The Quran - I still, like others, think it's sexist!
Runa Rahman
one of the best - that's how I came to that conclusion. There was mention of
Western scholars being biased - I would think their opinion would be more
unbiased than that of a believer.
I have also read all the justifications for the statements I was refering to -
I didn't find anything very convincing. Many of the arguments themselves have
the underlying assumption that men should be dominant.
Violence against women (or anyone for that matter) should not be permitted
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Beating "lightly" is no better than beating.
About handmaids - or slaves, freedom should not have to happen through
marriage. The slaves should be set free simply because they are human beings.
Women, if they had freedom and equal rights would not have to marry a man
upon becoming a widow. She would be able to take care of herself just fine.
Polygamy should not even be considered.
Obedience... no-one should have to "obey" their spouse - love should be the
word used. If you're talking about household responsibilities, the word
should be responsibility.
Talking about looking at the whole Quran... several statements emphasizing
equality of men and women do NOT cancel out even a few sexist statements.
All this makes me wonder who exactly wrote all this. Where is the proof that
the Quran was not tampered by male hands?
Runa
P.S. I consider myself a follower of Islam in the simplest and most basic
sense - I believe in only one God, and in the meaning of Islam, peace.
All else follows naturally. Any fine details of behavior must fit
in with this foundation. Those excerpts from the Quran certainly don't.
AND I don't think you have to believe in everything the Quran says in
order to be a follower of Islam.
I HAVE MY BELIEFS AND YOU CAN HAVE YOURS.
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <1992Feb11....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, rr...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Runa Rahman) writes:
> Well, I've read the follow-ups to my posting. I have read that Arberry's is
> one of the best - that's how I came to that conclusion.
You also read mr article saying that Yusuf Ali's was one of the best
translations, and yet that led you to no such conclusions.
Selectiveness?
> There was mention of
> Western scholars being biased - I would think their opinion would be more
> unbiased than that of a believer.
This is one of the most outrageous claims I have ever come across.
How can you say that, when the western media has constantly engaged in
a war of propaganda against Islam and all its followers? Just read up
on the latest brutal crackdown on democracy in Algeria to see what I
mean. I grew up going to a United Nations school, one that is
supposedly "international." I was taught that the British went to
India and improved the place by "civilizing" the area. I was taught
that the crusades were necessary to wipe out the savage Islamic
barbarians. I was taught that Islam was a sexist religion that was
spread everywhere by force. I was taught that Christian missionaries
were the savior of the world, that Christianity spread through
peaceful means in places like South America. For all my life, I've
been fighting against this standard nonsense propaganda, and now you
come and tell me that a Western scholar's opinion is less likely to be
biased? At a time when many European textbooks are being rewritten
because of the ridiculous level of bias in them, so much that teachers
can't even teach from them with a straight face anymore?
> Violence against women (or anyone for that matter) should not be permitted
> UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Beating "lightly" is no better than
> beating.
How about beating men? Capital punishment is universal in Islam --
both for men and women. If one is encouraging one but not the other,
one is being sexist.
> About handmaids - or slaves, freedom should not have to happen through
> marriage. The slaves should be set free simply because they are
> human beings.
Islam does not allow slavery. How are you going to convince a
non-muslim to free his/her slaves? Obviously using Islam as an
argument won't work. You could free the slave by "buying" him/her as
your own slave and then releasing him/her out of the slave status by
marrying or just setting free. You don't *have* to marry the "slave."
It just eases recognition in society for the "slave." Marriage has to
be by mutual consent.
> Women, if they had freedom and equal rights would not have to marry a man
> upon becoming a widow. She would be able to take care of herself just fine.
> Polygamy should not even be considered.
Where does it say that women *have* to marry a man upon becoming a
widow? It just provides that option *if* the woman desires, e.g. if
she has no other means to support herself.
> Obedience... no-one should have to "obey" their spouse - love should be the
> word used. If you're talking about household responsibilities, the word
> should be responsibility.
So you're suggesting that the passage should be worded, "In the
husband's absence, the wife should love him and the household"? Makes
a lot of sense, huh? I mean, that's going to do a lot of good when
someone comes to tear your home apart and beats the hell out of your
children. Also, it's perfectly alright for the woman to go around
having mini-affairs while the husband's gone, as long as she loves him,
right? There's a reason the word "obey" was chosen.
> Talking about looking at the whole Quran... several statements emphasizing
> equality of men and women do NOT cancel out even a few sexist
> statements.
What sexist statements? And how many religions do you know that
*guarantee* rights to women?
> All this makes me wonder who exactly wrote all this. Where is the proof that
> the Quran was not tampered by male hands?
The Qur'an is identical to its original manuscript. That's a
historical fact.
> P.S. I consider myself a follower of Islam in the simplest and most basic
> sense - I believe in only one God, and in the meaning of Islam, peace.
> All else follows naturally. Any fine details of behavior must fit
> in with this foundation. Those excerpts from the Quran certainly don't.
> AND I don't think you have to believe in everything the Quran says in
> order to be a follower of Islam.
By your logic, i.e. believing in one God, you could equally well be a
Christian or a Jew. Embracing Islam means stating that there is only
one God, Allah, and Muhammed is his messenger. If you state that,
then you accept that Muhammed was a prophet, and hence, the Qur'an is
the word of God. If it is, then all you say above bites the dust.
-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science INTERNET: ahmed-...@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station BITNET : ahmed-...@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158 UUCP : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================
Runa Rahman
>
>In article <1992Feb11....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, rr...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Runa Rahman) writes:
>> There was mention of
>> Western scholars being biased - I would think their opinion would be more
>> unbiased than that of a believer.
>
>This is one of the most outrageous claims I have ever come across.
>How can you say that, when the western media has constantly engaged in
>a war of propaganda against Islam and all its followers?
Okay, okay, take it easy! Saif pointed out to me, and I agree, that neither
a believer or a non-believer is less biased - they are probably biased in
diametrically opposite directions. (Thank you, Saif.)
By the way, you're making the generalization that since the western media is
biased, everyone in the west is biased. The media and textbooks do not
reflect the views of EVERYONE.
>
>How about beating men? Capital punishment is universal in Islam --
>both for men and women. If one is encouraging one but not the other,
>one is being sexist.
>
READ MY WORDS: I said "women (or anyone for that matter)".
>
>How are you going to convince a
>non-muslim to free his/her slaves?
Ah, the blame rests on the infidels.
>Also, it's perfectly alright for the woman to go around
>having mini-affairs while the husband's gone, as long as she loves him,
>right? There's a reason the word "obey" was chosen.
>
Shakil, where on earth did you get this from? I find this extremely offensive.
Are women the only ones having extra-marital affairs? And this, by way is
NOT love, so your statement doesn't make sense.
By your argument, women should obey men, and men should obey God. No way!
>
>What sexist statements?
Talk about being blind to what you don't want to see...
>
>The Qur'an is identical to its original manuscript. That's a
>historical fact.
>
And who wrote history? Men of course. Besides, the manuscript is a transcript,
and there is a LOT of potential for changes right there. And Muhammed didn't
even do the transcribing.
>By your logic, i.e. believing in one God, you could equally well be a
>Christian or a Jew. Embracing Islam means stating that there is only
>one God, Allah, and Muhammed is his messenger.
Broaden yourself. A Christian or a Jew is a follower of
if s/he believes in God and the mission of peace. Islam is a way of life.
It is indeed sad how we like separate ourselves when we're really reaching
for the same goals.
I accept ALL the messengers of God, and I believe there will be another after
Muhammed, and another, and another,...
Peace...
Runa
Mehdi Mahmud
>In article <1992Feb11....@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-...@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Feb11....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, rr...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Runa Rahman) writes:
>>> There was mention of
>>> Western scholars being biased - I would think their opinion would be more
>>> unbiased than that of a believer.
