This is truly priceless. My name is Aneesh, and I'm male.
can I ask what religion you follow?
I'm an agnostic, actually, within a larger Hindu framework. If I start describing my religious affiliation in detail, this thread will be completely hijacked.
I have an inkling that it is Hinduism? If so, I think the same tactic you are using could be used against you, but with a more devestating effect, since the Hindu literature is replete with troubling quotes. Especially since a very strong belief in Hinduism is in regards to the caste system, in which certain people are born in a higher caste than others, etc.
Let's not start a flamefest, because I'm quite conversant with the Hindu scriptures, and scriptural debates tend to be never-ending Google-fights.
But just for your information, caste is outlawed under the Indian constitution, and unanimous resolutions have been passed at the World Hindu Conferenes which condemn caste discrimination.
If, however, you still want to try to find quotes relating to caste in the Hindu scriptures (the Vedas), then I extend to you a personal invitation to do your worst.
I caution against such a vengeful approach, but I shall nonetheless reply to your posts so that others may not be misguided. Instead of resorting to this aggressive and confrontational stance, I ask that you instead leave this thread to the truly inquisitive and not those who simply seek to bash Muslims.
Why would I be vengeful? And how precisely am I aggressive? I just wanted to ask you how you reconcile the egalitarianism which you claim for Islam with some controversial Hadith.
I had posted in detail before about the situation of Muslims in India. Had you read that, you would have understood better my stance.
Let me quote it here for your benefit:
aneeshm said:
The problem of self-image arises because the people in control of the Muslim religious establishment in India still foster the view that India was a useless place before the coming of the Muslims, and that Muslims are superior by dint of their religion even now, and that they should still have attitudes similar to the imperialist rulers of the early Muslim period - as that of foreign civilisers. But the social reality is that precisely because of this regressive attitude, the Muslims did not benefit from the modern English education which was brought to India by the Europeans, and now have fallen behind in many social and economic indicators.
This creates a clash. On the one hand, the average Muslim is told that he is superior, he is better than the people of the country he is living in, but on the other hand, he sees that he is among the poorest in the country, and his subculture is among the most backward.
This clash creates anger, and it is this anger which is threatening to engulf the Muslims of India today, and which has been responsible for all the Islamic terrorism in the world. It is this idea that even though we are superior, we are still behind others, so others must somehow be at fault, that is the driving force behind this hatred.
And this is not all. Even today, there are two social divisions among the Muslims in India, like castes. The Ashraf Muslims are the ones who claim descent from the Arab and Mughal invaders of India. The Ajlaf Muslims are the people who were locals and converted. The Ashraf consider themselves superior to the Ajlaf, and treat them badly.
The Ashraf do not intermarry with the Ajlaf, they do not move in the same social circles, they even sometimes have separate mosques.
The reality is that among Indian Muslims, there is a caste system at work, where the people who claim to be of foreign descent are superior to the indigenous converts.
I don't see the issue at all. This Hadith is in reference to how Prophet Abraham (as) had two children, Isaac (as) and Ismaeel (as). And from them descended many nations and peoples. First, the Quran says that Allah granted eminence to the descendants of Isaac (as) from where the Jews come from, and then he granted eminence to the descendants of Ismaeel (as) from whom the Muslims arise from. The phrase "gave eminence to" refers to the bestowing of Prophets amongst those people, since we Muslims believe that every peoples at varying times have Prophets bestowed upon them. This time, Allah chose a Prophet from the Banu Hashim.
So the bestowing of the Prophet is what gives a people pre-eminece? Then what wrong have the Native Americans or the Indians (like me) done, for instance, that they never received a Prophet at all?
You are trying to make the reader "read into" the text what is not there, especially since I already gave you a PLETHORA of Hadith with which to interpret it. Nowhere in the Hadith does it talk about how the others are inferior...for example, it says that Allah chose to bring to eminence the descendants of Ismaeel (as)...does this put down the descendants of Isaac (as)? No! In fact, the Quran talks about how at another time, He bestowed the descendants of Isaac (as) with Prophets.
That's fine, but what happens to those of us who are descendants of neither Ishmael nor Isaac?
I am sorry, but the Prophet (s) actually said it repeatedly that no tribe is superior to another. You are simply asking the reader to read into it what you want. Furthermore, your insinuation against the Prophet (s) is insulting, and I ask you to refrain from it.
Of that is your opinion, then I'd defer to it. The clerics in India are not so forgiving as you are, however, and they interpret it to mean much worse things.
If this is your sincere belief, and this is the belief of whoever you are here to represent, then that's great.
But the problem is, theory does not translate well into practice.
"If I recall correctly"
The verse in the Quran you quoted says:
"Do not marry disbelieving women until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than a disbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry your girls to disbelievers until they believe: A man slave who believes is better than a dis-believer, even though he allures you. Disbelievers do but beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden of bliss and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind: That they may celebrate His praise." (Quran, 2:221)
So basically it says what I said it says. You're just using another translation. I'm using Palmer.
How in the world are you reading that in a negative light? How does that preach "superioritism" [sic]????
It preaches superioritism by implying that the believer is superior to the non-believer, irrespective of their respective individual merits. By necessity, this implies that EVERY believer is superior to EVERY non-believer.
