Misconceptions about Islam.
Anjum Sultan M
> To those of you who know so little about Islam and base their views
>on the propaganda spread by the "Western Civilizations" throughout
>the decades, I have simply one request. Please get to know a little
>more than you do before you enter the networks where we wish to carry
>on constructive discussions (atleast some of us do).
>
> Our Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did marry more than four wives. I am not
>sure of His marriage with a 9 year old girl but those who have studied
>Islam do know that the Prophet had to marry many women due to the
>circumstances at the time. Due to frequent wars, there emerged numerous
>widows who had nobody to look support them and due to the nature of the
>society, women did not have jobs either (nor did women in the West at
>that time!). So our Prophet (may that be a will of God or of the Prophet
>himself-which I don't know) decided to marry some of these women he
>came across to support them. You see, he could not simply live with them
>as Western promiscuous (eastern too) people do. And as Islam puts firm
>emphasis on marriage before a male and female can live together, that
>was his only choice.
>
> For you to know, he did not keep them as his love slaves forever.
>When it was time for the women to get back on their feet, He lawfully
>and respectfully devorced them since they did not need his support
>any longer. He did not marry out of pity only. He was also married for
>a long time to the woman he loved. And out of all the other woman He
>married, he never was married to more than four wives at a time.
>
> This is why it is lawfull in Islam to be married to four wives. But
>there are also clear instructions which say that one can have four wives
>given that he can treat them and support them with no discrimination.
>This is why polygamy is not a common practice in Islamic societies today
>and is often regarded as socially retarded. It is not possible for many
>people to support all of them equally and I personally don't think that
>it is possible to love them equally.
>
> Moreover as the world is changing and as woman are getting more and more
>educated (which by the way is an absolute must in Islam) and begin to
>establish themselves as they have done in the Western World, the shear
>notiond of "supporting" woman is going away.
>
> It's evident that your lack of understanding is what prompts you say
>all that about Islam that you did in your comments. Surely Islam is not
>practiced fully and with wisdom, which is why many faithful followers of
>Islam complain about fanaticism. And I believe that it is the fanatic
>side of Islam that you have been exposed to. Islam is and always will
>be a peace loving religion preaching brotherhood among all and tolerant
>co-existence among followers of other religions. And these are not just
>my words. The Quran clearly says that the ones that attack you (the
>followers) and drive you away from your homes for your religion, are
>your enemies and are not to be friends with. This in no way implies
>that all non-Muslims are our enemies. Nor are our perceptions of them
>bitter or negative.
>
> I will let you know that Islamic history is not full of butchery and
>plunder or rape. If you are refering to certain "Islamic states" then
>I would request you to get to know about Islam from other sources like the
>Holy Quran itself or other religious books. Yes it is indeed orthodox and
>that is why the values in Islam are meant to guarantee a society void of
>crime, corruption, adultery, devorce, murder you name it. On the other hand
>Islam liberated women from slavery and prostitution and gave them a special
>place at home (not chained them to it) as wife, mother and what not. At the
>same time Islam was the first to give women the right to own property.
>It is as I have already said a must for both men and women to be educated.
>Since I am not too sure about what the Quran says about a woman's
>carrier, I will not say much apart from the fact that she must not
>compromise her place at home as a mother for her job. It is practically
>possible for the mother to balance the two as so should the father, and
>I would invite those who have studied Islam well to discuss whether such a
>position for women as both a mother and a carrier women, be against the
>grains of Islam at all.
>
>Riaz.
>mus...@engin.umich.edu
>
> I FULLY AGREE WITH BROTHER RIAZ
..
Vilok Kusumakar
> To those of you who know so little about Islam and base their views
>on the propaganda spread by the "Western Civilizations" throughout
>the decades, I have simply one request. Please get to know a little
>more than you do before you enter the networks where we wish to carry
>on constructive discussions (atleast some of us do).
>
Here we go again. Another preacher of Islam/Quran on the
NET. Please STOP. Read my article about being tolerant and calm.
Read the definitions of fundamentalism, fanatic and religion.
It will help you to be a little moderate.
I am against all forms of fundamentalism - Hindu or Muslim.
---------------
Vilok Kusumakar OSI Protocols for tomorrow......
vi...@bnr.ca Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.
Phone: (613) 763-2273 P.O. Box 3511, Station C
Fax: (613) 765-4777 Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4H7
Manoj Ghayalod
>
>
>> You all claim that the prophet (pbuh) was not superior to any other
>> human
>
>The prophet (pbuh) said so himself and it is clearly stated in the
>Qur'an. He may have been more pious, but "superior," no.
Good, then why did he have more than 4 wives? If he is not superior to
any human being then why did Allah expect him to make more sacrifices than
others by marrying more than 4 wives?
>
>> If the Koran is so timeless, then why tell
>> us the situation present at that time? For example now women work
>> so they do not have to be supported by others, so why do you still
>> allow 1 man to have 4 wives? Didn't Allah know that women were
>> going to work in the future?
>
>Where have you been for the last two years when so many people have
>repeatedly *proved* by quoting from the Qur'an that:
>
>1) Islam primarily preaches monogamy
>2) More than one wife is permitted only under exceptional
>circumstances involving taking care of orphans
Please state the circumstances. Are you saying that a single father
can take care of his children better than a single mother?
>3) All wives have to be treated equally
>4) That it is almost impossible to treat them equally
Why aren't females allowed to have more than one husband in expectional
circumstances?
>
>Now in light of the fact that women *do* work and *are* highly
>educated, it is *obvious* that they will not agree to any kind of
>arrangements involving polygyny. They have every right to do so, and
>hence every provision for this situation was accounted for.
>
>> One net Muslim scholar says that Muhammed (pbuh) was not allow to divorce
>> and now you are saying he was allowed to divorce. Please get your
>> stories straight.
One net Mullah did say that Mohammed (pbuh), was not allowed to divorce
and this Mullah is saying that Muhammed (pbuh) was allowed to divorce.
I was just pointing out that the stories don't match. Anyway what is your
opinion was Muhammed (pbuh) allowed to divorce or not?
>
>Perhaps you should practice what you preach. Have you looked at Sura
>Al-Ahzab yet, the reference I asked you to look up? If not, then why
>are you still arguing? If you are genuinely interested in this issue,
>you would have looked it up in the Qur'an. Since you haven't, it is
>obvious that your only intention is to malign Islam, even though you
>*clearly* have no knowledge about it. I recommend you look up what
>you preach before you risk making yourself look even more ridiculous
>on the net.
>
If my intention was to sincerely learn about Islam, I would have looked
it up. My intention is not to malign Islam, I didn't start the thread
stating Islam sucks, a mullah similiar to yourself is preaching Islam on
SCI, which is withen his rights, I am showing him that his arguments
'Islam is the best way' are simply not true. By the way what is the risk
of appearing ridiculous on the net?
>> OK Islam did a lot for women in the past, but now it is holding them
>> back.
>> Muslim women are forced to wear viels,
>
>Nonsense. Please show us the appropriate passages from the Qur'an.
>
What makes you think that you know the Koran more than Khomeni? Or was
Khomeni just some sadistic psycho? Do you even know old Arabic in which
the Koran was originaly written?
>> a male inherits more than a female
>
>Nonsense. The inheritance laws are immensely complicated and I have
>explained them in the past.
>
>> and for a financial transaction, 1 male and 2 females
>> are required, suggesting that women cannot be trusted with money.
>
>Nonsense again. I have explained this one very recently. Please
>refer to <1nb41h...@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU>.
Your explaination was pure BS, that is not only my opinion but a lot
of Muslims agree with that, or don't you read your follow ups? It is
a popular opinion on the net that you do not anwser any question straight,
I have a lot of personal email from Hindus and Muslims saying that. Also
there are many articles on SCB accusing you of not anwsering straight.
>
>And you start off by saying, "Unfortunately you guys don't know what
>you are talking about?" :-) As I said, please look up what you
>preach or you just end up ridiculing yourself.
I am not preaching anything. I am not saying that Hinduism is the best
way, some guys are preaching and I am just pointing out that they are
completly wrong.
>
>-- Shakil
Shakil you are a fanatic preacher of an Islamic state. Have you ever
lived in any Islamic state? Have you not always lived in some western
democracy? There is another fanatic like you who has also lived here
all his life and he preaches an Islamic state in soc.culture.Iran, Iranis
who have lived all their lives in an Islamic state are ridiculing him.
You who have always enjoyed the benifits of the west and not suffered in
an Islamic state appear ridiculous when you preach an Islamic state. Why?
Because you will never pack your bags and leave for an Islamic state.
Manoj
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <C3JLy...@uceng.uc.edu>, mgha...@uceng.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
> In article <1nbih5...@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-...@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
> >The prophet (pbuh) said so himself and it is clearly stated in the
> >Qur'an. He may have been more pious, but "superior," no.
>
> Good, then why did he have more than 4 wives? If he is not superior to
> any human being then why did Allah expect him to make more sacrifices than
> others by marrying more than 4 wives?
Back to square one. I already gave you the reference. Please look it
up. Otherwise you continue to talk through your hat.
> >Where have you been for the last two years when so many people have
> >repeatedly *proved* by quoting from the Qur'an that:
> >
> >1) Islam primarily preaches monogamy
> >2) More than one wife is permitted only under exceptional
> >circumstances involving taking care of orphans
>
> Please state the circumstances. Are you saying that a single father
> can take care of his children better than a single mother?
There are some people who have *extremely* short-term memories. Here
is what I said earlier about this:
Then there is always the most common stereotype and misconception,
namely that regarding polygyny. The Qur'an is quite clear in
specifying the stringent conditions under which it may be permissible:
3. If ye fear that ye shall not
Be able to deal justly
With the orphans,
Marry women of your choice,
Two, or three, or four;
But if ye fear that ye shall not
Be able to deal justly (with them),
Then only one, or (a captive)
That your right hands possess.
That will be more suitable,
To prevent you
From doing injustice.
It is quite clear from the above that the polygyny allowance is purely
for humanitarian reasons. The ``if'' clause above distinctly states
that the question of polygyny only arises when there are orphans to
take care of. At times of war, many children are orphaned, and many
more men perish than women. Consequently, polygyny is permitted to
ensure appropriate care for the orphans. Furthermore, assuming the
required conditions are met, one can only marry a second wife if one
treats the wives equally. Since this is obviously very difficult to
do, and the Qur'an mentions this in the same sura (see 4:129), it
follows that polygyny can only occur under the most exceptional
circumstances. Of course, the skeptic will ask why polyandry is not
permitted. Needless to say, this line of reasoning fails to take into
account the complex social situations under which polygyny is
permitted -- it is obviously not something for everyone. But it also
fails to take into account the problem of infinite family chains. If
polyandry were also permitted, it is very easy to show mathematically
that one could end up with infinite family chains. Given the
importance that Islam places on family structure, the problems of this
are obvious. Since family structure is so important, it is easy to
see that while the mother of a child is easily determined, polyandry
would make it difficult to determine the father of a child. All these
reasons are strong arguments against polyandry.
> >3) All wives have to be treated equally
> >4) That it is almost impossible to treat them equally
>
> Why aren't females allowed to have more than one husband in expectional
> circumstances?
Because females generally don't fight in wars. Look at what happened
in Europe after World War II -- severe demographic problems. There
were so many widows and spinsters and so few men...
> >Perhaps you should practice what you preach. Have you looked at Sura
> >Al-Ahzab yet, the reference I asked you to look up? If not, then why
> >are you still arguing? If you are genuinely interested in this issue,
> >you would have looked it up in the Qur'an. Since you haven't, it is
> >obvious that your only intention is to malign Islam, even though you
> >*clearly* have no knowledge about it. I recommend you look up what
> >you preach before you risk making yourself look even more ridiculous
> >on the net.
>
> If my intention was to sincerely learn about Islam, I would have looked
> it up. My intention is not to malign Islam, I didn't start the thread
> stating Islam sucks, a mullah similiar to yourself is preaching Islam on
> SCI, which is withen his rights, I am showing him that his arguments
> 'Islam is the best way' are simply not true. By the way what is the risk
> of appearing ridiculous on the net?
You are showing that his arguments are not true? Then how come you
continue to argue about things you clearly know *nothing* about? You
have repeatedly made blatantly false assertions and you *still* will
not look up references you ask for. Instead, you continue repeating
the same allegations.
> >> OK Islam did a lot for women in the past, but now it is holding them
> >> back.
> >> Muslim women are forced to wear viels,
> >
> >Nonsense. Please show us the appropriate passages from the Qur'an.
> >
> What makes you think that you know the Koran more than Khomeni? Or was
> Khomeni just some sadistic psycho? Do you even know old Arabic in which
> the Koran was originaly written?
Please answer my question and do not try to divert attention. I can
prove to you that Islam does not require veils through the Qur'an, in
English or in Arabic. Can you show me any passages from Islamic
scriptures which state such a requirement?
> >> a male inherits more than a female
> >
> >Nonsense. The inheritance laws are immensely complicated and I have
> >explained them in the past.
> >
> >> and for a financial transaction, 1 male and 2 females
> >> are required, suggesting that women cannot be trusted with money.
> >
> >Nonsense again. I have explained this one very recently. Please
> >refer to <1nb41h...@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU>.
>
> Your explaination was pure BS, that is not only my opinion but a lot
> of Muslims agree with that, or don't you read your follow ups? It is
> a popular opinion on the net that you do not anwser any question straight,
> I have a lot of personal email from Hindus and Muslims saying that. Also
> there are many articles on SCB accusing you of not anwsering
> straight.
Please see <1nb41h...@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> in which I quote
the full verse and show clearly what I have been stating all along. I
have not seen anybody refute that yet. Just because there are others
who, like you, argue about Islam without knowing does not make it
right.
> >And you start off by saying, "Unfortunately you guys don't know what
> >you are talking about?" :-) As I said, please look up what you
> >preach or you just end up ridiculing yourself.
>
> I am not preaching anything. I am not saying that Hinduism is the best
> way, some guys are preaching and I am just pointing out that they are
> completly wrong.
You are preaching *against* Islam without knowing *anything* about
Islam. It is thus very clear who is completely wrong.
> Shakil you are a fanatic preacher of an Islamic state. Have you ever
> lived in any Islamic state?
There is no Islamic state.
> Have you not always lived in some western democracy?
No.
> There is another fanatic like you who has also lived here
> all his life and he preaches an Islamic state in soc.culture.Iran, Iranis
> who have lived all their lives in an Islamic state are ridiculing
> him.
I don't know about him and I don't care.
> You who have always enjoyed the benifits of the west and not suffered in
> an Islamic state appear ridiculous when you preach an Islamic state. Why?
> Because you will never pack your bags and leave for an Islamic state.
Thank you for deciding for me what I would or would not do. If this
is the extent of your arguing, then I really don't need to add
anything. :-)
-- Shakil
Shams Hasan
Your considerable response to a PACKenvious person of questionable motives
prompts me to remember a famous Shaw line,
A man of great common sense and good taste, - meaning thereby a man
without originality or moral courage.
NOTES. JULIUS CEASAR, /SHAW.
Best Regards,
Shams Hasan.
Rafat M Sadiq
> Manoj writes:
>
> You all claim that the prophet (pbuh) was not superior to any other
> such charitable acts. If the Koran is so timeless, then why tell
> us the situation present at that time? For example now women work
> so they do not have to be supported by others, so why do you still
> allow 1 man to have 4 wives? Didn't Allah know that women were
> going to work in the future?
>
> There is a misunderstanding here. Let me clarify this misuderstanding.
> Muhammad (pbuh) was an ordinary human being in that he was not
> divine. This is stressed in Islam. Unlike the Christians that claim
> Jesus (pbuh) was divine, Muslims stress that the prophets were not
> divine and this includes Muhammad (pbuh). However, Muhammad (pbuh)
> was naturally unlike other humans in that he was material for
> prophethood and his abilities and character were above those of
> other humans. He had extra responsibilities as a messenger and leader.
> These responsibilities do not apply to ordinary people because Islam
> stresses that it is not meant to be a burden but as a blessing to
> the humans.
>
> You claim that now women work. That is true but do all of them
> work? Isn't it a fact that we find poor women outnumbering men
> in many societies even today? Therefore Islam still gives men the
> option of marrying more than one wife if he can support them and
> do justice to them.
>
Also, unless I am mistaken, he has to seek the permission of his
current wife before he marries a second or third time.
Rafat Sadiq
Milind Saraph
>1) Islam primarly preaches monogamy
>2) The question of more than one wife (up to a maximum of four) arises
>under very specific conditions having to do with raising orphans
>3) If these conditions are met and a man marries more than once (for
>humanitarian reasons), he has to treat all wives equally
>4) The Qur'an clearly states that it is almost impossible to treat
>them equally
From what Rukhsana Merchant posted, it seems polygamy is impossible,
not "almost impossible."
****
"If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly
with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three,
or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal
justly (with them), then (marry) only one..." (Qur'an 4:3) ... (1)
"You are never able to be fair and just as between women
even if it is your ardent desire...." (Qur'an 4:129) ... (2)
****
-- Milind Saraph
Manoj Ghayalod
>> >Qur'an. He may have been more pious, but "superior," no.
>>
>> Good, then why did he have more than 4 wives? If he is not superior to
>> any human being then why did Allah expect him to make more sacrifices than
>> others by marrying more than 4 wives?
>
>Back to square one. I already gave you the reference. Please look it
>up. Otherwise you continue to talk through your hat.
If we all wanted to read the Koran ourselves, we wouldn't need you
here on SCI, no?
It seems the guys are not doing any charity here. For taking care of
orphans it seems they want something from the female. Why can't they
take care of the females without marrying them? If you say females
have desires, then don't males have desires too? I remember I
showed you with refrences before that now in India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh there are more men than women, so should women be
allowed to have more than 1 husband?
>permitted. Needless to say, this line of reasoning fails to take into
>account the complex social situations under which polygyny is
>permitted -- it is obviously not something for everyone. But it also
>fails to take into account the problem of infinite family chains. If
>polyandry were also permitted, it is very easy to show mathematically
>that one could end up with infinite family chains. Given the
>importance that Islam places on family structure, the problems of this
>are obvious. Since family structure is so important, it is easy to
>see that while the mother of a child is easily determined, polyandry
>would make it difficult to determine the father of a child. All these
>reasons are strong arguments against polyandry.
Did Allah not know about the various races present on Earth?
He should have said something like this. A Bangladeshi woman
can marry 1 oriental, 1 white, 1 african and 1 Bangladeshi male.
That too in exceptional circumstances and not more than 4 at
any one time. This will make it very easy to determine the
the father of the child.
>> >3) All wives have to be treated equally
>> >4) That it is almost impossible to treat them equally
>>
>> Why aren't females allowed to have more than one husband in expectional
>> circumstances?
>
>Because females generally don't fight in wars. Look at what happened
>in Europe after World War II -- severe demographic problems. There
>were so many widows and spinsters and so few men...
But now there are more males than females in Pakistan, Bangladesh
India and a lot more Islamic countries.
>
>You are showing that his arguments are not true? Then how come you
>continue to argue about things you clearly know *nothing* about? You
>have repeatedly made blatantly false assertions and you *still* will
>not look up references you ask for. Instead, you continue repeating
>the same allegations.
I don't consider anything written in the Koran as the truth.
I don't have to use statements in the Koran to argue, I showed him
that his logic is faulty and I am showing you that your logic is
faulty too.
>> What makes you think that you know the Koran more than Khomeni? Or was
>> Khomeni just some sadistic psycho? Do you even know old Arabic in which
>> the Koran was originaly written?
>
>Please answer my question and do not try to divert attention. I can
>prove to you that Islam does not require veils through the Qur'an, in
>English or in Arabic. Can you show me any passages from Islamic
>scriptures which state such a requirement?
Do you say that viel is not a requirement in the Koran? OK I
will take your word for it. Now when are we going to let Khameni
know about this?
>
>>
>> Your explaination was pure BS, that is not only my opinion but a lot
>> of Muslims agree with that, or don't you read your follow ups? It is
>> a popular opinion on the net that you do not anwser any question straight,
>> I have a lot of personal email from Hindus and Muslims saying that. Also
>> there are many articles on SCB accusing you of not anwsering
>> straight.
>
>Please see <1nb41h...@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> in which I quote
>the full verse and show clearly what I have been stating all along. I
>have not seen anybody refute that yet. Just because there are others
>who, like you, argue about Islam without knowing does not make it
>right.
Who cares about the verses? You are just proving us all right, Shakil
cannot anwser a question straight. Don't you think that this case
is discriminatory against women. Now days it is an accepted fact
that women are equal to men, so shouldn't this be removed? So doesn't
that show that the Koran is not timeless?
>
>
>You are preaching *against* Islam without knowing *anything* about
>Islam. It is thus very clear who is completely wrong.
I am not preaching against Islam, people like you claim that Islam
is perfect, it does not discriminate against anyone, I am just
showing faults in their argument.
>
>> Shakil you are a fanatic preacher of an Islamic state. Have you ever
>> lived in any Islamic state?
>
>There is no Islamic state.
Why? Do you think that it can never be implemented? Just like
there was never a perfect communist state.
