Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Are Ahmadis Non-Muslims?
Are Ahmadis Non-Muslims?
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
(Written exclusively for PakTeaHouse. Please give credit when crossposting)
The poison of ignorance and extremism that Bhutto and General Zia jointly fathered during their dictatorial regimes has fully indoctrinated even those who otherwise describe themselves as educated.
This week the Large Hadron Collider at the CERN inched closer to the discovery of Higgs Boson or the God Particle as it were. In this extraordinary story of human achievement, Dr. Abdus Salam is a key player who put Pakistan on the map of theoretical physics. In his homeland though, a group of self-styled champions of Islam have started a posthumous campaign of scurrilous slander claiming that Dr. Salam was giving out nuclear secrets. Forget that even a confirmed bigot like General Zia held a ceremony in our only nobel prize winner’s honour or that no one ever accused Dr. Salam of any such thing; in Pakistan to be a hero you have to actually transfer technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Now consider the case of 11 year old Sitara Akbar. Every Pakistani and his mother in law are citing her as a crowning national achievement, blissfully oblivious of the fact that she is an Ahmadi. To them her religion is suddenly unimportant or irrelevant or is it? How many Sitara Akbars have been expelled from our schools for being Ahmadi? How many productive citizens of this republic have been killed and maimed for believing differently?
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s National Assembly imagined itself the Islamic equivalent of the Council of Nicea. Just as that ancient bastion of Christian orthodoxy excommunicated unitarian Christians for not believing in the trinity of the father, son and the holy ghost, the National Assembly saw it fit to – primarily at the instigation of the Prime Minister and his law minister- declare an entire sect non-Muslim. Just like the post hoc elevation of the principle of trinity at Nicea, Pakistan’s National Assembly located Islam in the principle of the finality of Prophethood.
This act of our sovereign legislature stood in sharp contrast to the view of this nation’s founding father. On 5 May, 1944, in response to demands of the orthodox vis a vis Ahmadis, Jinnah made it absolutely clear that anyone who professes to be a Muslim is a Muslim and welcome in the Muslim League and that those who were raising the issue were trying to divide the Muslims. Here I am forced to say that I am inclined to accept Jinnah’s view and reject the collective wisdom of our sovereign legislature. There are several reasons which may be cited in this regard:
- First and foremost Pakistan is bound by the United Nations’ charter. Therefore Pakistan is bound to ensure freedom of religion for all its citizens and freedom of religion means freedom of religion according to the definition of the subject of the said freedom.
- Identity is subjective not objective. The state of Pakistan or any other state cannot tell an Ahmadi that he is not a Muslim because it is intrinsic to the faith of an Ahmadi. This is an inviolable, inalienable right as part of right to life which every state in the world is bound to protect. If Ahmadis say they are Muslims they ought to be accepted as such.
- Pakistan is a signatory to the ICCPR and without reservations since June 2011. Therefore every piece of legislation that discriminates against Ahmadis or forces a label upon them is ultra vires the ICCPR.
- The Islamic argument: According to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) anyone who utters the Kalima Shahadah is a Muslim. None of the Kalimas, including the Primary Kalima Shahadah contains any reference to the principle of the finality of Prophethood as understood by the Muslim majority today.
- Finally because by conduct and promise, Pakistani state is estopped from claiming otherwise. In 1947, Pakistan laid claim to Qadian as a Muslim holy place, a counter-blast to Sikh claims on Nankana Sahib and Hassan Abdal. Similarly in 1946 elections which is the basic referendum on the question of Pakistan, Ahmadi votes were instrumental in getting Muslims Pakistan. These are undeniable facts of history.
Therefore- fully aware of the stigma attached to this statement- I concur with Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah, thefounding father of Pakistan that Ahmadis are Muslims, if they say they are Muslims and no one, not even the sovereign legislature, has the right to say otherwise.
Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: Ahmadi, Constitution, Jinnah, Muslim, Pakistan
2,587 Responses to "Are Ahmadis Non-Muslims?"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- MilesToGo
said http://youtu.be/7IoMrxMmVSs - Fingolfin
said Mythbuster
another very very significant probl... - Fingolfin said if this were Facebook i would have 'liked' Rex Min...
