Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lunachick · 06-29-2003, 06:58 PM

This is like the world religions at war thread - with everyone saying, "it's your religion that's the whorish one!"

The way I see it is that ALL religion is ugly; and it's devout, apologetic followers are ugly. The more devout, the more ugly. You are all whores to your indoctrination.

Whether it's Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism - they are all about intolerance and hatred, power and prejudice. Their followers are the true whores, each and every one - the stories themselves are just stupid myths.

Get thee to a nunnery, children of the make believe! LOL!!!

lpetrich · 06-30-2003, 01:32 AM

River:
-hinduwoman

---Do you know that there are thousands of Hadiths? Do you know that there exists a scholarly field called " Science of Hadiths' which carefully traces back to the source of transmission , validity and reliability of the author as well , the manner in which it was repeated? ...

Except that there is good reason to think otherwise. Consider the work of much-admired scholars Ignaz Goldziher and Joseph Schacht; from this article on the origins of the Koran,

Quote:

In his classic paper, "On the Development of Hadith," Goldziher "demonstrated that a vast number of Hadith accepted even in the most rigorously critical Muslim collections were outright forgeries from the late 8th and 9th centuries�and as a consequence, that the meticulous isnads [chains of transmitters] which supported them were utterly fictitious." ...

... Schacht proves that, for example, a tradition did not exist at a particular time by showing that it was not used as a legal argument in a discussion which would have made reference to it imperative, if it had existed. For Schacht every legal tradition from the Prophet must be taken as inauthentic and the fictitious expression of a legal doctrine formulated at a later date: "We shall not meet any legal tradition from the Prophet which can positively be considered authentic."

Also, some of the Hadiths are blatantly partisan, like

Quote:

... the Prophet was made to say that Abu Talib, father of �Ali, was sitting deep in hell: "Perhaps my intercession will be of use to him on the day of resurrection so that he may be transferred into a pool of fire which reaches only up to the ankles but which is still hot enough to burn the brain."

with similar sorts of Hadith responses from Shiites and other sects.

And details of the Prophet's life were often invented to justify this or that legal precedent or custom -- no matter how tiny. Thus, Mohammed's pedophilic marriage to Aisha may have been invented by someone who wanted to justify such pedophilic marriages.

Not surprisingly, Goldziher, Schacht, and others consider isnadology virtually worthless as an indicator of authenticity.

In response, some have tried to distinguish between "legal" and "historical" Hadiths, but the historical ones have much the same style as the legal ones, suggesting that they may be equally bogus. So the Hadiths may not tell us anything about what Mohammed was really like.

lpetrich · 06-30-2003, 01:33 AM

More to the point of this thread, that account of Mohammed's pedophilic marriage to Aisha may have been invented by someone wanting to justify such pedophilic marriages with the example of what the Prophet had done.

contracycle · 06-30-2003, 02:48 AM

Perhaps I'm out of my depth here, but this appears to be an entirely non-issue.

Almost all socieietes have exerted profound control over women to the point of ownership. It was hardly uncommon in the West for European feudal lords to be married off to girls who were of very young years.

It seems to me that Islam is being attacked unjustly for a practice that was widespread in the ancient world, including Christendom.

Yes, this may mean the the prohopets morals (if correctly attributed) are not acceptable in modern society today, but much the same could be said of Jesus. However this is not a special problem for either Islam or Christiianity for they both have a provision to the effect of renderiung unto Caesars what is Caesars.

I know Islam-bashing is fashionable in certain parts of the world at the moment, but this seems abit egregious; it is in fact an attack on any historical document as having any moral worth, which is rather extraordinary.

River · 06-30-2003, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
More to the point of this thread, that account of Mohammed's pedophilic marriage to Aisha may have been invented by someone wanting to justify such pedophilic marriages with the example of what the Prophet had done.

No, the marriage of "underage" was quite the norm in all human societies back then. It did not need justification, because there was nothing visibly wrong with it at the time. And the word 'pedophillic" is a misnomer for the situations...as you know the terminology was made only a while back and might actually get thrown out of the DSM psychiatric specifications.