>
>> Have you not always lived in some western democracy?
>
>No.
>
>> There is another fanatic like you who has also lived here
>> all his life and he preaches an Islamic state in soc.culture.Iran, Iranis
>> who have lived all their lives in an Islamic state are ridiculing
>> him.
>
>I don't know about him and I don't care.
>
>> You who have always enjoyed the benifits of the west and not suffered in
>> an Islamic state appear ridiculous when you preach an Islamic state. Why?
>> Because you will never pack your bags and leave for an Islamic state.
>
>Thank you for deciding for me what I would or would not do. If this
>is the extent of your arguing, then I really don't need to add
>anything. :-)
It seems I just offended you. Did I say something wrong?
>-- Shakil
Manoj
Sanjay K. Gupta
>sure of His marriage with a 9 year old girl but those who have studied
>Islam do know that the Prophet had to marry many women due to the
>circumstances at the time. Due to frequent wars, there emerged numerous
>widows who had nobody to look support them and due to the nature of the
>society, women did not have jobs either (nor did women in the West at
>that time!). So our Prophet (may that be a will of God or of the Prophet
>himself-which I don't know) decided to marry some of these women he
>came across to support them.
He could have supported if his intention was only to support even from outside
the marriage.
>You see, he could not simply live with them
>as Western promiscuous (eastern too) people do.
It only proves that he wanted females to marry him if they want to get help
from him.
>And as Islam puts firm
>emphasis on marriage before a male and female can live together, that
>was his only choice.
>
> For you to know, he did not keep them as his love slaves forever.
Yes ! After he was satiated, he left the females after giving them some money.
How is it different from prostitution? Except ofcourse, he married them too.
>When it was time for the women to get back on their feet, He lawfully
>and respectfully devorced them since they did not need his support
>any longer. He did not marry out of pity only. He was also married for
>a long time to the woman he loved. And out of all the other woman He
>married, he never was married to more than four wives at a time.
>
It was all possible because it is and was lawful and respectfull to marry as
many times as possible and later divorce. What a pity. Rightly said in that
holy book: Woman is your farming to plough, though I am not very sure of this.
Please enlighten me on this too.
Let me see your rationalisation of damn irrational things.
> This is why it is lawfull in Islam to be married to four wives.
Why just four, why not five, ten, hundred, thousand or millions.
>Riaz.
>mus...@engin.umich.edu
>
--
Sanjay K. Gupta
Mohammed Nadeem ISE-GRAD
In article: <C3ACB...@uceng.uc.edu>
(Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
[deleted]
> >Just curious, do you keep your money in an interest paying bank,
> >do you have credit cards, have you bought a new car and are making
> >payments on it, do you make payments on your house,
> >have you looked at a girl who was not wearing a viel, or have you
> >ever eaten in McDonalds? If you have anwsered yes to any of these
> >questions, then it is the US preventing you from practising Islam, so
> >let the fight in self defence begin.
[deleted]
>
> Just wanted to point out that you are no true believer, you are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What's your logic? Get your facts straight, please.
> a hypocrite, so dude see you in hell.
Now what? Another Fatwa???
>
> Manoj
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mohammed Nadeem e-mail: nad...@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu
"TREAT OTHERS THE WAY YOU WANT THEM TO TREAT YOU"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mohammed Nadeem ISE-GRAD
In article: <C3LH9...@uceng.uc.edu>
mgha...@uceng.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
[deleted]
> >Back to square one. I already gave you the reference. Please look it
> >up. Otherwise you continue to talk through your hat.
>
> If we all wanted to read the Koran ourselves, we wouldn't need you
^^^^^^ ^^
> here on SCI, no?
Talk of yourself. What do you mean by "we"?? He's asking
YOU to look through a reference 'cause you were the one
who raised the question.
Now what's wrong in asking you to read it. If you don't
wish to read it, then why pursue the argument.
> Did Allah not know about the various races present on Earth?
> He should have said something like this. A Bangladeshi woman
> can marry 1 oriental, 1 white, 1 african and 1 Bangladeshi male.
> That too in exceptional circumstances and not more than 4 at
> any one time. This will make it very easy to determine the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the father of the child.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Really?? How?? What if all the kids look exactly like
the mother.
>
> I don't consider anything written in the Koran as the truth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then why not just forget about it. Why waste so much
of bandwidth.
> I don't have to use statements in the Koran to argue, I showed him
> that his logic is faulty and I am showing you that your logic is
> faulty too.
Convince yourself. Atleast I am humored by your "logic".
Your statements have the least amount of facts, truth
and logic. And BTW, are you just trying to prove that his
logic is faulty, or...?
>
>
> >> What makes you think that you know the Koran more than Khomeni? Or was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What makes you think that he doesn't know about Koran more
than Khomeni????
> >> Khomeni just some sadistic psycho? Do you even know old Arabic in which
> >> the Koran was originaly written?
> >
> >Please answer my question and do not try to divert attention. I can
> >prove to you that Islam does not require veils through the Qur'an, in
> >English or in Arabic. Can you show me any passages from Islamic
> >scriptures which state such a requirement?
>
> Do you say that viel is not a requirement in the Koran? OK I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> will take your word for it. Now when are we going to let Khameni
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why bother taking his word after four postings.
> know about this?
> >
>
> >>
> >> Your explaination was pure BS, that is not only my opinion but a lot
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And your's, pure "logic". Great!
> >> of Muslims agree with that, or don't you read your follow ups? It is
> >> a popular opinion on the net that you do not anwser any question straight,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> I have a lot of personal email from Hindus and Muslims saying that. Also
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look who's talking :-)
> >> there are many articles on SCB accusing you of not anwsering
> >> straight.
> >the full verse and show clearly what I have been stating all along. I
> >have not seen anybody refute that yet. Just because there are others
> >who, like you, argue about Islam without knowing does not make it
> >right.
>
> Who cares about the verses? You are just proving us all right, Shakil
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then why go through such an ordeal.
[deleted]
_______________________________
> >> Shakil you are a fanatic preacher of an Islamic state. Have you ever
> >> lived in any Islamic state?
> >
> >There is no Islamic state.
>
> Why? Do you think that it can never be implemented? Just like
> there was never a perfect communist state.
> >
> >> Have you not always lived in some western democracy?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >> There is another fanatic like you who has also lived here
> >> all his life and he preaches an Islamic state in soc.culture.Iran, Iranis
> >> who have lived all their lives in an Islamic state are ridiculing
> >> him.
> >
> >I don't know about him and I don't care.
> >
> >> You who have always enjoyed the benifits of the west and not suffered in
> >> an Islamic state appear ridiculous when you preach an Islamic state. Why?
> >> Because you will never pack your bags and leave for an Islamic state.
> >
> >Thank you for deciding for me what I would or would not do. If this
> >is the extent of your arguing, then I really don't need to add
> >anything. :-)
_______________________________________
>
> It seems I just offended you. Did I say something wrong?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just read between the lines and you'll realize how your "logic"
works, how you swerve from one topic to the other, with no
relationship to each other.
>
> >-- Shakil
SUPRATIC GUPTA
|In article <1nbc74...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> mus...@engin.umich.edu (Ahmed R Osmani) writes:
|>
|> For you to know, he did not keep them as his love slaves forever.
|>When it was time for the women to get back on their feet, He lawfully
|>and respectfully devorced them since they did not need his support
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A crooked person can say the same thing in a nice way before divorsing his
wife.
I AM REALLY SURPRISED THAT MOHAMAD EVEN DIVORSED THOSE HE MARRIED.
*****************************************************************
|>any longer. He did not marry out of pity only. He was also married for
|>a long time to the woman he loved. And out of all the other woman He
|>married, he never was married to more than four wives at a time.
What a nice explanation. I wish a women can say it too.
|>people to support all of them equally and I personally don't think that
|>it is possible to love them equally.
In fact Quran explicitly say that it is impossible. I don't know how
Mohamad succeded.
|>your enemies and are not to be friends with. This in no way implies
|>that all non-Muslims are our enemies. Nor are our perceptions of them
|>bitter or negative.
We need not be enemies, but aren't we KAFIRS?
|>
|> I will let you know that Islamic history is not full of butchery and
|>plunder or rape.
That is why you are still talking. Remeber no other religion was spread
by violence. Budhisim spread once more then Islam ever did with peace.
|>Islam liberated women from slavery and prostitution and gave them a special
|>place at home (not chained them to it) as wife, mother and what not. At the
|>same time Islam was the first to give women the right to own property.
Nothing great. If tomorow there arise a situation where number of women
becomes ten times that of men and GOPALJI startsa religion which allows
multiple marriage of women, that will surely be called a more advanced
religion. Islam willbe considered a Garbage.
|>I would invite those who have studied Islam well to discuss whether such a
|>position for women as both a mother and a carrier women, be against the
|>grains of Islam at all.
No one is questioning this point.
|>
|>Riaz.
|>mus...@engin.umich.edu
|>
|
|> I FULLY AGREE WITH BROTHER RIAZ
|
|..
--
With regards I wonder why people like to bend the truth for | Is God
achiving short term goal. Is it really difficult | playing
SUPER GOOFTA to be sincere and honest? Is it really difficult | with
to forget the differences and love each other? | us?
Manoj Ghayalod
>
> In article: <C3ACB...@uceng.uc.edu>
> (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
> [deleted]
>
>> >Just curious, do you keep your money in an interest paying bank,
>> >do you have credit cards, have you bought a new car and are making
>> >payments on it, do you make payments on your house,
>> >have you looked at a girl who was not wearing a viel, or have you
>> >ever eaten in McDonalds? If you have anwsered yes to any of these
>> >questions, then it is the US preventing you from practising Islam, so
>> >let the fight in self defence begin.
>
> [deleted]
>>
>> Just wanted to point out that you are no true believer, you are
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> What's your logic? Get your facts straight, please.
>
>> a hypocrite, so dude see you in hell.
>
> Now what? Another Fatwa???
This guy was saying that we do not practise Islam, so we all are
going to hell. I tried to show him that he too does not practise
Islam properly, so he will be joining us there.
>> Manoj
>
>--
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Mohammed Nadeem e-mail: nad...@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu
> "TREAT OTHERS THE WAY YOU WANT THEM TO TREAT YOU"
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Manoj
Ahmed El-Habbash
>In article <1993Mar7.1...@usl.edu> sma...@usl.edu (Anjum Sultan M) writes:
> |In article <1nbc74...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> mus...@engin.umich.edu (Ahmed R Osmani) writes:
> |>
> |> For you to know, he did not keep them as his love slaves forever.
> |>When it was time for the women to get back on their feet, He lawfully
> |>and respectfully devorced them since they did not need his support
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you sure that you are not composing the wrong information about your
Prophet (SAW). Please read a little bit more.
>A crooked person can say the same thing in a nice way before divorsing his
>wife.
Any way, you are still describing it as a nice way. However the
information that you are replying to is not correct, and the imaginary
divorces are from the synthesis of the poster.
>I AM REALLY SURPRISED THAT MOHAMAD EVEN DIVORSED THOSE HE MARRIED.
>*****************************************************************
You must be surprised, and you will be surprized more when you read in
the Quran how the Prophet (SAW) was restricted, with respect to
marriage, more than the other Muslims. He (SAW) was commanded not to
divorce any of his wives, nor to marry any new wife. I will just give a
qutation from the Quran.
33: 52. It is not allowed to you to take women afterwards, nor
that you should change them for other wives, though their
beauty be pleasing to you, except what your right hand
possesses and Allah is Watchful over all things.
> |>any longer. He did not marry out of pity only. He was also married for
> |>a long time to the woman he loved. And out of all the other woman He
> |>married, he never was married to more than four wives at a time.
Before Islam the number of wives was open. It could be hundreds.
Islam restricted it to a maximum of four wives, however, Muslims can
divorce, so they can change their wives when they want that.
However, the Prophet (SAW) was restricted more, that he can neither
divorce, nor marry new wives.
If you read about the wives of the Prophet (SAW), what they are, you may
change your mind. Some of these wives are very old women, with five
children with her.
I don't want to go into details about that issue, which is a minor thing
compared to the main thing in Islam, which is the One-ness of God,
without associations, without imaginations, and without
philosophization.
>What a nice explanation. I wish a women can say it too.
I don't think you wish to hear that from your wife.
> |>people to support all of them equally and I personally don't think that
> |>it is possible to love them equally.
>In fact Quran explicitly say that it is impossible. I don't know how
>Mohamad succeded.
Are you confident about your knowledge of the Quran, or it is just based
on hear-say.
> |>your enemies and are not to be friends with. This in no way implies
> |>that all non-Muslims are our enemies. Nor are our perceptions of them
> |>bitter or negative.
>We need not be enemies, but aren't we KAFIRS?
Yes you are Kaffir (not believing in Allah) as long as you have chosen
to believe in something else. But this is your problem. It is only the
love that the Muslim must have to all mankind that force him to give you
the right message of God. It is out of mercy and love to you and out of
concern about you in the life to come that a muslim takes that trouble
to convey to you, the message that he believes the final message of God,
which will save you ( if you follow correctly ). So labelling you as Kaffir
means nothing more than that you don't believe in the Message, it is not
an insult. You can use the same word to describe me in the view of your
religion, or to save you the trouble, I will say it my self: I am Kaffir
as far as your religion is concerned.
Being Kaffir does not make you my enemy, It makes you a target which
deserves more effort to reach and bring the message of Islam to.
> |>Islam liberated women from slavery and prostitution and gave them a special
> |>place at home (not chained them to it) as wife, mother and what not. At the
> |>same time Islam was the first to give women the right to own property.
>Nothing great. If tomorow there arise a situation where number of women
>becomes ten times that of men and GOPALJI startsa religion which allows
>multiple marriage of women, that will surely be called a more advanced
>religion. Islam willbe considered a Garbage.
No, it is great. It is the combination of prmitting divorce and allowing
restricted polygamy that can solve many of the social problems.
This is a fact, and we have to respect and accept facts.
>With regards I wonder why people like to bend the truth for | Is God
> achiving short term goal. Is it really difficult | playing
>SUPER GOOFTA to be sincere and honest? Is it really difficult | with
> to forget the differences and love each other? | us?
>
I also wonder!!!!
I am also surprised why you are taking this stand, in this article,
Supratic. I don't agree with the original poster, who is providing wrong
information about his Prophet, which is very bad misinformation, but I
don't think your stand was a reaction to this.
May Allah Guide you to the straight path.
--
Ahmed I. El-Habbash,
Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Tel: office: +353-1-7021524, Home: +353-1-937402.
Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi
Here we go again. Another preacher of Islam/Quran on the
NET. Please STOP. Read my article about being tolerant and calm.
Read the definitions of fundamentalism, fanatic and religion.
It will help you to be a little moderate.
I am against all forms of fundamentalism - Hindu or Muslim.
(end quote)
So you, Vilok, consider anyone who has strong opinions and is willing
to talk and express those opinions a fundamentalist/fanatic? Have you
read my posts? They seem pretty calm to to me. I feel pretty calm
when I write them too. Lemme check....yeah I look calm.
Manoj Ghayalod
>
>In article <C3LH9...@uceng.uc.edu>, mgha...@uceng.uc.edu (Manoj
>Ghayalod) writes:
>>
>> If we all wanted to read the Koran ourselves, we wouldn't need you
>> here on SCI, no?
>
>So what exactly are you trying to say? That I should read the Qur'an
>for you? You make an allegation about Islam. I point out it is wrong
>and give you the reference. You don't look up the reference, and
>instead repeat the allegation! And now I'm supposed to read it for
>you too! :-)
Shakil, if we wanted to read the Koran, would we need you here on SCI?
Why give us refrences, tell us what is written. I have not made any
allegations against the Koran, I have only commented on what people
like you have said about Muhammed. For eg some Muslim commented that
Muhammed had 4 wives at one time, and some other Muslims have said
Muhammed had more than 4 wives, I pointed out the contradiction.
I think whatever is written in the Koran, it is very shady when a man
claims he has got some special rights. So what do you have to say about
that? Note if I wanted to read the Koran, I wouldn't be asking you?
This thread was not started for a serious discussion, a Muslim guy was
trying to show that his way is the best and we all are going to hell.
I am trying to show that Islam is not perfect. For serious discussions
on Islam, an Islamic group was opened, no?
>
>>
>> It seems the guys are not doing any charity here. For taking care of
>> orphans it seems they want something from the female. Why can't they
>> take care of the females without marrying them?
>
>Marriage gives them protection and guaranteed shelter. Otherwise you
>end up with the system you have here where a high percentage of single
>parents in the inner cities are on welfare and barely make it through
>the day.
There millions of people in the third world countries that starve. So what
is your point here? Like I said before, if females wanted protection
and shelter they had to give Muhammed something in return, so he was
not doing any charity. Here the govt guarantees that single women and
orphans in the inner city do not starve, without expecting anything from
them, this is known as charity. There are so many single parents making
a lot of money and also there are a lot of married people on welfare, so
where is the connection? Note you also said single parents and not single
mothers. Even Islam does not have any solution for single fathers, they
cannot marry a female who is already married, so she can take care of his
kids.
>> >are obvious. Since family structure is so important, it is easy to
>> >see that while the mother of a child is easily determined, polyandry
>> >would make it difficult to determine the father of a child. All these
>> >reasons are strong arguments against polyandry.
>>
>> Did Allah not know about the various races present on Earth?
>> He should have said something like this. A Bangladeshi woman
>> can marry 1 oriental, 1 white, 1 african and 1 Bangladeshi male.
>> That too in exceptional circumstances and not more than 4 at
>> any one time. This will make it very easy to determine the
>> the father of the child.
>
>I guess you don't know much about genetics, huh? :-)
Frankly, there is very much we all don't know. Why are you shying away
from this question. Why would this not work? I know you are just
fighting for time.
>
>> >> What makes you think that you know the Koran more than Khomeni? Or was
>> >> Khomeni just some sadistic psycho? Do you even know old Arabic in which
>> >> the Koran was originaly written?
>> >
>> >Please answer my question and do not try to divert attention. I can
>> >prove to you that Islam does not require veils through the Qur'an, in
>> >English or in Arabic. Can you show me any passages from Islamic
>> >scriptures which state such a requirement?
>>
>> Do you say that viel is not a requirement in the Koran? OK I
>> will take your word for it. Now when are we going to let Khameni
>> know about this?
>
>Why do you keep bringing up Khomeni/Khameni? Answer my question: Can
>you show that Islam requires the veil? If not, do you admit that you
>are wrong? If so, why did you make such allegations when you clearly
>know nothing about Islam?
Shakil, haven't I said that I believe you, that viel is not required.
Is there a dress code in Islam?
>> Who cares about the verses?
>
>Muslims do. That is how Islam is defined. You accuse Islam of being
>guilty of A, B and C. I show you the verses which show that A, B and
>C are not true in Islam. Now you say who cares about the verses?
>What kind of logic is this?
Ok let us do this one more time. Is there a verse in Koran where
it says for financial dealing 2 male witnesses are recommended or
1 male and 2 females? If yes then is Allah a sexist?
>> >There is no Islamic state.
>>
>> Why? Do you think that it can never be implemented? Just like
>> there was never a perfect communist state.
>
>There is no Islamic state because it hasn't been implemented. There
>was once. And it does not mean that there never will be or that it
>cannot be implemented. There is also no perfectly secular society, but
>people are still striving all the same.
>
Human beings are not perfect, so we can never have a perfect system.
A secular system which is not perfect seems to be much better than an
Islamic system which is not perfect.
>
>-- Shakil
Manoj
Akash R. Deshpande
>A being is designed to follow exactly to the letter the instructions from
>any book of religion of your choice....
Does it biget or is it bigotten?)
-Akash
Nath S. Gopalaswamy
>>Being Kaffir does not make you my enemy, It makes you a target which
>>deserves more effort to reach and bring the message of Islam to.
>>
What do I do if I do not want to become such a target? What if I do not
want to be liberated? What if the liberation you have in mind is vastly
different from my idea of liberation?
It is precisely this insistence on "liberation" by whatever means possible,
that I find dangerous. Maybe bringing the message a couple of times is ok
but then if the person is not interested, he should be left alone. Might as
well turn everyone into robots programmed from a book of instructions.
Creativity and diversity is what makes humans different from mechanical
beings and they should not be subverted.
>>
>>May Allah Guide you to the straight path.
A scenario for VR addicts,
A being is designed to follow exactly to the letter the instructions from
any book of religion of your choice. The being interacts with his environment
in exactly the same way ( he is programmed to do that remember? ). Now, the
computer generated program ( read being ) has to grow old and die ( terminate)
Will it or he go to heaven? What heaven will it go to? ( No quips about a
separate heaven for old and faulty computer programs please :-) )
Milind Saraph
>But it also
>fails to take into account the problem of infinite family chains. If
>polyandry were also permitted, it is very easy to show mathematically
>that one could end up with infinite family chains.
I have expressed my curiosity about this problem of "infinite family
chains" before. Could you elaborate on it more, preferrably with
"mathematical analysis?" A reference in English is fine.
-- Milind Saraph
Ahmed El-Habbash
>In article <1993Mar9.1...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-H
>abbash) writes:
>>Before Islam the number of wives was open. It could be hundreds.