- PMA
said It is not hard to understand why Manto wrote what... - RajTOO
said Rex Minor,
India after Independence and even earl... - Rex Minor said @Tajender,
Remember my earlier post about the w...
- Rex Minor said One must clean the front of ones own house, before...
- Mythbuster
said "I thought that the educated and intelligent India... - Rex Minor said Why talk abut slavery in Islam, or in the USA and...
- ahem
said to rex
Muslims cannot be part of India and indi...
@Raj
India is known as a country of mystery. Bihari sapient is more complicated than I thought; they had a king in ancient times by the name of Mahbali who had many wives. But he was impotent and his Gura with the kings permission impregnated ‘Sudeshma’ the King’s chief Queen anf five children were born?
I thought only muslims were allowed to have four wives? What is the catch in the story? And what happened to other wives?
Rex Minor
@ rex minor
[[[[[[India is known as a country of mystery]]]]
I think many countries are.
[[[[[[a king in ancient times by the name of Mahbali who had many wives. But he was impotent and his Gura with the kings permission impregnated ‘Sudeshma’ the King’s chief Queen anf five children were born?
I thought only muslims were allowed to have four wives? What is the catch in the story? And what happened to other wives?]]]]
Those other ‘wives’ must be squatting on the Shiva.Krishna linghams for multiple orgasms!
A Muslim can take 4 wives.
A Hindu can take only one…but like Rawan enjoy Seeta’s of his brethren!
A Christian or an atheist can have only one wife and several mistresses and girl firends.
Conclusion:: Muslims are losers as they have to bear the burden of maintaining 4 wives and their family equitably whereas others enjoy ”free porcine lunches”!!
Then tough luck, muslims are no longer allowed to have four wives in the civilised world.
The message from the Bihari King story is that in ancient times every one was used to having several wives for a variety of reasons. The thinking behind the digit four was to keep some limitations so that help of the neighbour or the Guru is not required.
rex minor.
Muhammad was a great reformer of pre-islamic Arabia. No sane person can doubt that, no matter what the lunatics say. I always thought the permission given in Quran to men to marry four times (as in here:
“And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.”
was intended to act in the other direction, that is, as you say, to limit the number of wives to four, that too if one could do justice to all of them. From this angle Muhammad was indeed being ahead of his times. However, if the number four was to be applied only in the specific context of Arabs in a particular time, that is, as you say, in ancient times, how could these be God’s own words? Don’t you think God’s words should have been absolute, applicable everywhere at all times, and not only to reform a people of the ancient times? Especially if they had to be the Final Words with no further alterations allowed?
So were these God’s words or the reformer Muhammad’s words, and should there be further reform of these words with changing times?
Allah is sleeping, don’t disturb him.
Allah says
“use the brain I have given you, and continue reforming”
“if you reject my revelations, I will torcher you”
NC,
Muslims can only have 4 wives at a time. It’s like a moving window. The prophet himself had at least 8-9, and some concubines. In this case, as in many others, there is a valid criticism of the prophet, though I am not sure it’s relevant. So, I am not sure how any notion of fairness is justified at giving men the right which women cannot have. Btw, it’s true that by the standards of the time, women did get many rights in Islam, but then there was always a clause of this and that, which generally watered down those rights, as subsequent events showed. Plus, the wars of prophet make me deeply uncomfortable. There are just too many contradictions. When you advocate peace, you advocate peace unequivocally and I just find it hard to believe that his opponents were so pig headed.
A recent King Maha Yahya Bali Khan used to have four Laundies and few exras every night. When the battle of Bangali Banging was going on in dec 1971 he was banging Nightingale of East Moho Torma some Lawhory Randi Noor Jahan……welcome to Arabo Turki GMasti
But it always wondered my Turky Bell Labs Distributed DataBase researcher colleague why subcontinental green Gs are trying to be more Arab than Arabs themselves.