River · 06-30-2003, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by contracycle
Perhaps I'm out of my depth here, but this appears to be an entirely non-issue.

Almost all socieietes have exerted profound control over women to the point of ownership. It was hardly uncommon in the West for European feudal lords to be married off to girls who were of very young years.

It seems to me that Islam is being attacked unjustly for a practice that was widespread in the ancient world, including Christendom.

Yes, this may mean the the prohopets morals (if correctly attributed) are not acceptable in modern society today, but much the same could be said of Jesus. However this is not a special problem for either Islam or Christiianity for they both have a provision to the effect of renderiung unto Caesars what is Caesars.

I know Islam-bashing is fashionable in certain parts of the world at the moment, but this seems abit egregious; it is in fact an attack on any historical document as having any moral worth, which is rather extraordinary.

I agree. I have been trying to get this message out earlier, but it appears most people like their biased worldview and are unable to change because they have invested too much useless time being the "opposing party".

livius drusus · 06-30-2003, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by contracycle
Yes, this may mean the the prohopets morals (if correctly attributed) are not acceptable in modern society today, but much the same could be said of Jesus. However this is not a special problem for either Islam or Christiianity for they both have a provision to the effect of renderiung unto Caesars what is Caesars.

But the realm of morals and ethical human behavior is specifically not Caesar's. The Ambrahamic religions pressupose that God's moral laws are eternally just and none of their scriptures make exceptions based on historical context. Apologists claim historical context is required to understand the morality, but I have never seen the Bible or the Koran or the Pentateuch make the same claim.

In what passages do Abrahamic scriptures make provisions for a morality that is best understood in relative terms?

Quote:

I know Islam-bashing is fashionable in certain parts of the world at the moment, but this seems abit egregious; it is in fact an attack on any historical document as having any moral worth, which is rather extraordinary.

Anything can have moral worth. The question is not whether positive lessons can be drawn from scripture, but whether the parts that are in clear violation of current standards of morality undermine the claim that such scriptures are the infallible, eternally right (morally and otherwise) word of an omnimax deity.

contracycle · 06-30-2003, 08:39 AM

Quote:

But the realm of morals and ethical human behavior is specifically not Caesar's.

Granted. And it is exactly the conflict between divine and secular law that the Caesar statement resolves by making it crystal clear that the worshipper is expected to live under the laws of the state EVEN WHEN they consider the laws of the state to be morally wrong.

Quote:

The Ambrahamic religions pressupose that God's moral laws are eternally just and none of their scriptures make exceptions based on historical context. Apologists claim historical context is required to understand the morality, but I have never seen the Bible or the Koran or the Pentateuch make the same claim.

Granted. I never alluded to moral relatvism appearing anywhere in these historical docuyemntes - that is WHY I object to the singling out of ONE document. I am also by no means advocating the deployment of these morals in the modern world - only that if we are going to piss on peoples holy books on this basis, we should piss on them all. Western culture most certainly produced the same phenomenon of child brides [Romeo and Juliet were what, 13 and 14?] and while an attack on the child brides is legit, and an attack on any use of an old book to do so in the modern world is also legit, attacking the Koran as if it were the ONLY old book to do so IS NOT.

Quote:

In what passages do Abrahamic scriptures make provisions for a morality that is best understood in relative terms?

I hpope I have demonstrated that this is irrelevant to my point. That would only mean that the Bible and Koran are equally at fault.

Quote:

Anything can have moral worth. The question is not whether positive lessons can be drawn from scripture, but whether the parts that are in clear violation of current standards of morality undermine the claim that such scriptures are the infallible, eternally right (morally and otherwise) word of an omnimax deity.

Well I wholly agree with that argument. I think the fact that our morals (although is "moral" really the right word for what is more properly a philosophy of child-raising?) have changed, and we have good reasons for those morals or believe so at any rate, does present a fundamental challenge to advocates of those moralities we now consider redundant.