>>
>>This is one of the most outrageous claims I have ever come across.
>>How can you say that, when the western media has constantly engaged in
>>a war of propaganda against Islam and all its followers?
>
>Okay, okay, take it easy! Saif pointed out to me, and I agree, that neither
>a believer or a non-believer is less biased - they are probably biased in
>diametrically opposite directions. (Thank you, Saif.)
Interesting how Saif's words carry more weight with you than do
direct quotes from the Quran... doesn't that say something to you?
>By the way, you're making the generalization that since the western media is
>biased, everyone in the west is biased. The media and textbooks do not
>reflect the views of EVERYONE.
I don't remember Shakil saying this at all... perhaps you misread most
of his postings? (:-)) Besides, so you accept that Western media and
textbooks are biased?
>>Also, it's perfectly alright for the woman to go around
>>having mini-affairs while the husband's gone, as long as she loves him,
>>right? There's a reason the word "obey" was chosen.
>>
>
>Shakil, where on earth did you get this from? I find this extremely offensive.
>Are women the only ones having extra-marital affairs? And this, by way is
>NOT love, so your statement doesn't make sense.
Do you mean that people who are in love never have extra-marital affairs?
>By your argument, women should obey men, and men should obey God. No way!
I don't see how that follows from Shakil's arguments. All this while
you have charged that Shakil's arguments themselves have sexist implications.
Why don't you do SCB a big favor? Why don't you quote all the parts of
Shakil's postings that you think are sexist?
>>
>>What sexist statements?
>
>Talk about being blind to what you don't want to see...
Ok...let's talk about it. But before we do, have you read the *whole*
Quran yet? If not, perhaps the blame of being blind rests elsewhere? :)
>>
>>The Qur'an is identical to its original manuscript. That's a
>>historical fact.
>>
>
>And who wrote history? Men of course. Besides, the manuscript is a transcript,
>and there is a LOT of potential for changes right there. And Muhammed didn't
>even do the transcribing.
Forgive me for saying this, but your arguments are degenerating to childish
claims... If you don't believe in history, and you don't believe in
the Word of God, may I ask what you do believe in (besides Saif :))?
>>By your logic, i.e. believing in one God, you could equally well be a
>>Christian or a Jew. Embracing Islam means stating that there is only
>>one God, Allah, and Muhammed is his messenger.
>
>Broaden yourself. A Christian or a Jew is a follower of
>if s/he believes in God and the mission of peace. Islam is a way of life.
>It is indeed sad how we like separate ourselves when we're really reaching
>for the same goals.
Yes, and how easily we like to over-generalize and simplify - if only
reality were that simple... :)
>I accept ALL the messengers of God, and I believe there will be another after
>Muhammed, and another, and another,...
That in itself is also wrong. According to the Quran, Muhammed (PBUH) was the
LAST prophet.
--
~ Mehdi Asif Mahmud |
~ P.O. Box 688 Yale Station | " If someone steals your wife,
~ New Haven, CT 06520 | there is no better revenge
~ Phone #(203) 436-1094 | than to let him keep her. "
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <1992Feb11.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, rr...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Runa Rahman) writes:
> In article <1992Feb11....@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-...@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
> >This is one of the most outrageous claims I have ever come across.
> >How can you say that, when the western media has constantly engaged in
> >a war of propaganda against Islam and all its followers?
>
> Okay, okay, take it easy! Saif pointed out to me, and I agree, that neither
> a believer or a non-believer is less biased - they are probably biased in
> diametrically opposite directions. (Thank you, Saif.)
If Saif views he wants to express in this discussion, I frankly don't
see why he doesn't do so. Is there a particular reason you have to be
a spokesperson for him?
> >How about beating men? Capital punishment is universal in Islam --
> >both for men and women. If one is encouraging one but not the other,
> >one is being sexist.
> >
>
> READ MY WORDS: I said "women (or anyone for that matter)".
But then why is that sexist? You contradict yourself.
> >How are you going to convince a
> >non-muslim to free his/her slaves?
>
> Ah, the blame rests on the infidels.
What kind of logic is this? Islam does not permit slavery. Some
other religions don't address the topic. How will you convince
someone with no religious obligations against slavery to free his/her
slaves?
> >Also, it's perfectly alright for the woman to go around
> >having mini-affairs while the husband's gone, as long as she loves him,
> >right? There's a reason the word "obey" was chosen.
> >
>
> Shakil, where on earth did you get this from? I find this extremely offensive.
> Are women the only ones having extra-marital affairs? And this, by way is
> NOT love, so your statement doesn't make sense.
>
> By your argument, women should obey men, and men should obey God.
> No way!
Where are you coming from? I was placing the word "obey" in context.
The verse we are referring to deals with women. There are others
which deal with men. Neither have the right to have extra-marital
affairs. For an idea on how people in "love" can still have
extra-marital affairs, talk to your friendly neighborhood
"open-marriage" advocates.
> >What sexist statements?
>
> Talk about being blind to what you don't want to see...
OK, talk about it. I've been doing it for a while.
> >The Qur'an is identical to its original manuscript. That's a
> >historical fact.
>
> And who wrote history? Men of course. Besides, the manuscript is a transcript,
> and there is a LOT of potential for changes right there. And Muhammed didn't
> even do the transcribing.
What *are* you saying? There was a manuscript. And there are Qur'ans
now. Compare any of those today to the manuscript. History?
By the way, do you believe in "herstory" too -- since "history" is
"his" "story"? ;-)
> >By your logic, i.e. believing in one God, you could equally well be a
> >Christian or a Jew. Embracing Islam means stating that there is only
> >one God, Allah, and Muhammed is his messenger.
>
> Broaden yourself. A Christian or a Jew is a follower of
> if s/he believes in God and the mission of peace. Islam is a way of life.
> It is indeed sad how we like separate ourselves when we're really reaching
> for the same goals.
>
> I accept ALL the messengers of God, and I believe there will be another after
> Muhammed, and another, and another,...
I guess your knowledge on Christianity and Judaism is about as deep as
your knowledge on Islam. For the record: Islam states that Muhammed
is the *last* prophet. Judaism states that there will be exactly
*one* more messiah, the last one. Christianity states that Christ
will come back -- check it out. Runa, do you really know what you're
talking about?
ztm3...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
> Well, I've read the follow-ups to my posting. I have read that Arberry's is
> one of the best - that's how I came to that conclusion. There was mention of
> Western scholars being biased - I would think their opinion would be more
> unbiased than that of a believer.
This is a completely wrong assumption on your part about Western Scholars. Of
course there are _some_ who are unbiased, but they are very few and far
between. It is obvious that you don't know the history of the West and that of
white people. They have always considered themselves to be the most superior of
people and have historically considered themselves to be the saviours of the
world and the standard to be looked up to. If you don't think so, what happened
when the Aryans, white people from central and northern Europe came to the
subcontinent? They created one of the most racist idelogies, Hinduism. Then
what happened during the crusades, if you think it was a war of religion, then
you're living in sin, they never treated their christian arab counterparts anyu
differently than the muslims because THEY WOULD NOT TAKE THE TIME TO FIND OUT.
Need I remind you of the years of colonization when the Qurans were burned by
the hands of the westerners? This is not unbiasedness at all. So when a
so-called Western "scholar" analyzes non-Western ideas, he is analyzing them
under the assumption that Westernism and all things originating from the West
are the standard to be taken, and unfortunately we muslims have been colonized
and intellectually broken by the West, we accept what they have to say for the
most part without question.
>
> I have also read all the justifications for the statements I was refering to -
> I didn't find anything very convincing. Many of the arguments themselves have
> the underlying assumption that men should be dominant.