When are you going to build Darga for Hazarath Ajmal Kasab at Gateway of India to bring religion of piss?
Rex minor,
The idea of guru impregnating the wife of an impotent husband was prevalent till about 100 years ago. There was no concept of divorce, at least in the higher castes, and that was the way to get around such troubles. Being a guru or swami was a profitable business in more ways than one. That is why you find all sorts of charlatans and fornicators masquerading as gurus and swamis and pirs as well. Lest it be misunderstood, the sufi pirs were notorious in this regard. Their khanqahs were shared by both hindu and muslim “holy” figures.
Allah says
“unbelievers will be thrown into molten tungsten”
Bade Nade G,
“Wordy” JNU GMasti is also very profitable business. They get to chod Awam Ka brain in khule aam din dahade.
Bade nade G,
“Wordy” GMast hijack everything and direct to ancient made up Maha Bali, Macaulaid invented molten lead pouring in ears of so called untouchables..
These wordy Gs forget to notice 500K people walking more than 500 miles together to Pandharpur every six months… all people the so called untoucables, bramhins, marathas, malis, chamars and yes even bhangis… all of them who have taken a vow of not touching tobacco, tea, alcohol and Randi visits….
You never get those stories in UNDY Tv…
So repeat with me:
India is progressing, democratic, inclusive, diversity celebrating etc because
it is dharmic
and inspite of
some of us becoming AbraHarami Gs.
Allah gave Muhammad the sexual strength of 40Men then its only fair he gets to have many wives and concubines to utilize Allah’s gift. And its but natural to thank Allah for such pleasent reward and mercy by cutting the throat of an animal or Infidel.
NC Miyan,
The very cocnept that God’s words are true in every time, space and circumstances,past,present or future is missing in Quranic teachings. Quran fails the test of Godhood’s Truth and Pefection at the begining, Middle and in the End . This is why their whole religion is but a play in duality of Naam and Roopa unable to penetrate or provide insight into Non duality which is the beginning of spiritual exploration. Muhammad being the last ultimate champion dont help either as Muslamans make truth dependent on Muhammad while every intelligent method calls for other way around. I requested BI to state one Non Dual statement in his scripture. My guess is he has not found One yet.the Godhood remains prisoner of Prophet and his limitations.
BM
“The prophet himself had at least 8-9, and some concubines. In this case, as in many others, there is a valid criticism of the prophet, ”
BM I don’t want to further dilute the issue. The fact that Muhammad had more wives than one does not bother me much. Given the time, and possibly the circumstances, that was probably normal. Krishna too supposedly had three (recorded) wives, and countless other female worshippers.
I do think Muhammad was a great reformer, of 7th century Arabia. His pronouncements on war, marriage, etc. were in the context of a group of tribes who were living in Arabia. He did reform them and achieved great things with them. My problem starts when something clearly aimed at a specific spatial and temporal context (for instance the verse in Quran quoted above permitting men to have four wives) is taken as God’s unalterable pronouncement to all mankind for all times. I have never found a believer satisfactorily explain this.
Many of them clearly believe words (such as the verse above) need reform with changing times. But the same people will nonetheless insist on the unalterable status of God’s words. It seems by doing this they are undermining Muhammad’s status as a reformer.
NC,
The criticism of the prophet in this regard doesn’t quite refer to the number of wives he had. That was fine as per the customs of his age. The problem was his pronouncements with regard to his followers. Why restrict them to 4 then? His justification for this was extremely sketchy. Plus, why not allow his wives to remarry? I think sometimes he trivialized his pronouncements by calling on angel gabriel at the drop of the hat. It’s a little hard to stomach.
“My problem starts when something clearly aimed at a specific spatial and temporal context ”
Very true, but then who decides what was, as you say, “aimed at a specific spatial and temporal context “? You have to understand this very important thing, which Raj also doesn’t want to notice: the centrality of the prophet when it comes to Islam. It is said that you can criticize Allah but you cannot criticize the prophet. I can only guess why it is so. I feel that there is a latent(and not unjustifiable) fear that once you cross that red line, the whole edifice may fall. You see the same thing in Ahmedi thought process too. Despite what is clearly wrong, especially with regard to the Buddha, they go on and on repeating the hackneyed story that he was a prophet of god etc.