I agree that citing moral relativism in the modern context lays them open to charges of hypocrisy. OTOH, it is equally ridiculous to assert that any Muslim women is "expected to aspire" to be the victim of a paedophile, especially given the caveat about obeying local law. The opening post about "making excuses for paedophilia" is totally unjustified IMO and seems to me to arise more out of a desire to find fault with Islam specifically than to criticise elderly superstition.

sphinx wui · 06-30-2003, 10:35 AM

Hindouwoman wrote,
but relied on a site which though called dalitstan is for some mysterious reason run by Church of Texas? (Of course hearsay, but so hackers inform me)

Nice conspiracy theory and the author is just a liar,there is no incest, widow burning, caste system, dowry killing��etc and everything is just fine in India, what about this site?

http://www.infochangeindia.org/Women...ion_idv=1#2308

It is obvious that selective foeticide is prevalent here. It has just begun here. If immediate steps are taken it can be contained easily,� explained Poornima Advani chairperson of the National Commission for Women while winding up her three-day visit to the state.

http://www.infochangeindia.org/Women...&section_idv=1

A brief history of the campaign against sex selective abortion in India

In the early-1980s, a group of women�s and health organisations in Mumbai decided to confront the medical profession�s unethical promotion of prenatal sex detection and sex selective abortion. Diagnostic centres had mushroomed even in rural areas, offering amniocentesis and other methods for a few hundred rupees, to be followed by an abortion if the foetus was of the �undesired� sex. Advertisements in the local trains beckoned: �Spend a few hundred rupees today, save lakhs of rupees in dowry for the future.� Female infanticide was not only being replaced by sex selective abortion; those who may have hesitated to kill a female infant were less reluctant when it came to a medical termination of pregnancy.

I learn a lot about Islam from your posts in other threads like the one that you said in it that Muslims also have a caste system !!!! May be I am living in another planet or brainwashed but now we have consequent infidel who escaped the brainwashing and he can speak about the caste system we practice in Egypt! Muslims don�t cover their aeroplane seats with sheets to avoid contact with anybody! Muslims drink from the same source of water that anybody else drink from and don�t fear contamination! I am speaking here about personal experience with Indians working in the Gulf region, wake up and see your society as it is not as you wish it to be.

Hindouwoman wrote,
So this proves that the Hindu masses even 2000 years ago were morally superior to Muhammad and the Arabs.

Speaking about Moral superiority of the Hindu masses,why the morally superior Hindu convert in thousands to Islam!!! Be real for sake of sanity.
We can�t find a representative of this superiority better than Ghandi, the father of the Indian nation (if there is such a thing) and how he spoke from both sides of his mouth. The guy was very decent and polite when he was dealing with the British but when it comes to the most vulnerable group among his own people, he had another opinion,

In the Round Table Conference held in 1932, the then British Government accepted the demand of the Dalits for separate electorate. The basis of that demand was the fact that the Dalit are not Hindu but a separate nation. Gandhi started his 'fast unto death' against that plan and sabotaged it. It was a thunderous blow to the cause of the emancipation of the Dalit. Gandhi, however, showed great respect to the Dalits when he made them comparable to the cows who have divine position in Hinduism. He said: "Majority of Harijans (Dalits) can no more understand the presentation of Christianity than my cows."

The attitude which he really had towards the Dalits has superbly been portrayed by Dr. Ambedkar in the following words: "Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors. The sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas, Smritis and Shastras, the iron law of caste, the heartless law of karma and the senseless law of status by birth are to the Untouchables veritable instruments of torture which Hinduism has forged against untouchables. These very instruments which have mutilated; blasted and blighted the lives of the Untouchables are to be found intact and untarnished in the bosom of Gandhism."

And his opinion about blacks in South Africa is also interesting;
http://dalitstan.org/books/gandhi/gandhi1.html

It is one thing to register natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing -and most insulting -to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges.

Apartheid defended: Gandhi accepted racial segregation, not only because it was politically expedient as his Imperial masters had already drawn such a blueprint, it also conformed with his own attitude to the caste system. In his own mind he fitted Apartheid into the caste system: whites in the position of Brahmins, Indian merchants and professionals as Sudras, and all other non-whites as Untouchables.

http://dalitstan.org/books/gandhi/gandhi2.html
Beverley Nichols, a famous novelist, musician, playwright, essayist, reporter, and a journalist visited British India. During this visit, he met Dr. Ambedkar, who told him:
"Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India."
Mr. Gandhi's views on the caste system--which constitutes the main social problem in India--were fully elaborated by him in 1921-22 in a Gujrati journal called Nava-Jivan. The article is written in Gujrati. I give below an English translation of his views as near as possible in his own words. Says Mr. Gandhi:
" (1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....
(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.
(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.
(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.
(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.
(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.
(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.
(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.