>>Islam restricted it to a maximum of four wives, however, Muslims can
>>divorce, so they can change their wives when they want that.
>>However, the Prophet (SAW) was restricted more, that he can neither
>>divorce, nor marry new wives.
>>If you read about the wives of the Prophet (SAW), what they are, you may
>>change your mind. one of these wives was a very old women, with five
>>children with her.
> Though I see the well intentions of Prophet here, I really fail
> to see how could marrying nine or ten women serve that purpose. Number
> of poor, old, not-so-well women must have been in thousands, may be in
> millions. Noone could marry that many, however benevolent his wishes.
> Since mumber of wives were restricted for other muslims, I don't think
> marrying many by Prophet helped at all.
> Raja
In fact no one can claim that the marriages of the Prophet (SAW) were
made for humanitarian purpose only. The Prophet himself didn't claim
that. But when we read about the history of the Prophet (saw) and his
marriages we notice that there is alot of wisdom. Some of his wives are
rich, some are poor, some are old, some are very young, some of them are
captives, some are relatives, and some of them he married as a direct
command from Allah to break some of the traditions of the Arabs, at that
time. So having nine or more wives by one person, the Prophet (SAW) was
not the solution of poor women, however, it is still polygamy, and, I
believe, polygamy can offer the real solution not only for poor women,
but for every society. I know that many people will not accept my point,
but to those I would like to say: Isn't polygamy the norm in USA, if you
don't know that read statistics about it. The difference between the
Islamic polygamy and the western polygamy is that in Islam polygamy
is a normal respectable marriage, while in the west polygamy is only
illicit sex and cheating.
As I mentioned before, the difference between the Prophet (SAW) and any
ordinary Muslim is that Muslims who had more than four wives before
Islam, they can keep only four wives as a maximum. However, they were
free to change their wives. The Prophet was stuck with the wives he
already had. So this was not a privilige for the Prophet as you may have
thought, but it was more restriction on him. You may ask a question:
But why was he different from the other Muslims, and my answer: because
he is different, and as Muslims, we accept that without without any
argument. If you want to question why Allah did this or that you will
never get a satisfactory answer, because Allah will not tell you the
answer, and any answers you may get from other people are not
necessarily true.
So the humanitarian purpose that some of the posters mentioned is not
necessarily true, but it could be one of the purposes. I can give you
many other purposes, but I am sure that will not make any difference to
you.
There are many things that the Prophet (SAW) did but we were not commanded
to do and sometimes it was forbidden for us to do. The prayers he used
to do, his fasting, and the trouble he had in delivering the message of
Allah to mankined, all that is impossible for us to do. Unfortunately we
are not doing the simple things that we are supposed to do. Many Muslims
testify that there is no gods but Allah, but in reality they have many
Gods; the love of money, the low desires, this transient life, etc. .
So we do not look at the Prophet (saw) as some one that we compete with
him, otherwise we surely will fail, but we look to him as the mercy which
was sent to makind, the exemplification of the message of Allah.
What is that message of Allah, this is the real question, which has not
been raised. !!
Ahmed El-Habbash
>Human beings are not perfect, so we can never have a perfect system.
This is not correct, logically. Your statementy should be rewritten as:
Human beings are not perfect, so we can never design a perfect system.
>A secular system which is not perfect seems to be much better than an
>Islamic system which is not perfect.
Again this is not correct, but before correcting it, I will state an
important fact.
Islam cannot be compared with a secular system. A major part of Islam is
the preparation for the second and eternal life. Although Islam does not
ignore this temporary life, but it considers this life as something
insignificant when compared with the hereafter. A secular system ignores
about the hereafter.
Now is it true that a secular system which you admit it is not perfect,
better than an Islamic system which is not perfect ?
The Islamic system cannot be described as "not perfect". You can say "not
Islamic". Islam is a complete system, which considers this life and the
life to come. Any separation between these two aspects will make it
something else, and any alteration will also make it something else.
So if we consider the aspects of the Islamic system which deals with
this life and ignore about the life to come aspects, this will look like
a secular approach. Does that work ? It is not guaranteed, It is not
Islam.
>Manoj
Sumitro Samaddar
>> any one time. This will make it very easy to determine the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> the father of the child.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Really?? How?? What if all the kids look exactly like
> the mother.
Nowdays genetics can be used to determine paternity. Why didn't Allah
forsee this possibility? Even if this were not possible, why can't
more than 1 men observe strict rules where only 1 of them has sex
without condoms with their common wife. Each of them can take turns
siring kids if they wish to do so.
- Sumitro
Ahmed El-Habbash
>>>
>>>Being Kaffir does not make you my enemy, It makes you a target which
>>>deserves more effort to reach and bring the message of Islam to.
>>>
>What do I do if I do not want to become such a target? What if I do not
>want to be liberated? What if the liberation you have in mind is vastly
>different from my idea of liberation?
The target does not make itself as such. What would you do if you see
someone about to drown in the sea? Do you try to help him ? What would
you do if he refuses your help, perhaps because he thinks that he can
manage himself ? Do you leave him to die, or you keep watching and
thinking about him, because he may come to ask for your help ?
>It is precisely this insistence on "liberation" by whatever means possible,
>that I find dangerous.
Do you consider the commercial breaks as dangerous because of the
insistence. I am assuming that they advertize good things, though.
>Maybe bringing the message a couple of times is ok
>but then if the person is not interested, he should be left alone. Might as
>well turn everyone into robots programmed from a book of instructions.
>Creativity and diversity is what makes humans different from mechanical
>beings and they should not be subverted.
>>>
>>>May Allah Guide you to the straight path.
--
GOPAKUMAR VENUGOPALAN
>In <C3nK2...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gopa...@gus21.ecn.purdue.edu (Nath S. Gopalaswamy) writes:
>
>>>>
>>>>Being Kaffir does not make you my enemy, It makes you a target which
Why do you people make such assumptions that Islam would make us
see GOD why do you impose? This is precisely why my neighbours asked
me not to go to a Christian school..the risk of conversion..
Why this is the reason why Muslims are disliked..forcible conversion
in the past....
Have you seen a single instance of a hindu trying to impose his way
of devotion on others.....
Here I know Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who knock my door every
other weekend and tell me they would not take no for an answer and
will keep trying........
If I find a particular lifestyle would bring me salvation then let me
have it........
It is especially funny when the educated people in gradute school who
are contributing to various disciplines of knowledge, refuse to accept
that there are multiple realities out there and nothing is right or wrong.
Is the same closed mind that guides your research or dissertation ?
How can you guys practice a form of research which is not what you are
trying to preach ?
bye
gopa
Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi
The reason a woman is not allowed to have more than one husband is
among other things because one would not know who the father of
the child was. This is not the case in polygamy.
Raja R Roy
In article <1nll7o$6...@agate.berkeley.edu> saf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Ausaf Ahmad
well, it can be very easily found scientifically. Let's leave that
aside. Draupdi was allowed to have five husbands, and yet there is
no confusion about who was whose son. Each one of them got a chance
to have sex with her for exactly one year, so it was really easy.
We don't even have to go for one year. Everyone getting one month
will make it so easy.
Raja
>
Manoj Ghayalod
I like your anwser, you have not tried to defend any of Allah's action.
But I wouldn't equate polygamy with illicit sex lives followed here.
Because this action is not restricted to males only. I see your frustration
in seeing that nobody has asked the real question of Allah's, I am sure
if people were interested they would go to the Islamic news group. I am
sorry that there was such a hostile reaction from us, but some Muslim
guy said we Hindus are going to hell. I am sure you will agree that
this is not a polite thing to say, even if you all really believe that.
But please feel free to post anything you want on SCI.
Manoj
Yazmasterj
What about genetic testing? Does the existence of methods by which paternity
can be ascertained permit women to indulge themselves in multiple spouses?
Yasmin
--
Yazmasterj The spear in the Other's heart
(aka Yasmin Sohrawardy) is the spear in your own:
State University of NY at Albany you are he
Internet: ys3...@csc.albany.edu -Surak
ajay.singh
>In article <1993Mar10....@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash) writes:
>>In <1993Mar9.2...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rr...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Raja R Roy) writes:
>>
>>
>>>In article <1993Mar9.1...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-H
>>>abbash) writes:
>>
>>>>Before Islam the number of wives was open. It could be hundreds.
>>>>Islam restricted it to a maximum of four wives, however, Muslims can
>>>>divorce, so they can change their wives when they want that.
>>>>However, the Prophet (SAW) was restricted more, that he can neither
>>>>divorce, nor marry new wives.
>>>>If you read about the wives of the Prophet (SAW), what they are, you may
>>>>change your mind. one of these wives was a very old women, with five
>>>>children with her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>> Though I see the well intentions of Prophet here, I really fail
>>> to see how could marrying nine or ten women serve that purpose. Number
>>> of poor, old, not-so-well women must have been in thousands, may be in
>>> millions. Noone could marry that many, however benevolent his wishes.
>>> Since mumber of wives were restricted for other muslims, I don't think
>>> marrying many by Prophet helped at all.
>>
>>> Raja
>>
>>In fact no one can claim that the marriages of the Prophet (SAW) were
>>made for humanitarian purpose only. The Prophet himself didn't claim
>>that. But when we read about the history of the Prophet (saw) and his
>>marriages we notice that there is alot of wisdom. Some of his wives are
??????????????????????????????????????????
Islam/Allah forbids to accept one as a motherly figure, or in the case of
Ahilya/Ayush as daughter ??
( the above could have been accepted as an act of WISDOM )
Or You just dont want to portray the fact of MOHAMMED as HAWASY man ?
>>rich, some are poor, some are old, some are very young, some of them are
>>captives, some are relatives, and some of them he married as a direct
>>command from Allah to break some of the traditions of the Arabs, at that
>>time. So having nine or more wives by one person, the Prophet (SAW) was
>>not the solution of poor women, however, it is still polygamy, and, I
>>believe, polygamy can offer the real solution not only for poor women,
>>but for every society. I know that many people will not accept my point,
>>but to those I would like to say: Isn't polygamy the norm in USA, if you
>>don't know that read statistics about it. The difference between the
>>Islamic polygamy and the western polygamy is that in Islam polygamy
>>is a normal respectable marriage, while in the west polygamy is only
>>illicit sex and cheating.
>>
>>As I mentioned before, the difference between the Prophet (SAW) and any
>>ordinary Muslim is that Muslims who had more than four wives before
>>Islam, they can keep only four wives as a maximum. However, they were
>>free to change their wives.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is it WIFE SWAPPING ? Oh! in that sense the preachings were
very very advanced !!
>>The Prophet was stuck with the wives he
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>already had.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>So this was not a privilige for the Prophet as you may have
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>thought, but it was more restriction on him. You may ask a question:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>But why was he different from the other Muslims, and my answer: because
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>he is different, and as Muslims, we accept that without without any
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>argument. If you want to question why Allah did this or that you will
~~~~~~~~~~~
>>never get a satisfactory answer, because Allah will not tell you the
>>answer, and any answers you may get from other people are not
>>necessarily true.
>>So the humanitarian purpose that some of the posters mentioned is not
>>necessarily true, but it could be one of the purposes. I can give you
>>many other purposes, but I am sure that will not make any difference to
>>you.
>>
>>There are many things that the Prophet (SAW) did but we were not commanded
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>to do and sometimes it was forbidden for us to do. The prayers he used
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>to do, his fasting, and the trouble he had in delivering the message of
>>Allah to mankined, all that is impossible for us to do. Unfortunately we
>>are not doing the simple things that we are supposed to do. Many Muslims
>>testify that there is no gods but Allah, but in reality they have many
>>Gods; the love of money, the low desires, this transient life, etc. .
>>So we do not look at the Prophet (saw) as some one that we compete with
>>him, otherwise we surely will fail, but we look to him as the mercy which
>>was sent to makind, the exemplification of the message of Allah.
>>
>>What is that message of Allah, this is the real question, which has not
>>been raised. !!
>>
>>--
>>Ahmed I. El-Habbash,
>>Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
>>Tel: office: +353-1-7021524, Home: +353-1-937402.
>>
Is'nt there a flicker of doubt ? As there was'nt a intermediary between ALLAH
and MOHAMMED, to authenticate his receivable sermons, As MOHAMMED might have
tricked the followers/people around him by uttering
" THIS IS THE WILL OF ALLAH " to satisfy his own drive/ambitions ? As it
was/is acknowledged world-over that the ARABS were NOMADIC TRIBES.
As the saying goes " THE SQUINT(ed) EYED IS THE KING AMONG THE VISIONLESS "
( as MOHAMMED was naturally the smartest among the flocks's of no-mads )
>
>I like your anwser, you have not tried to defend any of Allah's action.
>But I wouldn't equate polygamy with illicit sex lives followed here.
>Because this action is not restricted to males only. I see your frustration
>in seeing that nobody has asked the real question of Allah's, I am sure
>if people were interested they would go to the Islamic news group. I am
>sorry that there was such a hostile reaction from us, but some Muslim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>guy said we Hindus are going to hell. I am sure you will agree that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SURE WE HINDUS WILL/DO GO TO HELL ( islamic version ) , WHERE THER ARE
BEATIFUL GARDENS LIKE THE BRINDAVAN, THE SEASONS OF SPRING BIRD-SINGING ALL
THE TIME,BHAJANS, KIRTANS ALL OVER, LIKE IN KRISHNA-LEELA, THE GOPI'S ARE
FEARLESSLY HAVING THEIR ABLUTIONS, WHERE THERE IS CHANDAN-HAVAN ALL YEAR ROUND,
ARTHEES LIGHT/SHINE EVERY-WHERE THE RISHIS-MUNIS EXEMPLIFY THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF
YOGA/MEDITATION/VEDIC SCIENCES.
( as the above one's are all anti-islamic, so it must be hell for you )
AND YOU MUSLIMS WILL GO TO HEAVEN ( islamic version ), WHERE THERE IS
NOT EVEN A SINGLE DEEYA/CHIRAAG ( light ), DESERTED LAND NO MUSIC / SHINE
JUST " GUM-HEE-GUM ", SCATTERED HERE AND THERE A FEW DATE TREES, WHICH IS
NOT EVEN USEFUL FOR PROVIDING EVEN A SPADE OF SHADE, THE WOMENFOLKS ARE
GOUPED UNDER ONE SHELTER FORCED TO WEAR THEIR VEILS, THE TEMP IS 110, EVERY
BODY SWEATING. AND ----- ------------------------------
>this is not a polite thing to say, even if you all really believe that.
>But please feel free to post anything you want on SCI.
>
>Manoj
Ajay
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
Oh ye Muslims, Embracing the views of ye so called holier-than-thou Koran,
those lost souls with little understanding,ill-disposed and devoted to cruel
actions, are born for the destruction of the world.
Men belonging to the demoniac group know not what is right activity and what
is right cessation of activity. Hence they posses neither purity ( internal/ext)nor good conduct nor truth.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Nath S. Gopalaswamy
>someone about to drown in the sea? Do you try to help him ? What would
>you do if he refuses your help, perhaps because he thinks that he can
>manage himself ? Do you leave him to die, or you keep watching and
>thinking about him, because he may come to ask for your help ?
Aahhhh..the timeless old analogy. Ok how do you know the person is more than
cpable of handling himself or not? He has not asked you for help. He may
not want to because he does not believe you are a capable person to do so.
He may already have a trusted person to help him out in such situations.
And more importantly what if he knows that if he lets you help him, both
will drown, so he would much rather rely on his trusted friend to save him.
Or he knows that there is a shark in the water, and by wading in, he might
be responsible for your death also. See, this analogy can be twisted and
mangled without end . What if you were hallicunating that the person
is in danger, and are disturbing his peace and privacy unnecessarily?
Probably that is why even though you might want to "save" him, he just
wants to be left alone. Please consider this viewpoint. "you" here is not
you personally, but used in a generic sense.
>
>>It is precisely this insistence on "liberation" by whatever means possible,
>>that I find dangerous.
>
>Do you consider the commercial breaks as dangerous because of the
>insistence. I am assuming that they advertize good things, though.
Precisely! That depends on individual judgement, and can vary from person
to person, but one should not impose his judgement on others.
Also, if I do not like the commercial, I can always switch the TV off,
or chnge the channel. :-)
Sudarshan Ramachandran
>I am kind of getting fed up with this debate...could we please
>move to something else
You don't like "Misconceptions about Islam" ?
Would "Conception in Islam" interest you? :) :)
Sorry, can't tell you much. Not well "Versed" in
the concept :)
yes!
=====================================================
Sudarshan [you know an article has been *crossposted*
to sci if you find the poster's middle name longer
than the article itself] Ramachandran
=====================================================
Two toots for the humor-impaired :)
Zafar Siddiqui
>In article <C3owr...@uceng.uc.edu> mgha...@uceng.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
>>In article <1993Mar10....@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash) writes:
>>>In <1993Mar9.2...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rr...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Raja R Roy) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <1993Mar9.1...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-H
>>>>abbash) writes:
>>>
The true Servants of the Merciful are those who walk
humbly on the earth and when the ignorant address
them they say: "Peace."
(AL-Quran 25:63)
(And true Servants of God are those) who do not
bear false witness and do not lose their dignity
when listening to profane chatter;
(AL-Quran 25:72)
Zafar.
arun.k.gupta
If one goes to hell merely for being a non-Muslim, then hell must be
quite an interesting place. Apart from your genociders and mass-murderers,
and such like, there will be Kalidasa and Sankara and Einstein and
Newton and Feynman and Shakespeare and .....
-arun
gu...@jolt.att.com
Javed Ahmed Khan
And we would meet the likes of Khomeni, Advani, Bukhari and Shahbuddin in heaven
!!
yikes....
--Javed.
KANDALA SRINIVAS
>
> In article: <1993Mar11.1...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
> ag...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (arun.k.gupta) writes:
>
>> If one goes to hell merely for being a non-Muslim, then hell must be
> I would rather use the word "non-believer"
>
>> quite an interesting place. Apart from your genociders and mass-murderers,
>> and such like, there will be Kalidasa and Sankara and Einstein and
>> Newton and Feynman and Shakespeare and .....
Shakespeare a jew! WOW! learning new things! Newton wasn't a jew either.
Feynman was born in a jewish family, but didn't put too much belief in it.
So only Einstein from the above list must have gone to heaven :-))
srini
> Correct me if I am wrong but IMO all of them are Jew (I am
> not sure about Shakespeare) and Jews fall under the category
> of "believers".
>>
>> -arun
>> gu...@jolt.att.com
>--
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Mohammed Nadeem e-mail: nad...@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu
> "TREAT OTHERS THE WAY YOU WANT THEM TO TREAT YOU"
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
Blue Jays: 1992 World Champions
G
:In article <1993Mar11.1...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>,
:ag...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com >(arun.k.gupta) writes:
:>
:>
:> If one goes to hell merely for being a non-Muslim, then hell must be
:> quite an interesting place. Apart from your genociders and mass-murderers,
:> and such like, there will be Kalidasa and Sankara and Einstein and
:> Newton and Feynman and Shakespeare and .....
:>
:> -arun
:> gu...@jolt.att.com
Except that one does not go to hell merely by being a non-Muslim.
:And we would meet the likes of Khomeni, Advani, Bukhari and Shahbuddin in
:heaven >!!
And one does not go to heaven by being a Muslim. Only God decides who
goes where. I think that is the general supposition of Islam.
> yikes....
>
>
>--Javed.
Vilok Kusumakar
>
>In article <1nll7o$6...@agate.berkeley.edu> saf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Ausaf Ahmad
> Quraishi) writes:
>>Manoj,
>>
>>The reason a woman is not allowed to have more than one husband is
>>among other things because one would not know who the father of
>>the child was. This is not the case in polygamy.
This shouldn't matter anymore, because nowdays father of a child can
easily be found out using a simple blood test. So Is Islam outdated or
just your explanation of it ?
sha...@charlie.usd.edu
I don't know why am I getting into this argument again but here goes. Polgamy
is as bad as polyandry(I sure hope I got the terms right). Polygamy was allowed
in the times of the prophet because many men, both young and old, died in
combat. This made the wives of dead soldiers widows. Takind into account the
biological, social, and economic needs of these widows Islam allowed polygamy.
Nowadays, polygamy has becaome a joke, and is often used to satiate the male
carnal needs. In India many people turn 'muslim" inorder to have more than one
wife. This is truly chauvanistic behavior. Many Americans have told me that it
is so cool that the Muslim religion allows 4 wives. The fact that Islam allows
polygamy has become a joke. Polygamy is bad except in the most extreme cases. A
justification like......a child will not know the identity of his father if the
woman marries more than one person....is extremely weak. Both polygamy and
polyandry arenot fair to either spouse in either case. It is sad that Islam
allows its followers to bend the rules as much as they do. I repeat, Polygamy
is bad except in the most extreme cases.
Shariq
M Khalequzzaman
Why not? Women can keep track of their use of contraceptive and the track record of the time they spend with their husbands. One can plan nowadays to have
or not to have a child from a person of desire. Now that it is possible to control the birth of a child (and I think there is nothing wrong in a familily-
planning program according to Islamic laws), do you think the original law
pertaining to women's marriage should be changed?