Throughout Indian history, this has been the justification for all sorts of unspeakable atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on non-Muslim subjects. It justified the worst sort of imperialism. And my worry is that that attitude is alive and well.
In fact, it teaches that we should marry poor people, slaves, and servants! How different is that than Hinduism in which people can only marry people from the same caste as themselves and cannot marry those of a lower caste? Allah says in the Quran:
I didn't want to take up a confrontational stance, but you are doing precisely what you have accused me of. When I was wrong, I admitted it, because my ideas were based on the things Muslim clerics have said in India. But you are reading things into the text which are simply not there. You are also trying to provoke me by drawing comparisons between Hinduism and Islam which are way off the mark. At this juncture, I'm tempted to post Adi Shankar's
Manishapanchaka, which would refute your rather naive view of caste, but again I don't want to drag this thread off topic.
Let us examine that quote:
What does it say? It says "Do not marry disbelieving women until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than a disbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry your girls to disbelievers until they believe: A man slave who believes is better than a dis-believer, even though he allures you. Disbelievers do but beckon you to the Fire."
Let us analyse it a bit. First, there is the commandment, which says that the believer is not to marry a non-believer. Then there is the justification for that, which states that the commandment is necessitated due to the fact that the believer is superior in every way to the non-believer. It goes further, to state that the non-believer is a temptation to the believer, and leads to hellfire.
How precisely is that
not a negative view of the rest of the world? How is this not discriminatory against non-believers? I do not consider Muslims inferior people, but if we go by what you have said, about judgement or superiority being based on religosity, then
I am to be treated as inferior by Muslims.
"And marry such of you as are solitary and the pious of your slaves and maid servants. If they be poor; Allah will enrich them of His bounty. Allah is of ample means, Aware." (Quran, Surah Al-Noor)
To the Arabs of Pre-Islamic times, this was a shocking thing! Islam was advocating to marry "lowly" servants, slaves, and poor people...Allah says in the Quran for you not to worry about riches or the fact that these servants and slaves are poor, because Allah will enrich you from His Bounty. This is a promise to those who decide not to engage in discrimination while they marry, such as those who only marry of a certain caste or class, as is prevalent in places like India.
This is one of those infamous promises which it is impossible to keep. Has anyone ever kept a record of whether or not such marriages actually enriched the person? Has anyone kept a record of whether or not this promise was kept?
And again you attack India without really knowing anything about our society. I'd recommend you refrain from such loose allusion in the future, or I won't hesitate to completely hijack this thread.
But did you know that Muslims in India discriminate more than the others? In the first instance, they do not intermarry with Hindus, because they consider Hindus inferior (which fits in perfectly with the vision of Islam which you have put out, by the way), and the people claiming descent from foreign invaders consider themselves a class above the local converts.
Get your own house in order before criticising others.
The Quran says that you should marry slave women, and that slave women are superior to disbelieving free women! If anything, this is the opposite of "superioritism" [sic]. It is declaring that people are not differentiated based on their status as free or slave, but rather based on their piety (Taqwa) and faith (Iman).
I have already stated to you quite clearly that in Islam we believe that those who are more righteous and have more faith and are more pious are superior to those who are not. In other words, Islam preaches that superiority and inferiority is based on one's merit.
"Belief" does not equal merit.
Who is the better of the two:
A pious Hindu, who is an ardent idolater and believes totally in the Raja Yogic path to freedom, and is a great saint and influences millions of people's lives positively,
OR
A pious Muslim, who does no acts of exceptional merit, but simply carries Allah in his heart.
The answer of this question will reveal a lot about how you view Islam.
Allah says in the Quran:
Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you. (Quran, 49:13)
So yes, in Islam we believe that people who are more righteous are more superior to those who are not righteous!! A very self-evident statement!
That's a redundant statement, or a tautology. That's like saying that those who are better, are better.
So it is not just the act of having faith, but also the entity to which that faith is directed, which counts?
I apologize for any harshness on my part. Unfortunately, I've dealt with a lot of Islamophobic people before, and it makes you sort of jaded and cautious towards people who seem to "confront" you and your religious faith. Having said that, I'm sure you have a good intention, and I should not doubt that.
You're quite justified in being jaded. I've come across such people myself. No issues there.
My intention is to get you to answer a battery of question which I use as a test of a person's religious beliefs, and using those answers, I can judge them and their religion, and predict its consequences. To be honest, the questions
can seem confrontational at times, but they're supposed to explore grey areas, so they're bound to be unpopular.
For instance, Incantrix answered my questions in some way, which tells me how I should behave with her. How you answer them will tell me how to judge and behave with you.
But just a bit of friendly advice - I've come across much harsher things before, and I can be extremely harsh in turn, so I'd request we keep this friendly.
Sister, please don't post stuff just to confront me but rather if you seriously have a question. If you seek simply to discredit me, then there is no need to do that, because by my own estimation, I am nothing, and Allah is everything. My mistakes are many, and Allah is Most Great. Any good that I have done in my life is due to Allah and His Grace. Only the mistakes have been mine.
As I said, the questions may seem confrontational, but they are really not, they're supposed to explore grey areas and uncomfortable spaces.
Turks don't claim Central Asia, they already have it. Central Asia has always been and still is mostly populated by Turkic peoples, so there is no need for claiming an obvious homeland.