And here is Mohamed before him by about 1300 years
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/muhm-sermon.html
YOU ARE ALL EQUAL. NOBODY HAS SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD ACTION.

And here is an account from an anti Islamic site regarding how he treated his enemies but for them it was PR campaign!!
http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/1d.html
The magnanimity with which Mahomet treated a people who had so long hated and rejected him is worthy of all admiration. It was indeed for his own interest to forgive the past, and cast into oblivion its slights and injuries. But this did not the less require a large and generous heart. And Mahomet had his reward, for the whole population of his native city at once gave in their adhesion, and espoused his cause with alacrity and apparent devotion. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 398).

Hindouwoman wrote,
Islam is to be congratulated in its success at brainwashing.

This is true; Muslims prostrated in front of a monkey and let him starve to death while they were worshiping him last year! Muslims build temples for rats and genital organs and worship them, Muslims shower by using cow urine, Muslims eat cow shit, what a horrible and disgusting religion Islam is?

Hindouwoman,
When we had an argument before in the political forum in the Palestinian/Israeli thread, I offered you to go to the GRD forum to open a new thread there to avoid derailing the original subject and you were not interested and I preferred to stop the side discussion by a nice apology but I think you misunderstood it.
Muslims are not the only problem in India, your country is a mosaic of different religions, cultures, languages and you have troubles everywhere but you keep pointing your finger at Muslims as the only source of troubles in India.

sphinx wui · 06-30-2003, 10:41 AM

EstherRose wrote,
I have a couple of questions. If the Koran states that you are only to have 4 wives, why did Mohammed break this and marry 12?

The Quran is the product of Mohamed�s creative imagination and having four wives was actually a limitation on the number of wives one can have during this time and you can check the bible to see for yourself Solomon , David and Ibraham.

Mohamed realized that marrying women from other tribes could assure the other parties of his good will; he did it to achieve a strategic goal for his cause and to bring peace and it worked. Did he violate his own teachings? Literally yes but Muslims understand his situation and nobody protested against him and nobody asked for the same privilege. Mohamed was a statesman and a political leader not a mystical figure as Jesus and he had to deal with realistic problems on the ground and solve them.

EstherRose wrote,
And I seem to recall a nice hadith that explains how a woman�s witness is only worth half that of a man�s because of the deficiency of the woman�s mind.

Is this how muslims believe?

Yes, and not just this, woman get half of what a man get from inheritance.

But can you tell me what was the position of women in the Judeo-Christian traditions? Was she allowed to be a witness in court at all? Was she allowed to get anything from her family wealth? She was considered evil cause of deceiving Adam, nasty and untouchable during her period and she has to shut up in the churches. Don�t be selective while reading the bible!

EstherRose wrote,
Glad I'm a Christian. My husband and I believe in what our bible tells us.

Good for you and congratulations and I hope your husband doesn�t follow the bible literally or you will be in big troubles if he sales one of your daughters into slavery or stone a rebellious kid to death as the bible ordered him to do!!]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2003, 06:58 PM	#71
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895	This is like the world religions at war thread - with everyone saying, "it's your religion that's the whorish one!" The way I see it is that ALL religion is ugly; and it's devout, apologetic followers are ugly. The more devout, the more ugly. You are all whores to your indoctrination. Whether it's Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism - they are all about intolerance and hatred, power and prejudice. Their followers are the true whores, each and every one - the stories themselves are just stupid myths. Get thee to a nunnery, children of the make believe! LOL!!!

06-30-2003, 01:33 AM	#73
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	More to the point of this thread, that account of Mohammed's pedophilic marriage to Aisha may have been invented by someone wanting to justify such pedophilic marriages with the example of what the Prophet had done.