Personally, if that fear is true, I really don’t see a reason for it: the prophet didn’t really call himself as the perfect man etc.
I think the whole discussion got off track which was simply about whether Ahmadis are non-Muslim or otherwise. Given the arguments by YLH there should not be any doubt that Ahmadis have every right to consider themselves as part of Islam. If someone disagrees then let it be so. But man-mande laws and constitutions cannot be used to enforce vested desires and wishes of any detractor of Ahmadi beliefs.
Criticizing the Prophet of Islam for having several wives is not justified especially by any Hindus. Esp. since Krishna also had numerous wives. But any fair-minded person needs to bear that the Prophet married these women after the death of favorite wife Khadija who had died after 25 years of marriage. If this was due to lust -God forbid- then the Prophet should have married these women in his youth. Moreover, all the wives had consented to their marriage in this arrangement so it should not concern anyone else.
Rasool Dawood David Colman Gilani Hadley ( Piss be upon his left side od empty sack) also married Moroccon and Papilandi wife after giving Talak to American druggy Chikni.
Arabi Rasool died with his placid Dostum between legs of Hazarath Ayesha Rasool (piss be upon her left thigh)
Akbar Ho Alla for phookat ka Galla!
Amaar,
I think you missed the point. The prophet is not criticized on account of having multiple wives(and concubines). He is criticized for having different rules for himself vs his followers. Krishna is in fact celebrated as a tempter(or seducer), but I am not aware of any texts where he is expatiating on virtues of monogamy.
“If this was due to lust -God forbid- then the Prophet should have married these women in his youth”
Do you think lust is only restricted to people in their 20s? You may be quite wrong, my friend.
“all the wives had consented to their marriage in this arrangement so it should not concern anyone else.”
One of them was a minor(calling her a minor itself is somewhat blasphemous) and at least one or two seemed to be morally bullied into the marriage. Let’s not sugarcoat it. Please.
@no communal
It is very difficult to communicate or discuss religion with people who do not believe in religion, the one God who controls the world, demands worship and obedience. Many Israelites could not understand it and kept on asking questions of Moses as well.
The followers of Islam also raised questions of Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) asking for God’s commandments on matters which affected their personal lives. The Prophet of God had a very crisp and clear answer, use your brain is the commandment of God!
As a child I learnt that human knowledge is limited and one learns gradualy and progressively as God wants us to know not before our time.What one does not understand we simply said is known to allmighty God. Quraan is by no means a reference book that any one can open it and consult as the Encyclopedia Brock Hose or Brittanica and voila there is the answer in black and white. Now consider also this and I have repeatedly said that only 20 percent of the potential of human brain is currently utilised. And even 20% or less brain utilisation can help us to obtain PHD’s, noble prize and has assisted the mankind in achieving the technological advances and research in science, medicine, universum and beyond. Infact a person sometimes having zero education background, but by trickery alone “YES WE CAN” could snatch a noble prize without any protests from people. We have seen how an imposter afro american managed to snatch this prize despite claiming to be the son of a muslim, continued with two wars, keeping innocents in the prisons around the world and undertook exra judicial killings.
This is a very bad example and I pray toGod that it does not get repeated. BM has similar intentions to leap forward with questions without having the background or the knowledge, but by simply using the method of denial reckons that some one else would provide the opposite point of view. Raj TOO is by no means a bluffer! He expresses what he feels though it not be the right solution.
Mr no communal, could you please explain the logic behind such realities? I cannot either. And how come that you are trying to interpret the words of God without having any knowledge of the arab language, I guess, and reckon that Islamic theologists would consult with each other and come up with a unified response. Even in modern medicine four medical doctors would come up with five different opinions.
