ISLAM Q&A

Sorry all... I've been followiung this discussion with interest... I only have one question at the moment (sorry to say this but,)

Brahmin: What is a 'Pom'? I feel ignorant.

Plus, would you say that you fit within the Nationalist camp (the Sangh Parivar specifically) in your ideology?

Thank you

Sub

'pom' is brahmin's pejorative term for English. He's refering to Australian slang when prisoners were still transported there and had POHM (prisoner of her majesty) on their clothing. But as usual brahmin gets it wrong. It should be pohm, and no one takes offense at it anyway, although he means to be offensive.

are you another hindutva-nazi sub?

AH! Thanks Steve...

And, er... No... While I have read (just about) everything the Parivar has out there (Savarkar, Golwalkar, Hedgewar, Chinmayananda, etc...) I am a student _of_ India... Specifically her religious traditions, though nationalist politics is my 2nd field of interest.

Again, thanks

Sub

you're welcome sub

...and glad to hear that. I've been doing a little research on hindu nationalism, what I've found out is most unpleasant, and fits quite well with some of what brahmin has been saying.

pom = australian word for englishman.


sangh parivar ???
nope.

but glad u asked - i'l try to answer in detail.


rss - started out as a sort of "boy scouts" cross "ymca" of hindus. and thats was ok. they used to produce people who'd serve the nation with honesty and selflessly etc. now that rss has become political (by riding piggy back on the bjp), i dont like it one bit. besides they are too orthodox (big on rites, rituals, rules and regularism of hinduism) for my liking.


vhp - not a political party. hinduism being a handleless religion needed a body of this sort hindus need vhp as the world needs iaea..


bjp - great party floated by one of the greatest modern indians ever - dr. shyama prasad mukherjee. it was called bharatiya jana sangh back then. then it merged with bharatiya janata dal (pronounced "dul" meaning -party). finally broke out as bjp.
i do no9t like bjp (except in one way).

what i like is brand name bjp. their boldness of calling a spade a spade, of not turning their back on past woulnds of this nation and its people. their arge to everyone to stop feeling ashamed of being indian, the way the poms wanted us to be (read macaulay's quote). vajpayee's decision to adress the u.n.o. in hindi (this was in the 1990ies). demanding a probe into the way nehru betrayed netaji etc. small things like that, that.
suddenly indians have a voice, that doesnt ignore their wounds. that doesnt try to say "you guys never got hammered". the pleasantly surprising absence of historical negetivism from them is what i like. suddenly indians have become aware of what they were in the past and what they can be in future - and also what they could be just right now, had not the 2 secondary semetics (1) crippled us through 700+ years of murder and terror (read what Naipaul has to say.. same thread some 3-4 pages ago) and (2) loted the last cent from india and reduced india from being the richest country of all time to the poorest in 1947.

its the brand name thats alluring. the image of indians who takes his past misfortune and present poverty head on and decides to rise like a phoenix.

in 25 years india will be the biggest or 2nd/3rd biggest economy in the world and a few more later, we get back to the position we always belonged to.

its the fierce pride of bjp i like, not their ideology.
(i am the ram mohon roy kind of hindu.)

i did say i liked them for 1 thing. and thats their economic drive.

congress has always been a socialist communist marxist un-result oriented party. for years bjp had been demamding more pro active policies a.la south east asian countries (sanjay gandhi, rajiv gandhi's elder brother is the only congress guy who had that kind of a stand).... funnily enough congress did exactly what bjp wanted all along.... thats in 1991ish,.. when india was on the verge of economic colapse... pv narshima rao (india's bestest pm) and dr manmohon singh kicked commie ideology out the window and opened up the economy. even today bjp has to run behind the congress with a pooper-scooper to clean up the socialist (nehru = smiling stalin) crap congress left behind (for eg - they started the disinvestment drive to private the state owned behemoth companies and thankfully congress kept that going).




the ram mandir issue is a nice card they played - like any political party should. indians always had the ram mandir in their mind (as a symbol. we know full well that all 10 hundred temples cant be restored). so bjp astutely latched on to this national desire and catapulted themselves into the fore front (contrary to what people believe, that the bjp started the ram mandir issue. it was there for some 400 years now). as a political gamble, it cant be faulted.


read question #24 on this
site. infact read the whole page if possible. koenraad elst is one of the few westerners who have the uncanny and all too uncommon ability to hit indian issues on the head.

pm me if you have more questions.

so which political/religious/nationalist party do you belong to Brahmin?