>
> Violence against women (or anyone for that matter) should not be permitted
> UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Beating "lightly" is no better than beating.
>
Violence against women in Islam is not permitted at all. I don't know what you
mean be beating "lightly" however the most severe punishment a husband can put
against his wife is to take a handkerchief and swipe her against it. Do you
call that hitting?
> About handmaids - or slaves, freedom should not have to happen through
> marriage. The slaves should be set free simply because they are human beings.
This was dealt with before the time of the Prophets death, slavery was
abolished.
>
> Women, if they had freedom and equal rights would not have to marry a man
> upon becoming a widow. She would be able to take care of herself just fine.
> Polygamy should not even be considered.
I don't know what you are talking about, the Prophet lived among several widows
in the cities of mecca and medin. they were happily/unhappily not married. If a
widow wants to remarry, then she has to wait approximately 3 or 4 months, to
make certain that she is not pregnant.
>
> Obedience... no-one should have to "obey" their spouse - love should be the
> word used. If you're talking about household responsibilities, the word
> should be responsibility.
In the Quran, the word is qanita, and that is referred to God, no person is
obedient to any other person in Islam. People are obedient to God. BTW I've
read that verse many times.
>
> Talking about looking at the whole Quran... several statements emphasizing
> equality of men and women do NOT cancel out even a few sexist statements.
Are you certain of that? Do you know the mind of God?
>
> All this makes me wonder who exactly wrote all this. Where is the proof that
> the Quran was not tampered by male hands?
Oh dear, dear, dear......
>
> Runa
>
> P.S. I consider myself a follower of Islam in the simplest and most basic
> sense - I believe in only one God, and in the meaning of Islam, peace.
> All else follows naturally. Any fine details of behavior must fit
> in with this foundation. Those excerpts from the Quran certainly don't.
> AND I don't think you have to believe in everything the Quran says in
> order to be a follower of Islam.
>
> I HAVE MY BELIEFS AND YOU CAN HAVE YOURS.
I believe that you mean, "lakum deenuku va li adin."
Runa, you have read a translation by a non-muslim and call it one of the best
because you read that it was in some book withot taking the time to actually
compare its validity with others. You don't know Arabic. You have only read a
few verses. You give the strong impression of ignorance of Islamic history,
resulting in the fact that you have totally misconstrued the verses. You don't
even know any of the evidence that the Quran was not tampered with. You don't
know anything dabout the relationship Western inelligentsia has with Islam. You
take for granted what some people tell you as the Islamic way without finding
out for yourself whether they have any basis or not, and then you have the gaul
to say that _you_ are the one who understands. Don't think any of the men here
know what they are talking about when they tell you its okay to have slaves,
and its okay to beat the wife or the wife has to be servile and obedient, this
is not the way Muhammad ever treated his followers or his wives. Don't say then
that what you believe is Islam because you don't know what you are talking
about either. You can have your beliefs, and I'll have mine.
Saif Ahmed
>
>Okay, okay, take it easy! Saif pointed out to me, and I agree, that neither
>a believer or a non-believer is less biased - they are probably biased in
>diametrically opposite directions. (Thank you, Saif.)
Interesting how Saif's words carry more weight with you than do
direct quotes from the Quran... doesn't that say something to you?
Well Mehdi, if the Quran pointed out to Runa that Westerners and
others are equally biased, I am sure she would take it into consideration.
However no one put a quote from the Quran that says that and that is
exactly what I pointed out. So I don't see how my words can be compared
with those of the Quran since what I said isn't in the Quran. It's like
saying "You are a fool". The Quran does not support or oppose it. So the
statement cannot be compared to one in the Quran though the truth
content of it may be the same.
Sorry if this is offensive to anyone other than Mehdi. But I took offense
at his statement and felt obliged to respond.
--
===========================================================================
God Surely does not love those who are arrogant and boastful
Al-Quran
Saifuddin Ahmed
sah...@occs.cs.oberlin.edu
(216) 775-5807
===========================================================================
Saif Ahmed
> Okay, okay, take it easy! Saif pointed out to me, and I agree, that neither
> a believer or a non-believer is less biased - they are probably biased in
> diametrically opposite directions. (Thank you, Saif.)
If Saif views he wants to express in this discussion, I frankly don't
see why he doesn't do so. Is there a particular reason you have to be
a spokesperson for him?
Shakil, unlike your merry men, I do not have any spokesmen on the
net. I am very capable of speaking for myself. And if I choose to
point out Runa's misconception to her by e-mail I will do so. What
I told Runa was she was unfair in making the assertion that western
media is more unbiased and that all groups are equally biased. I
have already washed my hands off the Islam argument. If you are so
curious to know of every thought that crosses my mind I'm afraid
I cannot help you there.
Saif
Sheikh Kaisar Alam
the other. I'm not very good in Arabic. But, the only way one can really
understand Al Qur'an (NOT Quran) would be to read it in Arabic after becoming
expert in Arabic. If anyone is really that interested, please go ahead. I have
serious doubts about my being able to do so in my lifetime.
And, "qanita" and "daraba" are words having multiple meanings. I don't think
Al Qur'an prescribes husbends to beat wives. And, a muslim only has to obey
Allah. He/she does not obey anyone else in that sense.
However, this is an unresolvable issue. No more posting from me. It is said
in Al Qur'an that those who won't believe can not be made to do so. It's time
I accept it. I'm creating a KILL file for this subject.
Shuja
Runa Rahman
>direct quotes from the Quran... doesn't that say something to you?
>
Well, Mehdi, there is such a thing as the communication and exchange of ideas.
I give everyone's ideas a fair hearing, in addition to the "experts", and I
decide what I want to believe.
>Forgive me for saying this, but your arguments are degenerating to childish
>claims... If you don't believe in history, and you don't believe in
>the Word of God, may I ask what you do believe in (besides Saif :))?
>
I don't appreciate this comment at all - if you paid any attention to my
postings you'd see I believe in a lot of things. History is written as
seen from the eyes of the historian - men, in those days. Just like western
textbooks may be biased in favor of the west, the old manuscripts may be
biased in favor of men, because men wrote/transcribed/whatever them.
>That in itself is also wrong. According to the Quran, Muhammed (PBUH) was the
>LAST prophet.
>
According to Quran... but I have already questioned the origins of it.
By the way there is no "right" or "wrong" in this context - only beliefs.
Peace...
Runa
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
> Shakil, unlike your merry men, I do not have any spokesmen on the
> net. I am very capable of speaking for myself.
You don't think I've been saying enough already? Wow, and even I was
beginning to think I had a big mouth... ;-)
Runa Rahman
>> I HAVE MY BELIEFS AND YOU CAN HAVE YOURS.
>
>I believe that you mean, "lakum deenuku va li adin."
>
No, I mean I HAVE MY BELIEFS AND YOU CAN HAVE YOURS. I have neither the time
nor the inclination to learn Arabic. And I'll be a pretty darned good believer
without it - certainly better than a lot of people who call themselves "muslims"
and don't even follow the basics. They get wrapped up in all these useless
details.
>Don't say then
>that what you believe is Islam because you don't know what you are talking
>about either.
I find this very insulting. And I will say what I want to.
Runa
ztm3...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
I am sick and tired of people who know nothing about Islam: the Quran, Muslim
history, sunnah, or anything remotely related talking about the religion! I
don't have the time back myself up with sources, but let me make this clear.
The Quran _DOES_ state that men and women were created so that they can love
each other. Is that okay, Runa?! Did you even know that the verse was in the
Quran? Also Shakil, obedience is reserved only for Allah, God. Shakil, a wife
is not "obedient" in the sense of absolute, but in the sense that she takes her
husbands wishes into strong consideration. The word qanita like I said before
is in reference to obedience to God, to go even further, it has more of a
denotation of being devout.
