[Reader-list] Fwd: what non-Muslims say about Quran, Islam

[radhikarajen at vsnl.net]

Dear brother Javed,

  your thoughts are truely learned and illuminative. The issue with islam is that the hold of clergy is sooo strong that the interpretation of holy scriptures can be twisted to demean other humans, terrorise them. This was also the case in the case of manusmrithi, which when interpreted by selfish clergy becomes a tool of exploitation, thus gave rise to caste conundrum and discrimination in faith.Luckily, the hindu way of life has got rid of clergy, who now are required only for some occasional religious events, other times these clergies have other vocations.
  The very Manusmrithi that is written by a king, ruler was applicable in his time of rule, as a king, he wrote about his society, and compared the society as a whole as  a cosmic body, where the learned ones are the brain of that compsit cosmic society, the soldiers of the kingdoms are the shoulders of the society, those in business are the stomach of that composit society, and those who serve all in the society are the  servealls of that composit cosmic body of that society. Inter-changeable vocations, such as that of farmer fighting a war at the war times, then resorting to cultivation of land, learned advising king on administration of kingdom and then back unto their vocation  made all parts of this cosmic body of society all parts of the body equally important, none inferior or superior, the equation changed with british rule, as opportunity to education got the better of the some insociety, thus learned tilted the balance of superior "castes" and inferior castes thus 
leading to oprressed castes. Neglected in rule of governance, they sought other avenues  like islam, and christian faiths in India. Ofcourse those who embraced christianity were the chamchas of british, getting lands for bible societies, and schools for furthering conversion of neglected lot with appeasement of only saviour.
  
 In free India, democracy which should have given good governance to all irrespective of their faith saw the selfish design of the leader who created further divisions in the society with caste faith and regions, which today is seen with regional, caste parties joining together to rule the roost, again giving rise to unequal and unfair rule of laws in administartion of the land mass that is our nation.
  Regards.

----- Original Message -----
From: Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:23 pm
Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: what non-Muslims say about Quran, Islam
To: reader-list at sarai.net