I feel that you are a realistic, ositive and a decent person. I am sure that if you think through use a bit of speculative Hegels logic, a bit of Immanuel Kannt and there is no reason why you shall not be able to come up with the right response. Not to forget that when we talk about history, we are always talking about a certain Time and this is usualy ignored. Though shall not kill is God’s commandment; and if any muslim theologist tells you any other nonsense then you should know that he is definitely not a muslim by any standards.
Not four wives sir are meant for one male!
Rex Minor
Didn’t Hazarath Ayesh had to wipe Rasool’s sperm less semen from her left thigh?
Would you pl check alien Arabi book you booked G
We dharmiks consider Ishwar/ParamBramha as a Tatwa (approx translation is principle). Abra Harami consider God as person, that is why their God becomes a Barking Dog in the hands of imperialist brutes. What can you expect from Arabi/Jew Bania? Moh Madden need to know that the worst moneylender and bania were Arabs…their God is also Bania because it was one of the deity of Jews.
@Amaar
Could you imagine some one criticising the impotent Bihari king who had man wives but was impotent and requested his Guru to impregnate his chief Queen? I guess not, the Bihari citizen would have lost his head with the impotent sword. Today the Biharis have learn to speak up!
Ahmedies are as good a muslim as they believe they are! God alone has the power to know what the truth is ? The real believers are going to prevail over the non willing believers. This is what is said and this is what are to believe. No one else the right to grant us the label of a muslim! Glory is for God and God alone.
Rex Minor
Which God, man made, man imagined one ? The one who fear competition, offer bargain, material benefits, physical pleasures and get angey if not feared? All these are human shortcomings.
There is nothing to fear if nothing to hide. Indics actually invite criticism of the scriptures as it is the only way to validate the teachings. Like every Indic says Satyameva Jayate, Truth always win , falsehood always die and losses after gaining temporary advanatages. As this was in past so shall it be now and in future. The light of spiritual knowledge will remove the darkness of belief systems limited to duality and infuse divine bliss in every living beings where there is no fear of any hell or god , no lure of paradise or any physical pleasures degenrating human soul and insulting intelligence to animal level existence.
I guess one needs to filter out the verses from Quran that are not divine.
If only Allah had protected the hadiths like he is protecting Quran.
Liam Neeson Considers Giving Up Catholic Faith, Turning To Islam
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/25/liam-neeson-catholic-faith-islam_n_1230350.html?ref=mostpopular
@ rex minor
[[[[Ahmedies are as good a muslim as they believe they are! God alone has the power to know what the truth is ? The real believers are going to prevail over the non willing believers.]]]
the same was said by KKK…Hitler and so many other morons!
@ rex minor
[[[[Ahmedies are as good a muslim as they believe they are! God alone has the power to know what the truth is ? The real believers are going to prevail over the non willing believers.]]]
the same was said by KKK…Hitler and so many other morons!
And the Talibans are also saying the same. Why then you get grieved?
@ Milestogo
[[[[I guess one needs to filter out the verses from Quran that are not divine.]]]]
Why don’t you try a hand on some of them???
[[[[[[[If only Allah had protected the hadiths like he is protecting Quran.]]]]]]
Allah only promised to protect the Quran and he is already doing it!
You just save your ass!
Rex Minor,
You are a funny troll. Why does one need to consult Kant to decipher why the prophet had so many wives? I think I am old enough to ask such questions. Don’t blow bubbles. Just answer my queries instead of spewing rubbish.
“I have repeatedly said that only 20 percent of the potential of human brain is currently utilised.”
In your case, it’s 2%
I meant it’s 100%. I don’t thnk you are capable of anything more..
Rex Minor
We in India are taught to question everything and we question critically. Nothing is taken at face value or blind faith. You may say questioning our sacred texts or predecessors is a sign of weakness, but we see it differently. We believe it is the only way to refine knowledge, to separate the grain from the chaff, and is also the starting point of scientific inquiry. I understand this is squarely against Islamic sensibilities, but that is also the primary reason for conservatism in Islamic societies. If Muslims were allowed to critically examine the commandments of their predecessors with reason and logic, the heat of fanaticism would probably have subsided. So I find it difficult to believe that Quran’s command is “use your brain” (which verse, by the way). It rather seems to order the opposite, “do as I say, between the lines”.
