*HINDUISM REALLY IS DISGUSTING*
Waqar Ali Shah
What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
themselves??
Or one that commands its followers to drink cows' urine??
Or Brahmins' semen, for that matter??
Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to be
sacred and
to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva." This is a fact, an undisputed
fact.
Hinduism is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
also sprach Zarathustra
Are you doing a doctorate in comparitive religions? Did anyone seek your
opinion? You give muslims a bad name(majority of which is friendly and polite).
I think you are just a troll bent upon messing up the image of muslims.
You are not a good muslim if you enjoy hurting other people's feelings. I shall
ignore all your future posts.
S.L.
To Waqar,
Now that you have finished ridiculing Hinduism, try taking on other
religions of the world! I am sure you will find something to snicker
about. How about Christianity with (Virgin ? Mary), Buddhism, Judaism,
Sikhism? Just trying to help you so you can put down others too.
That should keep you BUSY for a while!
And remember to read my post "A Tribute to Hinduism"
And when you are all done, JUST SHUT UP!
Waqar Ali Shah <u391...@au.ac.th> wrote in article
<5cmu5t$9pg$1...@home.au.ac.th>...
Rajinder Nijjhar
In message <5cnq2b$q...@d2.tufts.edu>
pnat...@emerald.tufts.edu (Premkumar Natarajan) writes:
> : Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to be
> : sacred and
> : to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva."
Kaba is the Temple of Shiv for making men sons of Man or Mahadev.
Hajj is not for the Mussallmans.
--
Chaudhry Rajinder Nijjhar Jat M.Sc.
<gno...@zetnet.co.uk>
Gnostics are the living christs(satgurus) of the Living God, PAAR BRAHM.
AWAL ALLAH NOOR UPAYAE, KUDRAT DAE SABH BANDAE. Say ALLAH HOO AKBAR.
Hindu is one who knows his "HOND", the tribal identity and residence.
Sikh is a student, who learns spiritual knowledge through SHABD.
Khalsa is a philanthropist who fights for the honour of the oppressed.
Apostles or Nirmallae Sants preach NAAM through Akaal Takht.
Har Mandir Sahib Complex is for the Sikhs and the Nirmallae Sants.
NO KHALSAS OR WEAPONS ARE ALLOWED INSIDE THE HOLY COMPLEX.
"HOLY SPIRIT(SURTTI) SHATTERS THE FETTERS OF THE LETTERS"
DUNIYA MARAE YA JEEVAE; SUTHHRA GHOL PATASAE PEEVAE.
Ugr Raghuvanshi
Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
>
> What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
> themselves??
What would you say about a religion that forces women to stay
behind a burqa.
> Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape
What would you say about a religion that forces men to chop
off their dicks and grow long beards??
ISLAM is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
Premkumar Natarajan
Oh, my. Aren't you lucky you are a Muslim male.
Regards,
Prem
Waqar Ali Shah (u391...@au.ac.th) wrote:
: What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
: themselves??
: Or one that commands its followers to drink cows' urine??
: Or Brahmins' semen, for that matter??
: Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
: daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
: Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to be
: sacred and
: to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva." This is a fact, an undisputed
: fact.
: Hinduism is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
:
asi...@atrmail2.attmail.com
Looks like you dream of drinking cow's urine and others' semen. Your frustration
at not being able to do so , coupled with your undoubted ignorance regarding
anything and everything, has led you to concoct such nonsense gibberish.
Moreover, either because of a congenital stunted growth of your Penis , or the
forced removal of a part of it in the name of religion, has given you so much of
inferiority complex that you flinch at anything which eulogizes the divinity of
the organ that grants life( though I doubt whether your's can ;)).
If you ever step out of this pathetic vegetable existence into even the IQ level
of a moron, you should know that Hinduism does not encourage Sati but merely
allowed it in prehistoric times because of reasons that your sub-moronic
intelligence will find impossible to comprehend. It is treated a legal offence
just like suicide is, in present days.
As for your conjecture regarding prostitution, only the last-ditch efforts of
your Ulema ( the Mullahs ) in their failing efforts to prove that Islam is as
good as Hinduism, that have led to concocting such fables to malign Hinduism. I
have no doubts that you were sincere in your efforts, and Allah will definitely
grant you all the Hoors(waiting,wet virgins) of Jannat(Heaven) after the
Keyamat, just as you are legally permitted by your religion to act as a pimp and
use four wives for nefarious gains in your mortal existence.
If you are so eager to fulfill your dreams about having your heart's fill of
cow's urine and others' semen, there are about 500 million cows and 300 million
able-bodied males in India who will be willing to acquiesce to your needs.
However, none can help your dreams of a bigger and productive phallus. That , my
friend, may remain a pipe-dream unless you think,dream and worship Phallus just
as we poor , barbaric, polytheists do ( Tee Hee Hee!).
-Apurba Krishna Sircar
"I can resist everything but Temptation" - Oscar Wilde
In article <5cmu5t$9pg$1...@home.au.ac.th>,
u391...@au.ac.th (Waqar Ali Shah) wrote:
>
>
> What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
> themselves??
>
> Or one that commands its followers to drink cows' urine??
> Or Brahmins' semen, for that matter??
>
> Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
> daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
>
> Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to be
> sacred and
> to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva." This is a fact, an undisputed
> fact.
>
> Hinduism is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
>
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
robin
"S.L." <itec...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>
> To Waqar,
>
>
> Now that you have finished ridiculing Hinduism, try taking on other
> religions of the world! I am sure you will find something to snicker
> about. How about Christianity with (Virgin ? Mary), Buddhism, Judaism,
> Sikhism? Just trying to help you so you can put down others too.
>
>
I completely disagree with your asking Waqar to shut up. I for
one am eager to hear his views. If he has criticisms to make
of Hinduism (or Catholicism!) we should give him a patient and
thoughtful hearing.
Robin
robin
ak...@cs.caltech.edu (also sprach Zarathustra) wrote:
>
> Are you doing a doctorate in comparitive religions? Did anyone seek your
> opinion? You give muslims a bad name(majority of which is friendly and polite).
> I think you are just a troll bent upon messing up the image of muslims.
>
> You are not a good muslim if you enjoy hurting other people's feelings. I shall
> ignore all your future posts.
I don't see what Waqar being a Muslim has to do with his criticism.
If Waqar's Islam were imperfect would it be OK to encourage
sutee ?
Robin
robin
u391...@au.ac.th (Waqar Ali Shah) wrote:
>
>
> What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
> themselves??
Waqar, the practice of suttee was limited to a group (Rajputs)
and was allegedly the ultimate devotion of a wife to her
husband. Certainly condemnable.
> Or one that commands its followers to drink cows' urine??
It might interest you to know that the Quran (or another respected
Muslim text, please refer to a "religion" question in Pakistan Link)
allows "for medicinal use" drinking human urine!! I would strongly
advise against either approach.
> Or Brahmins' semen, for that matter??
Out of curiosity, I would appreciate a reference for this. While the
"freedom" that
Hinduism permits, has resulted in a variety of practices - many
directly contrary to each other, I think this semen business
seems not authentic. If you search all Hindudom you are bound to
find at least one person that has tried just about anything
however kinky!. "Hinduism" is a collection of experiences, the good
the bad and the stupid.
> Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
> daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
This is also new to me but could be true. You should definitely
post this as a rejoinder next time someone knocks the Prophet for
marrying a child or his daughter in law.
> Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to be
> sacred and to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva." This is a
fact, an undisputed fact.
A central aspect af all life is to replicate! The phallic symbol,
which doesn't really represent any one person's penis, is a celebration
of the desire to procreate. I think people of India, should take a break
or at least use prophylactics, though!
> Hinduism is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
Disgust, like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder!
Robin
PS: Waqar, have you considered returning to your roots? Your ancestors
were Hindus, may be you should go home!
URABIGNUT
WHERE IS THIS GUY WAQAR COMING FROM ?
IS IT ALL WHAT PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT HINDUISM IN PAKISTAN?
ANY PAKISTANIS KINDLY COMMENT.
thanks,
URABIGNUT.
**********************************************************8
> Waqar Ali Shah <u391...@au.ac.th> wrote in article
> <5cmu5t$9pg$1...@home.au.ac.th>...
> >
> > What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
> > themselves??
> >
> > Or one that commands its followers to drink cows' urine??
> > Or Brahmins' semen, for that matter??
> >
> > Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
> > daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
> >
> > Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to
> be
> > sacred and
> > to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva." This is a fact, an
> undisputed
> > fact.
> >
also sprach Zarathustra
In article <5cqrrq$1...@nntp.pe.net> robin <ro...@pe.net> writes:
>u391...@au.ac.th (Waqar Ali Shah) wrote:
>>
>>
>> themselves??
>
>and was allegedly the ultimate devotion of a wife to her
>husband. Certainly condemnable.
>
>
>Muslim text, please refer to a "religion" question in Pakistan Link)
> allows "for medicinal use" drinking human urine!! I would strongly
>advise against either approach.
Please give a reference of this in Quran. I have never heard urine mentioned in
Quran(for drinking as a medicene).
>
>> Or Brahmins' semen, for that matter??
>
>Out of curiosity, I would appreciate a reference for this. While the
>"freedom" that
>Hinduism permits, has resulted in a variety of practices - many
>directly contrary to each other, I think this semen business
>seems not authentic. If you search all Hindudom you are bound to
>find at least one person that has tried just about anything
>however kinky!. "Hinduism" is a collection of experiences, the good
>the bad and the stupid.
If it really were so, then anyone could be hindu. A jewish person a christian
and a muslim could simultaneusly be a hindu. Then why the brouhaha, why the
mosque breaking, why the shiv-senas.
>
>> Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
>> daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
>
>This is also new to me but could be true. You should definitely
>post this as a rejoinder next time someone knocks the Prophet for
>marrying a child or his daughter in law.
The prophet married his daughter in law? He didn't even have a son? Are thee
off thine rocker?
>
>> Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to be
>> sacred and to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva." This is a
> fact, an undisputed fact.
>
>A central aspect af all life is to replicate! The phallic symbol,
>which doesn't really represent any one person's penis, is a celebration
>of the desire to procreate. I think people of India, should take a break
that's entirely your opinion. Your soup might be my poison(and viceversa).
>or at least use prophylactics, though!
>> Hinduism is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
>
>Disgust, like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder!
certainly agree with that. Listen friend, these religious debates only bring
about anger and distrust. You will never be a muslim, i shal never become a
hindu. To you your religion and to me mine. Make peace.
I am sorry about my previous post to you. You are in the same category as
"MO" and "Asircar"(albeit a little less jarring). Please research your
stuff before posting.
>
>
>Robin
>
>PS: Waqar, have you considered returning to your roots? Your ancestors
>were Hindus, may be you should go home!
>
If my ancestors didn't know any electrical engineering should i give up my
profession as well? Really Sir, do reconsider before posting your somewhat
confused views.
S.L.
Waqar,
Here is food for thought for you:
What is paradise in Islam?
What is paradise? The Muslim scholars are usually embarrassed by this
question and pretend that it is not physical but a condition of the mind.
The above Koranic verse clearly states that it is a definite exchange i.e.
offer of paradise for KILLING A NON-MUSLIM or getting killed in the process
of obeying this divine command. The paradise is the main temptation for
practising Islam. This is the reason that the Koran explains it well.
Paradise is the description of the luxurious surroundings dwelt in by
Houris and Ghilman.
Houris are the most beautiful EVER YOUNG VIRGINS with wide, flexing eyes
and swelling bosoms. Ghilman are the immortal young boys, pretty like
pearls, clothed in green silk and brocade an embellished with bracelets of
silver.
A Most Wonderful Incentive to convert Non-Muslims!
Before Ridiculing other religions, Try putting the House of Islam in order!
Waqar Ali Shah <u391...@au.ac.th> wrote in article
<5cmu5t$9pg$1...@home.au.ac.th>...
>
> What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
> themselves??
>
> Or one that commands its followers to drink cows' urine??
> Or Brahmins' semen, for that matter??
>
> Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
> daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
>
> Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to
be
> sacred and
> to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva." This is a fact, an
undisputed
> fact.
>
also sprach Zarathustra
Dear Mr Robin
On the contrary, the point that I was trying to make was that all aspects of
the hindu religion are well known. They have been beaten to death on the net and
elsewhere. It seemed to me that Mr Shah was trying to provoke the hindus/hurt
their feelings. I can see where he is coming from, as he sees his own religion
being blasted(with usually quite unresearched commentaries by "Asircar", "MO"
and others).
Fighting flames with flames just burns every one.
If you have any other questions regarding my motives please email me.
regards...
Gopal Saraswat
Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
>
> What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
> themselves??
And what would you say, Ali, if I told you that everything you know
about religion came from one man who at the age of 53 "married" a 9 year
old child ?
And why is it that almost all Hindus condemn Sati, but almost no muslim
has the decency to condemn a pedophile ?
--
Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
Kartikeya Goyal
On 29 Jan 1997, Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
>
> What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
> themselves??
>
> Or one that commands its followers to drink cows' urine??
> Or Brahmins' semen, for that matter??
>
> Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
> daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
>
> Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to be
> sacred and
> to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva." This is a fact, an undisputed
> fact.
>
> Hinduism is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
>
>
>>
If this is an undisputed fact, tell me where you got it from. What hindu
text did you draw these bullshit facts from. Tell me where in the Gita
does it say child prositution is a religious duty. Tell were you found
these undisputed facts, and if they are really undisputed I will agree
with your statement, but until that time, GO FUCK YOURSELF. It is people
like you who give muslim a bad name, you piece of shit.
Shah
Ugr Raghuvanshi <Ugr.Rag...@kashyapmarg.bharat.desh> wrote:
>Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
>>
>> What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
>> themselves??
>
>What would you say about a religion that forces women to stay
>behind a burqa.
>
>> Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape
>
>What would you say about a religion that forces men to chop
>off their dicks and grow long beards??
>
Judasim, Christanity and Islam
>ISLAM is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
Saif Al-Shirawi
Ugr Raghuvanshi wrote:
>
> Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
> >
> > What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
> > themselves??
>
> What would you say about a religion that forces women to stay
> behind a burqa.