> Dear Chanchal
> I will say this again - I have nothing against the Bhagwat Gita - I
> respect it at its face value. I agree with whatever you say about the
> Gita -so let's not get into that.
> 
> Before I go into Quran, here are a few clarifications: The word Hindu
> was not imposed by Muslims - it actually has a longer history. When
> Alexander's armies reached what is called Sindhu river, they found it
> to be so large that they mistook it for the ocean. And in Greek the
> word for ocean is Indus - that's how the river and the region got the
> name Indus. The word later evolved into many variances such as Indu,
> Sindu, Hindu or Hinduvi. Even during the time of Albeiruni, they did
> not refer to the word Hindu as a religion, but the people living
> across Indus or Sindhu river. Most Arab travellers/writers have
> referred to the entire region as Al-Hind, and not with contempt (as
> you claim). Even Prophet Muhammad used to say "I get wafts of
> fragrance from the direction of Al-Hind".
> 
> Secondly, I agree that most of the current generation Indian Muslims
> are the local converts, but not all converted because of invasion or
> force. Almost all of them were low-caste Hindus who were converted to
> Islam due to centuries-old persecution in the hands of the
> upper-caste/Brahmins. This process still continues - even Christians
> missinaries have been more succesful in the tribal areas.
> 
> Let me know come to the Quran. Yes there are some references in it
> which talk about fighting with the infidels. But as I said in my
> earlier mail, we have to read every word of Quran in the context of
> the situation in which it was revealed/ composed in Arabia. Prophet
> Muhammad was going through persecution by his fellow tribesmen for
> starting a new way of life (all Prophets/sages go through such
> persecution), hence Quran refers to resistance against the so-called
> infidels. It need not apply to every situation. Although unfortunately
> many people try to apply these to the present day situation and lead
> to unneccesary troubles for every one. That is highly condemnable.
> 
> Let us look at some of these passages from the Quran - let me quote
> them here before you start quoting them. (My apologies to the Sarai
> readers for using this platform for purposes which it is not meant
> for)
> 
> "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline
> towards peace" (The Quran 8:61)
> 
> The "root" of the word "Islam" in Arabic is SALAMA which is the origin
> of the words Peace & / or Submission, a submission to God and 
> peace to
> all humanity. It is, thus, no wonder why the salutation in Islam is:
> "Al-Salamu Alaikum or Peace on You." In this regard, prophet Mohammad
> ordered his fellow Muslims to salute others Muslims or non-Muslims
> with peace when he said: "Peace Before Speech" It is a rule in Islam
> that during war time, an enemy warrior who pronounces the word peace
> is totally immune.
> 
> *No Coercion In Islam
> Unlike many other religions where people were offered either
> conversion and peace or death, Islam came with the just word of our
> creator. In Quran 2:256; God said "Let there be no compulsion in
> religion: Truth stands out clear from Error..." There are many other
> verses in the Quran that deals with the nature of spreading God's
> message. One of my favorites which I keep quoting is Verse 10:99 "If
> it had been thy Lord's Will, they would all have believed, all who are
> on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to
> believe!" These verses and many others show how much emphasis Islam
> places on the mind of people, Muslims or non-Muslims.
> 
> *Justice & Fairness to Non-Muslims
> In This regard, Muslims are governed by the rules that the
> relationship with non-Muslims should be based on justice, mutual
> respect, cooperation, and communication. The Quran is very explicit
> about the justice part of the relationship when God stated in Verse
> 60:08 "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not
> for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly
> and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just."
> 
> *The Ultimate Justice
> Another prominent example that I keep referring to concerning the just
> treatment of Islam to non-Muslims; is the fact that while a 
> husband is
> allowed to ask his Muslim wife not to go to the Mosque; he has no
> right to ask his wife to go to Church or Synagogue if it happens that
> the wife is a Christian or a Jew.
> 
> *Contemporary Counterpart of Jihad
> The United Nation's Charter does explicitly discuss the right of the
> occupied people to resist their occupiers. The legitimacy of fighting
> aggression by means of Jihad or armed struggle is extended not only
> from the Islamic teachings but also from the international law and UN
> Charter.
> 
> Quran offers a very sophisticated view of peace. In many verses it
> promises the believer peace as a final reward for a righteous life (
> 5:16 ). It also describes the house of Islam as the abode of peace
> (10:25). At the behest of the Quran, Muslims greet each other every
> time they meet, by wishing peace for each other (6:54 ). However the
> Quran does not shy from advocating military action in the face of
> persecution and religious intolerance. The strongest statement is in
> the chapter al-Baqarah (191):
> 
> The Quran says: "And fight them until persecution is no more, and
> religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no
> hostility except against wrong-doers" (2:193). This verse is very
> interesting for it limits retaliation against all except those who are
> directly responsible for wrong-doing and also suggests that
> persecution could mean religious persecution. Meaning that when the
> practice of Islam is prohibited it is a condition that can be deemed
> as persecution and therefore fighting this persecution is desired.
> This could have implications for conflicts among Muslim states and
> between Muslim states and Islamic groups. Where citizens are allowed