Runa, it is true that men wrote history, but even the greatest enemeies of
Islam went out of their way to say that the Quran is not changed. The
conclusive evidence that the Quran is the same as the original is that the
orignal Qurans are still in existence, one is in Turkey another is in
Azerbaijan, and third is in, I believe China. All you need to do, Runa, is
compare the originals with hat you have, word by word, and you will see for
yourself, get it?
And for all you Muslims it is an article of faith that we believe in all of the
Prophets from Adam to Muhammad, understand?
Runa, I hope to God you didn't really mean the last sentence..... I sincerely
hope you didn't.......
sincerely
zafar
Mehdi Mahmud
>In article <1992Feb11....@cs.yale.edu> mahmud...@cs.yale.edu (Mehdi Mahmud) writes:
>
> >
> >Okay, okay, take it easy! Saif pointed out to me, and I agree, that neither
> >a believer or a non-believer is less biased - they are probably biased in
> >diametrically opposite directions. (Thank you, Saif.)
>
> Interesting how Saif's words carry more weight with you than do
> direct quotes from the Quran... doesn't that say something to you?
>
>Well Mehdi, if the Quran pointed out to Runa that Westerners and
>others are equally biased, I am sure she would take it into consideration.
Now, YOU are SPEAKING FOR HER! You contradict yourself.
>However no one put a quote from the Quran that says that and that is
>exactly what I pointed out. So I don't see how my words can be compared
>with those of the Quran since what I said isn't in the Quran.
Far be it for me to compare your words to the words of the Quran!
And it's highly improbable, in fact, it's impossible, that anything
you ever say would be in the Quran. The Quran contains the Words
of Allah, remember?
>It's like
>saying "You are a fool".
I like your analogies - the height of originality.
>The Quran does not support or oppose it. So the
>statement cannot be compared to one in the Quran though the truth
>content of it may be the same.
Your logic is brilliant, except that it's way off focus. When you
bother to come back from your journey in space, we might continue this
discussion.
>Sorry if this is offensive to anyone other than Mehdi. But I took offense
>at his statement and felt obliged to respond.
In fact, this is not even offensive to Mehdi (even though it was meant
to be)! However, if you took offense at what I said, I offer my apologies.
On a more general note, perhaps SCB readers would be interested to know
that I have tried to communicate with Emmanouil Troulis regarding the
"merry men" note that he (Troulis) claimed did not originate from him.
I have subsequently made enquiries with the Postmaster at Univ. of
Kentucky, and I have come up with some interesting results! The results
shall remain confidential...for now...but anyone is invited to do the
same. I guarantee you will find it amusing.
Mehdi Mahmud
>
>
> > Okay, okay, take it easy! Saif pointed out to me, and I agree, that neither
> > a believer or a non-believer is less biased - they are probably biased in
> > diametrically opposite directions. (Thank you, Saif.)
>
> If Saif views he wants to express in this discussion, I frankly don't
> see why he doesn't do so. Is there a particular reason you have to be
> a spokesperson for him?
>
>Shakil, unlike your merry men,
Interesting how you use that phrase - seems to remind me of something,
but I can't quite place that memory.
>I do not have any spokesmen on the
>net. I am very capable of speaking for myself.
Thanks be to Allah - you can speak!
>And if I choose to
>point out Runa's misconception to her by e-mail I will do so. What
>I told Runa was she was unfair in making the assertion that western
>media is more unbiased and that all groups are equally biased.
If your original purpose was to email Runa Rahman (and thereby
deprive us of your enchanting personality) then why tell us now?
>I
>have already washed my hands off the Islam argument.
Oh! Sorry. For a moment, I thought you had decided to share with
SCB the details of your daily rituals! My mistake...
>If you are so
>curious to know of every thought that crosses my mind I'm afraid
>I cannot help you there.
Does that mean you have no thoughts, or does it mean that you have so
many thoughts that you can't keep track of them, or does it mean that
you simply don't want to reveal your thoughts? Please be specific -
personally, in my merriment, I find it hard to follow anything other
than the most basic logic.
Susanne Hupfer
Saif Ahmed (sah...@occs.cs.oberlin.edu) writes:
> Shakil, unlike your merry men,
> I do not have any spokesmen on the
> net. I am very capable of speaking for myself.
Hmmm, at last a "real" person steps forth to take credit for this kind
of comment. Well, Saif, I'm sure you noticed what I said the last
time someone alluded to people at Yale being "merry men" and
"spokespeople", so I won't repeat it. Since you know me, you should
know I'm not of the "merry male" persuasion ;-) After seeing comments
like this, I'm not exactly in the "merry" female category either.
Goodness gracious, do you really think Shakil needs spokespeople?!
He seems to have no trouble responding -- quite prolifically -- on
his own.
- Susanne
T.S. Reddy
>> About handmaids - or slaves, freedom should not have to happen through
>> marriage. The slaves should be set free simply because they are
>> human beings.
>
>Islam does not allow slavery. How are you going to convince a
>non-muslim to free his/her slaves? Obviously using Islam as an
>argument won't work. You could free the slave by "buying" him/her as
>your own slave and then releasing him/her out of the slave status by
>marrying or just setting free. You don't *have* to marry the "slave."
>It just eases recognition in society for the "slave." Marriage has to
>be by mutual consent.
>
In an earlier posting, you write:
I don't understand your point. You see, Islam does not discriminate
on the basis of race or status. The reason Islam encourages marrying
slaves is to free them. Since Islam itself does not allow slavery,
muslims are encouraged to free slaves. Marriage is an ideal means to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
do so. Marriage without mutual consent, is also not permitted by Islam
which makes your point even more difficult to understand. Are you
suggesting that it is not proper to marry a slave? Is it not quite
>-- Shakil Ahmed
????
--
T.S.Reddy (e-mail: re...@mips.com)
Runa Rahman
>>
>> I accept ALL the messengers of God, and I believe there will be another after
>> Muhammed, and another, and another,...
>>
>hope you didn't.......
>
And what if I do? Will I burn in hell? Why is it that there must be an end to
the string of prophets? I thought the purpose of sending prophets down was to
spread the word, and to enlighten the people, to help those who have gone
astray get back on the path of righteousness. You can't tell me the job is
done... what, with all the infidels swarming all over the place? ;)
I thought the purpose of a messenger being sent down at intervals was because
times change, and the need for an adaptation of the religion for a particular
era arises. Makes sense to me.
Peace,
Runa
Farhad Ahmed
> >
> > I accept ALL the messengers of God, and I believe there will be another after
> > Muhammed, and another, and another,...
> >
In article <1992Feb11....@ucbeh.san.uc.edu>, ztm3...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
> > Runa
> Runa, I hope to God you didn't really mean the last sentence..... I sincerely
> hope you didn't.......
>
>
> sincerely
> zafar
Assaalaamu-Waalaikum.
Like many other netters I also dismayed to see these
endless discussions on religion goin' nowhere. Even though
I do follow my religious duties in my everyday life style
,even in this country, I tend to shy away to make any comment
or post any of my views. From my past experience, I
learned that debate on religion doesn't help anybody.
Religion is something u have to believe out of good faith.
It's just like we believe that there is a God/Allah. No one
can prove his physical presence anywhere.
I vowed to stay away from this discussion but then one netter,
Ms. Runa Rahman, mentioned the above line in one of her
numerous postings, which needs tobe clarified. I hope Ms.
Rahman doesn't belong to another sect. of Moslems, like
Kadiani,Ismailis etc. They beleive another prophet after
Muhammed(PBUH). It's clearly mentioned in Quaran that
Muhammed(PBUH) will be the last prophet. Can you tell us
why u believe in many more prophets after Muhammed(PBUH)? Did
u find it in any book or somewhere ?