I would call that religion somewhat behind the times.
Not that I know of any such religion . . . or are you
under the mis-impression that Islam requires any such
thing?
> > Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape
>
> What would you say about a religion that forces men to chop
> off their dicks and grow long beards??
Actually, I'm a Muslim and I can assure you that my dick is not
chopped off . . . and I have no beard . . . since my religion
does not force me towards either action.
> ISLAM is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
Probably because you don't understand it . . . as evinced by
your idiotic statements.
Saif Al-Shirawi.
robin
> >
> >Muslim text, please refer to a "religion" question in Pakistan Link)
> > allows "for medicinal use" drinking human urine!! I would strongly
> >advise against either approach.
>
> Please give a reference of this in Quran. I have never heard urine mentioned in
> Quran(for drinking as a medicene).
You may want to look up Pakistan Link's religion section under "donating blood"
a recent ref was cited by the scholar answering questions. I think
this is unimportant anyway.
> >Hinduism permits, has resulted in a variety of practices - many
> >directly contrary to each other, I think this semen business
> >seems not authentic. If you search all Hindudom you are bound to
> >find at least one person that has tried just about anything
> >however kinky!. "Hinduism" is a collection of experiences, the good
> >the bad and the stupid.
>
> If it really were so, then anyone could be hindu. A jewish person a christian
> and a muslim could simultaneusly be a hindu. Then why the brouhaha, why the
> mosque breaking, why the shiv-senas.
Anyone with roots in the Indian Subcontinent can, in fact is - and
may not know it - a Hindu. To understand the clashes between Muslims
and Hindus, it is important to accept that fact that most Muslims
of N and W India were forcibly converted. In contrast, Muslims in Bengal,
Sri Lanka and Kerala and the deep south of India became Muslim through
trade contacts etc. These latter folk are quite "Hindu". It is also
notable that religious clashes are dramatically less frequent in
these areas. Most people in these areas tacitly accept that there are "other
ways to God" and seem less agitated about religion in general.
As I have written before, the reformation that Hinduism underwent
and is undergoing is largely because of it's contact with an
egalitarian Islam. Hindus who in pre -islam days may not have
been inclined to even question a scaled caste system, now usually
feel a need to try to divorce that concept from their faith!
Unfortunately, one of the negative consequences on Hinduism of Islam
is intolerance of other points of view. The Hindutvadis are as Muslim
as the "turkik" invader who put the "infidels' necks to the sword". The
only difference is that the necks and swords have been switched.
> >
> >> Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
> >> daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
> >
> >This is also new to me but could be true. You should definitely
> >post this as a rejoinder next time someone knocks the Prophet for
> >marrying a child or his daughter in law.
>
> The prophet married his daughter in law? He didn't even have a son? Are thee
> off thine rocker?
This refers to one of the Prophets' wives and being irrelevant, i
ought not to have mentioned it. Please ignore.
> >
> >> Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to be
> >> sacred and to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva." This is a
> > fact, an undisputed fact.
> >
> >A central aspect af all life is to replicate! The phallic symbol,
> >which doesn't really represent any one person's penis, is a celebration
> >of the desire to procreate. I think people of India, should take a break
>
> that's entirely your opinion. Your soup might be my poison(and viceversa).
> >or at least use prophylactics, though!
>
> >> Hinduism is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
> >
> >Disgust, like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder!
>
> certainly agree with that. Listen friend, these religious debates only bring
> about anger and distrust.
Can I ask you why?
> You will never be a muslim, i shal never become a
> hindu. To you your religion and to me mine. Make peace.
Peace is not silence! A frank and honest debate free of meanness
is not war!
> I am sorry about my previous post to you. You are in the same category as
> "MO" and "Asircar"(albeit a little less jarring). Please research your
> stuff before posting.
I missed your previous post, so please repost!
> >PS: Waqar, have you considered returning to your roots? Your ancestors
> >were Hindus, may be you should go home!
> >
> If my ancestors didn't know any electrical engineering should i give up my
> profession as well? Really Sir, do reconsider before posting your somewhat
> confused views.
Let me say this, I think that most people in the subcontinent were at
one time "Hindu". In many parts large sections of the population
converted (often at the threat of death) to Islam (see my comments
above)(for brevity, I am not referring to the jesuits etc). In my mind
those people and their descendents would and should
view the religion of their hapless ancestors with sympathy and affection.
Furthermore, having experienced a system different from that of
their forebears, they might be particularly able to see Hinduism's
many blemishes and reform it.
Regarding the "Hindus", their attitude towards the Muslims in their
midst cannot be one of hate because these were the victims and not
the "invaders" that they might hate. It is particularly stupid
for these people to emulate those who tormented their forefathers.
Robin
also sprach Zarathustra
In article <5cuueg$k...@nntp.pe.net> robin <ro...@pe.net> writes:
>ak...@cs.caltech.edu (also sprach Zarathustra) wrote:
>>
>> Please give a reference of this in Quran. I have never heard urine mentioned in
>> Quran(for drinking as a medicene).
>
>You may want to look up Pakistan Link's religion section under "donating blood"
>a recent ref was cited by the scholar answering questions. I think
>this is unimportant anyway.
It is unimportant. Yet you mentioned it. You cited Quran as a reference but
referred to some half baked reply by an authority "on the net" when challenged.
Friend, if you wish to carry on a debate, please be honest and consistent.
>
>
>Anyone with roots in the Indian Subcontinent can, in fact is - and
>may not know it - a Hindu. To understand the clashes between Muslims
Then if I am a hindu and I don't know it, I have no problems with you. If being
a hinud is all encompassing, pervasive subcontinentness, then there is nothing
to discuss. I would like some reference to "forcible converion of hindus". What
era, under what king/sultan/conqueror? Ofcourse by your argument, since
they could not overcome their hinduness, they were forcibly converted to
Islam while remaining hindus.
>notable that religious clashes are dramatically less frequent in
>these areas. Most people in these areas tacitly accept that there are "other
>ways to God" and seem less agitated about religion in general.
It takes two to clash. Remember that. There are different dmographics in the
areas that you mention. I also think that you are taking the "genes" thing
way too far. It borders on racism. Since such and such people are descendants
of such and such people, they act in a particular manner.
I disagree. People's actions are not determined by their ancestors antics
500 years ago.
>As I have written before, the reformation that Hinduism underwent
>and is undergoing is largely because of it's contact with an
>egalitarian Islam. Hindus who in pre -islam days may not have
>been inclined to even question a scaled caste system, now usually
>feel a need to try to divorce that concept from their faith!
>Unfortunately, one of the negative consequences on Hinduism of Islam
>is intolerance of other points of view. The Hindutvadis are as Muslim
>as the "turkik" invader who put the "infidels' necks to the sword". The
>only difference is that the necks and swords have been switched.
Their is some truth to what you are saying about the "evolution of hinduism"
Thanks for blaming Islam for all the hindus' intolerance. Again I want a
reference for the conquerors putting the local population to the sword.
Muslims ruled Inida for a 1000 odd years. There were never(outside of isolated
incidents) a pogrom for genocide or even forcible conversion. It is a matter
of fact that most became muslims due to the sufis. The rulers had a disincentive
in making the local population muslims. The same argument is applied to the
Ottomans in Europe. They could have easily made Bulgaria/Greece etc Muslim
but never had the urge since governing Muslims by a Muslim is harder/not
as profitable(under Islamic law).
>
>> >
>> >> Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
>> >> daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
>> >
>> >This is also new to me but could be true. You should definitely
>> >post this as a rejoinder next time someone knocks the Prophet for
>> >marrying a child or his daughter in law.
>>
>> The prophet married his daughter in law? He didn't even have a son? Are thee
>> off thine rocker?
>
>This refers to one of the Prophets' wives and being irrelevant, i
>ought not to have mentioned it. Please ignore.
Again, I needed an answer to the allegations and got an "irrelevant".
>>
>> certainly agree with that. Listen friend, these religious debates only bring
>> about anger and distrust.
>
>Can I ask you why?
Certainly. Because such debates highlight our many many differences and humans
find it easier to coexist with similar people. We do share some cultural
things, and if you insist on equating hinduism with culture and sort of
panculturally make everyone a hindu by definition then no arguments. This
however is not the normal usage of the word hinduism.
In which case discussing Islam and Hinduism is like discussing apples and
oranges... which makes our present debate pointless.
>
>> You will never be a muslim, i shal never become a
>> hindu. To you your religion and to me mine. Make peace.
>
>Peace is not silence! A frank and honest debate free of meanness
>is not war!
agreed. but when discussing religion, deepdown we are discussing our faiths.
We can be frank and honest but not really rational. Hence we are not able
to really debate. I ask not for silence, but rather understanding. WE have
some irreconcilable differences, we respect each other inspite of them and
coexist
>> >PS: Waqar, have you considered returning to your roots? Your ancestors
>> >were Hindus, may be you should go home!
>> >
>> If my ancestors didn't know any electrical engineering should i give up my
>> profession as well? Really Sir, do reconsider before posting your somewhat
>> confused views.
>
>Let me say this, I think that most people in the subcontinent were at
>one time "Hindu". In many parts large sections of the population
>converted (often at the threat of death) to Islam (see my comments
>above)(for brevity, I am not referring to the jesuits etc). In my mind
>those people and their descendents would and should
>view the religion of their hapless ancestors with sympathy and affection.
That is an interesting point. I have a lot of affection for troglodytes
and ice age people. I enjoy the flintstones. The findings of archeaolgists
fascinate me. Should I go back to the caves?(I really don't mean any disrespect
towards Hindus, I am just trying to extend your argument).
>Furthermore, having experienced a system different from that of
>their forebears, they might be particularly able to see Hinduism's
>many blemishes and reform it.
Reform a culture?(since you don't think hindusim is a religion). That my friend
is not my burden!
>Regarding the "Hindus", their attitude towards the Muslims in their
>midst cannot be one of hate because these were the victims and not
>the "invaders" that they might hate. It is particularly stupid
>for these people to emulate those who tormented their forefathers.
You speak of torment. Please, please give me some reference to an Auschwitz
some death camp. Which non muslims were put under a rack until they uttered
the kalima?
...grrrrr....'NUFF SAID!
>
>
>Robin
>
>
Shah
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
>>
>> What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
>> themselves??
>
>And what would you say, Ali, if I told you that everything you know
>about religion came from one man who at the age of 53 "married" a 9 year
>old child ?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exaggerations and more exaggerations, point to one source.
Waqar Ali Shah
robin (ro...@pe.net) wrote:
: u391...@au.ac.th (Waqar Ali Shah) wrote:
: >
: >
: > What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
: > themselves??
: Waqar, the practice of suttee was limited to a group (Rajputs)
: and was allegedly the ultimate devotion of a wife to her
: husband. Certainly condemnable.
:
: > Or one that commands its followers to drink cows' urine??
: It might interest you to know that the Quran (or another respected
: Muslim text, please refer to a "religion" question in Pakistan Link)
: allows "for medicinal use" drinking human urine!! I would strongly
: advise against either approach.
^Please don't lie.
Quran says no such thing.
: > Or Brahmins' semen, for that matter??
: Out of curiosity, I would appreciate a reference for this. While the
: "freedom" that
: Hinduism permits, has resulted in a variety of practices - many
: directly contrary to each other, I think this semen business
: seems not authentic. If you search all Hindudom you are bound to
: find at least one person that has tried just about anything
: however kinky!. "Hinduism" is a collection of experiences, the good
: the bad and the stupid.
: > Child prostitution is A RELIGIOUS DUTY in Hinduism: parents sell their
: > daughters to pimps and brothel owners to please their goddess "Yellama"
: This is also new to me but could be true. You should definitely
: post this as a rejoinder next time someone knocks the Prophet for
: marrying a child or his daughter in law.
: > Hindus worship the penis and consider every penis like phallic shape to be
: > sacred and to be a manifestation of their god "Shiva." This is a
: fact, an undisputed fact.
: A central aspect af all life is to replicate! The phallic symbol,
: which doesn't really represent any one person's penis, is a celebration
: of the desire to procreate. I think people of India, should take a break
: or at least use prophylactics, though!
: > Hinduism is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
: Disgust, like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder!
: Robin
: PS: Waqar, have you considered returning to your roots? Your ancestors
: were Hindus, may be you should go home!
--
Abbas2000
all Hindu worship monkeys shaped stones and Cows. Thats not a relion its
Bullshit.. They actually eat cow shit and drink cow piss this is a
FACT..Seriously
Gopal Saraswat
Shah wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >And what would you say, Ali, if I told you that everything you
> >know about religion came from one man who at the age of 53
> >"married" a 9 year old child ?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you really think that what I have stated is an exaggeration, can you
atleast condemn the act of any 53 year old man "marrying" a 9 year old
child ?
I know you can't, because by doing so you would by implication be
damning the sole source of your entire religion.
Besides, what stopped you from providing the "correct" version of the
story ? The fact that your version, if in fact it is different, is
equally damning ?
Is there atleast one practicing muslim who has the decency to condemn a
Aamir Riaz
asi...@atrmail2.attmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> As for your conjecture regarding prostitution, only the last-ditch efforts of
> your Ulema ( the Mullahs ) in their failing efforts to prove that Islam is as
> good as Hinduism, that have led to concocting such fables to malign Hinduism. I
> have no doubts that you were sincere in your efforts, and Allah will definitely
> grant you all the Hoors(waiting,wet virgins) of Jannat(Heaven) after the
> Keyamat, just as you are legally permitted by your religion to act as a pimp and
> use four wives for nefarious gains in your mortal existence.
>
> If you are so eager to fulfill your dreams about having your heart's fill of
> cow's urine and others' semen, there are about 500 million cows and 300 million
> able-bodied males in India who will be willing to acquiesce to your needs.
> However, none can help your dreams of a bigger and productive phallus. That , my
> friend, may remain a pipe-dream unless you think,dream and worship Phallus just
> as we poor , barbaric, polytheists do ( Tee Hee Hee!).