>
>
Kashif Haque
Islam is neither outdated nor his explanation. You have already made up your
mind about Islam and that is the reason why you neglected to see that it is
one of the reason. There are other reasons which i am sure you can well
relate to. So simmer in your own disgust.
Don't try to respond unless you are really sincere. Besides I won't be here to
entertain you.
Kashif
Yazmasterj
>>>The reason a woman is not allowed to have more than one husband is
>>>among other things because one would not know who the father of
>>>the child was. This is not the case in polygamy.
>>
>>What about genetic testing? Does the existence of methods by which paternity
>>can be ascertained permit women to indulge themselves in multiple spouses?
>
>is as bad as polyandry(I sure hope I got the terms right). Polygamy was allowed
>in the times of the prophet because many men, both young and old, died in
>combat. This made the wives of dead soldiers widows. Takind into account the
>biological, social, and economic needs of these widows Islam allowed polygamy.
>Nowadays, polygamy has becaome a joke, and is often used to satiate the male
>carnal needs. In India many people turn 'muslim" inorder to have more than one
>wife. This is truly chauvanistic behavior. Many Americans have told me that it
>is so cool that the Muslim religion allows 4 wives. The fact that Islam allows
>polygamy has become a joke. Polygamy is bad except in the most extreme cases. A
>justification like......a child will not know the identity of his father if the
>woman marries more than one person....is extremely weak. Both polygamy and
>polyandry arenot fair to either spouse in either case. It is sad that Islam
>allows its followers to bend the rules as much as they do. I repeat, Polygamy
>is bad except in the most extreme cases.
Frankly, I agree with you completely. I agree with your opinions of polygamy
today and your reasoning of the permissability of polygyny in the past. My
comment was not intended as a sanction of polygamy at all. It
was intended to refute the notion that many men seem to have (from my
observation of posts on the subject) that polyandry would be totally
impractical but polygyny is reasonable. I think that if men advocate polygyny,
they should be prepared to accept the flip side of the picture as well.
Polyandry is not as impractical as some think, with the help of modern
science.
There is a stereotype which states that men have a greater drive for sexual
pleasure than women. This, combined with the paternity issue, has been used
to justify polygyny. I would like to disabuse people of this myth.
I believe both men and women should be prepared to commit to monogamy, if they
intend to marry. IMHO, it is the only way to be fair to both spouses.
Danny Keren
## and such like, there will be Kalidasa and Sankara and Einstein and
^^^^^^^^^^^
## Newton and Feynman and Shakespeare and .....
# ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
# Correct me if I am wrong but IMO all of them are Jew (I am
# not sure about Shakespeare) and Jews fall under the category
# of "believers".
Newton and Shakesphere were Christians, Einstein and Feynman Jews.
But what intrigues me is why Jews are considered "believers" and
Christian not!? Is it because Islam rejects that Jesus was a
manifestation of God?
Also, I would like to know what exactly is the conception of hell in
Islam? I remember reading in "The Portrait of the Artist as a Young
Man" that long, blood-curling description of this fiery hell in which
one burns forever, presented to students in a Catholic school. Is it
the same in Islam - I mean, is hell eternal or do some just have to pass
through it for some period? (I realize there might be different
conceptions within Islam about this).
Thanks,
-Danny Keren.
BGQT000
>
>Newton and Shakesphere were Christians, Einstein and Feynman Jews.
>
>But what intrigues me is why Jews are considered "believers" and
>Christian not!? Is it because Islam rejects that Jesus was a
>manifestation of God?
Neither Jews nor Christians are considered "believers" in Islam.
Only those who believe in the revelation to Muhammed are believers.
However, both groups have a special status in Islam as "Ahl-e-Kitab"
(literally: people of the book) meaning they follow revealed scriptures,
though "altered" from Islamic perspective....
The Qur'an specifically asks believers to speak "modestly" when arguing
with the Ahl-e-Kitab (on religious issues). Muslim men are allowed to
marry Christian girls. Muslims can also eat kosher.
>Also, I would like to know what exactly is the conception of hell in
>Islam? I remember reading in "The Portrait of the Artist as a Young
>Man" that long, blood-curling description of this fiery hell in which
>one burns forever, presented to students in a Catholic school. Is it
>the same in Islam - I mean, is hell eternal or do some just have to pass
>through it for some period? (I realize there might be different
>conceptions within Islam about this).
Let's stick to the Qur'an alone. Hell burns forever and will be
"brought near" on the day of Judgment. Its fuel will be rocks,
stones, and men. It is God's own "kindled" fire.
"Unbelievers" (this was directed at the idolators in Mecca
rejecting the revelation) will burn there forever. They will "neither
live nor die" there. They will "call for death but death won't come."
"Zaqqum" tree grows at the nethermost part of the hell. Inmates will
feed on its thorny bitter fruits and get only boiling water to drink.
The hypocrites (those who profess to be believers, but are not) will
also go to hell.
The Qur'an doesn't specifically mention if sinning believers will go
to hell. But we believe that sinning muslims will also go to hell
but for some period.
>Thanks,
>
>-Danny Keren.
>
Regards,
--Moin /McGill.
Ahmed El-Habbash
>In article <1993Mar10....@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash) writes:
>>In <C3nK2...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gopa...@gus21.ecn.purdue.edu (Nath S. Gopalaswamy) writes:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Being Kaffir does not make you my enemy, It makes you a target which
>
> Why do you people make such assumptions that Islam would make us
> see GOD why do you impose? This is precisely why my neighbours asked
> me not to go to a Christian school..the risk of conversion..
> Why this is the reason why Muslims are disliked..forcible conversion
> in the past....
I wouldn't argue about forcible conversions in the past, but I would
like to say, this is not Islam.
> Have you seen a single instance of a hindu trying to impose his way
> of devotion on others.....
I know many Hindu who couldn't talk about their devotion, because they
don't believe in what they had inherited ( as part of their culture )
from their anscestors. I saw some people who consider the COW as their
god, others take the fire, others take snakes and other animals, and the
majority take stones and pieces of wood which represent some people who
lived in the past, as gods. So what do you expect a hindu to talk about?
Islam is based on one concept: There is no god, of whatever nature, but
one God, the creater and sustainer of the world, and that Muhammed is
His servant and His messenger. This life is transient, and no one will
live for ever, however, their is another life which is endless, and that
your fate in the other life is determined by God, according to the
result of your work in this life.
Without this main concept, every thing else in Islam is meaning-less.
Being a target, should not subject you to harrassment and continual
bothering from me or any other Muslim. Even delivering the message of
Islam to a non-Muslim, should be through wisdom and nice approaches.
A Muslim should train himself to carry the message of God to others,
he should be an impressive example in his behaviour and his approach.
This should not bother any non-Muslim.
As a Muslim, I would appreciate it if some one came to me to explain why
should one worship a Cow, or a piece of wood or stone, ..etc. Are these
things going to harm me if I didn't offer my worship, or are they going
to do good to me if I made more worship. I don't mind any discussion in
that regard, and I will not consider any one who is preaching for the
cow as forcing his faith upon me, he is in fact speaking about himself,
so I know him better.
> Here I know Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who knock my door every
> other weekend and tell me they would not take no for an answer and
> will keep trying........
> If I find a particular lifestyle would bring me salvation then let me
> have it........
> It is especially funny when the educated people in gradute school who
> are contributing to various disciplines of knowledge, refuse to accept
> that there are multiple realities out there and nothing is right or wrong.
> Is the same closed mind that guides your research or dissertation ?
If we really have open minds, then we will discover that the more
research we do the more we realize that we are discovering only a little
bit of what is already created by the real Creator, and there are many
things left to further research, and many many other things that we
still don't know.
> How can you guys practice a form of research which is not what you are
> trying to preach ?
> bye
> gopa
Ahmed El-Habbash
>In article <1nll7o$6...@agate.berkeley.edu> saf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Ausaf Ahmad
> Quraishi) writes:
>>Manoj,
>>
>>The reason a woman is not allowed to have more than one husband is
>>among other things because one would not know who the father of
>>the child was. This is not the case in polygamy.
>>
> well, it can be very easily found scientifically. Let's leave that
> aside. Draupdi was allowed to have five husbands, and yet there is
> no confusion about who was whose son. Each one of them got a chance
> to have sex with her for exactly one year, so it was really easy.
So why do you call this as multiple husbands?
Any woman can marry many husbands in this way, even in Islam. Marry one,
get divorce, marry another, and so on. But this is not multiple
husbands.
> Raja
Ahmed El-Habbash
>In article <1nll7o$6...@agate.berkeley.edu> saf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi) went on about...
>>Manoj,
>>
>>The reason a woman is not allowed to have more than one husband is
>>among other things because one would not know who the father of
>>the child was. This is not the case in polygamy.
>What about genetic testing? Does the existence of methods by which paternity
>can be ascertained permit women to indulge themselves in multiple spouses?
>Yasmin
No. The reason stated above could be one reason among many other
reasons, and it may not be a reason at all.
Islam considers the differences between male and female, and according
to that the Islamic rules are made.
Allah is the creator of male and female, and he knows the differences
better than male and better than female creatures.
There are many differences that we, human, can perceive. there are
physical differences, sexual differences, psychological differences, and
mental differences. This is a fact, however, these differences are not
made for fun. The male and female are made to complement one another,
but not to compete with each others. We should know the differences
between male and female and we should use this knowledge to complement
each other in the proper way. Ignoring the differences and going to
compete with each others will not lead but to the loss for both male and
female.
So the differences which are well known to Allah, and actually made by
Him, surely are considered by him when He made the rules as seen in
Islam. It is not necessary that we should know all the reasons behind
any of these rules, but it could be good to try and find out.
Ahmed El-Habbash
>In article <1993Mar10....@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash) writes:
>>
>>The target does not make itself as such. What would you do if you see
>>someone about to drown in the sea? Do you try to help him ? What would
>>you do if he refuses your help, perhaps because he thinks that he can
>>manage himself ? Do you leave him to die, or you keep watching and
>>thinking about him, because he may come to ask for your help ?
>Aahhhh..the timeless old analogy. Ok how do you know the person is more than
>cpable of handling himself or not? He has not asked you for help. He may
>not want to because he does not believe you are a capable person to do so.
>He may already have a trusted person to help him out in such situations.
>And more importantly what if he knows that if he lets you help him, both
>will drown, so he would much rather rely on his trusted friend to save him.
>Or he knows that there is a shark in the water, and by wading in, he might
>be responsible for your death also. See, this analogy can be twisted and
>mangled without end . What if you were hallicunating that the person
>is in danger, and are disturbing his peace and privacy unnecessarily?
>Probably that is why even though you might want to "save" him, he just
>wants to be left alone. Please consider this viewpoint. "you" here is not
>you personally, but used in a generic sense.
>
You see, you agree that the drowning person is a target for help, so you
try to reach him and offer your help. However, if he refused, for any
reason, then it is his problem, you are not supposed to force him to
accept your help. However, as a civilized person you have to report the
case to some authorized body. Human life should not be so cheap, you
have to do the best for the other humans.
>>
>>>It is precisely this insistence on "liberation" by whatever means possible,
>>>that I find dangerous.
>>
>>Do you consider the commercial breaks as dangerous because of the
>>insistence. I am assuming that they advertize good things, though.
>Precisely! That depends on individual judgement, and can vary from person
>to person, but one should not impose his judgement on others.
>Also, if I do not like the commercial, I can always switch the TV off,
>or chnge the channel. :-)
The same applies for preaching your beliefs or ideas, some people will
accept, and some others would reject, and in all cases you have to use
the best approach to reach your target.
>>>>>
>>>>>May Allah Guide you to the straight path.
>>
--
Ahmed I. El-Habbash,
Ahmed El-Habbash
It is his explanation, which is incorrect.
Ahmed El-Habbash
>Yasmin
>--
It is a pitty to see people talking about a religion form their point of
view, particularly when these opinions are baseless, and are not related
to the religion which they are referencing.
If you like or dislike polygamy, that does not change the rules of the
religion.
Polygamy is bad !! who said that ? Islam? no. You said that, what are
your basis, have you done an extensive research and obtained a
conclusive result to support that or just giving a baseless opinion?
To your knowledge, Polygamy is not made lawful for specific
circumstances as you mentioned. It is open, and resricted to four wives.
However, being open does not mean that every muslim should marry four.
On the other hand if there are Muslims who are capable to support four
wives, and the wives are happy (they cannot be forced to polygamy), then
what is wrong in that?
Why women are not given the same right? Because they are not men, and
they should not think of becomming men unless they feel inferior.
The divine laws are not based on the desires and illusions of few
individuals but it is a divine code which is perfectly made to suit the
creation of God, considering every major and minor differnces between his
creatures as He sees and knows.
So please keep your opinions to where they can fit, and don't mix them with
Islam.
Savithri
| ^^^^^^ ^^^^
> Islam. It is not necessary that we should know all the reasons behind
|> any of these rules, but it could be good to try and find out.
|>
|>
|>
|> --
|> Ahmed I. El-Habbash,
|> Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
|> Tel: office: +353-1-7021524, Home: +353-1-937402.
|>
I guess Allah came and revealed HIMSELF to you.
The very basis of assuming that GOD/ESS is a male is nothing
but total stupidity and ignorance on ANYONE's part. (let alone
believing other stupid particulars).
Why not then assume it could be a stone or cow or mud or anything
we wish it to be. That way we will cover ALL grounds and have
no cause to worry about just incase we overlooked something
important. Remeber we have NO need to know the reasons
behind this MASTERMIND or shall we say MISTRESSMIND or ITMIND?
Have you ever wondered why most religions "SEEMED" to have been
revealed to MEN? Just in case your biased or brainwashed mind is
on the wrong track, it was to subjugate the women and make
her dependant on men. The only way to make sure is to
proclaim that GOD revelaed "HIMSELF" to me and make the women
feel that they are on a slightly lower level on most aspects
(except of course the famous motherhood-- I bet if man knew
how to manipulate it he would be the better mother too!).
So get off that high and pompous pedastal and stop
frowning on people who would prefer to worship fire/stone/cow/
whatever (w.r.t one of your other posts). Let folks decide
WHOM and WHAT they would like to worship without passing
moral judgements on that. Enough damage has already been
done by dogamtic beliefs in the name of religion.
The ONLY peaceful solution to this problem is to allow
each individual to seek one's own spiritual path and if that
means following somebody else's experience let the individual
decide that.
savithri
decide without anyone
--
.............................................
KALI, THE AVENGER
.............................................
Ahmed El-Habbash
>In article <1993Mar9.2...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rr...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Raja R Roy) writes:
>I missed the article by Ahmed El-Habbash. So this reply is not to RRR.
> |
> |In article <1993Mar9.1...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-H
> |abbash) writes:
> |>In <F43703A.93...@nucc.cc.nagoya-u.ac.jp> f43...@nucc.cc.nagoya-u.ac.j
> |p (SUPRATIC GUPTA) writes:
> |>
> |>>In article <1993Mar7.1...@usl.edu> sma...@usl.edu (Anjum Sultan M) w
> |rites:
> |>
> |>> |In article <1nbc74...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> mus...@engin.umich.edu (Ahm
> |ed R Osmani) writes:
> |>> |>
> |>> |> For you to know, he did not keep them as his love slaves forever.
> |>> |>When it was time for the women to get back on their feet, He lawfully
> |>> |>and respectfully devorced them since they did not need his support
> |>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |>
> |>Are you sure that you are not composing the wrong information about your
> |>Prophet (SAW). Please read a little bit more.
>Mohamad is not My Prophet. So I am not composing any thing against my
>Prophet.
Was it so difficult to find out that my response was to the other
poster, Ahmed Osmani ? My response was following his text (physically).
I don't know where the confusion came from.
> |>
> |>>A crooked person can say the same thing in a nice way before divorsing his
> |>>wife.
> |>
> |>Any way, you are still describing it as a nice way. However the
> |>information that you are replying to is not correct, and the imaginary
> |>divorces are from the synthesis of the poster.
> |>
>I am happy to know that it is not correct. I will try to verify.
Is it important to you to verify ?
I quoted some verses from the Quran, but you deleted them.
> |>>I AM REALLY SURPRISED THAT MOHAMAD EVEN DIVORSED THOSE HE MARRIED.
> |>>*****************************************************************
> |>
>[Quranic Qoute Deleted]
> |>
> |>> |>any longer. He did not marry out of pity only. He was also married for
> |>> |>a long time to the woman he loved. And out of all the other woman He
> |>> |>married, he never was married to more than four wives at a time.
> ??????????????????????????????????????????
>[Situations in which he married, deleted as it is not questioned]
>[Good Point from Raja about Mohamad trying to marry 10 and trying to solve
>problems of thousands of women deleted. It is easy to answer. Mohamad was
>just putting examples for other to take similar steps in life].
> |>>What a nice explanation. I wish a women can say it too.
>Here I am talking of the line underlined by ??????. Here the auther was
>trying to glorify Mohamad by saying that married more then 4 times but never
>4 at a time.
>To this Ahmed writes(I think you mis under stood me.):
> |>I don't think you wish to hear that from your wife.
>My wife can never imagine such a situation as I can never imagine divorceing
>her or marring more then once. It is not possible in socities where
>musliple marriage is discouraged.
To your knowledge, cheating in such societies that you are describing is
much more than polygamous marriages, in the societies that do not ignore
the natural need for multiple wives.
> |>> |>people to support all of them equally and I personally don't think that
> |>> |>it is possible to love them equally.
> |>
> |>>In fact Quran explicitly say that it is impossible. I don't know how
> |>>Mohamad succeded.
> |>
> |>Are you confident about your knowledge of the Quran, or it is just based
> |>on hear-say.
>Do you want a Qoute? Are you sure you don't know? Can any one Qoute those
>two verses that were refered so frequently last year?
I know these verses, but the difference between me and you is that I
understand what they mean.
>One was on allowing multiple marriage if equlity is mentained. Other
>saying that it is impossible. I can also look back my collection. But it is
>easier if some one who knows can qoute.
No, there is no contradiction as you are describing. One as you said
allows multiple marriages, if equality is maintained. Equality her means
providing similar living conditions, so that they are all happy.
The other says it is not possible to have equal feeling towards your
wives, so the solution was given in this case. The solution didn't
forbid polygamy, but gave instructions that one should not follow his
feelings, and get inclined against one of his wives leaving her as if
she is neither married, nor divorced.
>;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;NEXT POINT;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> |>> |>your enemies and are not to be friends with. This in no way implies
> |>> |>that all non-Muslims are our enemies. Nor are our perceptions of them
> |>> |>bitter or negative.
> |>
> |>
> |>>We need not be enemies, but aren't we KAFIRS?
> |>
> |>Yes you are Kaffir (not believing in Allah) as long as you have chosen
> |>to believe in something else.
>What If I reject Chosing anything, even Allah?
Still kaffir. You have chosen to believe in something else (nothing).
> |>But this is your problem. It is only the
> |>love that the Muslim must have to all mankind that force him to give you
> |>the right message of God. It is out of mercy and love to you and out of
> |>concern about you in the life to come that a muslim takes that trouble
> |>to convey to you, the message that he believes the final message of God,
> |>which will save you ( if you follow correctly ).
>Should you try conveying the massage by force?
Who said that ?
>Should you continue conveying the message even after the person has
>cetegorically rejected you?
Every thing can change ! If you reject something now, you may accept it
later, and vice versa. Any way conveying the message does not imply
harassment or offense.
>Should you break idols what they believe in, to prove that their believe
>is wrong?
Who said that ?
> |>So labelling you as Kaffir
> |>means nothing more than that you don't believe in the Message, it is not
> |>an insult. You can use the same word to describe me in the view of your
> |>religion, or to save you the trouble, I will say it my self: I am Kaffir
> |>as far as your religion is concerned.
>Sorry, No other religion except Islam does this. To say that we will
>go to hell, we are not people that should be befriended, To say peace
>be on people who beleaves in the message only - is a regretable act.
It seems that you don't know about the other religions. What about
Jodaism, and Christianity ?
I don't know about your religion, Is there a concept of Hell?
and if there is one, then who will go to Hell?
> |>
> |>Being Kaffir does not make you my enemy, It makes you a target which
> |>deserves more effort to reach and bring the message of Islam to.
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |>> |>Islam liberated women from slavery and prostitution and gave them a specia
> |l
> |>> |>place at home (not chained them to it) as wife, mother and what not. At th
> |e
> |>> |>same time Islam was the first to give women the right to own property.
> |>
> |>>Nothing great. If tomorow there arise a situation where number of women
> |>>becomes ten times that of men and GOPALJI starts a religion which allows
> |>>multiple marriage of women, that will surely be called a more advanced
> |>>religion. Islam willbe considered a Garbage.
> |>
> |>No, it is great. It is the combination of prmitting divorce and allowing
> |>restricted polygamy that can solve many of the social problems.
> |>This is a fact, and we have to respect and accept facts.
>You didnot get my Point. I agreed that in the situation Islam came (Please
>remember that we don't have similar problems in our society now and don't
>need that solutin) It was necessory.