06-30-2003, 02:48 AM	#74
contracycle Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: London Posts: 1,425	Perhaps I'm out of my depth here, but this appears to be an entirely non-issue. Almost all socieietes have exerted profound control over women to the point of ownership. It was hardly uncommon in the West for European feudal lords to be married off to girls who were of very young years. It seems to me that Islam is being attacked unjustly for a practice that was widespread in the ancient world, including Christendom. Yes, this may mean the the prohopets morals (if correctly attributed) are not acceptable in modern society today, but much the same could be said of Jesus. However this is not a special problem for either Islam or Christiianity for they both have a provision to the effect of renderiung unto Caesars what is Caesars. I know Islam-bashing is fashionable in certain parts of the world at the moment, but this seems abit egregious; it is in fact an attack on any historical document as having any moral worth, which is rather extraordinary.

06-30-2003, 10:35 AM	#79
sphinx wui Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: egypt Posts: 253	Hindouwoman wrote, but relied on a site which though called dalitstan is for some mysterious reason run by Church of Texas? (Of course hearsay, but so hackers inform me) Nice conspiracy theory and the author is just a liar,there is no incest, widow burning, caste system, dowry killing��etc and everything is just fine in India, what about this site? http://www.infochangeindia.org/Women...ion_idv=1#2308 It is obvious that selective foeticide is prevalent here. It has just begun here. If immediate steps are taken it can be contained easily,� explained Poornima Advani chairperson of the National Commission for Women while winding up her three-day visit to the state. http://www.infochangeindia.org/Women...&section_idv=1 A brief history of the campaign against sex selective abortion in India In the early-1980s, a group of women�s and health organisations in Mumbai decided to confront the medical profession�s unethical promotion of prenatal sex detection and sex selective abortion. Diagnostic centres had mushroomed even in rural areas, offering amniocentesis and other methods for a few hundred rupees, to be followed by an abortion if the foetus was of the �undesired� sex. Advertisements in the local trains beckoned: �Spend a few hundred rupees today, save lakhs of rupees in dowry for the future.� Female infanticide was not only being replaced by sex selective abortion; those who may have hesitated to kill a female infant were less reluctant when it came to a medical termination of pregnancy. I learn a lot about Islam from your posts in other threads like the one that you said in it that Muslims also have a caste system !!!! May be I am living in another planet or brainwashed but now we have consequent infidel who escaped the brainwashing and he can speak about the caste system we practice in Egypt! Muslims don�t cover their aeroplane seats with sheets to avoid contact with anybody! Muslims drink from the same source of water that anybody else drink from and don�t fear contamination! I am speaking here about personal experience with Indians working in the Gulf region, wake up and see your society as it is not as you wish it to be. Hindouwoman wrote, So this proves that the Hindu masses even 2000 years ago were morally superior to Muhammad and the Arabs. Speaking about Moral superiority of the Hindu masses,why the morally superior Hindu convert in thousands to Islam!!! Be real for sake of sanity. We can�t find a representative of this superiority better than Ghandi, the father of the Indian nation (if there is such a thing) and how he spoke from both sides of his mouth. The guy was very decent and polite when he was dealing with the British but when it comes to the most vulnerable group among his own people, he had another opinion, In the Round Table Conference held in 1932, the then British Government accepted the demand of the Dalits for separate electorate. The basis of that demand was the fact that the Dalit are not Hindu but a separate nation. Gandhi started his 'fast unto death' against that plan and sabotaged it. It was a thunderous blow to the cause of the emancipation of the Dalit. Gandhi, however, showed great respect to the Dalits when he made them comparable to the cows who have divine position in Hinduism. He said: "Majority of Harijans (Dalits) can no more understand the presentation of Christianity than my cows." The attitude which he really had towards the Dalits has superbly been portrayed by Dr. Ambedkar in the following words: "Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors. The sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas, Smritis and Shastras, the iron law of caste, the heartless law of karma and the senseless law of status by birth are to the Untouchables veritable instruments of torture which Hinduism has forged against untouchables. These very instruments which have mutilated; blasted and blighted the lives of the Untouchables are to be found intact and untarnished in the bosom of Gandhism." And his opinion about blacks in South Africa is also interesting; http://dalitstan.org/books/gandhi/gandhi1.html It is one thing to register natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing -and most insulting -to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges. Apartheid defended: Gandhi accepted racial segregation, not only because it was politically expedient as his Imperial masters had already drawn such a blueprint, it also conformed with his own attitude to the caste system. In his own mind he fitted Apartheid into the caste system: whites in the position of Brahmins, Indian merchants and professionals as Sudras, and all other non-whites as Untouchables. http://dalitstan.org/books/gandhi/gandhi2.html Beverley Nichols, a famous novelist, musician, playwright, essayist, reporter, and a journalist visited British India. During this visit, he met Dr. Ambedkar, who told him: "Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India." Mr. Gandhi's views on the caste system--which constitutes the main social problem in India--were fully elaborated by him in 1921-22 in a Gujrati journal called Nava-Jivan. The article is written in Gujrati. I give below an English translation of his views as near as possible in his own words. Says Mr. Gandhi: " (1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system. (2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole.... (3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization. (4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade. (5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion. (6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes. (7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage. (8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. (9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system. And here is Mohamed before him by about 1300 years http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/muhm-sermon.html YOU ARE ALL EQUAL. NOBODY HAS SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD ACTION. And here is an account from an anti Islamic site regarding how he treated his enemies but for them it was PR campaign!! http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/1d.html The magnanimity with which Mahomet treated a people who had so long hated and rejected him is worthy of all admiration. It was indeed for his own interest to forgive the past, and cast into oblivion its slights and injuries. But this did not the less require a large and generous heart. And Mahomet had his reward, for the whole population of his native city at once gave in their adhesion, and espoused his cause with alacrity and apparent devotion. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 398). Hindouwoman wrote, Islam is to be congratulated in its success at brainwashing. This is true; Muslims prostrated in front of a monkey and let him starve to death while they were worshiping him last year! Muslims build temples for rats and genital organs and worship them, Muslims shower by using cow urine, Muslims eat cow shit, what a horrible and disgusting religion Islam is? Hindouwoman, When we had an argument before in the political forum in the Palestinian/Israeli thread, I offered you to go to the GRD forum to open a new thread there to avoid derailing the original subject and you were not interested and I preferred to stop the side discussion by a nice apology but I think you misunderstood it. Muslims are not the only problem in India, your country is a mosaic of different religions, cultures, languages and you have troubles everywhere but you keep pointing your finger at Muslims as the only source of troubles in India.