>
> -Apurba Krishna Sircar
> "I can resist everything but Temptation" - Oscar Wilde
>
Mr Shah:
This is the kind of disgusting attack on Islam you can expect in
response to your unprovoked tirade against Hinduism, which is as much a
religion as a way of life for hundreds of millions in the world.
Please refrain from such postings as it does nothing but bring direpute
on us muslims.
S.A. Riaz
Aamir Riaz
Saif Al-Shirawi wrote:
>
> Ugr Raghuvanshi wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > What would you say about a religion that encourages widows to kill
> > > themselves??
> >
> > behind a burqa.
>
> I would call that religion somewhat behind the times.
> Not that I know of any such religion . . . or are you
> under the mis-impression that Islam requires any such
> thing?
>
> >
> > off their dicks and grow long beards??
>
> Actually, I'm a Muslim and I can assure you that my dick is not
> chopped off . . . and I have no beard . . . since my religion
> does not force me towards either action.
>
>
> > ISLAM is A REALLY DISGUSTING RELIGION.
>
> Probably because you don't understand it . . . as evinced by
> your idiotic statements.
>
> Saif Al-Shirawi.
perpetuating this nonsensical argument, Mr Shah should be soundly
condemned by all muslims.
S.A. Riaz
Unknown
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Shah wrote:
>>
>> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And what would you say, Ali, if I told you that everything you
>> >know about religion came from one man who at the age of 53
>> >"married" a 9 year old child ?
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Exaggerations and more exaggerations, point to one source.
>
>If you really think that what I have stated is an exaggeration, can you
>atleast condemn the act of any 53 year old man "marrying" a 9 year old
>child ?
>
>I know you can't, because by doing so you would by implication be
>damning the sole source of your entire religion.
>
What you said is not true any way I asked you for a source and you
came up with bla bla bla. match of 59/9 is very much happening in your
own back yard. I suggest you keep your house in order and I keep mine.
Gopal Saraswat
robin wrote:
>
> I don't see what Waqar being a Muslim has to do with his criticism.
> If Waqar's Islam were imperfect would it be OK to encourage
> sutee ?
It is not Waqar's, and your, search for perfection that everyone is
objecting to - it is your knavery.
Why don't you start your search with a sound condemnation of your own
religion ? Do you call Jesus a bastard and Mohamad a pedophile ?
Most Hindus atleast have no problem accepting that sutee is wrong. How
many Muslims and Christians have the integrity to condemn the despicable
aspects of their own religions ?
Most people refrain from attacking other people's religion because they
know that it is wrong to do so. However, there are a handful of people,
like Waqar and yourself, who cannot understand right and wrong. Like
criminals who must be punished, these people can learn to behave only if
we tell them things about their own religions that make them squirm.
asi...@atrmail2.attmail.com
In article <19970204030...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
In your own words:
Just two words for you FUCK YOU!
Get YOUR facts straight!
mis...@pha.jhu.edu
In article <32F759...@ix.netcom.com>,
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Most people refrain from attacking other people's religion because they
> know that it is wrong to do so. However, there are a handful of people,
> like Waqar and yourself, who cannot understand right and wrong. Like
> criminals who must be punished, these people can learn to behave only if
> we tell them things about their own religions that make them squirm.
Mr.Saraswat's post has good intentions behind it; a basic humanity and
a feeling for others. But it is easy to get carried away with niceties.
When it is not wrong to attack communism, existentialism, federalism,
liberalism and every "ism" under the sun, why hold a certain set of
opinions sacrosanct from criticism? The idea that attacking someone's
religion is bad (which has gained popularity in the PC community) is
promoted by irrationalists who are afraid of scrutiny and reluctant
to search for the truth. Only those who are insecure about their belief
bristle at the slightest blasphemy and get angry at criticism.
I have verbally attacked people's religions in the past and have no
compunction about doing that in future. There is no wrong in that.
The wrong lies in the intolerance of dissent.
Mohammad Noorul Islam
MuJtAba123
Hey, his facts are straight. If you are embarassed about your Religion, I
feel sorry for you. I know why you can be embarassed, your religion is
based on a freakin COW?!(& its piss and its crap).
Gopal Saraswat
Shah wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Shah wrote:
> >>
> >> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >And what would you say, Ali, if I told you that everything you
> >> >know about religion came from one man who at the age of 53
> >> >"married" a 9 year old child ?
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Exaggerations and more exaggerations, point to one source.
> >
> >If you really think that what I have stated is an exaggeration,
> >can you atleast condemn the act of any 53 year old man "marrying"
> >a 9 year old child ?
> >
> >I know you can't, because by doing so you would by implication be
> >damning the sole source of your entire religion.
> >
> >story ? The fact that your version, if in fact it is different, is
> >equally damning ?
> >
> >Is there atleast one practicing muslim who has the decency to condemn
> >a pedophile ?
>
Actually it is true. Mohamad was 53 when he "married" 9 year old Ayesha.
Tell us what you disagree with:
a) Mohamad "married" Ayesha
b) He was 53 years old when he did that
C) Ayesha was 9 years old at the time
If you disagree, provide your version.
> any way I asked you for a source
It is obvious to every one, except probably yourself, that you are
trying to divert attention from the issue at hand, because it makes you
squirm. And this is inspite of you're being a muslim - if you really
believed in Mohamad, you would be defending him !
> and you came up with bla bla bla.
Don't you wish it was blah blah ! The fact is I have asked a question:
Is there atleast one practicing muslim who has the decency to condemn
a pedophile ?
And what we hear is a loud silence. There are half billion muslim males
in the world, and not one of them is willing to stand up for the rights
of a 9 year child.
Far more important are the implications of this fact. Muslim men will
not defend their own children if it means opposing an edict of Islam !
Can anyone in his right mind believe that they will oppose Islam when it
comes to other edicts, such as "slay the idolaters" ?
> match of 59/9 is very much happening in your own back yard.
??? are you inhaling ??
> I suggest you keep your house in order and I keep mine.
And you did not make this suggestion when Ali started this thread
because you did'nt think I could tell you things about Islam that would
make you feel 2 inches tall ?
Which proves not only that my tactics work, but that they are the most
effective way to restore enduring communal harmony in the shortest
possible time. Next time come forward and make this suggestion as soon
as a muslim starts a thread like this one.
If you or some other muslim does not act fast enough, someone like me
will come along and tell you things about Islam that will make you
squirm.
And please remember, this is just one of dozens of things in our
repertoire. Don't believe me ? Just attack Hinduism, and I'll be
delighted to oblige ! Make my day.
Mo
M Islam wrote
>>I have verbally attacked people's religions in the past and have no
compunction about doing that in future. There is no wrong in that.
The wrong lies in the intolerance of dissent.<<
Absolutely. These religious guys excuse every cruelty - beating woimen
for not wearing the Hijab or burning them alive or forcing everyone to
wear beards , turbans as part of religion which can not eb criticised
- otherwise they might get offended.
Well one must offend them at least once a day to go to bed feeling
satisfied !
robin
mis...@pha.jhu.edu wrote:
I have verbally attacked people's religions in the past and have no
> compunction about doing that in future. There is no wrong in that.
> The wrong lies in the intolerance of dissent.
>
>
I agree, I would urge you to criticize the Hindu viewpoint.
May be TFN and Anil Rathore will learn something! (never underestimate
the power of a post)
Robin
robin
robin
Anil Batti Rathore <anil....@reddbarna.no> wrote:
>
> Right you are gentleman! Islam is a very erotic religion indeed. That
>
> "Prithviraj"
> S.L. wrote:
> >
> > What is paradise? The Muslim scholars are usually embarrassed by this
> > question and pretend that it is not physical but a condition of the mind.
> >
> > The above Koranic verse clearly states that it is a definite exchange i.e.
> > offer of paradise for KILLING A NON-MUSLIM or getting killed in the process
> > of obeying this divine command. The paradise is the main temptation for
> > practising Islam. This is the reason that the Koran explains it well.
> >
> > Paradise is the description of the luxurious surroundings dwelt in by
> > Houris and Ghilman.
> > Houris are the most beautiful EVER YOUNG VIRGINS with wide, flexing eyes
> > and swelling bosoms. Ghilman are the immortal young boys, pretty like
> > pearls, clothed in green silk and brocade an embellished with bracelets of
> > silver.
> > A Most Wonderful Incentive to convert Non-Muslims!
> > Before Ridiculing other religions, Try putting the House of Islam in order!
> >
First, why is it that a state of "bliss", without sorrow OR JOY,
a state of equanimity "nirvana" which is the consensus Hindu
objective more desirable than a garden with virgins ?
On this I think Islam is more practical. If the aim of the
system is to get you to behave in a certain way by dangling a
carrot, it seems to me that the thought of nubile buxom virgins (or
handsome men if you are female) would be a more effective inducement
than an abstract state of "bliss".
Robin
also sprach Zarathustra
In article <5dc8bm$l...@nntp.pe.net> robin <ro...@pe.net> writes:
>> > Houris are the most beautiful EVER YOUNG VIRGINS with wide, flexing eyes
>> > and swelling bosoms. Ghilman are the immortal young boys, pretty like
>> > pearls, clothed in green silk and brocade an embellished with bracelets of
>> > silver.
>> > A Most Wonderful Incentive to convert Non-Muslims!
>> > Before Ridiculing other religions, Try putting the House of Islam in order!
>> >
>
>
>First, why is it that a state of "bliss", without sorrow OR JOY,
> a state of equanimity "nirvana" which is the consensus Hindu
>objective more desirable than a garden with virgins ?
>
>On this I think Islam is more practical. If the aim of the
>system is to get you to behave in a certain way by dangling a
>carrot, it seems to me that the thought of nubile buxom virgins (or
>handsome men if you are female) would be a more effective inducement
>than an abstract state of "bliss".
you are ofcourse assuming that it is indeed a "carrot" and not a promise.
>
>Robin
>
Just want to put my $.02. I don't think there is going to be any procreation
in heaven(that is, even if you get there you can't make babies). That is
what I take to be the meaning of "azwaaj e muttaharat"---"pure women". It
also means that no erotic stuff there...
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Jason Menayan
All religions are disgusting.
--
Jason Menayan
haih...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/2382/
Last major update: December 10, 1996
Pix 'n Pans update: February 3, 1997
If you would like to mail me, remove the 'x' from 'geocitiesx'
Amber Habib
In article <32F8D6...@ix.netcom.com>,
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If you or some other muslim does not act fast enough, someone like me
>will come along and tell you things about Islam that will make you
>squirm.
>
>And please remember, this is just one of dozens of things in our
>repertoire. Don't believe me ? Just attack Hinduism, and I'll be
>delighted to oblige ! Make my day.
>
>--
I had responded to the original post in this thread and criticized it as
"ignorant", "base" and "vile". But perhaps you did not see that.
I suppose I have no objections to your tactics as long as you also use
them against the people who write similar juvenile stuff about Muslims.
Do you do that?
V.Tripathi
Jason Menayan wrote:
>
> All religions are disgusting.
>
> --
Of course.
Vikram
pgg...@computer.net
I think all decent people should attack bigotry on the net: whichever
direction it comes from: otherwise an onesided treatment lacks credibilty
and will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Unknown
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Don't you wish it was blah blah ! The fact is I have asked a question:
bal bal.
>
>Is there atleast one practicing muslim who has the decency to condemn
>a pedophile ?
>
I do, I always have.
>And what we hear is a loud silence. There are half billion muslim males
>in the world, and not one of them is willing to stand up for the rights
>of a 9 year child.
Wrong again see above. As if a billion people in India do when it
comes to hinduism.
>
>Far more important are the implications of this fact. Muslim men will
>not defend their own children if it means opposing an edict of Islam !
>Can anyone in his right mind believe that they will oppose Islam when it
>comes to other edicts, such as "slay the idolaters" ?
For once point to the source please. I don't care what people say
about any religion. eg. An Indian news paper reported about some
hindus in a bizzare act related to their religion were giving away
their young daughter for prostitution to please their godesses.
Now I wouldent have belived a word about it until I read that news my
sell. I suggest you can do the same since I do not have the name of
the paper and I dont remember.
>
>> match of 59/9 is very much happening in your own back yard.
>
>??? are you inhaling ??
Yes, but oxygen and its fresh in the country side.
>
>> I suggest you keep your house in order and I keep mine.
>
>And you did not make this suggestion when Ali started this thread
>because you did'nt think I could tell you things about Islam that would
>make you feel 2 inches tall ?
Ali or who ever started this thread is a nitwit. I am already 6-2 I
think I am tall enough.
>
>Which proves not only that my tactics work, but that they are the most
>effective way to restore enduring communal harmony in the shortest
>possible time. Next time come forward and make this suggestion as soon
>as a muslim starts a thread like this one.
Wrong my friend your tactics actually makes it worse for both sides.
Its like my dunda is bigger than yours. No its not. Its too.
>
>If you or some other muslim does not act fast enough, someone like me
>will come along and tell you things about Islam that will make you
>squirm.
You can say whatever you want, who cares, I don't.
>
>And please remember, this is just one of dozens of things in our
>repertoire. Don't believe me ? Just attack Hinduism, and I'll be
>delighted to oblige ! Make my day.
I have no intentions of attacking any religion.
All I asked was for the source and all I got was bla bla bla.
Gopal Saraswat
Amber Habib wrote:
>
> I had responded to the original post in this thread and criticized it as
> "ignorant", "base" and "vile". But perhaps you did not see that.
Yes you did, and I was pleasantly surprised to see it. Let me propose to
you, Amber. How about you and I make up one of them good cop, bad cop
teams and beat up on those fundee muslims who initiate unprovoked
attacks on Hinduism ?
> I suppose I have no objections to your tactics as long as you also use
> them against the people who write similar juvenile stuff about Muslims.
> Do you do that?
Much as it breaks my heart, I would rather live with the objections of
an obviously reasonable and good-intentioned person like yourself than
get trapped, by implication, into subscribing to the tenet that all
religions are equally good/bad.
I have read and re-read six different translations of the Koran. It has
saddened me to find that the "immutable word of god" is full of
hostility towards the "idolaters" and the "infidels". These fundee
muslims who initiate unprovoked attacks against Hinduism are,
unfortunately, following the edicts of the Koran.