> to practice their faith freely violence is not an option.
> 
> The Quran makes a profound pronouncement in al-Anfal: Tell those who
> disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that
> which is past will be forgiven them (8:38); this injunction further
> reduces the scope for violent response against persecution by granting
> amnesty to those who stop persecution. One of the reasons why
> tyrannical regimes persist in the Muslim World is due to the fear of
> retaliation. Regimes are resisting change and democratization for fear
> of being persecuted for past crimes by new regimes. A promise of
> general amnesty for past deeds by potential challengers may create an
> atmosphere where existing regimes may permit gradual change.
> 
> I would like to have your opinion on my views.
> 
> Javed
> 
> 
> On 1/21/08, chanchal malviya <chanchal_malviya at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree to your point 4...
> > In fact, I nearly agree to all your points...
> >
> > I will take any reference of Quran you want to give... I am 
> using the only
> > published by Kitab Bhawan...
> >
> > If you are really eager... I will give you reference of Bhagwad 
> Geeta...> You can take your own time to go through it and start 
> our discussion...
> >
> > I am not in a mood to compare.. as I have already read both and 
> there is no
> > comparision possible...
> >
> > While Quran talks only about Believers and Non-Believers of 
> Islam... Bhagwad
> > Geeta is all about Humanity (no religion)...  If a Muslim will 
> read Bhagwad
> > Geeta even with a mind to find Hindutva in it, he will fail...
> > So comparision is not possible...
> > If you come to more ground reality, Hindu is a word forced on us 
> by Muslims
> > only, to categorize us as Idol Worshippers and people of Sindhu 
> region...> And moreover, most of the Muslims of this region were 
> basically Hindus some
> > generations in past... Their forefathers are forced Islam 
> acceptors...>
> > And no one can deny this truth, because it is a well known 
> history that
> > around 1000 years ago, it is Muslims who invaded this region and 
> not that we
> > were Muslims...
> > So, instead of having Soft Corner for Hindu brothers (the heirs 
> of same
> > forefathers), Muslims are doing the same thing that the invaders 
> did...>
> > They do not have any regard for our Temples.... They do not have 
> regard of
> > Dieties...The fight is forced... You will get many Hindus who 
> are regard for
> > Quran (those who have not read it).. as the basic culture is to 
> respect> anything that is peace and God...  But this is not the 
> same that is returned
> > by Islamic and Christian people... And hence, we are finding 
> dirty game of
> > Conversion in full force...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
> > To: chanchal malviya <chanchal_malviya at yahoo.com>
> > Cc: reader-list at sarai.net
> > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 12:19:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: what non-Muslims say about Quran, Islam
> >
> > Dear Chanchal ji
> > I would love to take up this challenge - I don't mind having a 
> debate> with you. But there are a few very basic things first.
> >
> > (1) I am not attacking Bhagwat Gita, I have no problem with it, I
> > haven't read it, I don't own a copy right now, so I can't argue 
> for or
> > against it any way, nor do I want to condemn it in any way. As a
> > matter of fact, I respect it, just as I respect all other books of
> > wisdom. Quite simply, I have nothing to say against Bhagwat Gita or
> > any other Holy book. So you have already won on that account.
> >
> > (2)  How can I trust you in a discussion when you keep rejecting my
> > facts by saying "Gandhi never read Quran", and "forget what people
> > say" - how can we forget/ignore things which have been said before
> > about Quran. Are you saying that all those philosophers (which I
> > quoted) have not read what you have read? Or are you claiming to 
> know> more about Islam than what all those people have known? 
> Although many
> > of them are Christians but that doesn't mean that they would be more
> > sympathatic to Islam. The hostilities between Muslims and Christians
> > have been equally terrible.
> >
> > (3) I would like to know exactly which translation of the Quran are
> > you quoting from. Just like you do not approve my references, I may
> > have a problems with your sources. So, let us start with that. 
> Please> let me know which translation of the Quran are you reading.
> >
> > (4) Please remember, the most important point which I will keep
> > referring to is: The Quran, or any other historical/holy book 
> for that
> > matter, was written/compiled at a certain stage in history, at a
> > certain geographical location, for a certain cultural context. 
> We have
> > to read/interprete each word of that book in the context of those
> > times and that location. If we start applying anything from that 
> text> to the current situation and intepret today's reality from 
> the point
> > of view of that old text, we are going to run into trouble - our
> > interpretations and evaluations will always be problematic. And 
> I can
> > already foresee our running into that quagmire. Some Muslims may say
> > that Quran applies to all times and all humans equally, but a
> > sociologist/historian may see Quran to be a historical document (my
> > apologies if I'm hurting anyone's sentiments). And I would like to
> > treat it (at least in this discussion) at a historical document.
> >
> > (5) I am not in a mood to fight - the way you are writing so
> > aggressively. I would love to participate in a discussion if we tone
> > down a bit.
> >
> > If you think that my above points make sense, then let us go 
> ahead. I
> > am ready for the discussion. I am really looking forward to a
> > scholarly, mature, non-partisan, and parliamentary discussion with
> > you, in good spirits.
> >
> > Javed
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-
> list 
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>