Any solution is only needed when there is a problem, that is why it is
called a solution. So what will happen if your society had a problem ?
>I am talking of a situation where
>a) No of women = No of Man/ 10.
>b) Women keep Divocing man as they are in High Demand.
>c) Surely Islam cannot sove this problem as Islam recomands against
>multiple marriage of women. i.e. 1 women married to 4 mem at a time,
>because it is difficult to know the parent.
>d) Now Great GOPALJI(Peace be upon him) conveys a new massage through
>through some women, His prophet, that obviously is a collection of all
>the good things of all religion, + right of women to marry.
>e) Gopalji Set a new trend that Knowing the Father is not a Necessory
>Condition, So Point 4 is justified.
>In that case Islam will surely look like a Garbage.
If the ratio of men to women was 1/1000, still life will go on and
within a certain time, that ratio may get balanced.
However, if men are more than women, polyandry will not solve any
problem. Divorce would solve one side of the problem. In this case a woman
can marry a man for some time then get divorce and marry another one, and
so on.
But are the assumptions that we are assuming realistic ?
As a Muslim I believe that Polygamy or any part of the Islamic system is
coming from God, so that is why I am confident about its effectiveness
for all circumstances. Without that belief I may go assuming imajinary
situations to try to prove that Islam cannot solve the problem, but are
these assumptions going to happen ?
>A serious Question.
>******************
>Why should we know who the father of the child is? Why is this ability
>to know the father considered a difference with animal? If a child doesnot
>know who the father is, Is hea animal?
Sorry, I couldn't get what you meant by your serious question. I always
thought that any human being is different from animals, unless they prefer
to be like that.
> |>
> |>
> |>>With regards I wonder why people like to bend the truth for | Is God
> |>> achiving short term goal. Is it really difficult | playing
> |>>SUPER GOOFTA to be sincere and honest? Is it really difficult | with
> |>> to forget the differences and love each other? | us?
> |>>
> |>
> |>I also wonder!!!!
> |>
> |>I am also surprised why you are taking this stand, in this article,
> |>Supratic. I don't agree with the original poster, who is providing wrong
> |>information about his Prophet, which is very bad misinformation, but I
> |>don't think your stand was a reaction to this.
>I am happy to hear that Mohamad never Divorces. Are there any one who
>don't agree that Mohamad did not divorce?
Where did you hear that Muhammed (saw) never divorced ? What I was
saying is that the statement by the poster who said that Muhammed used
to divorce his wife when she can stand on her knees, and that he never
had more than four wives.
This statement is wrong. However after the revelation of the verse that
you deleted he (saw) was not allowed to divorce any of his wives.
When he (saw) died he had nine wives.
> |>May Allah Guide you to the straight path.
>I am already in the straight path. It is same as preached as in Quran or
>Budha. Only difference is that it is much different from that examplified
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>and explained by Mohamad, especially through his Hadits, which Muslims
> %%%%%%%%%%%########## $$$$$$
>carry so much value. EVEN MOHAMAD DID NOT BOTHER TO COMPILE THEM.
> ++++++ +++++++
>
Do you want to say that after having a full knowledge of Hadeeth, you
discovered that you don't need to follow Hadeeth. To your knowledge, any
Hadeeth that contradicts with the Quran is rejected from being authentic.
Hadeeth is the explanation of the Quran.
Shams Hasan
>In article <1993Mar1...@shiva.mc.ti.com> ka...@shiva.mc.ti.com writes:
>>
>>In article <1993Mar12.1...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>, ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash) writes:
>>|> In <1993Mar10.2...@sarah.albany.edu> ys3...@thor.albany.edu (Yazmasterj) writes:
>>|>
>>|> >In article <1nll7o$6...@agate.berkeley.edu> saf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi) went on about...
>>|> >>Manoj,
>>|> >>
>>|> >>The reason a woman is not allowed to have more than one husband is
>>|> >>among other things because one would not know who the father of
>>|> >>the child was. This is not the case in polygamy.
>>|>
>>|> >What about genetic testing? Does the existence of methods by which paternity
>>|> >can be ascertained permit women to indulge themselves in multiple spouses?
>>|>
>>|> >Yasmin
>>|>
>
>
>>|>***Him,** surely are considered by him when He made the rules as seen in
>>| ^^^^^^ ^^^^
>>> Islam. It is not necessary that we should know all the reasons behind
>> _________________________________________________
>>|> any of these rules, but it could be good to try and find out.
>
>
>I would like to agree with your statement about dogmatic religious fanatics
>and wholeheartedly support any measure that can be devised to close their
>dogmatic traps !
>
>However, I do take issue in your being up in arms about the HIM factor in
>the major religions of the world. Apart from Hindooism that lets you
>worship monekey, donkey, toad, cockroach, snake, cow, swine, man, woman
>elephant etc, etc, these were also the inspirations for the greatest
>developments in todays world.
sorry KALI, but had to disconnect due to unforseen circumstances....
so i am starting from where I left off :
Habbaash the Badmaash points out, that males and females are really
complementing each other, and I tend to agree with him on this matter.
So, the question I would like to pose to you, is, are you feeling
inferior to men ?
If you are, due to the male dominated societies, then I must say that
where ever there was any substantial achievement by a male there was a
female behind him. This only goes to show the influence and power of the
female over the male.
I would not like to dwell upon the differences between males and females
especially in light of religion, as the history of all major religions has
been replete with male malpractices of their religious teachings.
Still, complementing each other, goes a lot further then competing with each
other. The present day status of single mothers and divorce rates in
the U.S is living proof of that.
However, your uproar over passing moral judgement is seemingly justified,
as most of these religious mullahs never invite the topic over to their
respective religious forums, which in my opinion have the least amount
of articles anyway. So, why not do away with them as a unneccessary cost
to the tax payer ?
What say you to that KALI ?
Best Regards,
Shams Hasan.
T.S.Reddy
they can begin their rituals?
>As a Muslim, I would appreciate it if some one came to me to explain why
>should one worship a Cow, or a piece of wood or stone, ..etc. Are these
>things going to harm me if I didn't offer my worship, or are they going
>to do good to me if I made more worship. I don't mind any discussion in
>that regard, and I will not consider any one who is preaching for the
>cow as forcing his faith upon me, he is in fact speaking about himself,
>so I know him better.
>
>Ahmed I. El-Habbash,
Could you please tell me why the ultimate goal in a Muslim's life is
to visit a certain STONE in a certain Middle Eastern country and touch
it and circle around it? Or why it is so important for a Crescent sighting
at a certain time of year before beginning rituals. Or to hold certain
buildings like the Al Aqsa mosque as something very important to the
religion itself?
Regarding worshipping cows or wood or STONE (which is what Muslims
essentially do when they visit the Kaaba), they are using symbols which
is the first attempt by man to associate the supernatural to something
tangible. I am yet to see anyone harmed because someone else found a
cow or a STONE or a piece of wood holy (unless, of course, your'e a
religious fanatic), so what's wrong in it? And, as a Muslim, if you
believe in one God, it is only a BELIEF as relevant or as irrelevant
as someone who believes in 10000 Gods or cows as Gods or STONES as
Gods, or pieces of wood as Gods.
Only a very shallow person who uses religion as a crutch to support
himself in front of everyone else rather than as a spiritual force to
provide inner strength and wisdom would come up with such silly religious
queries.
Shaad M. Ahmad
article <1993Mar12.1...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>: "Re: Misconceptions
about Islam"
Dear Ahmed,
I am not a believer -- either in the cow/stone/wood which you
look upon with such disdain (perhaps, if you hadn't let your stereo-
types overwhelm you, you might have realized the difference between
what is considered sacred and what is indeed worshipped in Hinduism)
or that postulated entity you call Allah.
>Islam is based on one concept: There is no god, of whatever nature, but
>one God, the creater and sustainer of the world, and that Muhammed is
>His servant and His messenger. This life is transient, and no one will
>live for ever, however, their is another life which is endless, and that
>your fate in the other life is determined by God, according to the
>result of your work in this life.
>Without this main concept, every thing else in Islam is meaning-less.
>Being a target, should not subject you to harrassment and continual
>bothering from me or any other Muslim. Even delivering the message of
>Islam to a non-Muslim, should be through wisdom and nice approaches.
>A Muslim should train himself to carry the message of God to others,
>he should be an impressive example in his behaviour and his approach.
>This should not bother any non-Muslim.
I don't believe it requires an excessive degree of credulity to
realize that there are at least a few people on the Net who have
considered the ramifications of religion, of belief in a God (Allah,
Jehovah, Brahma, whatever) or gods and have chosen to simply not
indulge. It's not that they are totally ignorant of your belief
systems, your holy texts, your divinely prescribed social and
ethical codes -- it is just that, upon studying these, they have
not felt the same compulsion to "believe". Speaking for myself,
religion -- at least those postulating supreme Deities -- require
of me certain blind leaps of faith that I cannot bring myself to
perform.
Now suppose you were to approach me to deliver the message of
Islam. If you are indeed "an impressive example in [your] behaviour
and approach," I shall certainly, shall we say, be impressed. However,
I would feel obligated to let you know that I had realized, upon
much deliberation, that neither Islam nor other faiths were for me.
If, even after learning this, you were to continue preaching the
message of Islam to me, do you suppose I would feel justified in
being a wee bit bothered?
>As a Muslim, I would appreciate it if some one came to me to explain why
>should one worship a Cow, or a piece of wood or stone, ..etc. Are these
>things going to harm me if I didn't offer my worship, or are they going
>to do good to me if I made more worship. I don't mind any discussion in
>that regard, and I will not consider any one who is preaching for the
>cow as forcing his faith upon me, he is in fact speaking about himself,
>so I know him better.
Would you care to discuss why I consider a belief in deities
irrational, or let me know why you believe? I am afraid I am not your
hypothetical idol-worshipper who is so very easy to ridicule (yes, it
is always easier to create one's own straw figure and then shoot it
down), but I fancy that such a discussion might well prove interesting.
>If we really have open minds, then we will discover that the more
>research we do the more we realize that we are discovering only a little
>bit of what is already created by the real Creator, and there are many
>things left to further research, and many many other things that we
>still don't know.
I've never really considered myself terribly closed-minded; but
I have yet to see how our present knowledge argues for the existence
of your hypothetical creator.
I don't really believe that the soc.culture groups are necessarily
the appropriate forum for such discussions (despite their turning up
and continuing with an annoying degree of persistence or regularity);
so it might be better to carry this on over either E-mail or groups
such as alt.atheism, alt.atheism.moderated, or talk.religion.misc.
Regards.
sma...@phoenix.princeton.edu - Shaad -
sh...@leland.stanford.edu
"Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane -- like all
dreams: a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred
to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never
made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily
cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required
his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed
his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who
mouths justice and invented hell -- mouths mercy and invented hell -- mouths
Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented
hell; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without
invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man,
instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally,
with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship
him!"
-- Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger"
Savithri
Dear KALI,
I would like to agree with your statement about dogmatic religious fanatics
and wholeheartedly support any measure that can be devised to close their
dogmatic traps !
However, I do take issue in your being up in arms about the HIM factor in
the major religions of the world. Apart from Hindooism that lets you
worship monekey, donkey, toad, cockroach, snake, cow, swine, man, woman
elephant etc, etc, these were also the inspirations for the greatest
developments in todays world.
Habbaash the Badmaash poinwAx!<_?l:won
nW
Well, let us start with closing YOUR dogmatic trap.
If you and people of other major religions wish to
worship HIM then it is your choice. I would personally
prefer to worship the cockraoch, elephant, monkeys(my favorite)
and all the other creatures who treat A and B alike rather
than that HE god of yours who is selective about A and B.
As for that crap about inspirations for the greatest
developments (the HE god or the DOGMATIC followers I
haven't figured out and personally I don't give a damn),
it is totally ridiculous. For me my mother (a woman)
is the greatest inspirational figure.
Every time I see that dogamtic people like yourself
are ready to jump and belittle somebody else's faith
(in this case hinduism/athesim/every other ism except
your fundamental ism), and when somebody else retorts
you start howling "foul play", "we are the most misunderstood
religion". When you brain catches up with your
physical development, I MAY decide to respond (of course
my first preference is the monkey, followed by a
whole bunch of other creatures )
Savithri
Gopal Agrawal
>
>However, I do take issue in your being up in arms about the HIM factor in
>the major religions of the world. Apart from Hindooism that lets you
>worship monekey, donkey, toad, cockroach, snake, cow, swine, man, woman
>elephant etc, etc, these were also the inspirations for the greatest
>developments in todays world.
>
What kind of developments are you talking about ? And how were they
inspired by religion ? The only developments I have seen are communal
hatred and bigotry. Are you saying that a society not inspired by these
religions would lack scientific, cultural and philosophical values ?
regards,
--
______ ______ ______ ______ __ |\/\/\/|
____/ __ / __ / __ / / | \ /| LIFE's COMPLEX - IT HAS
/ __ / / / / / / / | (o)(o) REAL & IMAGINARY PARTS.
/ / / / ___/ __ / / C _)
_____/ _____/ __/ __/ __/ ______/ | \___|
E-mail - gagr...@cs.tamu.edu | / All Std. Disclaimers apply.
Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi
Why do you people make such assumptions that Islam would make us
see GOD why do you impose? This is precisely why my neighbours asked
me not to go to a Christian school..the risk of conversion..
Why this is the reason why Muslims are disliked..forcible conversion
in the past....
Have you seen a single instance of a hindu trying to impose his way
of devotion on others.....
(end quote)
Persuasion is not the same as forcing. Also, Muslims do not go door to
door preaching Islam to people like the Mormons. This net is fair
ground for debate and debating about Islam is not the same as imposing
Islam on you. I don't want to impose anything on you. To you be your
way and to mine.
Ausaf
Mohammed Nadeem ISE-GRAD
> Newton and Shakesphere were Christians, Einstein and Feynman Jews.
>
> But what intrigues me is why Jews are considered "believers" and
> Christian not!? Is it because Islam rejects that Jesus was a
> manifestation of God?
As far as I understand, Christians and Jews are known as
People of the Book and basically all people of the Book
are considered to be believers. Now there are un-believers
among muslims, christians or for that matter among all the
religions. But those who follow the "book" are counted
among people of the book to whom prophets brought the
message and to whom the book was revealed.
>
> Also, I would like to know what exactly is the conception of hell in
> Islam? I remember reading in "The Portrait of the Artist as a Young
> Man" that long, blood-curling description of this fiery hell in which
> one burns forever, presented to students in a Catholic school. Is it
> the same in Islam - I mean, is hell eternal or do some just have to pass
> through it for some period? (I realize there might be different
> conceptions within Islam about this).
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Danny Keren.
>
Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi
What about genetic testing? Does the existence of methods by which paternity
can be ascertained permit women to indulge themselves in multiple spouses?
(end quote)
It would be a waste of resources to perform genetic testing for every
single case. However this is beside the point. We can come up with
reasons as to why Allah prohibits X and permits Y. The true knowledge
lies with Allah alone. A person like me reads the Quran and finds it
miraculous and believes in Allah for whatever reasons and, based
on this, follows through on Allah's commandments as being the right
path to follow.
Ahmed El-Habbash
The difference is that these 10000 Gods are man made Gods, they are made
for the advantage of some group of people. They are symbols of hypocricy
and cheating, in the social sence, and in the religious sense they
represent the deviatin from the One God. The knowledge of God, never
been attained through man attempts, but it was the direct communication
with God. Since the time of Adam, God was one and that never changed
without the evil attempts of man inspired and supported by Satan.
> Only a very shallow person who uses religion as a crutch to support
>himself in front of everyone else rather than as a spiritual force to
>provide inner strength and wisdom would come up with such silly religious
>queries.
And now I will answer your ***** religious queries.
First of all, it is not an ultimate goal for a Muslim to visit Ka'ba,
but to visit it once in the life is one of the Five pillars of Islam.
What is Ka'ba: It is the first place on the earth that was made to
worship God . We do not go there to worship the Ka'ba itself. It is a
place where Muslims come together, in response to the command of God.
It is a symbol of unity not only within the Muslims who are currently
visiting the place, but among all the Muslims . Not only the living
Muslims but all Muslims who existed on the earth since the time of Adam.
The Prophet (SAW) said that the blood of any Muslim is more sacred than
Ka'ba. So Ka'ba is not a god, and Muslims do not mention the name of
Ka'ba in their rituals, all the worship is only to God. The rituals
which are done by Muslims during the visit are the same as was done by
the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) (PBUH). So the visit to Ka'ba is a symbol
of unity among all Muslims from the beginning of mankind, as opposed to
the worship of two many different idols, which are symbold of
differences among mankind.
The sighting of the Moon of the month of Ramadan, is a way to find the start
of the month which is suposed to be observed by Muslims as the month of
fasting. All muslims are supposed to fast during this month. Fasting
during Ramadan is one of the pillars of Islam, as commanded by God, it
is also the symbol of unity among Muslims.
Our concept of God is as revealed to Muhammed (SAW), which is the same
concept as known to Adam and all the Prophets in between, peace and
blessing be upon them all. God is something beyond our perception.
Any Modelling of God is a deviation from Him, He is not a physical
or material being.
BGQT
Ausaf writes:
>Yasmeen writes:
>
>What about genetic testing? Does the existence of methods by which paternity
>can be ascertained permit women to indulge themselves in multiple spouses?
>(end quote)
>
>It would be a waste of resources to perform genetic testing for every
>single case. However this is beside the point. We can come up with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>reasons as to why Allah prohibits X and permits Y. The true knowledge
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>lies with Allah alone. A person like me reads the Quran and finds it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>miraculous and believes in Allah for whatever reasons and, based
>on this, follows through on Allah's commandments as being the right
>path to follow.
You have made a good point. Certainly our knowledge is incomplete.
But this poses a problem to *both* advocates. If Yasmin doesn't know
the real reason she shouldn't advocate complete abolition of polygamy.
But without knowing the "real reason" how can an anti-abolitionist
Muslim decide *when* he should go for more than one wife? (please note
we are assuming sex-drive, giving shelter to women, etc are not real
reasons; only God knows the reason).
Given this enigma, I think a pragmatic "solution" can be worked out by
allowing polygamy IF AND ONLY IF all parties involved, specially the
women in a particular case, agree to it without being compelled ---
economically or otherwise. At least we must ensure this. Otherwise
it would be misused, as are hapenning in some circumstances.
--Moin /McGill.
Shams Hasan
My incomplete post deleted for the sake of some sanity...........at least.
Dear KALI,
If you could have waited for my complete post,
If you could have seen I was cut off by some unseen ghost
If you could have ...........................
Best Regards,
Shams Hasan.
Shams Hasan
>In article <1nqnjk...@shelley.u.washington.edu> sham...@shelley.u.washington.edu (Shams Hasan) writes:
>>Dear KALI,
>>
>>However, I do take issue in your being up in arms about the HIM factor in
>>the major religions of the world. Apart from Hindooism that lets you
>>worship monekey, donkey, toad, cockroach, snake, cow, swine, man, woman
>>elephant etc, etc, these were also the inspirations for the greatest
>>developments in todays world.
>>
>
>What kind of developments are you talking about ? And how were they
>inspired by religion ? The only developments I have seen are communal
>hatred and bigotry. Are you saying that a society not inspired by these
>religions would lack scientific, cultural and philosophical values ?
>
>regards,
>--
Dear Gopal,
Communal hatred and bigotry is a product of illiteracy and ignorance fueled
by generation after generation of such parents. Have you noticed this strange
phenomena that in the U.S the " Poor White Trash " is the biggest
proponet of communal hatred and bigotry ? I know it to be the same in
Pakistan and I can safely bet, that India is not much more different in this
manner.
Religious leaders, be they Hindoo, Muslim, Christian, Jew have and will utilize
the vast amount of such individuals for their power and greed. They are almost
like lambs to the slaughter, where their minds are the ones being slaughtered.
However, I do feel that is the flip side of religion, especially the
Judo-Chris-Muslim religions.
These religions, though brought out the dark side of humanity in guise of
"pious" and "holy" stuff, provided a society and civilized norms with code
of conduct and morality, builders of great character in the great men
and women in human history.
They were, also responsible for the spread of literacy in their outset,
especially Islam, which urged followers to go and seek knowledge, should you
have to circle the world. The Quran, asks the first very important thing.
IQRA, ie Read and Understand that is the basis of all literacy and learning.
As comparatively speaking, my knowledge of Hindooism and other religion is
less as compared to Islam, thus I mention the one I am most familiar with.
Would you say that religions provided continuity and civilization for the
developments in the world of past and fueled the growth of good moral and
civilized nations...?
Best Regards,
Shams Hasan.
Manoj Ghayalod
>In <lq22q2...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> tsr...@skitime.Eng.Sun.COM (T.S.Reddy) writes:
>
>
>
>
>> Could you please tell me why the ultimate goal in a Muslim's life is
>>to visit a certain STONE in a certain Middle Eastern country and touch
>>it and circle around it? Or why it is so important for a Crescent sighting
>>at a certain time of year before beginning rituals. Or to hold certain
>>buildings like the Al Aqsa mosque as something very important to the
>>religion itself?