***********************************************************
Anyway, with the anonymity provided by internet, I asked you a simple question: if the permission to marry four times was addressed to the specific context of middle eastern Arabs in the 7th century (as you yourself said earlier), how can it simultaneously be God’s commandment to all people at all times? In your response, you said that an Afro American president whose father was a Muslim got the Nobel Peace prize in spite of continuing with two wars. Even if that was in some deep way connected to my question, I must admit I failed to see it. You then asked me to read up on Hegel’s logic and Kant’s philosophy. I once again failed to see any connection of these eminent individuals with what God said in Quran. In your long response you even talked about some really praiseworthy attributes of Raj and also the mischievous BM, but consistently skirted answering my question.
****************************************************
Since you failed to respond in clear terms the first time, I shall ask again, please read below:
*****************************************************
“And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.”
If the number four was to be applied only in the specific context of Arabs in a particular time, that is, as you say, in ancient times, how could these words simultaneously be God’s words addressed to all mankind at all times? Don’t you think God’s words should have been absolute, applicable everywhere at all times, and not only to reform a particular group of people of the ancient times? Especially if they had to be the Final Words with no further alterations allowed?
***************************************************************
So were these God’s words or Muhammad the reformer’s words, and should there be further reform of these words with changing times?
this question has bothered me, AND i gave it the most astringent scrutiny.
The straightpathic answer is just…
NO!
Allah has issued a revision
“infidel should be replaced with evil. Muhammed made a mistake.”
Whether or not ahamadis are muslims or are regarded as muslims., their fate is sealed by the muslims. The muslims will massacre them by various means and speeds.
—
to milestogo
Mohammad himself was a mistake. And hence islam will become worse in coming days. The worst of islam is yet to come.
—
rex has the habit of writing in names like Kant and Hegel in his posts in order to try to fool the readers. He knows (or thinks) that we are not going to find out whether he really read/understood any of them or not.
Arabic is not god’s language – it is claimed to be god’s language so that arabs can steal your land, money and women. That is what they did in Iran and everywhere later. The arabic language is not suited for giving exact instructions but for lulling human beings into fascism.
@no communal
I am sorry, I am not trying to evade and having nothing in common with your faith, culture or custom , I gave several references to facilitate you to find an answer yourself.
You asked me a question about,what according to your own admission are God’s or Prophet Mohammad’s(pbuh)words, a certain passage in Quraan. My pragmatic answer would have been to ask God, Prophet Mohammad or the Angel Gabrael. I did not and wanted to be helpful, so I referred you to Kannt, a christian philosopher who explains what a belief in God means. One blndly believes in God, in the prophet and in the religion first and then learns about the rules and regulations of the membership. One does not examine, criticaly reviews and investigate like one does as scepti with political leadership befor deciding to accept the tenets of the religion. Your curasity is not a novice, Philosophers, wissenschafters (academics and scientists) and students of researchs had similar interest to learn about the 7th century and prior world to comrehend the texts of Bible and the Quraan. I even refered the name of Hagel who was of the opinion that one could learn about the truth or near truth not having any prior knowledge but merely by speculating in a logical manner one cold discover the unknown.
Here is my simple opinion; Islam does not permit four wives!
The commandments of God are absolute for all times. The Quraanic suras are equaly divine and are for all times to come. No one is permitted to quote Quraanic suras out of context or use them for reference purpose.
I agree that Islam needs an Aufclarung/Enlightening process, not reforms per say, but to understand the true definition of Islam and the Islamic way of life for its citizens in the modern world which has already realised a number of sciense revealed previously in Quraan. Unfortunately, due to the colonisation and the dictatorship in most Islamic lands muslims have been more or less struggling with their traditions, customs and cultures and it had not been possible to witness a true and modern Islam until untl now. In the cas of Indian and Pakistani muslims, more than two third of their way of life is a carry over from the hindu and anglo saxon civilistaion,which is not even comparable with arabic traditions and the culture..