Having said that, I do deplore "juvenile stuff" being written about not
only Muslims, but also about Islam, especially if it is intended simply
to insult.
On the other hand, one must not only tolerate, but even encourage
thought provoking material that brings up important issues. Unless we
ponder these issues, how can we hope to come up with terms under which
we can co-exist ?
Gopal Saraswat
Shah wrote:
>
> You know anything said without a source is bla bla bla. So it is bal
> bal bal.
But you have studiously avoided disagreeing with what I have said !
Dissecting the source would simply divert attention from what I have
said, and I do not want to fall into that trap.
Once again, here is what I said.
Mohamad "married" Ayesha when he was 53 years old and she was 9.
If you disagree with this statement, say so, and tell us your version.
> >
> >Is there atleast one practicing muslim who has the decency to condemn
> >a pedophile ?
> >
> I do, I always have.
Thank you. I am glad to see that you have the decency to condemn a
pedophoile.
Let us now see if you are inference-challenged.
Since Mohamad "married" Ayesha when he was 53 and she was 9, would you
call him a pedophile ?
If you do, you would have to condemn him for being a pedophile - don't
forget you have already received adulations for being decent.
Which brings us to the critical question. Can a practicing Muslim
condemn Mohamad ? Is it not true that the very act of condemning Mohamad
turns a Muslim into an apostate ?
Incidently, have you asked your friendly neighborhood mullah what
punishment Islam prescribes for an apostate ? Did you know that he
promises big-boobed hoories for anyone who carries out his sentence ?
Note also that a muslim may not doubt anything in the Koran. The very
act of doubting any edict of the Koran turns a muslim into an apostate.
> I am already 6-2 I think I am tall enough.
How interesting.
Gopal Saraswat
pgg...@computer.net wrote:
>
> I think all decent people should attack bigotry on the net:
> whichever direction it comes from: otherwise an onesided treatment
> lacks credibilty and will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
I can't seem to remember what exactly Barry Goldwater said about
extremism in the pursuit of justice, and moderation in the search for
truth. Or was it the other way around ?
In any case, a onesided treatment that scrupulously stays on the side of
truth does *not* lack credibility.
And what is truly worthy of contempt is a fanatical opposition to any
attempts to expose the true nature of Islam.
Don't you think an honest person would spend a couple of hours reading
the Koran before pontificating about onesided treatments ? And wouldn't
a fair person try to follow the arguments and make specific comments
rather than obfuscate ?
Salim Ahmed
|> Shah wrote:
|> >
|> > You know anything said without a source is bla bla bla. So it is bal
|> > bal bal.
|>
|> But you have studiously avoided disagreeing with what I have said !
|> Dissecting the source would simply divert attention from what I have
|> said, and I do not want to fall into that trap.
|>
|> Once again, here is what I said.
|>
|> Mohamad "married" Ayesha when he was 53 years old and she was 9.
|>
|> If you disagree with this statement, say so, and tell us your version.
|>
|> > >
|> > >Is there atleast one practicing muslim who has the decency to condemn
|> > >a pedophile ?
|> > >
|> > I do, I always have.
|>
|> Thank you. I am glad to see that you have the decency to condemn a
|> pedophoile.
|>
|> Let us now see if you are inference-challenged.
|>
|> Since Mohamad "married" Ayesha when he was 53 and she was 9, would you
|> call him a pedophile ?
Mr GS:
You seem to think that you have uncovered some great secret that you
can use to denigrate islam or the prophet. The original thread is
as disgusting as your response to it.
Do you know what the word means ? I can think of a few choice words for someone
who deliberately tries to incense people but I won't fall for your obvious tactics.
The prophet MARRIED Ayesha with the full concent of the parents, the marriage was
consumated when she was of age and he loved her all his life. Sounds like your
average pedophiliac doesn't it (sarcasm, if you have trouble understanding).
Besides, he also married Khadija who was 15 years older to him. So calling him that
name shows who is inference-challenged.
|> If you do, you would have to condemn him for being a pedophile - don't
|> forget you have already received adulations for being decent.
Buy yourself a good dictionary and while your're in there pick up
a good book on the biography of the prophet. You seem to have started
believing your own junk.
|> Which brings us to the critical question. Can a practicing Muslim
|> condemn Mohamad ? Is it not true that the very act of condemning Mohamad
|> turns a Muslim into an apostate ?
Mohamad was a prophet. He was also a human being. He was the first
to distinguish between what was revealed to him and what he taught
and practiced on his own. This is a ridiculously stupid question.
Can a christian condemn Jesus and still be christian, can a jew
condemn Moses and still be a Jew. What in the world are you asking ?
|> Incidently, have you asked your friendly neighborhood mullah what
|> punishment Islam prescribes for an apostate ? Did you know that he
|> promises big-boobed hoories for anyone who carries out his sentence ?
Neither the mullah or anyone else can promise anyone anything in the
hearafter. The mullah is just as answerable to God for taking human
life as the person spreading malicious lies. You are displaying
your ignorance when you suggest that all mullahs are doing this.
|> Note also that a muslim may not doubt anything in the Koran. The very
|> act of doubting any edict of the Koran turns a muslim into an apostate.
Change that to the "muslim does not doubt ..." and we are in agreement.
Muslims believe the divine origin of the Koran, as such it is
infallible. If you doubt that you are not a muslim. Doesn't mean anyone
has the right to kill you but by definition you are not a muslim.
Peace.
|> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PS: How about practicing what you preach.
PPS: If someone posts material offensive to you as the original poster
obviously did, condemn that act and other muslims will join in.
If you retaliate in this fashion with lies you are going to alienate
everyone.
Salim Ahmed
|> Amber Habib wrote:
|> > I suppose I have no objections to your tactics as long as you also use
|> > them against the people who write similar juvenile stuff about Muslims.
|> > Do you do that?
|>
|> Much as it breaks my heart, I would rather live with the objections of
|> an obviously reasonable and good-intentioned person like yourself than
|> get trapped, by implication, into subscribing to the tenet that all
|> religions are equally good/bad.
Isn't this the much vaunted feature of hinduism - that all paths
lead to the same goal. Isn't this usually provided as the reasoning
behind idolatory ?
|> I have read and re-read six different translations of the Koran. It has
|> saddened me to find that the "immutable word of god" is full of
|> hostility towards the "idolaters" and the "infidels". These fundee
|> muslims who initiate unprovoked attacks against Hinduism are,
|> unfortunately, following the edicts of the Koran.
I other words, if a religion does not tell you that what you're already
doing is OK you have no need for it. If you read enough books I think
you may find one that says what you want to hear. I'm not sure what
you were smoking when you read it but where did you find verses that
asked to attack idolators. The hostility toward idolatory is due to
the many vices that it engendered (at least in Arabia before islam).
It sounds like you want some feel-good book that gives you a hug and
tell you that you can do whatever you like and everything will be OK.
Well, islam asks you to make a choice; either you believe or you don't.
PS: How about also calling hindus that post objectionable material about
other religions fundamental hindus.
Amber Habib
In article <32FB90...@ix.netcom.com>,
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Amber Habib wrote:
>>
>> I had responded to the original post in this thread and criticized it as
>> "ignorant", "base" and "vile". But perhaps you did not see that.
>
>Yes you did, and I was pleasantly surprised to see it. Let me propose to
>you, Amber. How about you and I make up one of them good cop, bad cop
>attacks on Hinduism ?
>
Well, I occasionally respond to the fanatics of either side but I have no
plans of making a full time career of it! I mean, it would take up my
whole life, given the state of s.c.i.
>
>Much as it breaks my heart, I would rather live with the objections of
>an obviously reasonable and good-intentioned person like yourself than
>get trapped, by implication, into subscribing to the tenet that all
>religions are equally good/bad.
>
I am not interested in any evaluation at all of the relative goodness/badness
of any religion. It appears to me that regardless of your religion you can
use it to preserve and increase the more noble traits of humnaity; or you
can use it as an excuse for your ill deeds. The Koran, for instance, was used
by both Mahmud of Ghazni and the Sufis, and who is to say who was "right"?
>I have read and re-read six different translations of the Koran. It has
>saddened me to find that the "immutable word of god" is full of
>hostility towards the "idolaters" and the "infidels". These fundee
>muslims who initiate unprovoked attacks against Hinduism are,
>unfortunately, following the edicts of the Koran.
>
Not quite. The Koran wouldn't excuse their ignorance, for one thing.
It is interesting to note (as I said in that earlier post) that Alberuni,
even though a slave of Mahmud, still defended Hindus against the charges
of polytheism and idolatry and pointed out the deeper philosophical issues
involved. It is sad that people in the 20th century should be of a narrower
outlook than one from the 11th.
>Having said that, I do deplore "juvenile stuff" being written about not
>only Muslims, but also about Islam, especially if it is intended simply
>to insult.
>On the other hand, one must not only tolerate, but even encourage
>thought provoking material that brings up important issues. Unless we
>ponder these issues, how can we hope to come up with terms under which
>we can co-exist ?
>
I have no argument with that. But an exchange of insults, under whatever
provocation, is not a discussion.
Prasanna N
Guys, Internet is no place for emo kiddies like you ...please grow up and
whilst you are doing that please try and make an effort to understand the
essence of the religions that you both are so intent on belittling...
And hey ...do please try and look beyond swelling bossoms and 'waiting to
be deflowered virgins...'...male and female...so passe...
robin <ro...@pe.net> wrote in article <5dc8bm$l...@nntp.pe.net>...
> Anil Batti Rathore <anil....@reddbarna.no> wrote:
> >
> > Right you are gentleman! Islam is a very erotic religion indeed. That
> >
> > "Prithviraj"
> > S.L. wrote:
> > >
> > > What is paradise? The Muslim scholars are usually embarrassed by this
> > > question and pretend that it is not physical but a condition of the
mind.
> > >
> > > The above Koranic verse clearly states that it is a definite exchange
i.e.
> > > offer of paradise for KILLING A NON-MUSLIM or getting killed in the
process
> > > of obeying this divine command. The paradise is the main temptation
for
> > > practising Islam. This is the reason that the Koran explains it well.
> > >
> > > Paradise is the description of the luxurious surroundings dwelt in by
> > > Houris and Ghilman.
> > > Houris are the most beautiful EVER YOUNG VIRGINS with wide, flexing
eyes
> > > and swelling bosoms. Ghilman are the immortal young boys, pretty like
> > > pearls, clothed in green silk and brocade an embellished with
bracelets of
> > > silver.
> > > A Most Wonderful Incentive to convert Non-Muslims!
> > > Before Ridiculing other religions, Try putting the House of Islam in
order!
> > >
>
>
> First, why is it that a state of "bliss", without sorrow OR JOY,
> a state of equanimity "nirvana" which is the consensus Hindu
> objective more desirable than a garden with virgins ?
>
> On this I think Islam is more practical. If the aim of the
> system is to get you to behave in a certain way by dangling a
> carrot, it seems to me that the thought of nubile buxom virgins (or
> handsome men if you are female) would be a more effective inducement
> than an abstract state of "bliss".
>
> Robin
>
>
Shams Haason
Prasanna N wrote:
>
> Guys, Internet is no place for emo kiddies like you ...please grow up and
> whilst you are doing that please try and make an effort to understand the
> essence of the religions that you both are so intent on belittling...
> And hey ...do please try and look beyond swelling bossoms and 'waiting to
> be deflowered virgins...'...male and female...so passe...
Dear Parasanna N.,
I am floored by your words of wisdom.
Your undeniable truth that shines out from within every word you have
written, and that moves us to say in unison..." Please accept my deepest
gratitude in getting us all to see our stupidities, our shallowness, our
immaturity, our infatuation with the mundane and nothingness that fills
our empty heads and souls......"
BTW, what does N stand for...just curious ? :-)
Best Regards,
Shams Haason.
Shah
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Shah wrote:
>>
>> You know anything said without a source is bla bla bla. So it is bal
>> bal bal.
>
>But you have studiously avoided disagreeing with what I have said !
>Dissecting the source would simply divert attention from what I have
>said, and I do not want to fall into that trap.
You already have. This is your third post and you have not provided
the source and that is what I asked for and nothing else.
>
>Once again, here is what I said.
>
>Mohamad "married" Ayesha when he was 53 years old and she was 9.
>
>If you disagree with this statement, say so, and tell us your version.
>
I DISAGREE. I have no version since there has been no credible source
I cannot agree with your version. I have heard a lot of stories very
different from yours some good some bad. I think you have no source
for your accusations and since you cannot point to one I believe your
version is as good as the others.
But if its true than I agree what ever you say.
Krishna Venuturimilli
robin wrote:
>
> Anil Batti Rathore <anil....@reddbarna.no> wrote:
> >
> > Right you are gentleman! Islam is a very erotic religion indeed. That
> >
> > "Prithviraj"
> > S.L. wrote:
> > >
> > > What is paradise? The Muslim scholars are usually embarrassed by this
> > > question and pretend that it is not physical but a condition of the mind.
> > >
> > > The above Koranic verse clearly states that it is a definite exchange i.e.
> > > offer of paradise for KILLING A NON-MUSLIM or getting killed in the process
> > > of obeying this divine command. The paradise is the main temptation for
> > > practising Islam. This is the reason that the Koran explains it well.
> > >
> > > Paradise is the description of the luxurious surroundings dwelt in by
> > > Houris and Ghilman.
> > > Houris are the most beautiful EVER YOUNG VIRGINS with wide, flexing eyes
> > > and swelling bosoms. Ghilman are the immortal young boys, pretty like
> > > pearls, clothed in green silk and brocade an embellished with bracelets of
> > > silver.
> > > A Most Wonderful Incentive to convert Non-Muslims!
> > > Before Ridiculing other religions, Try putting the House of Islam in order!
> > >
>
> First, why is it that a state of "bliss", without sorrow OR JOY,
> a state of equanimity "nirvana" which is the consensus Hindu
> objective more desirable than a garden with virgins ?
Simple question.
If you have a choice of choosing ONLY one of the following,
which one would you ?