>
>> Regarding worshipping cows or wood or STONE (which is what Muslims
>>essentially do when they visit the Kaaba), they are using symbols which
>>is the first attempt by man to associate the supernatural to something
>>tangible. I am yet to see anyone harmed because someone else found a
>>cow or a STONE or a piece of wood holy (unless, of course, your'e a
>>religious fanatic), so what's wrong in it? And, as a Muslim, if you
>>believe in one God, it is only a BELIEF as relevant or as irrelevant
>>as someone who believes in 10000 Gods or cows as Gods or STONES as
>>Gods, or pieces of wood as Gods.
>
>The difference is that these 10000 Gods are man made Gods, they are made
>for the advantage of some group of people. They are symbols of hypocricy
>and cheating, in the social sence, and in the religious sense they
>represent the deviatin from the One God. The knowledge of God, never
>been attained through man attempts, but it was the direct communication
>with God. Since the time of Adam, God was one and that never changed
>without the evil attempts of man inspired and supported by Satan.
Did Allah come and tell you this? All Gods are man made including
your Allah. If you want a symbol of hypocrisy and cheating it
is Muhammed (pbuh), he seems to have convinced the poor naive Arabs
that Allah has given him more benifits than other mortals. The people
supported and inspired by the satan are the mullahs who keep thrusting
their barbaric laws down peoples throat, eg Iran, Saudi, etc.
>
>
>And now I will answer your ***** religious queries.
>
>First of all, it is not an ultimate goal for a Muslim to visit Ka'ba,
>but to visit it once in the life is one of the Five pillars of Islam.
What's the difference, like he said you still some worshiping some stone.
>
>What is Ka'ba: It is the first place on the earth that was made to
>worship God . We do not go there to worship the Ka'ba itself. It is a
>place where Muslims come together, in response to the command of God.
>It is a symbol of unity not only within the Muslims who are currently
>visiting the place, but among all the Muslims . Not only the living
>Muslims but all Muslims who existed on the earth since the time of Adam.
>The Prophet (SAW) said that the blood of any Muslim is more sacred than
>Ka'ba. So Ka'ba is not a god, and Muslims do not mention the name of
>Ka'ba in their rituals, all the worship is only to God. The rituals
>which are done by Muslims during the visit are the same as was done by
>the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) (PBUH). So the visit to Ka'ba is a symbol
>of unity among all Muslims from the beginning of mankind, as opposed to
>the worship of two many different idols, which are symbold of
>differences among mankind.
Nobody mentions stones, snakes, etc in their prayers, all religious people
worship God. How come the prophet (saw) did not say that the blood of
any human being is more sacred than the Kaaba? If he was intolerant
we can expect his followers to be intolerant too. Every blind belief,
divides mankind. For example all Sunnis, Shiites, Bahias, Ahamadis,
Christians, Buddhists etc believe in one God. Are all of them united.
I am talking of the firm believers.
>
>The sighting of the Moon of the month of Ramadan, is a way to find the start
>of the month which is suposed to be observed by Muslims as the month of
>fasting. All muslims are supposed to fast during this month. Fasting
>during Ramadan is one of the pillars of Islam, as commanded by God, it
>is also the symbol of unity among Muslims.
Here you show that Islam like all other religions has some customs
which defy logic.
>
>Our concept of God is as revealed to Muhammed (SAW), which is the same
>concept as known to Adam and all the Prophets in between, peace and
>blessing be upon them all. God is something beyond our perception.
>Any Modelling of God is a deviation from Him, He is not a physical
>or material being.
>
If all the prophets have the same concept. Why do Muslims call non
Muslim kafirs?
>--
>Ahmed I. El-Habbash,
>Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
>Tel: office: +353-1-7021524, Home: +353-1-937402.
>
Manoj
Gopal Agrawal
>
>Persuasion is not the same as forcing. Also, Muslims do not go door to
>door preaching Islam to people like the Mormons. This net is fair
>ground for debate and debating about Islam is not the same as imposing
>Islam on you. I don't want to impose anything on you. To you be your
>way and to mine.
>
>Ausaf
Does fair debate include sanction of abusive words for non-Islamic people
(like 'kafir') ? There are certain modalities involved in a fair debate
that you would first have to comply with. Only then is fair debate possible.
Else it is bound to degenerate into vituperative attacks on each other.
Do away with the concept of 'kafir to be chased and killed' and there is
hope for a sensible debate. Don't ask me to quote verses as proof since many
have been posted time and again showing what you are supposed to do with us
kafirs. I take it that you have read them already.
Gopal Agrawal
>
>It would be a waste of resources to perform genetic testing for every
>single case. However this is beside the point. We can come up with
>reasons as to why Allah prohibits X and permits Y. The true knowledge
>lies with Allah alone. A person like me reads the Quran and finds it
>miraculous and believes in Allah for whatever reasons and, based
>on this, follows through on Allah's commandments as being the right
>path to follow.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That does not seem to be a logical explanantion. If you had read the
Bible first or the Gita first, then you would have said the same for
them. The first impression seems to be the last impression in ur case.
But try raising yourself beyond this adage.
Shams Hasan
>Now, now Shamu, you have proved yourself to be a racist, this above
>statement can easily qualify you as sexist, too. But I don't believe,
>that you are really that bad, you just don't know what you say. But
>who can blame you, your parents, grand parents ...... were cousins.
And I thought Mannu Bhai, you had something original to say.....
His fine wit
Makes such a wound, the knife is lost in it.
And did you know, that,
Life would be tolerable but for its amusements.
..........
Not my saying. Honest .. these dead dudes said it, P.B Shelley and G.C Lewis.
However,hmmm, something seems to filter through the minds maze...here goes:
Mannu Bhai Motor Challi Tum, Tum, Tum
[now with chorus] Mannu Bhai Motor Challi Tum, Tum, Tum
Chaupati Jain Gay, naa Bhael Poori Khaain Gay
[now with chorus] Chaupati Jain Gay, naa Bhael Poori Khaain Gay
Achhi Achhi Soortoun Say Aankhayn Milaain Gay
[now with choros] Achhi Achhi Soortoun Say Aankhayn Milaain Gay
;lsadf;lfjqwejj asdopiuqewo[jcp ;ljhec;oj, oopps....severe genetically
generated cereberal storms l;ajsf;ja;ljp90875432909439,po98347659087543093l232880202232#@#@#@#%$#%#%^^^&(&((& possibly due to inter-marriages in the family,
OH MY GAWD, HEEEEELLPPPP!!!!#@$%&(*&^(_)(&*^%&*%#@#@#%@#*@* Mannu Bhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiii Heeeelllllppp!!!!1 The,the th,th that's all folks..fuzz..kut
put....kut....kut.. phut..phfoooze.......
[I look around, and see these strange and awe-inspiring sights]
Hmmmmm...Is this what hell for the genetically retarded looks like ?!
Oh, NOOO!, Mannu Bhai, what are YOU doing HERE !!!!
[Mannu Bhai looks around, sheepishly, trying to ignore me, while turning
a strange and wonderfull complexion]
Mannu Bahi, NOOOOOOOOO! Not YOU ! You said, cousins did not marry
in your family.....OH My Goodness Gracious ! Holy Cow !!
Mannu Bhai, hell is not going to be all that bad... listening to your
confessions...
>
>Manoj
Best Regards,
Shams Hasan.
Gopal Agrawal
>In article <1nrtb3...@tamsun.tamu.edu> gagr...@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal) writes:
>>What kind of developments are you talking about ? And how were they
>>inspired by religion ? The only developments I have seen are communal
>>hatred and bigotry. Are you saying that a society not inspired by these
>>religions would lack scientific, cultural and philosophical values ?
>>
>"pious" and "holy" stuff, provided a society and civilized norms with code
>of conduct and morality, builders of great character in the great men
>and women in human history.
What exactly do you mean by civilized? Are you implying that atheists like
me are uncivilized, that I would go about hitting any man/woman in sight
for no apparent reason or in anyway be more offensive than an average
religious person. What makes you say that the codes of conduct that we
today consider good are borne out of religion and not from a necessity
to socialize and live harmoniously. How do you correlate great character
with that of his/her religion. There have been equally dispicable characters
among all religions. There doesn't seem to be any connection at all between
the two.
>They were, also responsible for the spread of literacy in their outset,
>especially Islam, which urged followers to go and seek knowledge, should you
>have to circle the world. The Quran, asks the first very important thing.
>IQRA, ie Read and Understand that is the basis of all literacy and learning.
And if Islam did not say that, then I suppose the Arab traders would have
limited themseleves to the confines of the Arab world and not seeked
knowledge elsewhere? If Quran says X and X happens, how does it imply
that "BECAUSE Quran said X, X happened". Hinduism doesn't say the same
thing as Islam about seeking knowledge. But are the hindus on average
less literate than the muslim world ? As a matter of fact, I'm pretty
certain that even if religions said the opposite (do not seek knowledge),
people would still seek it since curiousity is inherent in humans and
knowledge arises out of curiousity and not because some book told you
to seek it. If there's no curiousity, there no matter how much you are
urged by scriptures, you just wouldn't seek it.
>Would you say that religions provided continuity and civilization for the
>developments in the world of past and fueled the growth of good moral and
>civilized nations...?
A continuity of developments - YES. But no significant POSITIVE developments
that I could correlate to religion. Infact, I could point out several
negative developments (progress slowed by fear of heresy etc.) but hardly
any positive ones. Show me developments for which you can say "If religion
XYZ did not say this or that, then this development (a +ve one) could never
have taken place".
Javed Ahmed Khan
El-Habbash) writes:
> In <lq22q2...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> tsr...@skitime.Eng.Sun.COM (T.S.Reddy)
writes:
>
> >In article <1993Mar12.1...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed
El-Habbash) writes:
> >they can begin their rituals?
>
> >>As a Muslim, I would appreciate it if some one came to me to explain why
> >>should one worship a Cow, or a piece of wood or stone, ..etc. Are these
> >>things going to harm me if I didn't offer my worship, or are they going
> >>to do good to me if I made more worship. I don't mind any discussion in
> >>that regard, and I will not consider any one who is preaching for the
> >>cow as forcing his faith upon me, he is in fact speaking about himself,
> >>so I know him better.
Do you have any way of proving that Allah exists and that P. Muhammad was not
lying when he says that the Quran was revaled to him. After all we only have
P. Muhammad's word. Isn't it finally upto us to put faith in his word or not.
Which religious philosophy can prove any thing? They are all based on premises
which are supposed to be accepted without question. Argument such as yours
make no sense because they stand on very shaky ground. There's no way any
religious concept which can be proved either way. The only thing which comes
out of such non-sensical debates is hatred and prejudice.
> >>
> >>Ahmed I. El-Habbash,
>
>
> > Could you please tell me why the ultimate goal in a Muslim's life is
> >to visit a certain STONE in a certain Middle Eastern country and touch
> >it and circle around it? Or why it is so important for a Crescent sighting
> >at a certain time of year before beginning rituals. Or to hold certain
> >buildings like the Al Aqsa mosque as something very important to the
> >religion itself?
>
> > Regarding worshipping cows or wood or STONE (which is what Muslims
> >essentially do when they visit the Kaaba), they are using symbols which
> >is the first attempt by man to associate the supernatural to something
> >tangible. I am yet to see anyone harmed because someone else found a
> >cow or a STONE or a piece of wood holy (unless, of course, your'e a
> >religious fanatic), so what's wrong in it? And, as a Muslim, if you
> >believe in one God, it is only a BELIEF as relevant or as irrelevant
> >as someone who believes in 10000 Gods or cows as Gods or STONES as
> >Gods, or pieces of wood as Gods.
>
> The difference is that these 10000 Gods are man made Gods, they are made
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you have any way to show that whom P. Mohammad called Allah was not a
figment of his imagination. Show us how this couldn't have been a big hoax
and that Allah really exists and that Islam is the only uniqe way of worshiping
him.
Why don't you stick to attempting to fathom the mystique of Allah and leave
others to do it their way.
>
> --
> Ahmed I. El-Habbash,
> Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
> Tel: office: +353-1-7021524, Home: +353-1-937402.
>
--Javed.
Zafar Siddiqui
Gopal, this allegation about Muslims being commanded to 'chase and kill
kafirs' has been floating around the net for quite sometime. It is being
repeated without trying to understand what Islam has to say about it.
Raheel had written a wonderful reply to these and other allegations.
The following repost has a part of the article which Raheel wrote and
I have appended some information on treatment of non-muslims.
___________________________________________________________________________
Raheel writes:
>Subject: Re: HINDU INSECURITY- what is it?
>Date: 15 Feb 93 20:26:23 GMT
>
>
>In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Beneficent
>
>Recently, there were two articles on SCI which portray the picture that
>Islam demands that Muslims kill all Hindus. I have tried to adress these
>concerns to the best of my knowledge in this article.
>
>Since the subject is very delicate as it deals with the Qur'an, I have
>written the article in considerable detail. I hope that this succeeds
>in clarifying any misgivings about Islam that a misquoting of some
>verses from the Qur'an may have caused. I am assuming that such
>misquoting was unintentional.
>
>
>
>> and the oft quoted verse:
>
>>KORAN: 5. So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the
>> idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and
>> besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if
>> they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their
>> way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
>
>
>The historical context of the revelation must be kept in mind when reading
>Qur'an. These verses of "surah Tuaba" (Repentance) were revealed before
>the conquest of Makkah, when the tribes of the "Mushrikeen" were going
>back on the peace treaties they had made with the Muslims (2 years earlier)
>This agreement is alluded to in verse 4 and 7. By this time many of the
>different tribes of "mushrikeen" who had peace treaties with the Muslims
>had already broken the agreements on more than one occasion.
>Many tribes had broken their pacts whenever they felt it was advantegous
>to do so. In many cases they had unjustly killed Muslims (or their
>allies) after tricking them with fair words:
>How (can there be such a league), Seeing that if they get an
>advantage over you, they respect not in you ties of kinship of
>of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you,
>But their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are
>rebellious and wicked. (verse 8)
>I don't see how these verses can then be interpolated to mean that
>Muslims are ordered to kill all non-muslims and to subjugate them
>even if they mean no harm?
I would like to add some more teachings of Islam as regards our
dealing with non-muslims.
"Allah does not forbid you, with regard to
those who do not fight you on account of
your religion nor drive you out of your
homes, to treat them with goodness and to
be Just to them; truly, Allah loves those
who are just.
Indeed Allah forbids you (only) with regard
to those who fight you on account of religion
and drive you out of your homes, and assist
(others) in driving you out, that you turn
to them (in friendship) and whoever turns to
them (in friendship), they are wrong doers.
(Al-Quran: 60:8-9)
The first of these two verses not only calls for justice and
fairness in dealing with non-Muslims who neither fight Muslims
on religious grounds nor drive them out of their homes - that
is, those who are nether at war with, nor hostile to, Muslims -
but also URGES MUSLIMS TO BE KIND TO THEM. The word "goodness"
("Birr" in arabic) which is used here is very comprehensive term
signifying kindness and generosity which is over and above justice;
it is the SAME WORD WHICH IS USED TO DESCRIBE THE MUSLIM'S DUTY
TO HIS PARENTS.
Through this verse, God, most Gracious, most Merciful wanted to
remove from peoples' minds the ERRONEOUS IDEAS THAT ALL NON-MUSLIMS
ARE ALIKE AND THAT THEY DO NOT DESERVE GOOD TREATMENT AND KINDNESS
FROM MUSLIMS.
It is only with regard to the people who are at war, or hostile or
who help the opressors that God, most High, the All-Powerful has
commanded the believers no to be friends. Therefore all those forces
who are Islamophobic/Anti-Muslim/Friends-of-Enemies-of-Muslims
fall under this category and a Muslim *cannot* be friends with
them under *any* circumstances.
At the same time a muslim can be friends with non-muslims as long
as they do not fall under any of the aforementioned categories.
As a matter of fact I have *many* non-muslim friends who are not
hostile towards Islam/muslims. I don't have no trouble whatsoever
in getting along with them. Infact I cherish their friendship.
However I would like to add that I do *not hate* the enemies of Islam.
"It may be that Allah will bring about affection
between you and those who are your enemies from
among them. And Allah is All-Powerful, and Allah
is Forgiving, Merciful.
(Al-Quran: 60:7)
"Hate your enemy mildly, he may become your friend
one day." (Hadith Reported by al-Tirmidhi)
>Islam is declared to be the religion of truth for all mankind. How could
>it declare unlimited warfare with people who do not know the message of the
>faith. Even when we must fight, we are told to be kind to people so that
>God maybe kind to us. All the barbaric and sadistic methods of bloodshed
>and torture employed in those days were rejected by Islam. Muslims are
>permitted to fight only to preserve our faith, our lives or our properties.
>And when we fight we are told to abstain from fighting for vain-glory
>or for spoils.
>I claim no special knowledge of Islam or the Qur'an, since I am a humble
>servent of Allah. Therefore, if I have made any mistakes, I beg of His
>forgiveness, for surely the final knowledge of all affairs rests with
>Him.
Ditto.
Zafar Siddiqui.
>Raheel Ahmed Khan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zafar.
Gul Agha
To your knowledge, Polygamy is not made lawful for specific
circumstances as you mentioned. It is open, and resricted to four wives.
...
The divine laws are not based on the desires and illusions of few
individuals but it is a divine code which is perfectly made to suit the
creation of God, considering every major and minor differnces between his
creatures as He sees and knows.
So please keep your opinions to where they can fit, and don't mix them with
Islam.
Well put Mr. El-Habbash! None of this rationalizing and bringing in
irrelevancies! You get straight to the point..
As I said, who are believers to look for excuses and justifications
for God's law and then develop opinions!
Now could you enlighten us about slavery! Could you tell us if it is
indeed banned by God?
And if not, do we have the authority to prohibit what God doesn't?
Then tell us about God's ordained code of conduct towards slaves. For
example, beyond the four wives, are we allowed, to use "women our
hands rightfully possess"?
Of course, I understand we are also encouraged, but not required to
free them.. but then we are also sort of encouraged to be monogamous.
I am sure you are quite knowledgeable in this area and not afraid to
hold unpopular views.
Peace,
Gul Agha
Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi
This shouldn't matter anymore, because nowdays father of a child can
easily be found out using a simple blood test. So Is Islam outdated or
just your explanation of it ?
(end quote)
Go back and read my original post. I said that this is just one reason.
Only Allah knows the true 'reasons'. You also have to take into account
that according to Islam the nature of man and woman is different and
they have different social roles and responsibilities.
Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi
But what intrigues me is why Jews are considered "believers" and
Christian not!? Is it because Islam rejects that Jesus was a
manifestation of God?
(end quote)
Jews are not considered 'believers'. Only those who say that there
is one God and that Muhammad is the messenger of God are called
beleivers. The Jews and Christians are considered 'People of the
Book' because they follow scriptures which were revealed to other
messengers of God. However according to Islam these scriptures no
longer contain their original message and the 'People of the Book'
are told in the Quran to follow Islam.
Ahmed El-Habbash
>In article <1993Mar12.1...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash) writes:
> To your knowledge, Polygamy is not made lawful for specific
> circumstances as you mentioned. It is open, and resricted to four wives.
> ...
> The divine laws are not based on the desires and illusions of few
> individuals but it is a divine code which is perfectly made to suit the
> creation of God, considering every major and minor differnces between his
> creatures as He sees and knows.
> So please keep your opinions to where they can fit, and don't mix them with
> Islam.
>Well put Mr. El-Habbash! None of this rationalizing and bringing in
>irrelevancies! You get straight to the point..
>As I said, who are believers to look for excuses and justifications
>for God's law and then develop opinions!
>Now could you enlighten us about slavery! Could you tell us if it is
>indeed banned by God?
Slavery was an international law, long time before Islam. Something that
can be compared with prisoners of war these days.
Islam did not ordain the banning of slavery. It didn't prohibit Muslims
from taking prisoners of war (slaves), when it is o.k for the others to
do that for Muslims. However, Islam ordained a good treatment for
slaves and encouraged freeing slaves by making a big reward for the one
who does that.
>And if not, do we have the authority to prohibit what God doesn't?
We can prohibit what God didn't prohibit, if seen more appropriate.
However, we cannot prohibit what God made explicitly lawful.
Slavery was not made lawful, however, it was not prohibited. As I said
above it was an international law.
>Then tell us about God's ordained code of conduct towards slaves.
I will just give you two examples:
- When the Prophet (SAW) died he was asking Muslims to take care of the
slaves and to be kind to them.
- Bilal, was a slave, he was bought by Abu Bakr, and set free. Omar used
to say: Abu Bakr is our master, and he set free our master. So the one who
used to be a slave was referred to by Omar, the second Calif, as the master.
>For example, beyond the four wives, are we allowed, to use "women our
>hands rightfully possess"?
Yes, and this was an international law.
>Of course, I understand we are also encouraged, but not required to
>free them.. but then we are also sort of encouraged to be monogamous.
No, we are not encouraged to be monogamous, because justice should be
the norm for the real muslims, and injustice is (supposed to be) the
exceptional case. So monogamy is specified for the exceptional case.