*whew* I tell ya what....

First off: Brahmin, thank you for your information on the Parivar. While I like to consider myself quite well read on the subject it was quite interesting to read your take on their stance.

--- And I would like to point out that the debate guidelines ask us (all) to be considerate in our disagreement.-----
When we hurl invective, our message seems to get... obscured. I also think it is interesting that the 'ISLAM Q&A' forum has turned into a wholehearted assault on colonialism...

So, I'll try to ask an Islam-related question...

Brahmin, you mentioned the
Rath-Yatra/RamJanmaBhumi Mandir episode in 92 (IIRC)..... And that Hindus had been thinking of restoring the mandir for 400 years. I gather that you give absolutely no credence to the story that the British (supposedly) started this rumor to drive a wedge between the Hindu and Muslim community?

Also, what importance (if any) do you attribute to Shivaji Bhonsle and his activities against the Muslims?

Sub

sub, feel I owe you an apology. Yes above post was tiresome and unnecessary but as I put it together I got more and more angry at what I had been putting up with.

I hope Brahmin comes back, if only to answer your question

On the other hand you cant go around advocating killing people, as he did on other threads.

No apology needed Steve, but thanks all the same! And I agree, intolerance is intolerance is intolerance... However, I do understand that dealing with things like religion (and obviously colonialism- go figure) it is quite easy to bristle one's fur. I've been teaching the stuff at a college-level and I've seen my share of 'debates'

In any event, I would like to pick Brahmin's brain a bit to get his take on some contemporary issues coming out of old Bharat...

Sub

Well.... I'm gonna refrain from using the old 'hindsight' quote... But I get your drift.


Having read the works of the founders of the various Nationalist movements, I can honestly say that some (Golwalkar in his text entitled "We: or our Nationhood Defined") comes right out and says that the best way to have a strong homogenous society is to follow the example of Nazi Germany... Now granted, this was written in 1933 (IIRC) But it gives you a good idea of where certain nationalists are looking.... And then there are the religious zealots, like Sadhvi Ritambara, who are actively calling for a 'DharmaYudh"... The rationale being: If Islam has the concept of 'Jihad', then Hinduism should have DharmaYudh ('holy war') And many point back to the god-advocated warfare in the great epic Mahabharata as evidence of such a thing.

Anyhoo

Sub

I am reading Irshad Manji's book "The Trouble with Islam' - she is a broadcaster, author, public speaker and has produced TVO's 'Big Ideas' in short, she is an accomplished Muslim woman who has many questions about the way her religion is going. She lives in Canada. We in Canada are basically tolerant of people of all religions, and I am trying to understand Muslim's intolerance for womens rights. The Shria (sp?) law is patriarchal in nature (as is much of the Bible). Why aren't women granted the same rights as men? Women who commit adultry are stoned to death, but not the man who committed it with her. Women cannot get a divorce.
Also I will quote part of a passage in her book: "Growing up I never heard Abraham's name in a history lesson. A glaring omission, given that Abraham's progeny went on to found the Jewish nation. Being the debut monotheists, the Jews laid the groundwork for the Christians and later the Muslims to emerge. So you see, Muslims didn't invent God, they renamed Him Allah. That's Arabic for "The God" -the God of the Jews and Christians".

