in the last 1400 years upto the modern age you doubt the historic authenticity of Quran or claim that the Holy Prophet was not the Final Prophet in any Muslim country, you were/are liable to be killed by order of the state.


And there IS a practical problem - Hinduism has such a huge volume of holy scriptures(only a fraction of what is now lost including apparently larger portions of Upanishads) - so many hundreds of thousands or millions of verses in Sanskrit and multiple languages - a good number of them arguments against others - how the heck can anyone follow all of them?
It will take many lifetimes to read all these, much less LIVE it - this when even a single line of the Bhagavad Gita can take a lifetime to really LIVE upto sincerely. Some amount of selection is IMPERATIVE - which is why people often feel most comfortable with following family custom and community tradition in religious matters.

ali87 - before you utter child slaughter again for the n+1th time, PLEASE provide a reference to the Hindu scripture which prescribes child slaughter.

I think your main problem is that you are taking the customs and histories of Muslim society and religious tradition(which is also quite diverse) and saying they are aberrations from the norm and you are taking the fringe practices and beliefs among Hindus and passing it off as the norm.

Am I sorry that my thesis has caused this Hindu-Muslim riot?

I am certainly not happy. But this pain has been burning in both camps for long time and has to be defused by expression before any understanding can emerge. I only wish it had happened for someone elses essay.

Nevertheless, some conclusions are emerging from this firefight! Both groups are ignorant of each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#244 by rsridhar on June 2, 2003 11:37am PT

I think that before you make accusations you should do your home work. You do this too often. Killing of ciivllians delibrately has been conndememd by many clerics including those of saudi arabia. That you dont care to read out those statements is your fault. the positions of the states on this issue is well known.
However if you want to call bombing a group of heavily armed people on your land as terrorism then you degrade the word. the US even calls the bombing of USS cole terrorism!! While justifying the bombing of Najasaki and Hiroshima as saviing futher lives. That you pay lipservice to such arugments is stupitidy. Read the recent article in Time labeled the Oily Americans. This article outlines how the UK urged the CIA to bring down the elected govt of Iran through bombings, killing of civillans etc I am yet to hear any one call the Americans terrorists. Just because the killing is done by a agency called CIA it becomes legitimate? if the agency is called Hamas it is terrorist? What would your response be if US triggered roits in India(a possibiltiy that is closer by the day, what better for the US to incite muslims and then calim subsequent govt action as suppression and intervene in India to get conssesions like bases, browbeating India into becoming a part of containament of china). What would you do if Indians held hostage US embassy people when you found out that the US over threw the Indian govt by a small band of mercrenaries?