1) You are given a million dollars only for one day. You can
Spend all that as you like. But the next day all the money
that remains will be taken away. Also all that you bought
on that day will be taken away. So, in effect, you'll only
be left with the memories of the pleasures you have on that
particular day.
2) You are given five thousand dollars every month, and nothing
will be taken away. You can do whatever you want to with it.
Any sane person who has some interest in life, who wants to live
for sometime will definitely choose the second.
By the way, let me tell you something.
Hinduism doesn't say "Dont be happy".
Infact it says just the opposite.
It says dont be attracted to one, two day pleasures. Be attracted to
that pleasure which will last forever, for eternity, which no one
can grab from you. Go for the HIGHEST.
I actually am surprised why people can't get this.
If one has to choose between fleeting pleasures and something
permanent then any intellectually evolved mind would go for the
latter. unless he/she is blind with greed because of which he/she
would definitely suffer consequences that would follow later.
In Hinduism, anything that is conditioned by "Time and Space"
is beleived to die one day. And anything that has "Form and Name"
is conditioned by "Space and Time".
I really wonder how even rationally evolved, scientific minded people
beleive in things like heaven, hell etc.....
And, say for the sake of argument, this concept of heaven
existed, it would cease to exist one day for it is conditioned
by "Time and Space".
Well, I think going after something that lasts longer is more
PRACTICAL!!!!!
regards,
Krishna
Isma Ali Khan
In <32FE1E...@eng.iastate.edu> Krishna Venuturimilli
<kr...@eng.iastate.edu> writes:
>robin wrote:
>>
>> > >
>>
>> First, why is it that a state of "bliss", without sorrow OR JOY,
>> a state of equanimity "nirvana" which is the consensus Hindu
>> objective more desirable than a garden with virgins ?
>
>
>Simple question.
>
>If you have a choice of choosing ONLY one of the following,
>which one would you ?
>1) You are given a million dollars only for one day. You can
> Spend all that as you like. But the next day all the money
> that remains will be taken away. Also all that you bought
> on that day will be taken away. So, in effect, you'll only
> be left with the memories of the pleasures you have on that
> particular day.
>2) You are given five thousand dollars every month, and nothing
> will be taken away. You can do whatever you want to with it.
>
you would choose the former.
Gopal Saraswat
Salim Ahmed wrote:
>
> |> get trapped, by implication, into subscribing to the tenet that all
> |> religions are equally good/bad.
>
> lead to the same goal. Isn't this usually provided as the reasoning
> behind idolatory ?
Actually, it is the reasoning responsible for the tolerance of polygamy,
pedophollia, synchronized ass-raising, and a colossal ignorance that
cannot comprehend the time value of money aka interest.
Hinduism teaches that you can reach salvation by worshipping any of
numerous gods and godesses, or none at all. Only the dumbest and meanest
of fools will insist that his is the only correct path. Is it just a
coincidence that almost all of these fools had their genitals mutilated
when they were infants ?
Gandhi had some incomparable achievements, but of all his faults, none
was more destructive than his assertion that all religions are equally
good. Thanks to Gandhi, so many Hindus resist a reasoned and factual
exposition of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Islam.
So, my dear Salim, next you think of using derogatory terms like
'idolatory', just remember that we can and shall teach you manners. You
may not believe in them, but you will observe them out of fear - fear of
what we might tell you about your despicable cult.
--
Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
Gopal Saraswat
> >Islam when it comes to other edicts, such as "slay the idolaters" ?
>
> For once point to the source please.
[at-Taubah 9:5.8] Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the
idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege
them, and prepare for them each ambush.
To search for passages of the Koran, and get translations by three
different authors, please visit:
http://goon.stg.brown.edu/quran_browser/pqeasy.shtml
In my opinion, the Koran is a book that everyone should read, especially
non-muslims, and extra specially Hindus. Knowledge *IS* power.
Gopal Saraswat
Salim Ahmed wrote:
>
> |> Since Mohamad "married" Ayesha when he was 53 and she was 9
>
> The prophet MARRIED Ayesha with the full concent of the parents,
> the marriage was consumated when she was of age
Try following Mohamad's example in the US today and you will land in
jail ! Most civilized societies decree an age of consent of 16, based
not on sexual condition but upon the maturity of the mind that is
attached to the genitals.
Besides, your implicit assumption that a child is the property of the
parents, to dispose of as they please, will meet with nothing but
contempt amongst civilized peoples.
Sure, most religions have stuff that would be considered highly
objectionable today. However, Islam is the only major religion that does
not permit adaptation based upon the tremendous amount of learning and
development in the last 1300 years. This is because Mohamad decreed that
the Koran is the final, immutable word of god and that his was a perfect
life, to be followed by all muslims.
> Change that to the "muslim does not doubt ..." and we are in
> agreement. Muslims believe the divine origin of the Koran,
> as such it is infallible. If you doubt that you are not a muslim.
> Doesn't mean anyone has the right to kill you but by definition you
> are not a muslim.
Seems to me word didn't trickle down to Khomeini who ordered a hit on
Rushdie, who incidently still thinks he is a muslim. And if you think he
was just some lunatic octogenarian, think again. His heirs in Iran have
steadfastly refused to rescind his fatwa.
>
> Peace.
Rushdie, Tasleema, et al would love to have some of that fabled peace
you offer everybody.
>
> |> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> PS: How about practicing what you preach.
What do you think I am doing ?
> PPS: If someone posts material offensive to you as the original
> poster obviously did, condemn that act and other muslims
> will join in. If you retaliate in this fashion with lies
> you are going to alienate everyone.
And what if I retaliate with the unvarnished truth ?
Gopal Saraswat
Amber Habib wrote:
>
> In article <32FB90...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > These fundee muslims who initiate unprovoked attacks against
> > Hinduism are, unfortunately, following the edicts of the Koran.
> >
>
> Not quite. The Koran wouldn't excuse their ignorance, for one
> thing.
Actually it would. Here's a passage from the Koran:
[al-Anfal 8:12.31] When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am
with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into
the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of
them each finger.
To search through three different tranlsations of the Koran, please
visit:
http://goon.stg.brown.edu/quran_browser/pqeasy.shtml
> .... It is sad that people in the 20th century should
> be of a narrower outlook than one from the 11th.
It is sad. The problem is that muslims believe that the Koran is the
final, immutable word of god. It doesn't matter what century you're in.
> But an exchange of insults, under whatever provocation, is not a
> discussion.
On the other hand, if you demonstrate that your retaliation has teeth,
don't you think the bully will stop harrassing you ? The key fact to
note here is that the bully is not open to reason because he thinks he
his following his faith.
pgg...@computer.net
Gopal, I think this attacked was uncalled for despite Mr. Ahmed's low
brow treatment of Hinduism. I think Gandhi was right in saying that " Ram
and Rahim were one", these were paths prescribed by wise men from
different lands to attain Nirvana and/or whatever Muslims and others call
it. Hinduism, does not take sides, but asserts that prayer to ALL Gods
lead to Keshava. If somebody else is a bigot, it does not mean you should
be one. That is what I find scary in the Hinduism propogated by the
BJP/Hindutva brigade. It has similarities with the holier than thou
monotheistic religions that are anathema to real Hinduism.
Peace, Gopal
Salim Ahmed
In article <3300DE...@ix.netcom.com>, Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
|> Salim Ahmed wrote:
|> >
|> > |> Since Mohamad "married" Ayesha when he was 53 and she was 9
|> >
|> > The prophet MARRIED Ayesha with the full concent of the parents,
|> > the marriage was consumated when she was of age
|>
|> Try following Mohamad's example in the US today and you will land in
|> jail ! Most civilized societies decree an age of consent of 16, based
|> not on sexual condition but upon the maturity of the mind that is
|> attached to the genitals.
You are trying to impose today's man-made laws to condemn someone 1400
years ago. By that reasoning Washington, Lincoln and all the founding fathers
of this country should be condemned for owning slaves etc.
|> Besides, your implicit assumption that a child is the property of the
|> parents, to dispose of as they please, will meet with nothing but
|> contempt amongst civilized peoples.
Sorry, that is not my assumption today. You are deliberately misreading
it. I'll explain one more time: There was nothing wrong with that
marriage as it related to those times. Islam requires consent from
both parties.
Since you brought it up let's look at parts of hinduism
where women are required to obey their husbands and fathers and so forth.
I know hinduism is varied but at least according to the laws of Manu,
women shouldn't remarry on their husbands death, shouldn't have
an opinion other than their husbands or fathers and so on.
I don't see you condemning any of that as oppression.
|> Sure, most religions have stuff that would be considered highly
|> objectionable today. However, Islam is the only major religion that does
|> not permit adaptation based upon the tremendous amount of learning and
|> development in the last 1300 years. This is because Mohamad decreed that
|> the Koran is the final, immutable word of god and that his was a perfect
|> life, to be followed by all muslims.
|>
|> > Change that to the "muslim does not doubt ..." and we are in
|> > agreement. Muslims believe the divine origin of the Koran,
|> > as such it is infallible. If you doubt that you are not a muslim.
|> > Doesn't mean anyone has the right to kill you but by definition you
|> > are not a muslim.
|>
|> Seems to me word didn't trickle down to Khomeini who ordered a hit on
|> Rushdie, who incidently still thinks he is a muslim. And if you think he
|> was just some lunatic octogenarian, think again. His heirs in Iran have
|> steadfastly refused to rescind his fatwa.
One can think whatever one likes. There is no restriction on
self delusion. I don't wish to speculate on the motive of people
in Iran or anywhere else. I and many other muslims condemn all
such acts.
|> >
|> > Peace.
|>
|> Rushdie, Tasleema, et al would love to have some of that fabled peace
|> you offer everybody.
Islam is a religion of peace. People may be violent despite it, or
under its pretense. I cannot answer for everyone who claims to be
a muslim.
|> >
|> > |> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
|> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >
|> > PS: How about practicing what you preach.
|>
|> What do you think I am doing ?
I think you are venting your frustration at a few childish posts by
lashing out at all muslims with whatever straws you can find at
your disposal.
|> > PPS: If someone posts material offensive to you as the original
|> > poster obviously did, condemn that act and other muslims
|> > will join in. If you retaliate in this fashion with lies
|> > you are going to alienate everyone.
|>
|> And what if I retaliate with the unvarnished truth ?
|>
Whose truth ? I thought you were too sophisticated to believe that
there can be only one version of the truth.
Salim Ahmed
|> Gopal, I think this attacked was uncalled for despite Mr. Ahmed's low
|> brow treatment of Hinduism.
Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I was just trying to point out
the inconsistencies in Mr. Saraswat's argument. He did challenge
every muslim didn't he ? :)
|> > Salim Ahmed wrote:
|> > >
|> > > |> get trapped, by implication, into subscribing to the tenet that all
|> > > |> religions are equally good/bad.
|> > >
|> > > Isn't this the much vaunted feature of hinduism - that all paths
|> > > lead to the same goal. Isn't this usually provided as the reasoning
|> > > behind idolatory ?
|> >
|> > Actually, it is the reasoning responsible for the tolerance of polygamy,
|> > pedophollia, synchronized ass-raising, and a colossal ignorance that
|> > cannot comprehend the time value of money aka interest.
Tsk, Tsk. Is that the best you can do. Do we take it that you are
preaching intolerance ? Does it bother you that while most religions
cannot get two people together to agree on what their religion means,
muslims have cut through national, racial and social barriers to pray
as one to God. Come now, don't tell me that you are upset that
Islam bans usury as a means to opress the poor.
|> > Hinduism teaches that you can reach salvation by worshipping any of
|> > numerous gods and godesses, or none at all. Only the dumbest and meanest
|> > of fools will insist that his is the only correct path. Is it just a
|> > coincidence that almost all of these fools had their genitals mutilated
|> > when they were infants ?
Really ? What if one of the gods doesn't like the other god you
are worshipping. I'm not being facetious. I'm curious as to
what your belief is about this. Surely you are not suggesting that
curcumcision is foolish. To use one of your own phrases, most civlised
nations do it as a matter of course. I take it you haven't read any of
the literature on its benefits.
|> > Gandhi had some incomparable achievements, but of all his faults, none
|> > was more destructive than his assertion that all religions are equally
|> > good. Thanks to Gandhi, so many Hindus resist a reasoned and factual
I'm not sure if you want anyone to have a reasoned and factual account
of Islam. I think its an excellent idea though, to have everyone
find out for themselves and make up their mind. Here's a site for
starters: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/isl/thought.html
|> > So, my dear Salim, next you think of using derogatory terms like
|> > 'idolatory', just remember that we can and shall teach you manners. You
|> > may not believe in them, but you will observe them out of fear - fear of
|> > what we might tell you about your despicable cult.
|> >
Its interesting that you should consider idolatory to be derogatory.
I would really like to know why ? I think my manners are just fine
thank you. As this post of yours shows, you have some work to do on
yours. I don't fear anything you have to say. I encourage you to
say more. Its revealing more about yourself and your ideologies
than anything else.
Tabalchi
ROBIN THERE ARE THOUGHTS AND IDEAS THAT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED AND
DISCUSSED, BUT WHEN AN IDIOT LIKE WAQAR SPEAKS THE THOUGHTS HIS LIKE MOVE
BEYOND THE REALM OF ANY REASONABLE CONSIDERATION. I APPRECIATE YOUR
LIBERAL MINDEDNESS ABOUT DISCUSSION AND GIVING PEOPLE A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
WAQAR HAS UNFORTUNATELY MOVED AWAY FROM ANY RESPECT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DUE
TO HIM. HE IS AN IGNORANT AND A VILE MAN NOT WORTHY TO ENGAGE IN ANY
EXCHANGE OF THOUGHT
TABALCHI
D7 Singh
|> Gopal, I think this attacked was uncalled for despite Mr. Ahmed's low
|> brow treatment of Hinduism.
Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I was just trying to point out
the inconsistencies in Mr. Saraswat's argument. He did challenge
every muslim didn't he ? :)
|> > Salim Ahmed wrote:
|> > >
|> > > |> get trapped, by implication, into subscribing to the tenet that
all
|> > > |> religions are equally good/bad.
|> > >
|> > > Isn't this the much vaunted feature of hinduism - that all paths
|> > > lead to the same goal. Isn't this usually provided as the reasoning
|> > > behind idolatory ?
|> >
|> > Actually, it is the reasoning responsible for the tolerance of
polygamy,
|> > pedophollia, synchronized ass-raising, and a colossal ignorance that
|> > cannot comprehend the time value of money aka interest.
Tsk, Tsk. Is that the best you can do. Do we take it that you are
preaching intolerance ? Does it bother you that while most religions
cannot get two people together to agree on what their religion means,
muslims have cut through national, racial and social barriers to pray
as one to God. Come now, don't tell me that you are upset that
Islam bans usury as a means to opress the poor.
Oh, Great Knower of ISLAM, have you heard of the war in the middle
east, or of the war between Sunnis and Shiites? Look at soc.culture.USA
and you will see that people from every religion hates Islam. Muslims
can't even respect the religions they owe big to, like Jews and
Christians, it's no wonder that Muslims can't even get along with each
other. Islam was the biggest supporter of African slavery and were the
biggest racists the world has ever known.
The first and only decent religion to break out of social, racial
and national barriers were the Great Buddhists, then 500 years later
Christianity, than the followers of the Great Pedophile, polygamist
Mohammad who due to his own lack of creativity copied the former religions
and created his own religion, and spat upon the more older religions from
which he borrowed. But what do you expect from an ARAB, brains? Arabia
to this day is filled with idiots, and you follow the religion formed in a
land of idiots? It says more about your brains than anybody elses.
|> > Hinduism teaches that you can reach salvation by worshipping any of
|> > numerous gods and godesses, or none at all. Only the dumbest and
meanest
|> > of fools will insist that his is the only correct path. Is it just a
|> > coincidence that almost all of these fools had their genitals
mutilated
|> > when they were infants ?
Really ? What if one of the gods doesn't like the other god you
are worshipping. I'm not being facetious. I'm curious as to
what your belief is about this. Surely you are not suggesting that
curcumcision is foolish. To use one of your own phrases, most civlised
nations do it as a matter of course. I take it you haven't read any of
the literature on its benefits.
And who has told you that circumcision is good for you, your
"brain"washing mullahs? The AMA and doctors around the world state that
circumcision has no health benefits, and is only a superstitious or
ritualistic belief and should be only followed through if your religion
recommends it. MOST CIVILIZED nations in the world, from China, India to
the Western Christian nations, DO NOT PRACTICE CIRCUMSICION. They like
full penises, not the half cut off ones that Jews and Muslims have.
Unlike the muslim god, the Hindu God and subdivisions of God are
quite intellectual in their disagreements, they talk over their
differences and so do the people who worship them, Islamic breast beating
and destroying temples and idols and general stupidity and intolerance
characteristic of this religion are too simplistic for the Hindus.
|> > Gandhi had some incomparable achievements, but of all his faults,
none
|> > was more destructive than his assertion that all religions are
equally
|> > good. Thanks to Gandhi, so many Hindus resist a reasoned and factual
I'm not sure if you want anyone to have a reasoned and factual account
of Islam. I think its an excellent idea though, to have everyone
find out for themselves and make up their mind. Here's a site for
starters: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/isl/thought.html
I've already read too much about Islam to have any respect for such a
stupid and closed fisted religion like Islam, to Jews and Christians,
Islam is like the illigitimate son they wish they never had!
|> > So, my dear Salim, next you think of using derogatory terms like
|> > 'idolatory', just remember that we can and shall teach you manners.
You
|> > may not believe in them, but you will observe them out of fear - fear
of
|> > what we might tell you about your despicable cult.
|> >
Its interesting that you should consider idolatory to be derogatory.
I would really like to know why ? I think my manners are just fine
thank you. As this post of yours shows, you have some work to do on
yours. I don't fear anything you have to say. I encourage you to
say more. Its revealing more about yourself and your ideologies
than anything else.
I don't, I love idolatory as I think all symbols from writings to pictures
to statues are man's attempt to understand and portray his/her vision of
the truth. Those who put down idolatry are simply closing themselves out
of an alternate means of expression. May idolatry live on and on!
Idolatry is as valid a form of expression of the greatness of God as
writing about the greatness of God! But if muslims ever grew a brain to
understand this parallel, than there wouldn't be any problem!
Irfan A. Chaudhry
D7 Singh wrote:
>
> The first and only decent religion to break out of social, racial
> and national barriers were the Great Buddhists, then 500 years later
> Christianity, than the followers of the Great Pedophile, polygamist
> Mohammad who due to his own lack of creativity copied the former religions
> and created his own religion, and spat upon the more older religions from
> which he borrowed. But what do you expect from an ARAB, brains? Arabia
> to this day is filled with idiots, and you follow the religion formed in a
> land of idiots? It says more about your brains than anybody elses.
*****************************************************************************
Let's not get carried away here! All religions have good and bad
points. The
same goes for different people. What you are saying above is totally
wrong.
When the "great" Christianity was THE religion in Europe (remeber the
Dark Age
era?) it were the "idiot" Arabs who preserved the Greek knowledge.
Algebra
and Chemistry derive their name from "Al-jabar" and "Al-keemia." So, Mr
Singh,
when other great religions were screwing up the lives of their
believers, the
"idiot" Arabs preserved, translated and enhanced the knowledge so that
the people
like you and I could use it. Why are the numbers we use ALL the called
Arabic
numerals or you didn't even know that?
In the past 17 years, I have lived in several countries and have had
friends form
almost every race and religion. It is my humble opinion that EVERY
single religion
on the face of this planet gives the same message. The names used such
as God, Allah, Jahova, Bhagwan etc may be different, but they ALL mean
the same. If you fail to comprehend this very simple fact, that you
certainly need to get over your narrow mindedness and tunnel vision
which appraoches minus infinity.
And the same thing goes of ALL other religous and racist bigots: WAKE
UP! YOUR RELIGION AND RACE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES ON THIS PLANET! THERE
ARE OVER 5 BILLION PEOPLE AND ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL.
Unknown
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Shah wrote:
>>
>> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Can anyone in his right mind believe that they will oppose
>> >Islam when it comes to other edicts, such as "slay the idolaters" ?
This is not my post
>>
>> For once point to the source please.
The request for the source was for 53 old man and a 9 year old kid
>
>[at-Taubah 9:5.8] Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the
>idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege
>them, and prepare for them each ambush.
>
>To search for passages of the Koran, and get translations by three
>different authors, please visit:
>
>http://goon.stg.brown.edu/quran_browser/pqeasy.shtml
>
>In my opinion, the Koran is a book that everyone should read, especially
>non-muslims, and extra specially Hindus. Knowledge *IS* power.
>
>--
> Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
Kunal Singh
In article <33014F...@computer.net> pgg...@computer.net writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
Actually, I totally disagree with the statement that all paths lead to
the same goal. The goal in Hinduism/Buddhism's moksha/nivrana
requires detachment. It cannot be achieved by attachment to a fixed
set of principles deemed "good." That is not to say that
Hinduism/Buddhism is the only path to the goal of nirvana.
But let's not forget that there can be circular paths that lead to
nowhere. That circular path is if you're "good" you will go to heaven
and then here are a few principles deemed "good," as for the rest of
your life's situations, just interpolate between these principles and
determine for yourself what is good. Now you're forever stuck to your
attachments, each follower determining for himself what is good in
circumstances which he cannot precisely identify in his book of rules.
Such a path cannot achieve nirvana, though at anytime the devotee can
indeed find the path, the nonsensical path cannot be considered
helpful to achieving moksha/nirvana. At best it is a distraction.
Gopal, I think this attacked was uncalled for despite Mr. Ahmed's low
brow treatment of Hinduism. I think Gandhi was right in saying that " Ram
and Rahim were one", these were paths prescribed by wise men from
different lands to attain Nirvana and/or whatever Muslims and others call
it. Hinduism, does not take sides, but asserts that prayer to ALL Gods
lead to Keshava. If somebody else is a bigot, it does not mean you should
be one. That is what I find scary in the Hinduism propogated by the
BJP/Hindutva brigade. It has similarities with the holier than thou
monotheistic religions that are anathema to real Hinduism.
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> Salim Ahmed wrote:
> >
> > |> get trapped, by implication, into subscribing to the tenet that all
> > |> religions are equally good/bad.
> >
> > Isn't this the much vaunted feature of hinduism - that all paths
> > lead to the same goal. Isn't this usually provided as the reasoning
> > behind idolatory ?
>
> Actually, it is the reasoning responsible for the tolerance of polygamy,
> pedophollia, synchronized ass-raising, and a colossal ignorance that
> cannot comprehend the time value of money aka interest.
>
> Hinduism teaches that you can reach salvation by worshipping any of
> numerous gods and godesses, or none at all. Only the dumbest and meanest
> of fools will insist that his is the only correct path. Is it just a
> coincidence that almost all of these fools had their genitals mutilated
> when they were infants ?
>
> Gandhi had some incomparable achievements, but of all his faults, none
> was more destructive than his assertion that all religions are equally
> good. Thanks to Gandhi, so many Hindus resist a reasoned and factual
> exposition of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Islam.
>
> So, my dear Salim, next you think of using derogatory terms like
> 'idolatory', just remember that we can and shall teach you manners. You
> may not believe in them, but you will observe them out of fear - fear of
> what we might tell you about your despicable cult.
>
Knoblach
the people may have been at one time hindu, then
they realized their idiotic-ness and stupidity for
worshipping stones and statues that do nothing for
them. They made their own gods with their
own hands (es tugh fi rulla!) and then worshipped them.
How stupid is that? I thought you were supposed to worship
God because he created you, not the other way around!
Gopal Saraswat
> >
> >If you disagree with this statement, say so, and tell us your
> > version.
> >
> I DISAGREE. I have no version since there has been no credible source
> I cannot agree with your version.
What do you disagree with:
a) Mohamad "married" Ayesha
b) He was 53 when he did that
c) She was 9 at the time
As a practising muslim, you cannot pretend to be ignorant of these basic
facts and still claim any credibility. If you don't want to keep
squirming like this, perhaps you should try a little honesty.
> I have heard a lot of stories very different from yours some good
> some bad. I think you have no source for your accusations and since
> you cannot point to one I believe your version is as good as the
> others.
You are being chidish. How many versions can there be ? Either Mohamad
"married" Ayesha or he didn't. If he did, how old was he at that time ?
And how old was she ?
> But if its true than I agree what ever you say.
It is true and you know it.
The problem here is not what someone did over 1300 hundred years ago.
The problem is that Islam coerces half a billion muslims men into
considering his life to be perfect. Even in this day and age, Muslim men
believe that they should emulate his life, including his "marriage" to a
child the same age as a third grader in elementary school.
Javed A Khan
This is absolute nonsense. There's no evidence to suggest that this is acceptable
in muslim societies today, not withstanding the fact that there are some depraved
souls who'll jump at the opportunity to do just that.
--Javed.
>child the same age as a third grader in elementary school.
>
>--
> Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
--
Raza
knob...@aol.com (Knoblach) wrote:
I like what Hazrat Abraham did, told the idol worshippers to ask their
god who was also a stone and was holding the axe if he is responsible
for the destruction of their other gods.
Gopal Saraswat
Salim Ahmed wrote:
>
> |> Muslims
> |> can't even respect the religions they owe big to, like Jews and
> |> Christians, it's no wonder that Muslims can't even get along with
> |> each other.
>
> religions.
[al-Ma'idah 5:51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the
Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever
amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them;
surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
In case you are tempted to argue about sources or translations errors,
please visit:
http://goon.stg.brown.edu/quran_browser/pqform.shtml
At this web site you can search through four different translations of
the Koran.
Draw your own conclusions.
Gopal Saraswat
Salim Ahmed wrote:
>
-> Hinduism teaches that you can reach salvation by worshipping
-> any of numerous gods and godesses, or none at all. Only the
-> dumbest and meanest of fools will insist that his is the only
-> correct path. Is it just a coincidence that almost all of these
-> fools had their genitals mutilated when they were infants ?
>
> Really ? What if one of the gods doesn't like the other god you
> are worshipping. I'm not being facetious. I'm curious as to
> what your belief is about this.
I'm glad you asked.
It depends on gender. Goddesses resolve these kind of problems by
cooperation; while gods resolve them through negotiation.
However, some gods, who had their dicks mutilated in infancy, prefer to
resolve problems by killing each other, until there is just the one true
god left.
Gopal Saraswat
pgg...@computer.net wrote:
>
> Gopal, I think this attacked was uncalled for despite Mr. Ahmed's low
> brow treatment of Hinduism.
Turn the other cheek to an Islamist and you will simply get slapped
again. I suppose we should thank Gandhi for making it fashionable to
claim sainthood for protecting an enemy from justified retaliatiion.
Hindu cowards cloaked as saints seem to keep falling out of the
woodwork. Amongst any other people, they would be despised as traitors
and fools.
> If somebody else is a bigot, it does not mean you should be one.
I am not a bigot. I judge every person, including a Muslim, as an
individual. I also have no problem with who Muslims worship and how they
do it.
What I have a problem with is the political edicts of Islam. If you were
not so fanatical about appearing "Secular", you would learn a little
about Islam and realize that Islam does not allow separation between
state and religion.
And if bigotry is what you are concerned with, then read, ignoramus,
read.
Start with a dictionary.
Bigot: a person who is rigidly devoted to his own group,
religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of
those who differ.
Then read the Koran:
[al-Ma'idah 5:51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the
Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever
amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them;
surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Visit http://goon.stg.brown.edu/quran_browser/pqform.shtml
With just a little integrity you can learn that the problem is not that
everyone else is not as saintly as you are. The problem is that Islam
teaches intolerance and hostility. If one cares about freedom and does
not want to succumb to an Islamic tyranny, then one must fight back.
Fight back by exposing the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of
Islamism.
Soviet communism was not defeated by appeasement. It withered away
because Reagan had the moral certitude to expose the evil it
represented. And there was no bloodshed; no massacre of innocent
Russians.