Allah Hafez.
Farhad Ahmed.
+--------------------------------------------|------------------------------+
Internet: fah...@dhaka.eng.sun.com | Farhad Ahmed
Phone : (415)-336-3265 (work) | Sun Microsystems, Inc.
(408)-249-2765 (home) | Mail St # MTV19-04
| 2550 Garcia Avenue
| Mountain View, CA 94043-1100
" OPEN SYSTEMS FOR COMPUTING " |
+--------------------------------------------|------------------------------+
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
Is there a contradiction here? Muslims are encouraged to free slaves.
Since Islam does not allow slavery, the slaves belong to non-Muslims.
Non-Muslims won't accept the argument that "Islam says so, therefore
you must free them." Hence, Muslims should buy them away from their
"owners" and then free them. Where is the contradiction?
-- Shakil.
ztm3...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
> In article <1992Feb11....@ucbeh.san.uc.edu> ztm3...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
>>> I HAVE MY BELIEFS AND YOU CAN HAVE YOURS.
>>
>>I believe that you mean, "lakum deenuku va li adin."
>>
>
> No, I mean I HAVE MY BELIEFS AND YOU CAN HAVE YOURS. I have neither the time
> nor the inclination to learn Arabic. And I'll be a pretty darned good believer
> without it - certainly better than a lot of people who call themselves "muslims"
> and don't even follow the basics. They get wrapped up in all these useless
> details.
"Lakum deenukum va li adin" is a verse from Al-Quran. It is in the surah
Al-Kafirun
>
>>Don't say then
>>that what you believe is Islam because you don't know what you are talking
>>about either.
>
> I find this very insulting. And I will say what I want to.
>
> Runa
You can say what you want, but there is a difference between telling what Islam
is and it being Islamic and what telling something that is not Islamic and
trying to pass it off as Islam.
zafar
ps I know that Islam allows for differences of opinion, however these
differences are within certain limits.... ah, forget it.
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
I still, li.. ztm3...@ucbeh.san.uc.ed (4315)
> Runa, it is true that men wrote history, but even the greatest enemeies of
> Islam went out of their way to say that the Quran is not changed. The
> conclusive evidence that the Quran is the same as the original is that the
> orignal Qurans are still in existence, one is in Turkey another is in
> Azerbaijan, and third is in, I believe China. All you need to do, Runa, is
> compare the originals with hat you have, word by word, and you will see for
> yourself, get it?
It is quite true that the so-called "Original Quran"s may be identical
with the modern versions. But then, this "Original Quran" seems to have
been collated from the memories of a few people into the current
"Original Order" and what not with there even having been a couple of
questions raised about the inclusion and exclusion of some suras. This
was all done after the death of the Prophet, of course. Once this
"Original Quran" had been completed, all other "false" versions were,
according to historical sources, burnt, so that there are no surviving
traces of those. Of course, if you are one of the Faithful, you have
Allah's guarantee thru Mohammed that the Quran won't be altered, so you
can trust what goes for the Quran nowadays as being exactly what
Mohammed wanted transcribed.
Infidels and people with brains may not be so sure, but then again, they
may not tear their hair worrying about it either.
___
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
Office: UCC 181 Phone: x6406 [(412)268-6406]
"When someone demands blind obedience, you'd be a fool not to peek."
-Jim Fiebig (who?)
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
I still, li.. Shakil Waiz Ah...@CS.YAL (1949)
> Is there a contradiction here? Muslims are encouraged to free slaves.
> Since Islam does not allow slavery, the slaves belong to non-Muslims.
> Non-Muslims won't accept the argument that "Islam says so, therefore
> you must free them." Hence, Muslims should buy them away from their
> "owners" and then free them. Where is the contradiction?
> -- Shakil.
Islam does not allow slavery, Shakil? Not if you insist on a literal
interpretation of the Quran for all time.
Mohammed himself kept slaves (doesn't the name Bilaal ring a bell?) -
yeah, he loved his slave and all that, and if you thinks that's OK, I
assure you that I too would love you if you were to be my slave. There
are even references to it being OK to undress before slaves and similar
stuff. There are, of course, references in the Quran suggesting that
slaves should be treated well and that freeing slaves is a virtuous act
and also prescribing freeing of slaves in atonement for some offences.
That in no way implies that Muslims should not own slaves. While some of
these modern deviates from literalist Islam may have chosen to go by the
spirit of the Quran and supported abolition of slavery, the last thing I
would have expected from a person who knows so much about the Quran
would be to indulge in bidaa (another Arabic word we all come to love!).
Hasn't the Quran taught you that bidaa or innovation in religion is a
very great sin? Hasn't the Quran also taught you that it is wrong to
prohibit Muslims from doing what Allah in his Infinite Wisdom has
permitted them to do? If Allah wanted to abolish slavery, surely He is
not a coward, but would have done so explicitly instead of coaxing
mortals by suggesting that it would be a virtuous act of charity or acts
of penitence for misdemeanours. All these nations who have abolished
slavery are, of course, infringing upon the Allah-granted right of
Muslims to own slaves and, of course, their leaders shall meet the Hell
Fire. Don't join those infidels in second-guessing Allah and saying that
Islam does not permit slavery, but repent of your error. Allah is, of
course, All Merciful and will forgive you if you retract your error and
would, of course, be even more pleased with you if you help some of the
people who have strayed from the Right Path back to the True Path by
campaigning for the rescinding of laws which have abolished slavery in
supposedly Islamic countries.
ztm3...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
If you knew anything about the Quran you would know that Muhammad was mentioned
to be the last prophet. This is also mentioned in the Zoroastrian, Christian,
and Hindu Scripture. What sort of evidence do you have that there will be other
prophets besides your own speculation.
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <cdaJHMa00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, soh...@andrew.cmu.edu (Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai) writes:
> Islam does not allow slavery, Shakil? Not if you insist on a literal
> interpretation of the Quran for all time.
> Mohammed himself kept slaves (doesn't the name Bilaal ring a bell?) -
??????????????
Get your history straight. Bilaal was a slave whom Muhammed bought to
*free*. Thereafter he was a free Muslim. Among other things he used to
give the Azaan for prayer at the mosque. He was *never* Muhammed's
slave. Some of the ignorance on this net really scares me.
> yeah, he loved his slave and all that, and if you thinks that's OK, I
> assure you that I too would love you if you were to be my slave. There
> are even references to it being OK to undress before slaves and similar
> stuff. There are, of course, references in the Quran suggesting that
> slaves should be treated well and that freeing slaves is a virtuous act
> and also prescribing freeing of slaves in atonement for some
> offences.
This article in general is actually not even worth replying to. I
suggest you read the entire Qur'an and make a big distinction between
prisoners of war and slaves. And when you are ready to prove
something, do so by quoting from the Qur'an. Next?
-- Shakil.
Mehdi Mahmud
>Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.bangladesh: 12-Feb-92 Re: The Quran -
>I still, li.. Shakil Waiz Ah...@CS.YAL (1949)
>> Is there a contradiction here? Muslims are encouraged to free slaves.
>> Since Islam does not allow slavery, the slaves belong to non-Muslims.
>> Non-Muslims won't accept the argument that "Islam says so, therefore
>> you must free them." Hence, Muslims should buy them away from their
>> "owners" and then free them. Where is the contradiction?
>
>> -- Shakil.
>
>
>Islam does not allow slavery, Shakil? Not if you insist on a literal
>interpretation of the Quran for all time.
Quotes please?
Milind Saraph
>If you knew anything about the Quran you would know that Muhammad was
mentioned
>to be the last prophet. This is also mentioned in the Zoroastrian, Christian,
>and Hindu Scripture. What sort of evidence do you have that there will
be other
>prophets besides your own speculation.