She goes on to say that Muslims are spiritual 'mongrels' as opposed to an original way of life. Is Islam, do you think, more narrowminded than other religions? I realize there is more than one question here. Thank you for sharing your religion with me.

means war of duty not holy war.

ty.



colonialism is indefensible.

and i hurled invectives after he tried to deny them shamelessly.



the brits came 200 years ago.

the ram mandir was as issue since babar broke the original temple and erected the babri masjid.

sure the brits latched on to it to cause a further divide. divide and rule was their credo.



none.

what indians do in self defence against marauding muslims is perfectly justifiable.

rana pratap and shivajo's fighhts against muslim invaders need no justification.

but the bahamani assult of hampi(vijayanagar), like colonialism, isindefensibe. as is the portueguese inquisition in goa.

http://www.bartleby.com/67/333.html

Brahmin I am seriously starting to doubt your sanity.

englishmajor,

Thank you for asking about my religion. It is my honor and my duty to try as much as I can to answer your important questions.


The Sharia (or Shariaa) is much wider than a code of law. It is a comprehensive code of Islamic life which God (Allah in Arabic) revealed for mankind, and commanded Muslims to follow. We believe that Sharia is complete, perfect and includes all aspects of human life. It is permanent for all people all the time, and it does not change with time and conditions.
For example, drinking alcoholic liquor or any inebriating product, usury and gambling are prohibited under Islamic law. No one can change this. It is a law that is valid for all time, all places and under all circumstances.
The word Sharia means a clear and straight path and is based on two sources - the Glorious Qur'an and the teachings (Sunna) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).




I disagree here. Islam declared women and men equal in rights and duties. Islam has given woman rights and privileges which she has never enjoyed under other religious or constitutional systems. This can be understood when the matter is studied as a whole in a comparative manner, rather than partially.
The rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of a man but they are not necessarily identical with them. Equality and sameness are two quite different things. This difference is understandable because man and woman are not identical but they are created equals.It is almost impossible to find even two identical men or women.

This distinction between equality and sameness is of paramount importance. Equality is desirable, just, fair; but sameness is not. People are not created identical but they are created equals. With this distinction in mind, there is no room to imagine that woman is inferior to man. There is no ground to assume that she is less important than he just because her rights are not identically the same as his. Had her status been identical with his, she would have been simply a duplicate of him, which she is not. The fact that Islam gives her equal rights - but not identical - shows that it takes her into due consideration, acknowledges her, and recognizes her independent personality.




Islam is mainly based on the Qur'an. And this Holy book says something quite different from your statement. Here is what almighty God says about adultery: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes" [Glorious Qur'an 24:2]
The punishment I mentioned is applied when the man or the woman are not married. If a man/woman is married and commits adultery, then he/she is stoned until death.
Adultery, fornication, rape are horrible and abhorrent crimes, that's why the punishments for them in Islam are severe.




On the contrary, Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) is a very prominent figure in Islam. I would say he is the 2nd most important person in our religion after Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) is mentioned in the Glorious Qur'an in no less than 47 places.
Here are a few examples, which would be beneficial for you as well for Irshad Manji:
"For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing (of faults), compassionate, and given to look to Allah" [Glorious Qur'an 11:75]
"Abraham was indeed a model, devoutly obedient to Allah, (and) true in Faith, and he joined not gods with Allah." [Glorious Qur'an 16:120]
"Also mention in the Book (the story of) Abraham: He was a man of Truth, a prophet" [Glorious Qur'an 19:41]




We have no problem with this. In Islam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (also called Israel) are amongst the mightiest prophets:
"And We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation, and We granted him his reward in this life; and he was in the Hereafter (of the company) of the Righteous." [Glorious Qur'an 29:27]
"And commemorate Our Servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, possessors of Power and Vision." [Glorious Qur'an 38:45]
Also, Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) is highly mentioned in the Glorious Qur'an (about 146 times).




I agree with you. Allah is the Arabic word for God. Our God is the one who created everything, the Sustainer of the universe. The God of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is exactly the same as the God of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them all).