The example of the Prophet and the companions shows that polygamy is the
norm.
I am here telling the Islamic point of view on polygamy, however,
practically, marriage situation is left to the society. No man can have
multiple wives if women refused that, so polygamy is controlled by women
more than men.
>I am sure you are quite knowledgeable in this area and not afraid to
>hold unpopular views.
When talking about Islam, I have to present Islam as it is, and not as
would suit my taste or the taste of the others. I am not looking for
fans or supporters, because Islam is not my own ideas, and I
should be honest when referring to something which is not my work.
I dont' like to forge Islam by mixing it with my opinions, or other odd
opinions, and then come and present it as Islam, cheating myself and
cheating others.
>Peace,
Peace,
>Gul Agha
Shams Hasan
>Gopal Agarwal
Dear Gopal,
Yes. Most Athiests I have come across like to analyse and take apart one
thing at a time from each religion of the world. This methodology is OK
for Sciences and Mathematics, but hardly suited for religion whose sole
requisite is faith.
Any POSITIVE development that has come across, for the greater humanity
is one that has had the basic rudiments that make the fabric of society
in the civilized world.
It made humans think about areas of life, and possible after life,
in a manner that is humane and which made a recourse higher than
the worldly authority for the poor and the destitute of this world.
Religions gave mankind, Code of Conduct, Morality, and above all the
strength of FAITH, that drives the religious when all material, and
worldly stuff leaves him/her.
Still, I would like to answer your specific questions.
The Judo/Christ/Muslim religions today form the people who brought
everlasting concepts in a Codified form, that was embraced by millions
on the basis of FAITH and appeal to the human heart and mind.
Yes, all of these religions admitted the destructive side of humans
and in the case of Islam, provided a consolidated approach that takes
into account human life's complexities in a changing world.
Each and every major development needs order, discipiline, respect for
all living being, especially humans, to provide the climate for a
continual persuit of knowledge and truth.
I believe, with all the problems these religions have faced, they have
still given more to humanity in terms of our identities, methodology
to determine right from wrong, and lastly, to measure the mark of a
person acording to his/her actions.
I donot see any major or minor development for mankind in areas that
were devoid of religion and faith. Even as far back as the Greeks,
the need for God as an all powerfull diety is established by Socrates,
and other thinkers.
So, what gives, my man.....
Best Regards,
Shams Hasan.
Shams Hasan
>
>>
>>Neither Jews nor Christians are considered "believers" in Islam.
>>Only those who believe in the revelation to Muhammed are believers.
>>However, both groups have a special status in Islam as "Ahl-e-Kitab"
>>(literally: people of the book) meaning they follow revealed scriptures,
>>though "altered" from Islamic perspective....
>>The Qur'an specifically asks believers to speak "modestly" when arguing
>>with the Ahl-e-Kitab (on religious issues). Muslim men are allowed to
>>marry Christian girls. Muslims can also eat kosher.
>
>This is the reason why I consider Islam sexist. It gives a lot of
>special privilages to men. What is the logic in preventing Muslim
>women from marrying Christian men?
First of all Islam, I think is about Faith. Mannu Bhai, Faith.
This is F A I T H..............and reading the Quran helps, that is
if you are Really Interested in Islam.........
You know, like George Michael's YOU GOTTA 'AVE FAITH, FAITH, FAITH...!
>>
>>Let's stick to the Qur'an alone. Hell burns forever and will be
>>"brought near" on the day of Judgment. Its fuel will be rocks,
>>stones, and men. It is God's own "kindled" fire.
>>"Unbelievers" (this was directed at the idolators in Mecca
>>rejecting the revelation) will burn there forever. They will "neither
>>live nor die" there. They will "call for death but death won't come."
>>"Zaqqum" tree grows at the nethermost part of the hell. Inmates will
>>feed on its thorny bitter fruits and get only boiling water to drink.
>>The hypocrites (those who profess to be believers, but are not) will
>>also go to hell.
>>The Qur'an doesn't specifically mention if sinning believers will go
>>to hell. But we believe that sinning muslims will also go to hell
>>but for some period.
>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>-Danny Keren.
>>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>--Moin /McGill.
>
>And what is heaven?
Mannu Bhai, heaven is a place where...mmmm.....naaaaaaa, just don't bother
about it !
Gopal Agrawal
>It made humans think about areas of life, and possible after life,
>in a manner that is humane and which made a recourse higher than
>the worldly authority for the poor and the destitute of this world.
>
>Religions gave mankind, Code of Conduct, Morality, and above all the
>strength of FAITH, that drives the religious when all material, and
>worldly stuff leaves him/her.
> .....etc..
>Each and every major development needs order, discipiline, respect for
>all living being, especially humans, to provide the climate for a
>continual persuit of knowledge and truth.
>
>I believe, with all the problems these religions have faced, they have
>still given more to humanity in terms of our identities, methodology
>to determine right from wrong, and lastly, to measure the mark of a
>person acording to his/her actions.
>
>I donot see any major or minor development for mankind in areas that
>were devoid of religion and faith. Even as far back as the Greeks,
>the need for God as an all powerfull diety is established by Socrates,
>and other thinkers.
You are back to square one. You said just about the same thing in
your first post.
1) Religions have provided a conducive environment for developments.
2) All societies that have had some developments had some religion
or the other.
Yet that does not in anyway prove that it was religion that was responsible
for developments. There have been virtually no society that was totally
atheistic. So we really cannot make much of a comparison here. What you
say is almost like if I say "because all cultures have seen clouds in the
sky, they have made developments". Both parts of the sentences are true
(i.e, all cultures have seen clouds in the sky AND they have made some
sort of development) but does that establish a relation between the two,
except perhaps for the famous Red Indian rain dance :). A & B <=/=> A->B
You say, that religions have helped man determine his identity,
know what is right or wrong ..etc.. and these are responsible
for giving him a sense of direction towards development. And I
say that even if religion was not present, man would still have
a sense of what is right or wrong, a curious mind and sense of
direction for developments (perhaps better ones than what man
currently has). As proof, I claim that several atheists are responsible
for wonderful developments (even Einstein was against *organized*
religion) and it is generally the 'kafirs' who tend to respect
fellow human beings for what they are rather than for their religious
affiliations. Yet I would not claim that non-belief is responsible
for developments since no logical connection can be established
betweeen non-belief and developments (just as no connection can
be established between beliefs and the (+ve) developments). Can
you prove the contrary i.e., No religion --> no sense of direction
or morals to guide man towards developments.
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <AGHA.93Ma...@hal.cs.uiuc.edu>, ag...@cs.uiuc.edu (Gul
Agha) writes:
> Well put Mr. El-Habbash! None of this rationalizing and bringing in
> irrelevancies! You get straight to the point..
>
> As I said, who are believers to look for excuses and justifications
> for God's law and then develop opinions!
>
> Now could you enlighten us about slavery! Could you tell us if it is
> indeed banned by God?
>
> And if not, do we have the authority to prohibit what God doesn't?
>
> Then tell us about God's ordained code of conduct towards slaves. For
> example, beyond the four wives, are we allowed, to use "women our
> hands rightfully possess"?
>
> Of course, I understand we are also encouraged, but not required to
> free them.. but then we are also sort of encouraged to be monogamous.
>
> I am sure you are quite knowledgeable in this area and not afraid to
> hold unpopular views.
Gul, your uninformed opinions are getting rather tiring.
The allegations that Islam advocates slavery are plain wrong. In
fact, Islam is the only religion that encourages freeing of slaves.
The arguments of the critics rest on one sole fact: there is no
explicit statement in the Qur'an that bans slavery outright. But by
that logic, we could argue that *all* religions advocate slavery. The
absence of an explicit forbiddance does not imply advocation. In
fact, since Islam so strongly urges freeing of slaves (e.g. 4:92,
90:13), it is quite clear that it distances itself from slavery. How
many other religions even bother to encourage freeing of slaves? How
many other religions even bother to define much-needed women's rights?
Islam does, and therefore it becomes a target of malicious slander?
These criticisms of Islam stem partially from ignorance, and partially
from an intense desire to prove that Islam is a discriminatory
religion, a desire that is bred by the continued propagation of
ridiculous myths by the media and the eurocentric education system.
Far from being a discriminatory religion, Islam stresses the equality
of all humans. After all, we are all equal before Allah. Indeed, it
is the condemnation of racism and other forms of discrimination that
have attracted so many people to convert to Islam. The untouchables
of the Indian subcontinent, large numbers of Afro-Americans in the
U.S., as well as countless other groups saw their first inspiration to
Islam in the recognition of all races and peoples as being equal.
I suggest you take a good look on the Qur'anic references on slavery.
I can provide more if you need them. Now regarding whether we can
explicitly prohibit what God does not: God did not specifically make
slavery lawful. Quite to the contrary, he advocated freeing them in
every way, making it a good deed to do so. Hence, if we banned
slavery outright, it would be a good deed by definition of Islam. Is
that really that difficult to comprehend?
-- Shakil
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <1993Mar10.1...@news.nd.edu>, mil...@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph) writes:
> ahmed-...@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
> >But it also
> >fails to take into account the problem of infinite family chains. If
> >polyandry were also permitted, it is very easy to show mathematically
> >that one could end up with infinite family chains.
> I have expressed my curiosity about this problem of "infinite family
> chains" before. Could you elaborate on it more, preferrably with
> "mathematical analysis?" A reference in English is fine.
I've actually explained this before, but you might have missed it.
Suppose we did have polyandry, and a woman could marry up to four men.
Say man M1 is married to woman W1. W1 has three other husbands, M2,
M3, and M4. Now M1 also has three other wives, W2, W3, and W4. But
M2 also has three other wives, W5, W6, and W7. But W5 has three more
husbands, M5, M6, and M7. M5, in turn, has three other wives, W8, W9,
and W10. It is easy to show that this can lead to a family of
infinite size, and we can all be brothers and sisters. I use the word
"infinite" to mean "very large," and I use it because population is a
growing entity. My basic point is that such arbitrarily large
families are contrary to the Islamic concept of family.
-- Shakil
Vilok Kusumakar
Another thing which is nothing very special to Islam. Most of the
old religions and social philosophies described different roles for
man and woman. But with the changing world most of the other religions
have evolved. Today man and woman are being encouraged to share all the
roles and responsibilities. One example is parenthood. Previously (or even
today by orthodox thinking people) only mother was supposed to take
care of the child and bring him/her up. But today society is
widely moving towards a shared upbringing of a child.
May be another place where Islam should be reevaluated.
---------------
Vilok Kusumakar OSI Protocols for tomorrow......
vi...@bnr.ca Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.
Phone: (613) 763-2273 P.O. Box 3511, Station C
Fax: (613) 765-4777 Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4H7
Manoj Ghayalod
>In article <C3uEw...@uceng.uc.edu> mgha...@uceng.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>Neither Jews nor Christians are considered "believers" in Islam.
>>>Only those who believe in the revelation to Muhammed are believers.
>>>However, both groups have a special status in Islam as "Ahl-e-Kitab"
>>>(literally: people of the book) meaning they follow revealed scriptures,
>>>though "altered" from Islamic perspective....
>>>The Qur'an specifically asks believers to speak "modestly" when arguing
>>>with the Ahl-e-Kitab (on religious issues). Muslim men are allowed to
>>>marry Christian girls. Muslims can also eat kosher.
>>
>>This is the reason why I consider Islam sexist. It gives a lot of
>>special privilages to men. What is the logic in preventing Muslim
>>women from marrying Christian men?
>
>First of all Islam, I think is about Faith. Mannu Bhai, Faith.
>This is F A I T H..............and reading the Quran helps, that is
>if you are Really Interested in Islam.........
If I was really interested in Islam, I would be on the Islam net.
Some guys are trying to show that Islam is the greatest thing that
ever happened to man kind, I am trying to show otherwise. I seen
your tendency to identify to whatever you think is superior, now
you are claiming to be my brother, it seems you think really
highly of me, thank you.
>
>You know, like George Michael's YOU GOTTA 'AVE FAITH, FAITH, FAITH...!
>
>>>
>>>Let's stick to the Qur'an alone. Hell burns forever and will be
>>>"brought near" on the day of Judgment. Its fuel will be rocks,
>>>stones, and men. It is God's own "kindled" fire.
>>>"Unbelievers" (this was directed at the idolators in Mecca
>>>rejecting the revelation) will burn there forever. They will "neither
>>>live nor die" there. They will "call for death but death won't come."
>>>"Zaqqum" tree grows at the nethermost part of the hell. Inmates will
>>>feed on its thorny bitter fruits and get only boiling water to drink.
>>>The hypocrites (those who profess to be believers, but are not) will
>>>also go to hell.
>>>The Qur'an doesn't specifically mention if sinning believers will go
>>>to hell. But we believe that sinning muslims will also go to hell
>>>but for some period.
>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>-Danny Keren.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>--Moin /McGill.
>>
>>And what is heaven?
>
>Mannu Bhai, heaven is a place where...mmmm.....naaaaaaa, just don't bother
>about it !
Doc, is there really no hope for me.
>
>Best Regards,
>Shams Hasan.
>
Manoj
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <1993Mar13.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
sh...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Shaad M. Ahmad) makes his annual
contribution to the general Islam-bashing feast:
> Note: Lines preceded by ">" are from Ahmed El-Habbash's <ah...@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>
> I don't believe it requires an excessive degree of credulity to
> realize that there are at least a few people on the Net who have
> considered the ramifications of religion, of belief in a God (Allah,
> Jehovah, Brahma, whatever) or gods and have chosen to simply not
> indulge. It's not that they are totally ignorant of your belief
> systems, your holy texts, your divinely prescribed social and
> ethical codes -- it is just that, upon studying these, they have
> not felt the same compulsion to "believe". Speaking for myself,
> religion -- at least those postulating supreme Deities -- require
> of me certain blind leaps of faith that I cannot bring myself to
> perform.
Ahem. For someone who speaks with such a condescending tone, you
demonstrate a rather shallow understanding of "certain blind leaps of
faith..." Is the use of the qualifier "certain" in this context
merely another display of your bombast, or does it perhaps imply that
there are "blind leaps of faith" that you do undertake? If the latter
should be the case, perhaps you would care to elaborate why you feel
the it justified, whereas you find it necessary to patronize
someone for subscribing to something you consider another "blind leap
of faith?"
> Now suppose you were to approach me to deliver the message of
> Islam. If you are indeed "an impressive example in [your] behaviour
> and approach," I shall certainly, shall we say, be impressed. However,
> I would feel obligated to let you know that I had realized, upon
> much deliberation, that neither Islam nor other faiths were for me.
> If, even after learning this, you were to continue preaching the
> message of Islam to me, do you suppose I would feel justified in
> being a wee bit bothered?
Suppose you were to approach me, Shaad, and deliver the message of
atheism. Clearly, since I have already embraced Islam, I have
obviously ruled out "atheism" as an illogical and self-glorifying
concept. Now if, even after learning this, you were to continue
preaching your message of atheism, by, shall we say, ridiculing Islam
or other religions, do you suppose I would feel justified in feeling a
wee bit bothered? And if, in addition to this, people start utilizing
the net as a free-for-all Islam-bashing forum, wouldn't you say that
it is fair game to defend what I believe in and attempt to clear up
the numerous misconceptions which decorate the arguments?
> Would you care to discuss why I consider a belief in deities
> irrational, or let me know why you believe? I am afraid I am not your
> hypothetical idol-worshipper who is so very easy to ridicule (yes, it
> is always easier to create one's own straw figure and then shoot it
> down), but I fancy that such a discussion might well prove
> interesting.
and later:
> I've never really considered myself terribly closed-minded; but
> I have yet to see how our present knowledge argues for the existence
> of your hypothetical creator.
Well, Shaad, perhaps you could explain creation itself? Or would you
really be so bold as to suggest that science has found the
much-coveted, universal Theory of Everything? So Shaad, if you cannot
explain our existence, are you not falling prey to some "blind leaps
of faith" somewhere down the line? And if so, why should your line of
reasoning be any more defensible than any others?
For me and many other believing Muslims, God is the creator and he
tells us how we were created. He also tells us to pursue knowledge,
and this quest for information is very much compatible with science.
But believing in science requires having faith in certain axioms, a
fact which even a true scientist like you, Shaad, couldn't possibly
deny...
-- Shakil
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>
>Well, Shaad, perhaps you could explain creation itself? Or would you
>really be so bold as to suggest that science has found the
>much-coveted, universal Theory of Everything? So Shaad, if you cannot
>explain our existence, are you not falling prey to some "blind leaps
>of faith" somewhere down the line? And if so, why should your line of
>reasoning be any more defensible than any others?
>
>For me and many other believing Muslims, God is the creator and he
>tells us how we were created.
>
>
Sorry, couldn't resist joining in the fray :)
Well, Shakil, while it is true that science cannot (at present)
explain creation, *there is no evidence that some day it shall
not be able to explain creation* . If there were some kind of
incontrovertible evidence that science most definitely would
NOT be able to explain creation, ever, THEN your belief in
God as creator would make perfect sense. But since no such
evidence exists, it is an open question whether creation can
be eventually explained by science or not.
Moreover, if you follow the history of science, you will
find that many things which couldn't be explained by science
once can now be explained by it. For example, people earlier
couldn't explain solar eclipses and thought that some monster
was swallowing up the sun; nowadays we know better. So I
would be willing to bet my money that science would eventually
be able to explain creation .
Of course it may turn out that science won't be able to explain
it. In that case Shaad will be wrong and you will be right (and
I will lose my money). But my point is that, as far as this
creation thing goes, both you and Shaad maybe taking a blind
leap of faith, but the extent of the leap (as well as its
blindness) is probably much greater in your case than in
case of Shaad.
To the long-suffering readers of SCB : I am quite aware
that the above has precious little to do with Bengali
society and culture, but then hasn't Shakil "Wise" Ahmed
pronounced that it is "okay" to post about religion on
this group? ..... :)
-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi
Could you please tell me why the ultimate goal in a Muslim's life is
to visit a certain STONE in a certain Middle Eastern country and touch
it and circle around it? Or why it is so important for a Crescent sighting
at a certain time of year before beginning rituals. Or to hold certain
buildings like the Al Aqsa mosque as something very important to the
religion itself?
Regarding worshipping cows or wood or STONE (which is what Muslims
essentially do when they visit the Kaaba), they are using symbols which
is the first attempt by man to associate the supernatural to something
tangible. I am yet to see anyone harmed because someone else found a
cow or a STONE or a piece of wood holy (unless, of course, your'e a
religious fanatic), so what's wrong in it? And, as a Muslim, if you
believe in one God, it is only a BELIEF as relevant or as irrelevant
as someone who believes in 10000 Gods or cows as Gods or STONES as
Gods, or pieces of wood as Gods.
Only a very shallow person who uses religion as a crutch to support
himself in front of everyone else rather than as a spiritual force to
provide inner strength and wisdom would come up with such silly religious
queries.
(end quote)
Pilgrimage to Mecca is not the ultimate goal of a Muslim. If you would
learn about Islam before talking then you would know that it is the
least most important action among the five pillars. Actually if one is
poor or sick then one does not have to visit the Kaaba.
Second, saying that Muslims worship the Kaaba is like saying that they
worship their prayer mats. No Muslim will say that he or she worships
the Kaaba. If you do you are not a Muslim and that's you're business. And
if I as a Muslim say that I do not worship the Kaaba then how can you,
being a non-Muslim, say that I do? The reason all Muslims face the Kaaba
when they pray is to be at once united in their prayers and at once
different from the non-Muslims. It gives one a sense of Islam as a
global religion.
Gopal Agrawal
>T. S. Reddy writes:
>
>Could you please tell me why the ultimate goal in a Muslim's life is
>to visit a certain STONE in a certain Middle Eastern country and touch
>(end quote)
>
>if I as a Muslim say that I do not worship the Kaaba then how can you,
>being a non-Muslim, say that I do? The reason all Muslims face the Kaaba
>when they pray is to be at once united in their prayers and at once
>different from the non-Muslims. It gives one a sense of Islam as a
>global religion.
>
Are you saying that you hold no reverence to the kabba. That it only
serves as a compass for all muslims to differentiate themselves from
the entity known as 'humanity' ? As a hypothetical scenario, wouldn't
you be offended if someone tore down or insulted a picture calendar
or model of the kabba that can normally be seen adorning the walls or
shelves of muslim homes? I am pretty certain the answer is YES even
if you say NO. Now I say that idols of god hold the same significance
for a hindu that the picture/model of the kabba would hold for you. So
what is wrong in that? If an idol is broken, it is not as if the hindus
believe that some god of theirs has been broken. Rather, it would simply
be replaced by another one since the broken idol is as good as rubbish
if it does not serve to focus attention to god. How is it that muslims
find the kneeling down of christians in front of a cross more acceptable
than the kneeling down of hindus in front of their idols, even though
the phenomena is the same ?
regards,
Gopal
SUPRATIC GUPTA
I am sorry that I missed the original article. This is a reply to Mr. AAQ
|In article <1nll7o$6...@agate.berkeley.edu> saf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi) writes:
|>Manoj,
|>
|>The reason a woman is not allowed to have more than one husband is
|>among other things because one would not know who the father of
|>the child was. This is not the case in polygamy.