Interesting! Could you elaborate on your second sentence? I had heard from
some Christians that "even Hindu scriptures foretell coming of the Christ"
but this is the first time I have come across this claim. Needless to say,
the person who claimed it could not provide any supporting information.
-- milind
Mehdi Mahmud
Could not? Or is it 'did not'?
Let's not arrive at hasty conclusions.
--
~ Mehdi Asif Mahmud |
~ P.O. Box 688 Yale Station | " Ah, but a man's reach
~ New Haven, CT 06520 | should exceed his grasp,
~ Phone #(203) 436-1094 | Or what's a Heaven for? "
Moazzem
>I still, li.. Shakil Waiz Ah...@CS.YAL (1949)
>> Is there a contradiction here? Muslims are encouraged to free slaves.
>> Since Islam does not allow slavery, the slaves belong to non-Muslims.
>> Non-Muslims won't accept the argument that "Islam says so, therefore
>> you must free them." Hence, Muslims should buy them away from their
>> "owners" and then free them. Where is the contradiction?
>
>> -- Shakil.
>
>
>Islam does not allow slavery, Shakil? Not if you insist on a literal
>interpretation of the Quran for all time.
> Mohammed himself kept slaves (doesn't the name Bilaal ring a bell?) -
>yeah, he loved his slave and all that, and if you thinks that's OK, I
>assure you that I too would love you if you were to be my slave.
Hey, don't argue just for the sake of arguement. I would
suggest you to know Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)'s life first
then talk about it. I do not want to give details of Bilal's
history here, that is useless. Where in the world you get
this kind of information (next time you like to mention
anything like this please give the reference !!
There
>are even references to it being OK to undress before slaves and similar
>stuff.
Where are those references !!!
There are, of course, references in the Quran suggesting that
>slaves should be treated well and that freeing slaves is a virtuous act
>and also prescribing freeing of slaves in atonement for some offences.
>That in no way implies that Muslims should not own slaves. While some of
>these modern deviates from literalist Islam may have chosen to go by the
>spirit of the Quran and supported abolition of slavery,
You have no idea what you are talking about.
the last thing I
>would have expected from a person who knows so much about the Quran
>would be to indulge in bidaa (another Arabic word we all come to love!).
>Hasn't the Quran taught you that bidaa or innovation in religion is a
>very great sin?
Ababic word Bid'aa (the pronounciation is different) is not
innovation. Please learn the exact meaning and usages of arabic
words and then talk about it.
Hasn't the Quran also taught you that it is wrong to
>prohibit Muslims from doing what Allah in his Infinite Wisdom has
>permitted them to do? If Allah wanted to abolish slavery, surely He is
>not a coward, but would have done so explicitly instead of coaxing
>mortals by suggesting that it would be a virtuous act of charity or acts
>of penitence for misdemeanours.
yes, ofcourse, a true muslim should follow the Qur'an.
Anything beyond Qur'an and Hadith are prohibitted. Yes,
Allah could have done that if He wanted. But Islam also
talks about freedom of choice. That means Allah gave
the freedom to everyone to choose anything they like.
And the judgement will be on the basis of good
choice and bad choice.
>___
>Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
>Office: UCC 181 Phone: x6406 [(412)268-6406]
>
Know, before you talk, what you are talking about .
> moazzem
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
Shuja CC'ed his response to Sohan's article to me. With his
permission, I'm posting it on the net:
In article <cdaJHMa00...@andrew.cmu.edu> you write:
>
>Islam does not allow slavery, Shakil?
No, it does not. Slavery had been abolished by Hazrat Muhammad (pubh)
in his lifetime.
> Mohammed himself kept slaves (doesn't the name Bilaal ring a bell?) -
Yes, it does. It also informs me that you don't know what you are
talking about. If you really want to take part in the debate, please
read first. "A little learning is a dangerous thing".
Hazrat Bilaal (Raziallauanhu) was a slave of Ummaia. He took up Islam
while he still belonged to Ummaia. Ummaia subjected him to horrible
torture to make him give up Islam. Hazrat Muhammad (pubh) bought him
from Ummaia and freed him immidiately.
In case you don't know, Bilaal was the first muazzem in the history
of Islam.
Shuja
Rishad Quazi
ztm3...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
>
>If you knew anything about the Quran you would know that Muhammad was mentioned
>to be the last prophet. This is also mentioned in the Zoroastrian, Christian,
>and Hindu Scripture. What sort of evidence do you have that there will be other
>prophets besides your own speculation.
There is mention of Prophet Muhammad in Hindu scriptures? Wow, that
really is news to me! ;^)
Peace,
= Rishad =
--
-:|Rishad J. Quazi | -=-=:| He strides through the long |:-
-:|rqu...@engws10.ic.sunysb.edu|:=-=-=- | cavern of time, |:-
-:|rqu...@sbccvm.bitnet | - -=-=-=:| Scattering the fool-self |:-
-:|SUNY at Stony Brook | | of his dream. - Dune Messiah |:-
Milind Saraph
mahmud...@cs.yale.edu (Mehdi Mahmud) writes:
|>In article <1992Feb12.1...@news.nd.edu> mil...@agni.cc.nd.edu
(Milind Saraph) writes:
|>> Needless to say,
|>>the person who claimed it could not provide any supporting information.
|> ^^^^^^^^^
|>Could not? Or is it 'did not'?
|>Let's not arrive at hasty conclusions.
An individual makes an assertion and when asked repeatedly to provide
some supporting evidence/reference, does not. It hardly matteres to me
whether he did not, could not or would not provide the information.
I am not saying that the information does not exist. Am I skeptical?
Yes, that is why I would like to know the basis of such claims.
-- milind
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <1992Feb13.0...@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, rqu...@csws1.ic.sunysb.edu (Rishad Quazi) writes:
> In article <1992Feb12....@ucbeh.san.uc.edu>
> ztm3...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
> >
> >If you knew anything about the Quran you would know that Muhammad was mentioned
> >to be the last prophet. This is also mentioned in the Zoroastrian, Christian,
> >and Hindu Scripture. What sort of evidence do you have that there will be other
> >prophets besides your own speculation.
>
>
> There is mention of Prophet Muhammad in Hindu scriptures? Wow, that
> really is news to me! ;^)
Well, we all learn new things everyday, don't we? Here are the references:
ORTHOBEDI UPANISHAD
(9) Mention of Allah, and Allah's rasul Muhammad.
BHABISHYA PURAN
(5)-(8) "Just at that time one person named Muhammad whose
abode is in the desert will appear famous and with
disciples. Oh! The master of the desertland.
Oh lord, to you are all my respects. You know
all the ways to eliminate the evils from this
world. Salute to you, you sacred person. I am
your servant, please give me a place at your feet."
OLLO UPANISHAD
(1)-(3) "Allah is the owner of all virtues. He is All
Perfect and All Knowing. Muhammad is Allah's
rasul. Allah is Light, Eternal, One, All-Perfect
and self-sustaining."
ORTHOBEDA
(1) "Oh people! Listen attentively. Praised person ('Muhammad'
or 'Ahmad' in Arabic) will evolve from among people.
The hiding man will be found among sixty thousand
enemies."
--- At the time the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) became
prophet, the population of MEcca was 60000.
I can also furnish references from the Zoroastrian scriptures for
those who want.
Dipen Bhattacharya
>Well, we all learn new things everyday, don't we? Here are the references:
>ORTHOBEDI UPANISHAD
> (9) Mention of Allah, and Allah's rasul Muhammad.
>BHABISHYA PURAN [deleted]
>OLLO UPANISHAD [deleted]
>ORTHOBEDA [deleted]
Shakil, Shakil! What has happened to you?
At least, you should have double-checked
the NAMES of those books.