The same strategy needs to be applied to Islamism. Only when non-Muslims
relentlessly expose the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Islamism
will Muslims introspect. And perhaps a Muslim Gorbachev will emerge and
free his people from tyranny.
Gopal Saraswat
Javed A Khan wrote:
>
> In article <330221...@ix.netcom.com> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> >What do you disagree with:
> >
> >a) Mohamad "married" Ayesha
> >b) He was 53 when he did that
> >c) She was 9 at the time
> >
> >into considering his life to be perfect. Even in this day and age,
> >Muslim men believe that they should emulate his life, including
> >his "marriage" to a child the same age as a third grader in
> >elementary school.
>
> This is absolute nonsense. There's no evidence to suggest that
> this is acceptable in muslim societies today, not withstanding
> the fact that there are some depraved souls who'll jump at the
> opportunity to do just that.
>
> --Javed.
"In the next 20 years of his life, Muhammed communicated the message of
Allah to his people, and set an example for how each human being
should lead her or his life. This is especially valuable since Muhammad
(saas) is the last Prophet of Allah".
Visit http://cwis.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/
Gopal Saraswat
Salim Ahmed wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> |> Salim Ahmed wrote:
> |> >
> |> > The prophet MARRIED Ayesha with the full concent of the parents,
> |> > the marriage was consumated when she was of age
> |>
> |> Try following Mohamad's example in the US today and you will
> |> land in jail ! Most civilized societies decree an age of
> |> consent of 16, based not on sexual condition but upon the
> |> maturity of the mind that is attached to the genitals.
>
> You are trying to impose today's man-made laws to condemn someone
> 1400 years ago.
Actually, it's the other way around. Muslims want to use what Mohamad
did as a standard for today. Here's why:
"In the next 20 years of his life, he communicated the message of Allah
to his people, and set an example for how each human being should lead
her or his life. This is especially valuable since Muhammad (saas) is
the last Prophet of Allah".
Visit: http://cwis.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/
> |> Besides, your implicit assumption that a child is the property
> |> of the parents, to dispose of as they please, will meet with
> |> nothing but contempt amongst civilized peoples.
>
> Sorry, that is not my assumption today. You are deliberately
> misreading it. I'll explain one more time: There was nothing
> wrong with that marriage as it related to those times. Islam
> requires consent from both parties.
A nine year old giving consent for marriage ? You are pathetic !
> One can think whatever one likes. There is no restriction on
> self delusion. I don't wish to speculate on the motive of people
> in Iran or anywhere else. I and many other muslims condemn all
> such acts.
Because of what Islam teaches, people like you are a small minority. The
Iranian mullahs and their henchman are the rule, not the exception.
> |> And what if I retaliate with the unvarnished truth ?
>
> Whose truth ? I thought you were too sophisticated to believe that
> there can be only one version of the truth.
I am. But I can dumb down for you. Let's see now.
1) 2 plus 2 equals 4
2) the moon orbits the Earth
Oops that's one too many, ok, let's first get into the right frame of
mind. ... there is but one butt....no truth but truth...la la, la la ..
Bingo ! Eureka ! I have found it !!
1. Synchronized ass-raising leads to intolerance and fanaticism.
--
Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
satyam mukatye 'truth shall set you free'
Gopal Saraswat
Salim Ahmed wrote:
>
> Its interesting that you should consider idolatory to be derogatory.
> I would really like to know why ?
Sure, I'll tell you.
I believe the use of art and music in worship is natural. There is no
reasonable ground for opposing it. I also have no problem with the
Muslim mode of worship: in groups and in unison, with no art or music.
However, when you say idolatory, I don't know why, but I immediately
think of synchronized ass-raising.
Could it be that idolatory is to Hindus what synchronized ass-raising is
to Muslims ? Or would it be more accurate to say that idolatory is to
Muslims what synchronized ass-raising is to Hindus ?
--
Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
Javed A Khan
In article <3304E3...@ix.netcom.com> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Javed A Khan wrote:
>>
>> In article <330221...@ix.netcom.com> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >
>> >What do you disagree with:
>> >
>> >a) Mohamad "married" Ayesha
>> >b) He was 53 when he did that
>> >c) She was 9 at the time
>> >
>> >The problem here is not what someone did over 1300 hundred years
>> >ago. The problem is that Islam coerces half a billion muslims men
>> >into considering his life to be perfect. Even in this day and age,
>> >Muslim men believe that they should emulate his life, including
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >his "marriage" to a child the same age as a third grader in
>> >elementary school.
>>
Your assertion that muslims believe in marrying children because
Muhammad did it, is patently false.
And I highlighted that in my earlier response which you deleted.
--Javed,
>
>
>> This is absolute nonsense. There's no evidence to suggest that
>> this is acceptable in muslim societies today, not withstanding
>> the fact that there are some depraved souls who'll jump at the
>> opportunity to do just that.
>>
>> --Javed.
>
>"In the next 20 years of his life, Muhammed communicated the message of
>Allah to his people, and set an example for how each human being
>should lead her or his life. This is especially valuable since Muhammad
>(saas) is the last Prophet of Allah".
>
>Visit http://cwis.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/
>
>
>--
> Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
--
rafay
> >child the same age as a third grader in elementary school.
> >
1400 yrs ago they didn't have third grade school ...... think about it
......
sahibzada rafay khan
Mo
>.This is absolute nonsense. There's no evidence to suggest that this is acceptable
in muslim societies today<,
Its true . iran has reduced the age when a man can have sex with a
girl to 9, I believe.
Gopal Saraswat
>>ago. The problem is that Islam coerces half a billion muslims men
>>into considering his life to be perfect. Even in this day and age,
>>Muslim men believe that they should emulate his life, including
>>elementary school.
>>
>
> Muhammad did it, is patently false.
You obviously wish desparately that it was false. However, you're
wishing, and saying that it is false will not make it false.
The Sunnah is the body of Muslim law based on the teachings and
practices of Muhammad. And Muhammad did "marry" 9 year old Aisha when he
was 53. As it happens, Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, a close
friend of Muhammad. Not surprisingly, Abu Bakr was the immediate
successor
to Muhammad.
I also noticed how carefully you worded your rebuttal. No one is
suggecting that all Muslims present their 9 year old daugthers to their
50 year old friends. What I am saying is that they don't consider it
wrong, given the example of Muhammad, and the importance of the Sunnah.
Add to the Suunah the fact that Muslims consider the Koran to be the
final, immutable word of god, and you have a people who are condemned to
live by obscurantist standards for eternity. And if that were not bad
enough, Islam does not believe in the separation of state and religion.
This means that wherever Muslims have the power to form a government,
non-Muslims will become second class citizens.
Finally, Islam is not only a proselytizing religion, but one that is
prone to use violence to accomplish that end. That is the reason why
freedom loving people all over the world must take note and put up a
defense.
The first step is to expose the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of
Islam.
Javed A Khan
In article <33076F...@ix.netcom.com> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Javed A Khan wrote:
>>
>> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>>
>>>The problem here is not what someone did over 1300 hundred years
>>>ago. The problem is that Islam coerces half a billion muslims men
>>>into considering his life to be perfect. Even in this day and age,
>>>Muslim men believe that they should emulate his life, including
>>>his "marriage" to a child the same age as a third grader in
>>>elementary school.
>>>
>>
>> Your assertion that muslims believe in marrying children because
>> Muhammad did it, is patently false.
>
>You obviously wish desparately that it was false. However, you're
>wishing, and saying that it is false will not make it false.
>
The fact is that muslims do *not* consider it OK morally or otherwise
to marry off their underage children. You dont seem to be disputing this fact. So your
assertion that muslims would do otherwise is false.
About whether muslims consider Muhammad marrying Ayesha at her age to be
OK, its true. They consider it OK. Why ? Because he's considered beyond
reproach. That still does not mean that God made it lawful for parents
to marry off kids. That was not the intent of Muhammad's marraige - to
make child marraige legitimate.
>The Sunnah is the body of Muslim law based on the teachings and
>practices of Muhammad. And Muhammad did "marry" 9 year old Aisha when he
>was 53. As it happens, Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, a close
>friend of Muhammad. Not surprisingly, Abu Bakr was the immediate
>successor
>to Muhammad.
>
>I also noticed how carefully you worded your rebuttal. No one is
>suggecting that all Muslims present their 9 year old daugthers to their
>50 year old friends. What I am saying is that they don't consider it
>wrong, given the example of Muhammad, and the importance of the Sunnah.
They dont consider it wrong for Muhammad to have done that. Thats not the
same as saying muslims consider child marriage legitimate. Double standards
you say ? may be it is.
>
>Add to the Suunah the fact that Muslims consider the Koran to be the
>final, immutable word of god, and you have a people who are condemned to
>live by obscurantist standards for eternity. And if that were not bad
>enough, Islam does not believe in the separation of state and religion.
>This means that wherever Muslims have the power to form a government,
>non-Muslims will become second class citizens.
>
>Finally, Islam is not only a proselytizing religion, but one that is
>prone to use violence to accomplish that end. That is the reason why
>freedom loving people all over the world must take note and put up a
>defense.
>
>The first step is to expose the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of
>Islam.
>
>--
> Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
--Javed.
--
Waqar Ali Shah
THE QURAN STATES THAT MUSLIMS ARE ONLY TO AGGRESS TOWARDS NON MUSLIMS IF
THE LATTER AGGRESS EARLIER.
PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD FALSE PROPAGANDA.
ISLAM IS A PERFECT RELIGION: MANY SCHOLARS HAVE TESTIFIED TO THIS FACT.
MUHAMMAD IS REGARDED AS THE MOST PERFECT MAN WHO EVER LIVED ON THIS PLANET
THAT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT.
--
GobindSingh
THANK GOD HINDUISM IS NOT PERFECT AND HINDUS DON'T BELIEVE HINDUISM IS
PERFECT FOR THAT WOULD MEAN THERE IS NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT, AND WE TOO
WOULD BE LIKE STAGNANT WATER.
Ranjit Mathews Piravonu
Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
>
> THE QURAN STATES THAT MUSLIMS ARE ONLY TO AGGRESS TOWARDS NON MUSLIMS
> IF THE LATTER AGGRESS EARLIER.
of information with the Sudanese, Bangladeshi and Pakistani
ambassadors ?
>
> ISLAM IS A PERFECT RELIGION: MANY SCHOLARS HAVE TESTIFIED TO THIS
> FACT.
>
> MUHAMMAD IS REGARDED AS THE MOST PERFECT MAN WHO EVER LIVED ON THIS
> PLANET THAT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT.
For example, if you were to compare Muhammad with Albert Schweitzer
or Mahatma Gandhi, how would you determine that he was the most
perfect of them all ?
Gopal Saraswat
Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
>
> THE QURAN STATES THAT MUSLIMS ARE ONLY TO AGGRESS TOWARDS
> NON MUSLIMS IF THE LATTER AGGRESS EARLIER.
>
>
Instead of shouting why don't you provide a source, like the one I'm
giving below.
[at-Taubah 9:5.8] Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the
idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege
them, and prepare for them each ambush.
To search for passages of the Koran, and get translations by three
different authors, please visit:
http://goon.stg.brown.edu/quran_browser/pqeasy.shtml
>
> MUHAMMAD IS REGARDED AS THE MOST PERFECT MAN WHO EVER LIVED ON
> THIS PLANET. THAT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT.
>
Which planet was he on when he, at the age of 53, "married" 9 year old
Aisha ? What do you think of that ? What do you think of the Muslims who
have, right here on this thread, condemned him for doing that ?
More important, does your assertion that he was "most perfect" mean that
it is OK for Muslims today to emulate this act of his ?
Gopal Saraswat
Javed A Khan wrote:
>
> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >I also noticed how carefully you worded your rebuttal. No one is
> >suggecting that all Muslims present their 9 year old daugthers to
> >their 50 year old friends. What I am saying is that they don't
> >consider it wrong, given the example of Muhammad, and the
> >importance of the Sunnah.
>
> They dont consider it wrong for Muhammad to have done that. Thats
> not the same as saying muslims consider child marriage legitimate.
> Double standards you say ? may be it is.
I quote from The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd edition.
squirm: 1. To twist about in a wriggling, snakelike motion; writhe.
2. To feel or exhibit signs of humiliation or embarrassment.
Gopal Saraswat
Shah wrote:
>
> The request for the source was for 53 old man and a 9 year old kid
"Muhammad and The Origins os Islam" by F E Peters, pg 179, available at
Barnes and Nobles.
Javed A Khan
Whatever!!
But where do you see me squirm :)
I thought i was pretty candid, dont ya think ;)
--Javed.
>
>
>--
> Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
--
Ranjit Mathews Piravonu
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
> >
> > THE QURAN STATES THAT MUSLIMS ARE ONLY TO AGGRESS TOWARDS
> > NON MUSLIMS IF THE LATTER AGGRESS EARLIER.
> >
people of the book) is unislamic, surely the Quran prescribes a
punishment for agression towards non Muslims.
What punishment is prescribed for persecution of idolaters ?
What reward is prescribed for islamic Muslims who punish Muslims who
commit the unislamic act of persecuting idolaters ?
What are the instances in the last fourteen centuries of such
punishments and rewards being meted to unislamic Muslims ?
Pund Kamath
On Feb 17th, P.kamath wrote:
This " Mine is perfect business"just sounds a little childish if not
juvenile logic to me!
P.Kamath
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, GobindSingh wrote:
> Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
> >
> > THE QURAN STATES THAT MUSLIMS ARE ONLY TO AGGRESS TOWARDS NON MUSLIMS IF
> > THE LATTER AGGRESS EARLIER.
> >
> > PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD FALSE PROPAGANDA.
> >
> > ISLAM IS A PERFECT RELIGION: MANY SCHOLARS HAVE TESTIFIED TO THIS FACT.
> >
> > MUHAMMAD IS REGARDED AS THE MOST PERFECT MAN WHO EVER LIVED ON THIS PLANET
> > THAT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT.
> >
DR KAMAL HASAN
Gopal Saraswat wrote:
>
> Waqar Ali Shah wrote: (deleted)
>
> Instead of shouting why don't you provide a source, like the one I'm
> giving below.