06-30-2003, 10:41 AM	#80
sphinx wui Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: egypt Posts: 253	EstherRose wrote, I have a couple of questions. If the Koran states that you are only to have 4 wives, why did Mohammed break this and marry 12? The Quran is the product of Mohamed�s creative imagination and having four wives was actually a limitation on the number of wives one can have during this time and you can check the bible to see for yourself Solomon , David and Ibraham. Mohamed realized that marrying women from other tribes could assure the other parties of his good will; he did it to achieve a strategic goal for his cause and to bring peace and it worked. Did he violate his own teachings? Literally yes but Muslims understand his situation and nobody protested against him and nobody asked for the same privilege. Mohamed was a statesman and a political leader not a mystical figure as Jesus and he had to deal with realistic problems on the ground and solve them. EstherRose wrote, And I seem to recall a nice hadith that explains how a woman�s witness is only worth half that of a man�s because of the deficiency of the woman�s mind. Is this how muslims believe? Yes, and not just this, woman get half of what a man get from inheritance. But can you tell me what was the position of women in the Judeo-Christian traditions? Was she allowed to be a witness in court at all? Was she allowed to get anything from her family wealth? She was considered evil cause of deceiving Adam, nasty and untouchable during her period and she has to shut up in the churches. Don�t be selective while reading the bible! EstherRose wrote, Glad I'm a Christian. My husband and I believe in what our bible tells us. Good for you and congratulations and I hope your husband doesn�t follow the bible literally or you will be in big troubles if he sales one of your daughters into slavery or stone a rebellious kid to death as the bible ordered him to do!!]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.