>I can also furnish references from the Zoroastrian scriptures for
>those who want.
Please don't.
Dipen
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
> Shuja
Shuja,
I was wrong about Bilal, of course! I checked a few history books and,
they affirm that Bilal was purchased and freed by the Muslims. Given
that Mohammed did keep slaves (Arun Gupta has been good enough to post
references, if you would like to chase them, like I have), it was easy
for me to get it wrong, given that many books refer to Bilal, the
Abyssinian slave who was Mohammed's favourite etc., quite imprecisely
omitting the ex in e-slave. I must have skipped the part about his being
purchased and freed or not correlated it with Bilal on earlier readings.
Of course, this does not need to be interpreted as my not knowing what I
am talking about any more than say, were I to pick on your minor error
in giving credit to Mohammed rather than Abu-Bakr for the freeing of
Bilal (something Shakil seems to have found in his independent sources
too :-), or your even more serious error asserting that Mohammed banned
slavery during his lifetime and suggest that you are an absolute
ignoramus w.r.t Islamic history. Some history books state that Mohammed
chose to encourage the freeing of slaves by terming it an act of great
charity and forgiving some offences if slaves were freed without quite
abolishing it. This is quite consistent with what what I have read of
the Quran. One historian asserts that it would be quite foolish to
expect him to have been able to do so, implying that he was held back by
secular considerations, while others are not quite as charitable to him.
I don't know your source for suggesting that Mohammed abolished slavery
within his lifetime. Mohammed (or if you would prefer, Allah) certainly
did not say so in the Quran (unless such a sura was lost in the
"Original Recompilation" :-) and history books suggest quite otherwise -
he did not seem to have much qualms about owning or gifting slaves. I
hope you don't start pulling vague hadith out of the hat to prove your
point. :-)
I would like to reiterate my original point (which shouldn't get lost in
the jungle of other information) which is that abolition of slavery is
quite incompatible with the stupidity of insisting on a literal
interpretation of the Quran for all time. If you were to agree that one
should go by the spirit of the Quran rather than take it literally, of
course, one could try to make a good argument for why abolishing slavery
would be a good thing even if the Quran may not have explicitly done so.
Milind Saraph
ahmed-...@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
|>ORTHOBEDI UPANISHAD
|> (9) Mention of Allah, and Allah's rasul Muhammad.
|>
|>BHABISHYA PURAN
|> (5)-(8) "Just at that time one person named Muhammad whose
|> abode is in the desert will appear famous and with
|> disciples. Oh! The master of the desertland.
|> Oh lord, to you are all my respects. You know
|> all the ways to eliminate the evils from this
|> world. Salute to you, you sacred person. I am
|> your servant, please give me a place at your feet."
|>
|>OLLO UPANISHAD
|> (1)-(3) "Allah is the owner of all virtues. He is All
|> Perfect and All Knowing. Muhammad is Allah's
|> rasul. Allah is Light, Eternal, One, All-Perfect
|> and self-sustaining."
|>
|>ORTHOBEDA
|> (1) "Oh people! Listen attentively. Praised person ('Muhammad'
|> or 'Ahmad' in Arabic) will evolve from among people.
|> The hiding man will be found among sixty thousand
|> enemies."
|> --- At the time the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) became
|> prophet, the population of MEcca was 60000.
|
|>-- Shakil Ahmed
Thanks but this is not of much help. Do you have references to any English
translations? I assume ORTHOBEDA is Atharvaveda.
-- milind
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <dipen.698038053@heawk1>, di...@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Dipen Bhattacharya) writes:
> ahmed-...@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
> >Well, we all learn new things everyday, don't we? Here are the references:
>
> >ORTHOBEDI UPANISHAD
> > (9) Mention of Allah, and Allah's rasul Muhammad.
>
> >BHABISHYA PURAN [deleted]
>
> >OLLO UPANISHAD [deleted]
>
> >ORTHOBEDA [deleted]
>
> Shakil, Shakil! What has happened to you?
> At least, you should have double-checked
> the NAMES of those books.
Dipen, Dipen! I assure you, I am fine, but I'm a little worried about
you. I had always regarded your articles highly. If you are implying
that I am providing false quotes, your article is in *extremely* poor
taste.
For the many people who seem interested in this topic, a good book to
read is Ghulam Mustafa's "Bishyanabi", available in Bengali and Urdu.
The main publisher of the book is Ahmad Publishing House 7, Jindabahar
Lane, Dhaka 1. In the book, he shows 63 references to prophet
Muhammed, 9 of which are from Hindu scriptures. This book has been
around for 50 years, and nobody, not even one Hindu scholar has been
able to challenge his quotes for the simple reason that the quotes are
there in the scriptures. I am *ver* surprised that so few people seem
to know about this -- I was always under the impression that this was
a well-known fact.
Here are some more references for the interested:
No.45. Vedabani ( Sayings from Veda ) by Charuchandra
Banerjee.
No.46. Upanishad Granthabali ( Upanishad books ) from
Upanishad Work Centre.
No.47. Indian Philosophy by Sir Radhakrishnan
No.48. The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy by Max
Muller.
No.49. Gitay Ishwarbad by Hirendranath Dutta
No.50. Hindu Philosophy and Christian Philosophy by
Swami Paramananda.
No.51. Srimad Bhagabat Gita by Anilbaran Roy.
N0.55. The Staus of women in Ancient India by Prof. Indra
No.56. Manusamhita.
No.53. Zend-Avesta ( English Translation) by Maw Muller
N0.23. Prophet in the World Scriptures by A.Huq Vidya-
rathi.
The titles of the books in the quotes I presented yesterday were
transliterated from Bengali. I'm not particularly good at
transliterating, so it may have been difficult to read. As someone
already noted, "Orthobeda" is, in fact, "Atharva-veda Upanishad."
In <1992Feb14....@uceng.UC.EDU>, Raj Bhatnagar writes:
I think you are trying to fit the name Mohammad, post fact, in
the assertions made about God/Reformers/holy men in Hindu
books.
Raj, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Someone wanted
references, so I provided quotes and references. If you're
interested, you can look them up. You are free to believe or not,
that really doesn't matter to me. But nobody can deny that what is in
the scriptures, black-on-white. If the best Hindu scholars haven't
been able to disprove something that's been there for thousands of
years and was pointed out 50 years ago, I doubt whether someone can
magically make them disappear now. I post facts and quotes. You can
ignore them if you wish.
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
For the benefit of Dipen and others who made snide remarks about my
quotes, here are the original quotes, before translation.
Bhabishya Purana is one part of Purana. Those interested can check in
Encyclopedia Britanica and also the big Oxford or other big
dictionaries about the references to veda and Purana.
Atharva-vedi Upanishad
" Oshyo illole mitraborunne raja
Tasmat tani dibbani punotong duddhu
Hoboyami milong kobora illollang
Ollorasul mohomodorokong
Boroshya ollo ollam illollite illalla" (9)
Bhavishya Purana
"Etosminnontore mletchho acharjan somonnito.
Mohamad iti khyeto shishya shaka somonnito. (5)
Nripaschobya mohadevong morusthalo nivashinam.
Gongajoloshcho songsthappya ponchogobya somonnitoi
Chondonadi virovyorcho tushtavo monosha horom.(6)
Nomoste girijanatha morusthalo nivashane
Tripura suronashay bohumaya probartone.(7) "
"Mletchhorguptay suddhaya sochchidanonda rupine.
Tong mang hi kingkorong biddhi shoronartho mupagotom.(8)"
Ollo Upanishad
" Hotarmindro hotarmindro mohasurindrang.
Ollo jesthong sresthong poromong purnong bromman ollam.
Ollorasul mohomodokong boroshya ollo ollam.