>
> idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege
> them, and prepare for them each ambush.
The verse above is refering to the idolators of Quraish, who were at that
persecuting and killing Muslims living in Makkah. As fighting during
Ramadan was forbidden, they could only engage in Battle after this month.
You see you are confusing the issue here, because you fail to see the
difference between translation and tafseer(explanation). For example;
"Wo, be upon those who pray" (Al-Qur'an)-- Addressing the Muslims.
If the above verse were taken literally without explanation then one
would rightfully assume that praying (salah) is forbidden. How can this
be when Muslims have been prescribed to pray 5 times a day.
The verse is addressing those who pray 5 times a day, however, they turn
away the orphan and feed not the poor.
>
> To search for passages of the Koran, and get translations by three
> different authors, please visit:
I suggest you read 'Tafsir Ibn-Kathir'
>
> Which planet was he on when he, at the age of 53, "married" 9 year old
> Aisha ? What do you think of that ? What do you think of the Muslims who
The marriage to Lady Aisha was more for political and social reasons
rather then for the establishment of family. You will find that Lady
Aisha had no children. The marriage of Lady Aisha to the Prophet Muhammed
(pbuh) not only elavated the position of herself but strengthened the
Muslim commnunity. Lady Aisha was also regarded as one of the most
knowledgable of the companions in regard to Islam.
> have, right here on this thread, condemned him for doing that ?
One cannot help being sceptical about their true identity.
>
> More important, does your assertion that he was "most perfect" mean that
> it is OK for Muslims today to emulate this act of his ?
The Qur'an also declares that the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) has the best of
character and is also the best of example for the human race.
The points you have made above are all a great misconception of the
Western World who have always considered Islam as a threat, and therefore
made excuses without understanding.
> Gopal Saraswat sara...@ix.netcom.com
> satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
----------------------------
DR KAMAL HASAN
Kunal Singh
In article <fi914m5f4s.fsf_-_@swap31-236> nnyxsi@swap31-236 (Kunal Singh) writes:
I WANTED TO ADD SOC.CULTURE.CHINA TO THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO SHOULD
BECOME KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE HISTORY AND NATURE OF ISLAM!
.. stuff deleted ..
Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
>
> THE QURAN STATES THAT MUSLIMS ARE ONLY TO AGGRESS TOWARDS
> NON MUSLIMS IF THE LATTER AGGRESS EARLIER.
>
> PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD FALSE PROPAGANDA.
>
.. stuff deleted ..
[at-Taubah 9:5.8] Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the
idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege
them, and prepare for them each ambush.
.. stuff deleted ..
>
> MUHAMMAD IS REGARDED AS THE MOST PERFECT MAN WHO EVER LIVED ON
> THIS PLANET. THAT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT.
Which planet was he on when he, at the age of 53, "married" 9 year old
Aisha ? What do you think of that ? What do you think of the Muslims who
have, right here on this thread, condemned him for doing that ?
More important, does your assertion that he was "most perfect" mean that
it is OK for Muslims today to emulate this act of his ?
I think it is time for all these brain-washed idiots to learn the real
history of Islam and Mohammed. Mohammed was perhaps the least perfect
man that ever lived amongst the most barbaric people that were in
existent at the time. Amongst any civilized people he would not have
qualified as a prophet but more as a dacoit.
The people of Mohammed were the Bedouins of Saudi Arabia. The
Bedouins were a most barbaric people even by 600 AD. Their life was
largely a nomadic one, travelling from one spot to another in the
desert, their marriages temporary, with dancing girls going from one
tent into the next. Their hygiene was pathetic, they considered camel
urine to be "hair tonic."
Mohammed largely grew up in poverty raised by his uncle until he
matured enough to work for a wealthy widow. Not surprisingly, he
ended up marrying this wealthy widow who was considerably older than
him after a few years. And this would be the start of his rather
ambitious career. At the time there were many deities and jinns in
the deserts among them was Allah. He claimed to hear voices in a cave
that told him he was the messenger of Allah and was said to have
certain seizures that some have found quite similar to epileptic
seizures. Eventually he decided that there was no God other than the
deity "Allah."
He tried to preach the message of Allah but was driven from Mecca into
Medina. In Medina he became a ruler and engaged in raiding caravans
that were proceeding to Mecca. The Prophet shared in the spoils of
the raids and gradually increased his power. He had several Jewish
dissidents assasinated. He had one female poet stabbed while she
slept because she had written a satirical poem about him. He had
several other people assasinated and encouraged such assasinations by
his followers. The Jews naturally turned against him. He plagiarized
their Torah to come up with the Koran though he was quite illiterate
and the Jews had earlier laughed at his interpretations of their
religious literature. So all Muslims who claim that their Mullahs are
somehow mis-interpreting the Koran to encourage violence are largely
ignorant. And all Muslims looking for a great philosophy in the Koran
are likely to be disappointed and should look to the Torah and the
Jews instead. Settling philosophical dissent by assasinations seems
to be a rather early tradition in Islam established and encouraged by
the Prophet himself.
Gradually, he was able to conquer Mecca but his conquest would not
stop there. He would proceed to conquer Syria and Persia. The
conquest and the zeal of his soldiers was fueled by more than their
love for Allah. The Prophet who had many wives including the young
Aisha promised each of his soldiers women in the conquered
territories. So when the Bedouin soldiers came back from Syria, they
described how beautiful the women of the region were and this
naturally resulted in more men enlisting to wage war against Syria.
At least one decent Arab soldier decided to give up his rights to a
Syrian woman who had been promised to him by the Prophet. And there
is evidence of women being forced to marry these soldiers as the woman
had grudgingly accepted the soldier with the statement that he had
seen her only in her youth and not realized that youth does not last
forever.
Likewise, Persia fell quite easily to the Arabs. The Bedouin soldiers
who conquered Persia had never seen gold before. Some of them used to
routinely exchange gold for silver. Camphor was used as cooking salt.
One aristocratic woman was sold by a soldier for a 1000 or 10,000
silver pieces and when someone expressed surprise at this, the soldier
responded that he had never known that it was possible to have a
number great than ten hundred.
So the empire itself was conquered and consolidate by material and
sexual motivations. The soldiers were motivated by the desire for
wealth and women. The many women they married and the many children
they bred ensured consolidation amongst the conquered people.
The man Mohammed himself was an interesting character. He heard a few
divine voices when he wanted to marry another beautiful woman. Many
decisions of the state were made on the basis of these divine voices.
He wore a ring with the inscription "Mohammed the messenger of Allah."
He had many concubines but had a strong preference for the young Aisha
whom he had married at seven or nine. Enamoured by this Aisha,
perhaps worried that after his death she may marry another, he once
asked Aisha whether it wouldn't be better if she died before him and
could be buried alongside him. To which Aisha responded that if she
died before him, he would probably replace her with another!
So there you have the man called Mohammed and his deity called Allah
and his empire of Islam. Only amongst the most barbaric could an
illiterate man with very little in terms of philosophy, prone to
killing when opposed even philosophically, could rise to the status of
a prophet. Only amongst the most barbaric people could a man so
motivated by lust, who encouraged such lust in his soldiers for his
own personal gains, could ever be considered even religious. Only
amongst the most barbaric people could such a man convince those he
had conquered that he had taken their wealth and their women to bring
them the message of Allah. So should one be surprised if the Islamic
Mullahs insist that Muslims be educated only in the Islamic tradition
and never be made aware of their real history ?
Sankara Narayanan
Kunal Singh,
Thanks for that enlightening piece of article on the _real_ history of
prophet Mohammed.
Kunal Singh wrote:
>
> I think it is time for all these brain-washed idiots to learn the real
> history of Islam and Mohammed. Mohammed was perhaps the least perfect
> man that ever lived amongst the most barbaric people that were in
> existent at the time. Amongst any civilized people he would not have
> qualified as a prophet but more as a dacoit.
You're right. I felt exactly the same when I read the translations of
Kuran and the history of Mohemmed.
In fact it would be a good research topic for somebody in the streams of
history to establish links between the primitive, illogical, violent
and barbaric passages in Kuran and the life of the prophet and his
background. An analysis of his psychic behaviour would probably help
in explaining the same kind of mentality in many of the muslim countries
and individuals today.
<snip> <snip>
>
> So there you have the man called Mohammed and his deity called Allah
> and his empire of Islam. Only amongst the most barbaric could an
> illiterate man with very little in terms of philosophy, prone to
> killing when opposed even philosophically, could rise to the status of
> a prophet. Only amongst the most barbaric people could a man so
> motivated by lust, who encouraged such lust in his soldiers for his
> own personal gains, could ever be considered even religious. Only
> amongst the most barbaric people could such a man convince those he
> had conquered that he had taken their wealth and their women to bring
> them the message of Allah. So should one be surprised if the Islamic
> Mullahs insist that Muslims be educated only in the Islamic tradition
> and never be made aware of their real history ?
Yes. On the contrary, we should encourage people to study more and more
of Kuran and the life of the prophet. This is particularly recommended
for Hindus.
In fact, the study of Kuran the Prophet's life has much more power to turn a
non-mulism into an anti-muslim, than the total campaign put together
by RSS/VHP/Shiv-Sena/Bajrang Dal etc. etc.
-Sankara Narayanan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer : My opinions do not involve my employer ;->
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ranjit Mathews Piravonu
There was a time when Tilak objected to a British ban on child marriage
after a 10 year old (approximately) didn't survive her wedding night.
I'm not sure when and how Hindu society changed the rules re. child
marriage - it doesn't seem to be a problem any more - we don't see
people
complain about the 18 yr. minimum marriage age for women.
brao wrote:
> Going by media reports of a few years ago, there have been several
> instances of underage Muslim girls of Hyderabad being "married" off
to
> middle-aged Arabs. In the ensuing debate, I recall that at least one
> of the defenses proferred for the action was that such marriages are
> acceptable in Islam and the government has no business interfering in
> matters of Muslim personal law.
Kunal Singh
In article <3308A8...@ix.netcom.com> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
>
> THE QURAN STATES THAT MUSLIMS ARE ONLY TO AGGRESS TOWARDS
> NON MUSLIMS IF THE LATTER AGGRESS EARLIER.
>
> PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD FALSE PROPAGANDA.
>
.. stuff deleted ..
[at-Taubah 9:5.8] Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the
idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege
them, and prepare for them each ambush.
.. stuff deleted ..
>
> MUHAMMAD IS REGARDED AS THE MOST PERFECT MAN WHO EVER LIVED ON
> THIS PLANET. THAT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT.
>
Which planet was he on when he, at the age of 53, "married" 9 year old
Aisha ? What do you think of that ? What do you think of the Muslims who
have, right here on this thread, condemned him for doing that ?
More important, does your assertion that he was "most perfect" mean that
it is OK for Muslims today to emulate this act of his ?
I think it is time for all these brain-washed idiots to learn the real
history of Islam and Mohammed. Mohammed was perhaps the least perfect
man that ever lived amongst the most barbaric people that were in
existent at the time. Amongst any civilized people he would not have
qualified as a prophet but more as a dacoit.
The people of Mohammed were the Bedouins of Saudi Arabia. The
So there you have the man called Mohammed and his deity called Allah
Shah
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Shah wrote:
>>
>> The request for the source was for 53 old man and a 9 year old kid
>
>
>"Muhammad and The Origins os Islam" by F E Peters, pg 179, available at
>Barnes and Nobles.
>
>
Thanks a lot, you could have done this ages ago.
As I said if its true I agree with you.
Kunal Singh
In article <3309c831....@news.dfwmm.net> Shah writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You can also read Will Durant's Story of Civilization for history of
Islam. It also mentions Aisha.
brao
In article <5e80fm$c...@trotsky.cig.mot.com>,
Javed A Khan <kh...@shelf.cig.mot.com> wrote:
...
>The fact is that muslims do *not* consider it OK morally or otherwise
>to marry off their underage children. You dont seem to be disputing this fact. So your
>assertion that muslims would do otherwise is false.
Going by media reports of a few years ago, there have been several
instances of underage Muslim girls of Hyderabad being "married" off to
middle-aged Arabs. In the ensuing debate, I recall that at least one
of the defenses proferred for the action was that such marriages are
acceptable in Islam and the government has no business interfering in
matters of Muslim personal law.
Now this doesn't establish one way or another that "Muslims" as a body
have a unanimous opinion about child marriage or that it stems from
Muslim scripture. I suspect that the recourse to scripture in this
instance is in the nature of a post-facto rationalization of the
action of desparately poor parents looking for a way out. And before
anyone takes the trouble to point it out, I realize that this kind of
sexual exploitation of girls knows no religious boundaries, whether or
not it such exploitation is given the name of marriage.
I think religions are mostly what people make of them in practice,
despite what is asserted by their respective dogmas; however, the
question arising from the example of the Hyderabadi Muslim girls is:
how can child marriage be eliminated from the list of acceptable
options without such efforts being viewed as an attack on the
religious freedom Muslims? The reality now is that even if, by some
miracle, the authorities were motivated to clamp down on sexual
exploitation of children, it would be politically very difficult to
not exclude Muslim children from the scope of such measures.
My personal views.
Bapa Rao
Zafaryab Khan
In article <fivi7q3rc8.fsf@swap31-236>, Kunal Singh <nnyxsi@swap31-236> wrote:
>
>In article <3309c831....@news.dfwmm.net> Shah writes:
>
>.. stuff deleted ..
>
> Gopal Saraswat <sara...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Shah wrote:
> >>
> >> The request for the source was for 53 old man and a 9 year old kid
> >
> >
> >"Muhammad and The Origins os Islam" by F E Peters, pg 179, available at
> >Barnes and Nobles.
> >
> >
> Thanks a lot, you could have done this ages ago.
> As I said if its true I agree with you.
Dear Mr Shah
aka Henry Ming and many many others...
you are a puerile lil troll. I wish I could add something, but really
there is
nothing else to say. :)
regards...
Sayeed M. Tariq
nnyxsi@swap31-236 (Kunal Singh) wrote:
Is it not that in your hindu religion seven man can marry on woman ???