I have a very basic question. I have asked it many times in the net,
but without any answer.
1) Why should one know the identity of the father?
2) There is a case in Indian Mythology. Don't tell me that it is not a
good alternative. Just tell me if it is possible or not.
In Mahabharat, Draupadi had 5 Husband. Still she had no problem in telling
the father of the children. She slept with each of the husbands for one
year to have 5 children.
On the other hand, 5 Pandavas have multiple wife. They are not unsatisfied
as when it is not there turn, they have other wives to fall back on.
No birth control is necessory for this process of detecting the father.
But my original question is
WHY IS IT NECESSORY TO KNOW THE FATHER? DON"T TELL ME THAT IT IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ANIMAL AND A HUMAN. IN THAT CASE A PERSON NOT
KNOWING HIS?HER FATHER'S IDENTITY IS AN ANIMAL.
Gupta
--
With regards I wonder why people like to bend the truth for | Is God
achiving short term goal. Is it really difficult | playing
SUPER GOOFTA to be sincere and honest? Is it really difficult | with
to forget the differences and love each other? | us?
SUPRATIC GUPTA
|
|I don't know why am I getting into this argument again but here goes. Polgamy
|is as bad as polyandry(I sure hope I got the terms right). Polygamy was allowed
|in the times of the prophet because many men, both young and old, died in
|combat. This made the wives of dead soldiers widows. Takind into account the
Then why not ban polygamy in countries where these problems are not there?
Why keep it in Quran at all?
|biological, social, and economic needs of these widows Islam allowed polygamy.
What if an opposite need arise that there are very less women left and to
stop man fighting among each other, and to eliminate secret sex polyandry
becomes necessory? What will we do with quran then? THrow it into Garbage?
|Nowadays, polygamy has becaome a joke, and is often used to satiate the male
|carnal needs. In India many people turn 'muslim" inorder to have more than one
|wife. This is truly chauvanistic behavior. Many Americans have told me that it
|is so cool that the Muslim religion allows 4 wives. The fact that Islam allows
|polygamy has become a joke. Polygamy is bad except in the most extreme cases. A
|justification like......a child will not know the identity of his father if the
|woman marries more than one person....is extremely weak. Both polygamy and
I again beg to ask this question.
WHY IS IT NECESORY TO KNOW THE FATHER? In another article, I pointed out
that this problem did not arise in case of Draupadi, because both
polyandry and polygamy was practised together.
|polyandry arenot fair to either spouse in either case. It is sad that Islam
Neither is Polygamy. But a mixture of both is an interesting alternative.
|allows its followers to bend the rules as much as they do. I repeat, Polygamy
|is bad except in the most extreme cases.
Why can't we say that Polyandry is bad accept in extrime situation also?
|
|Shariq
Vidhyanath K Rao
In article <1993Mar1...@shiva.mc.ti.com> ka...@shiva.mc.ti.com writes:
[Quoted article deleted]
>[...] Science, does not RELY on FAITH but rather
>on clear crisp proofs and deductions.
Deduce from what? Deductions imply premises. You must start somewhere.
Please read philosophers like Imre Lakatos, Kuhn, Popper and Carnap. There
are no "facts" which can be seperated from "theories". Of course some
theories are better than others. Philosophy of science is the history of the
struggle to explain the unreasonable effectiveness of science. No one has
succeded yet, but it can no longer be defended that science depends on
proofs and deductions alone.
Science places absolute faith in the experimental method and induction, as
opposed to revelation. Experimental method and induction cannot be proved.
Bertrand Russel has pointed this out innumerable times. Most vivid is his
parable on "philosopher's nightmare".
>Of ocurse there may be some scientists who may not GRASP all the the proofs
Show me a single scientist who grasps all the proofs of all the things he/she
has used.
>So next time please spare the scientific community of your
>ridiculous hypothesis that WE must have FAITH in axioms.
Mathematicians place no faith in their axioms, but scientists do. But
scientists will give up their axioms when the experimental method forces them
to. Believers in revelation never change their axioms. But every deductive
theory must start from axioms.
--
Vidhyanath Rao It is the man, not the method, that solves
nath...@osu.edu the problem. - Henri Poincare
(614)-366-9341 [as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
Gul Agha
In article <AGHA.93Ma...@hal.cs.uiuc.edu>, ag...@cs.uiuc.edu (Gul
Agha) writes:
> Well put Mr. El-Habbash! None of this rationalizing and bringing in
> irrelevancies! You get straight to the point..
The allegations that Islam advocates slavery are plain wrong.
No one I know of has made this allegation in the context of this
discussion! Please don't distract from the facts!
The arguments of the critics rest on one sole fact: there is no
explicit statement in the Qur'an that bans slavery outright.
Well, at least we have agreed on the basic facts here.
But by
that logic, we could argue that *all* religions advocate slavery.
If slavery is practiced in a society, and a religion does not abolish
it, and you believe slavery is unjust, then the religion in this case
failed to promote justice as you see.
(Since, you have no right to have this opinion, and thus no right to
the premised belief of the absolute injustice of slavery, if you are
believer in the first place).
For example, the teachings of the Buddha categorically reject the
caste system in a society where castes were common practice, they thus
promoted equality.
Anyway why are you comparing with other religions? I was bringing up
the modern concepts of Declaration of Human Rights, the ideas of
Bentham, J.S. Mill, etc., and arguing that humans have to figure out
their own concept of justice as a evolving paradigm.
By contrast to your strategy of your intelligence to avoid the issues,
I must say Sheikh El-Habash is to the point and direct. For example,
he does not ignore my questions and try to obscure the issues, even if
the answers are uncomfortable to many people:
Agha:
> For example, beyond the four wives, are we allowed, to use
> "women our hands rightfully possess"?
El-Habash:
Yes, and this was an international law.
By international law, of course, I presume, Mr. El-Habash means common
practice at the time (there being no such exact concept as
international law at the time).
So, now it is to be entirely human choice, not Divine decree, whether
to maintain slavery, or to abolish it, and whether to "use", as God
permits, women our hands "rightfully possess" (as prisoners of war).
Peace,
Gul Agha
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <1993Mar15.0...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>,
bhat...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
> Sorry, couldn't resist joining in the fray :)
>
> Well, Shakil, while it is true that science cannot (at present)
> explain creation, *there is no evidence that some day it shall
> not be able to explain creation* . If there were some kind of
> incontrovertible evidence that science most definitely would
> NOT be able to explain creation, ever, THEN your belief in
> God as creator would make perfect sense. But since no such
> evidence exists, it is an open question whether creation can
> be eventually explained by science or not.
The very nature of science requires having faith in certain axioms.
One has to start *somewhere* and that is why any true scientist will
gladly tell you that they are relying on certain axioms. That coupled
with the fact that science cannot explain creation at present, makes
Shaad's condescending tone towards those who believe in God completely
unwarranted.
> Moreover, if you follow the history of science, you will
> find that many things which couldn't be explained by science
> once can now be explained by it. For example, people earlier
> couldn't explain solar eclipses and thought that some monster
> was swallowing up the sun; nowadays we know better. So I
> would be willing to bet my money that science would eventually
> be able to explain creation .
This applies equally well to religion. There are many things in the
Qur'an which mankind did not have the knowledge to understand until
recently, and others which we may not understand still...
> Of course it may turn out that science won't be able to explain
> it. In that case Shaad will be wrong and you will be right (and
> I will lose my money). But my point is that, as far as this
> creation thing goes, both you and Shaad maybe taking a blind
> leap of faith, but the extent of the leap (as well as its
> blindness) is probably much greater in your case than in
> case of Shaad.
I would like to see this substantiated.
-- Shakil
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
This is *completely* pathetic. You completely ignore my article which
shows:
1) References on how Islam advocates *freeing* of slaves
2) It is thus a good deed in Islam *not* to have slaves
3) Banning slavery would thus be a very good deed in the eyes of Islam
If you can't be intellectually honest about debating, then there
really isn't much point...
-- Shakil
Syed Irfan Hyder
>> some one posted:
::: quite an interesting place. Apart from your genociders and mass-murderers,
::: and such like, there will be Kalidasa and Sankara and Einstein and
:: ^^^^^^^^^^^
::: Newton and Feynman and Shakespeare and .....
:: ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
:
:Shakespeare a jew! WOW! learning new things!
:
Shakespeare was not even Shakespeare, let alone a jew!
He was some duke or baron who was using a pen name
__ From an hour long documentary on PBS, I think it was
Front Line!!!!!
sayan bhattacharyya
>> I will lose my money). But my point is that, as far as this
>> creation thing goes, both you and Shaad maybe taking a blind
>> leap of faith, but the extent of the leap (as well as its
>> blindness) is probably much greater in your case than in
>> case of Shaad.
>
>I would like to see this substantiated.
>
>-- Shakil
The extent of the leap is greater in your case than in Shaad's case,
because over history, more and more things that were once thought
to be explainable only by religion have been found to be explainable
by science. The reverse has not happened (you cannot name a single
event or phenomenon that used to be explainable by science but
subsequently turned out to be explainable by religion). Clearly,
the trend is that religion is giving way to science as far as explaining
nature is concerned. Thus, by induction, the extent of your leap is
greater than that of Shaad's.
-Sayan.
Ausaf Ahmad Quraishi
If all the prophets have the same concept. Why do Muslims call non
Muslim kafirs?
(end quote)
Because the non-Muslims have distorted the original message of the
prophets. All prophets of Allah were Muslims (bowing down in worship
to one God).
Shakil Waiz Ahmed
In article <1993Mar15.2...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, bhat...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
> In article <1o2lnp...@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-...@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
> >> I will lose my money). But my point is that, as far as this
> >> creation thing goes, both you and Shaad maybe taking a blind
> >> leap of faith, but the extent of the leap (as well as its
> >> blindness) is probably much greater in your case than in
> >> case of Shaad.
> >
> >I would like to see this substantiated.
> The extent of the leap is greater in your case than in Shaad's case,
> because over history, more and more things that were once thought
> to be explainable only by religion have been found to be explainable
> by science. The reverse has not happened (you cannot name a single
> event or phenomenon that used to be explainable by science but
> subsequently turned out to be explainable by religion).
I can give *numerous* such examples such as science once thinking the
world was flat, thinking the world was the center of the universe,
etc. In fact, there are many things we are learning in science today
that were already touched upon in the Qur'an (such as embryo
development, for example). If anything, I would argue that the extent
of the leap in my case is smaller.
> Clearly,
> the trend is that religion is giving way to science as far as explaining
> nature is concerned. Thus, by induction, the extent of your leap is
> greater than that of Shaad's.
There is nothing clear about that at all. The two are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. It also doesn't change the fact that a blind leap
of faith remains a blind leap of faith and the question of "extent"
really cannot arise...
-- Shakil
Akash R. Deshpande
>Manoj writes:
>If all the prophets have the same concept. Why do Muslims call non
>Muslim kafirs?
>(end quote)
>Because the non-Muslims have distorted the original message of the
>prophets.
Since non-Muslims have shown their capability of distorting
original messages of prophets, wouldn't you rather *not* convert
them lest they distort the message of the prophet once more?
Or has this distortion already happened?
-Akash
T.S.Reddy
Then why don't we only have polyandry and not polygamy? Why the
preference for polygamy over polyandry?
Haroon H. Dogar
>> deny...
>>
>>
>If you believe that science REQUIRES having FAITH in certain axioims,
>heaven help us from scientists like you. I suppose your personal
>faith has corrupted your logical scientific mind (I am ASSUMING you
>had one to start with). Science, does not RELY on FAITH but rather
>on clear crisp proofs and deductions. Of ocurse there may be
>some scientists who may not GRASP all the the proofs and hence may
>have to take the road of "faith" (meaning yes a proof exists in
>reality - not in someone's dreams or revelation, but my intelligence
>cannot comprehend the proof).
>ridiculous hypothesis that WE must have FAITH in axioms.
Ali Bhai, I hope you don't mind my reproducing one of your old posts.
This post is by one of the few "liberals" [please note the paranthesis]
whose opinions I respect [though I don't often agree with :-)]. It is about
evolution, but please don't turn this into a debate on evolution!!! My
intent in reposting it is only to deal with the issue of "faith in axioms."
enjoy:
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aa...@helga2.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Evolution and its unscientific basis.
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.0...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 24 Apr 91 03:52:52 GMT
References: <1991Apr23.1...@news.nd.edu> <3...@mohawk.cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: use...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 154
In article <3...@mohawk.cs.utexas.edu> hy...@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
>In article <1991Apr23.1...@news.nd.edu> mil...@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph) writes:
>>
>>From what I understand (correct me if I am wrong),the Islamic version of
>>creation
>>is close to the biblicle version. Could teaching of evolution be banned under
>>the new law?
>>
>>-- milind
>
>
>A theory is just a theory. Liable to change when new evidence comes to
>fore. Rather, evolution will be made the real object of study so as
>to question the scientist's belief in it.
>
>
>Most of the BELIEVERS (I will call them believers because they belive in it
> without sufficient proof) of evolution consider it as a FACT not THEORY.
>
>The difference between a theory and a fact should be clear. But, unfortunately
>most of the evolution believers don't do that. The reason is otherwise all
>of their edifice of science will come tumbling down. It is this fear of
>uncertainity, though irrational, which stops them from questioning why.
>The psychology is not much different from the medieval church's aversion
> with Galileo.
The difference between fact and theory is far from clear. All "facts" are
the artifacts of their underlying assumptions and primitives. Change the
axioms and fundamental concepts and you change the fact. Here, of course,
I am talking about facts such as "the earth moves around the sun" or
"2+2=4", which are either axiomatic or empirical (more categories!). Hume
(and may others since) have argued quite convincingly that empirical "facts"
are never absolute (i.e. induction in experiential spaces is always an
ill-posed problem). However experience (!!) has taught us that
certain "facts" of this sort are ignored at our peril. The theoretical
incompleteness of my induction does not keep me from believing that I will
die if I jump off the Sears Tower. In this same sense, we all more or less
subscribe to the dogma of rational argument. Given the empirical data, the
theory of relativity appears to be a good explanation of it. Thus, we
accept that theory as a working basis for our prediction of the movements
of stars and the shape of galaxies. We know it is not a fact: it is only a
construction. But then, so is the data that "verifies" it. There is no
absolute proof of anything, and all conviction eventually requires submission
to some dogma or convention. In using the word "verification", I have already
submitted to one such convention --- to regard an agreement between data and
theory as the basis of truth (verity=truth; verify=to establish the truth of).
Given this convention, to which all of us subscribe to some extent, there
is no escape from the conclusion of evolution. All admissible evidence
points to it. In order to challenge it, you must change the evidence, and
the only way to change that is to radically change the underlying
convention --- to replace the rational argument with a totally different
method of establishing correspondences and reaching conclusions. This can
certainly be done (especially by religious systems), but should be
recognized as such. It is no less than a total abandonment of our
present convention. This convention has been very successful, and has
lasted us many centuries. Is the new one going to be any better? And
how is "better" to be judged? By some convention, of course! What is
ridiculous, in my opinion, is to abandon rational argument but still
try to claim rationality. Over the centuries, rational argument has
acquired a certain prestige. When the pious try to invoke reason to
show the "superiority" of their ideas, they are merely trying to
capitalize on this accumulated prestige to give their faith some
borrowed credibility. This is what apologism is all about. By all means,
abandon evolution if you don't like it, but please don't try to
convince the rest of the world that your position is rationally superior.
If you still need a certificate of truth from reason, you might as
well stick with evolution. The only way to abandon evolution is to
abandon the system that implies it, or to produce new evidence that
is admissible under the old convention but implies something else.
What I mean is: believe in creation because you believe in the word
of God, not because it is "more rational". It is not.
Interestingly, the major post-rational movements of our times (e.g.
post-structuralism, deconstructionism) have actively tried to abandon
the classical rational argument. Invariably, they must either come back
to it or submit to paradox. In the interest of convincing others, they
usually come back to reason (though I personally wish they would take
the paradox --- many do). The point is that changing a dogma that lies
at the core of our beings (and reason certainly does) will not be
simple, and not necessarily possible.
>The unsoundness of evolution, or the questions raised against it
>(scientifically of course) have always been a hush hush affair from the
>very begining. The reason of course is the fear from confronting the
>real fact.
Real fact! As opposed to "unreal facts", I suppose!
>Unscientific basis of the evolution:
>===================================
> [ stuff about implausibility of chance as the driving force of
evolution ]
If you are going to talk about evolution, you need to distinguish between
the theory of evolution and the Theory of Evolution as the Darwinists
have developed it. The "fact" of evolution --- that species have emerged
through intermediate forms --- is indisputable (under the rational
convention, of course). The fossil record shows that beyond any "reasonable"
doubt. The issue of what *caused* this evolution is a different matter.
Here, there are as many theories as there are evolutionary biologists,
and to lump all these mechanisms together under the label of "chance"
is grossly simplistic. There are numerous biologically and geologically
plausible hypotheses of how evolution occured, but there is always room
for more --- certainly room enough for God if you want. Again, this
requires the abandonment of some aspects of the rational dogma. An
omniscient, omnipotent God is certainly consistent with the empirical
evidence that we have. But He is, by definition, consistent with *any*
empirical evidence that we *could* have. The explanatory power of the
"God hypothesis" is zero. It is a tautology. In Popperian terms, it is
"unfalsifiable" (please don't take me to be a Popperian --- Niraj, are
you listening? :-). When we choose to believe it, we do not need any
further explanations for anything --- it explains everything and, therefore,
nothing. Which is why even "good, God-fearing" scientists have been
known to seek other explanations for things beside the whim of the
Almighty. As they say back home, "yeh aalam-e asbaab hai" (this is a
world of causes): as succint a statement of the rational dogma as any.
The question, of course, is: if everything has a cause, what does God
do? It was this question that led Aristotle to his detached Prime Mover,
First Cause God --- a God who, having set things in motion, need only
sit back and watch. Or is it that God interferes with the natural order
of cause and effect? If so, cause and effect isn't so natural after all.
I do not think there is a rational resolution of these paradoxes ---
though one is announced every now and then (so are "proofs" of P=NP :-).
Finally, if one is to believe in God, it must be a belief rooted in
unquestioning submission, not the result of an exercise in reasoning.
Reasoning does not lead to God, and if it seems to, there is invariably
some logical flaw, some hand-waving argument like "how could such
complexity have arisen by chance?". Iterate x=4x(1-x) and watch!
About the references in the article, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are, at
best, regarded as marginal theorists when it comes to the origins of
life. However, their panspermia theory is certainly not irrational
in broad terms. I don't see how it "proves" evolution "wrong". All
it says is that the first living forms on earth did not originate
here but came from outer space. In fact, it *weakens* the argument
against evolution, because if the first living forms came from outer
space, life had 10-15 billion years to evolve, not 4.8 billion, and
even mere "chance" can do a lot in 10 billion years. And any calculations
made about the probability of such events as the emergence of the first
life forms must be taken with mountains of NaCl. As for Maurice Bucaille
and his ilk, they are merely the latest manifestation of a disease that
afflicts all weak systems of belief: it is called apologism, and usually
produces paroxysms of self-doubt assuaged by strong doses of free-wheeling
imagination. It also has somewhat in common with the Prophecies of
Nostradamus and other such quaint stuff, in that it requires the
discovery of predictive correspondences posterior to the predicted
events --- in other words, interpretation of predictions based firmly
on hindsight. But then, so do most scientific papers!
Regards,
Ali
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>In article <1993Mar15.0...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>,
>bhat...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>
>> Moreover, if you follow the history of science, you will
>> find that many things which couldn't be explained by science
>> once can now be explained by it. For example, people earlier
>> couldn't explain solar eclipses and thought that some monster
>> was swallowing up the sun; nowadays we know better. So I
>> would be willing to bet my money that science would eventually
>> be able to explain creation .
>
>This applies equally well to religion. There are many things in the
>Qur'an which mankind did not have the knowledge to understand until
>recently, and others which we may not understand still...
>
I would like to see this substantiated.
Can you give some
examples of things in the Qur'an which mankind did not have
the knowledge to understand "till recently" ?
-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>In article <1993Mar15.2...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, bhat...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>
>> The extent of the leap is greater in your case than in Shaad's case,
>> because over history, more and more things that were once thought
>> to be explainable only by religion have been found to be explainable
>> by science. The reverse has not happened (you cannot name a single
>> event or phenomenon that used to be explainable by science but
>> subsequently turned out to be explainable by religion).
>
>I can give *numerous* such examples such as science once thinking the
>world was flat, thinking the world was the center of the universe,
>etc.
>
You are obfuscating the point. The point was not whether science
makes mistakes or not - of course it does! The point was whether
there have been instances where science provided wrong explanations
for something and subsequently religion provided the correct
explanation.
Your example of science mistakenly thinking the world was flat
is irrelevant, because the recovery from this mistake was brought
about not by religion, but by science (I use "science" in the
sense of science = empirical enquiry) itself (e.g. Magellan's
voyage around the world).
-Sayan Bhattacharyya.