Adollahbokume kokom ollabuk nikhatom (3).
Again, those who don't want to believe won't even if truth stares them in
the eye.
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
I missed one in my last article:
Atharva-veda (what I called ORTHOBEDA in my first article)
" Idong jona uposruto norashong sostobishyate
Shosthing sohosra nobting cho kuorom arunomeshu doghohe (1)"
-- Shakil.
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
Because of popular demand, more references:
Zend-Avesta.
"Noid te Ahmad dragoyeitim fram-raomi
Spetame Zarathustru yam dahman vanguim afritim.
Yunad hake hahi humananghad hvakanghad
Hushyanthnad hudaenad "
This is from Zend-Avesta,Part I,Translated by Max Muller,p.260.
It says " I am announcing,Oh Spitame Zarathustru,sacred Ahmad
will surely come,from whom you will learn honest thinking,
honest words,honest deeds and gain pure religion."
>From Persian Doshyati
"When the Persians will forget their own religion and will arrive
at the bottom of moral levels,then at that time a great man will
be borne in Arabia - whose desciples will defeat Persia and the
indomitable Persians. Instead of worshipping fire in their own
temples they will then pray facing the Kaaba of Prphet Abraham;
that Kaaba will be cleared of idols. The desciples of that
great man will be a kind of blessing for mankind. They will
occupy all sacred places of Persia,Madayen,Tuss,Balkh,etc.
Their will be great speaker and he will speak wonderfu things".
This quotation comes from Mohammad in World Scriptures by A. Huq
Vidyarathi,page 47).
>From Budhism
" Ananda said to the Blessed One (Budha), 'Who shall teach us
when though art gone?'
And the Blessed One replied:
' I am not first Budha who came on earth,nor shall I be the last.
In one timeanother Budha will arise in the world,a holy one,a
supremely enlightened one,endowed with wisdom in conduct....
He will proclaim a religious life,wholly perfect and pure such
as now I proclaim.
Ananda said, 'How shall we know him?'
The Blessed One said,'He will be known as Maitrya' ".
This quotation comes from The Gospel of Budha by Carus pp 117 118.
All these descriptions match with those of Qoran about Muhammad(s.a.
as Rahmatul-lil-Alamin.
Milind Saraph
ahmed-...@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
|>For the many people who seem interested in this topic, a good book to
|>read is Ghulam Mustafa's "Bishyanabi", available in Bengali and Urdu.
|>The main publisher of the book is Ahmad Publishing House 7, Jindabahar
|>Lane, Dhaka 1. In the book, he shows 63 references to prophet
|>Muhammed, 9 of which are from Hindu scriptures. This book has been
|>around for 50 years, and nobody, not even one Hindu scholar has been
|>able to challenge his quotes for the simple reason that the quotes are
|>there in the scriptures. I am *ver* surprised that so few people seem
|>to know about this
This is first time I have ever heard of this claim or this book. This
reference, unfortunately is not of much use to me. I dont know Bengali or
Urdu.
|>Here are some more references for the interested:
|> [stuff deleted]
I would appreciate if you could cite pages/verses from one or two of
the popular references. I am looking for a specific reference to
Muhammed, not a description of qualities of a future avatar/prophet and
the sign of times when he would appear. I am not suggesting that Muhammed
did not have these qualities or the time was not right. That is a matter
of interpretation and belief, creative or otherwise.
-- milind
Raj Bhatnagar
Well, the question of somebody trying to make them "disppear" will arise
only after their "appearance" is established. I have Radhakrishnan's
"Indian Philosophy" and Bhagvadgita - from the list of references cited
above - at home. Could you please tell me where in these books
shall I look for the references to Hazrat Mohammad, if any? My readings
to date do not point to any such mention - but I may have missed them,
though the chances are ermote - in either of the two books.
I can't read either Bangla or Urdu(very weakly, I had learnt it more
than 15 years ago), so you will have to please read from your book
and point me to the proper places in these English language books.
I am really curious to find what is being referred to here by you.
---raj
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
I expected this when I posted the stuff. Look, friends, I am not
trying to convince you of anything. I have posted the original
untranslated passages. Make of them what you will. I knew that there
will be many who won't believe and won't want to believe. I have
given all the references, you can go and check for your selves.
People say they want exact names. Even when phrases like:
Ollorasul mohomodorokong
Boroshya ollo ollam illollite illalla (9)
stare them in the eye. My God, can people really be that blind???
What is "Ollorasul?" What is "illalla?" "La illaha illallahu" means
"There is no God but Allah" in Arabic. "Rasul" is prophet.
"Rasulullah" is prophet of God. "Ollorasul" refers to "God's prophet"
in the exact same terms that it appears in the Qur'an.
Anyway, this is unnecessary. Those who don't want to believe can
simply ignore it. I have given the references. I can't help it if
you can't read Bengali or Urdu, and it's not my problem. If you're
interested, I suggest you read the Hindu scriptures I referred to.
The references are there in Sanskrit, as in what I quoted (the
transliteration is heavily Bengali oriented, but you should be able to
recognize the Sanskrit) What you make of it is up to you. I post the
facts, you interpret them how you please.
-- Shakil.
V Nagarajan
>
>
>Because of popular demand, more references:
>
.
.
>>From Budhism
> " Ananda said to the Blessed One (Budha), 'Who shall teach us
> when though art gone?'
> And the Blessed One replied:
> ' I am not first Budha who came on earth,nor shall I be the last.
> In one timeanother Budha will arise in the world,a holy one,a
> supremely enlightened one,endowed with wisdom in conduct....
> He will proclaim a religious life,wholly perfect and pure such
> as now I proclaim.
> Ananda said, 'How shall we know him?'
> The Blessed One said,'He will be known as Maitrya' ".
>
>This quotation comes from The Gospel of Budha by Carus pp 117 118.
>All these descriptions match with those of Qoran about Muhammad(s.a.
>as Rahmatul-lil-Alamin.
..or that of himself by Rajneesh, Osho.
The concept of prophethood is alien to the religions indigenous
to India and is solely a property of semitic religions. The syncretic
effort of equating Muhammad with Maitreya is just as laughable
as Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's claim that Muhammad was an avatar
of God. It might even seem insulting to some people.
- Nagarajan
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
Alright, I'm getting sick of all the mail asking for verse numbers,
etc. Here's some food for thought:
Bhavish-ya Purana, Para 3, Kanda 3, Adhya 3, Shlokas 5-8:
5."Just then, a man with the epithet 'illiterate', Muhammad by name, an
inhabitant of Arabia, appeared with his companions. 6. Raja Bhoja
(in a vision) said to that Great Deva, the denizen of Arabia,....
'O, denizen of Arabia and Lord of the Holies, to thee is my adoration.
O, thou who hast found many ways and means to destroy all the devils
of the world. 8. O, pure one from among the illiterates, O, sinless
one, the spirit of truth and absolute master, to thee is my adoration.
Accept me at thy feet."
Atharva Veda, Kanda 20, Sukta 127, Mantra 1-3:
"O people, listen to me emphatically! The man of praise (Muhammad) will
be raised from among the people. We take the emigrant in our shelter from
sixty thousand and ninety enemies whose conveyances are twenty camels and
she camels, whose loftiness of position touches the heaven and lowers it.
He gave to Mamah Rishi hundreds of gold coin, ten circles, three hundred
Arab horses and ten thousand cows."
PARSI SCRIPTURES
Dasatir No. 14 (Sasan 1)
"When the Persians should sink so low in morality, a man will be born...
....." - The same quote as the one you already wrote.
If those numbers weren't specific enough, then some people really have
problems.
satyanarayana.mallya
Come on! I think we should appreciate his creativity even if it happens
to be at defending his inane thoughts!
<Care to know my name?>
<my login should give a clue>