No, absolutely no. A narrowminded belief system cannot survive the evolution of technologies, of thoughts, of science, of social relations...
All Praise be to God (Allah in Arabic), Islam not only survives all this and more, but is also the fastest growing religion...

Thank you again for your questions.

And Allah knows best.

Thanks for the post Muslim1. I might not agree with you but at least you make sense unlike a certain Hindu poster.


you wrote

"The God of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is exactly the same as the God of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them all)".

George W Bush is a born-again Christian.
Osama bin Laden is a Muslim.

I dont think anyone will dispute those two statements. Thus my question is, how can G W Bush and Osama bin Laden worship the same God?

well i must really be insane not to have let the colonial murderers off the hook... in the same way they were very er...insane ("roots" by alex healy) in their efforts to wipe out the natives and cause the bengal famine (among their 10000 crimes).

you were not around to let the colonial murderers off the hook, you were not born. And if you had been what about the English who were against colonialism? Those who wanted you to be free? Who were fighting for you? What about them? Who were on your side, and more effective because they were British? You would have killed all.

right.

i wasnt around.


the colonials had already done thier thing and left.
but i saw indians on the streets dying. i read with horror wbout the bengal famine. i saw pictures of the slave trade. and noted the absence of red indians. and tasmanians. and aussie aboriginals. and the poverty of africa on tv. and the economic plight of this tradionally richest of all countries. read what the greeks and romans had to say about india - the same greeks and romans without which the west are orphans. read what the iranians and the chisese had to say about our rediculous wealth.


the few english who were against colonialism and the few germans that werent nazis are the exceptions. the majority were. you only read the economic history of england to learn that most of the commercial entities were made on the back of colonial crimes. that llyods of london was a benificiary of the triangular slave trade. that the spanish noted how the wealth of crappy seville city started increasing exponantially once they discovered the new world. its endless.


those who wanted us to be free included chiefly, an irish woman named anne besant and a anglo portueguese firebrand (with a capital F) named henry louis vivian derozio. the rest wanted us to be free when they had done with us and couldnt suck us anymore. some never wanted us to be free - winston c for example is on record saying how the poms wanted india for good.







there wasnt any brit on india's side.

annie besant isnt brit - she is irish (hence celtic) and had a blood feud with the germanic english.



we never wanted to kill poms for revenge. we just wanted to break the spine of their presence here - their raj army.

truth is we could not achieve that and could not have a dbp style war - and it turns out that we didnt need to. if only we had threatened the same all along.

we dont take revenge.
the portuege stayed in india till 1960something. we could have swallowed them. and had reasons to given their inquisition. we could have broken the churches they built on hindu temples (to give the devil its due, the english never exploited us religiously). we didnt. we wanted goa back, not to kill portuguese. we wanted poms out of here. they wouldnt leave with coaxing so a bit of killing or a threatning of the same was needed. freedom fightors are not murderers.




listen...................... from the first voyage of the captain cooks and the vasco da gamas.................to the ww2.............. its one extended chapter.

kill non whites, annex non white terroritory, loot non white wealth, use them as slaves, carve up the non white world amongst ourselves.

germans became powerful a bit late.
realised that the colonial fruits were gone.
tried in ww1 to break the powers and install itself as one.
failed.
regrouped and rebuilt their army.
took out their frustrations on jews whilst trying again to displace the powers.

japan meanwhile had china to itself to feed of.
and remains to this day the only colonial asian power - and hence the only really rich asian country. though japan like western europe doesnt at all have a history of affluence.


400 years of hunting (for humans), looting their, using them for slaves, exploiting them, etc etc... all ended more or less with ww2.

in a sense ww2 was what we sometimes see on tv - how 3 or 4 wolves fight amongst themselves over a kill.

the real and permamnt upshot of all colonialism is the creation of the new world.
and to give the people of the new world their due - though they are the child of colonialism, they are nothing like their colonial forefathers.
japan could create no new land for its people though.

we'll take american capitaism (2 way) over colonialism (1 way) anyday.