Tunisia is the first country earmarked for introducing a democracy headed by the newly elected parliament, almost one year after the spring revolution and I shall be anxiously watching this event. Pakistan leaders are well advised to introduce arabic language in their education system if they ave the intention totake part eventualy in the Aufklarung process which in the Christian Europe starte in 1800.
Rex Minor
@BM
You have not answered my question? Why would a Bihari marry several wives if he is impotent? Let us leave the second part of the quesion?
Rex Minor
Neeson considers turning to Islam, reminds me of the story of a black guest in Moscow at the bar, when the bar keeper enquired; excuse me sir, are you an irishman?
Is it not bad enough to be black, promptly replied the hotel guest.
Rex Minor
@Obsev
The 17th century theologist, thinker and philosopher Descartes said that since no one complains about having less verstand/commonsense than others, simply shows that God has provided all with equal shares of commonsense. I do not agree with this thesis, since how would someone wth insufficient sense know that others have more. I have studied philosophy!
The one thing you can not say about Arabs is that they steal? They are going to have their hands cut for this action, besides they have such a large desert and lots of dollars to buy land from southern Europe to southern USA.
Rex Minor
Jafree,
“This question has bothered me, AND i gave it the most astringent scrutiny. The straightpathic answer is just…NO!”
Jafree Sb.,
I am an admirer of your art. Could you care to explain why your answer is “NO”. In particular why you think this verse from Quran permitting men to have four wives at a time applies to all humankind everywhere at all times and not just to Arab males of the 7th century Arabia.
Rex Minor
“Here is my simple opinion; Islam does not permit four wives!”
Okay, fair enough. Would you then care to explain what the following verse is saying:
“And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.”
“The commandments of God are absolute for all times. The Quraanic suras are equaly divine and are for all times to come. No one is permitted to quote Quraanic suras out of context or use them for reference purpose.”
Okay, what is the context? Is the context Arab males of the 7th century middle east? If so, are you saying it does not apply to all humankind at all times?
I realize that by now I am probably straining your patience. May be someone else (Amaar, Bin Ismail ?) can help with the answer. I would appreciate not receiving any unnecessary abuse. A simple answer such as I don’t know will be acceptable.
@noncommunal
I have given you my answer in simple english, and I repeat! No one is allowed to have more thn one wife, and Quraan is the only divine scripture which refers to it. Neither Bible nor Talmud nor all other ancient hindu litertures and books refer to one wife!
I hope that I have not said unnecessary.
I very much know about my faith!
Rex Minor
PS
God is all knowing; the scriptures are not meant for the non-believers and atheists. It is God’s will that they will not understand or follow them.
to rex and others
Every praise of islam, kuran and Mohammad will end up encouraging and strengthening the islamofascists only. This is happening since 1400 years.
There are no monotheists on the earth. Some have a totalitarian ideology in the name of their god or god-concept or religion or so-called holy book and hence they think they are monotheists. Their monotheism is just another name for their totalitarian attitudes and methods and narrow-minded-ness. We are witnessing this since thousands of years, even since before someone came up with this islam (islam=submission, submission under a totalitarian ideology in the name of a supposed monogod). The muslims want to usurp the monotheistic role and position for their 7th century arabic allah god-concept. And like typical usurpers they use violence, intimidations, briberies, lies and manipulations to make and hold on to their gains.
The worst of islam is yet to come.
Another question is “Why did Muhammad invoke Allah to marry his daughter-in-law?”
Rasool Dawood David Gilani HadleyG
Islam’s enquiry, knowledge and understanding is limited to God’s material creating powers and this is why they worship Him out of fear, expectation of reward or fear of punishement. The basic rules of material world working under the natural laws are considred divine merciful acts while they have no actual spirtual meaning or insight.
To be frank, most of the religions end up with this rudimentary information and do not venture further to realize the Ultimate Divine Non Dual Truth. The law of nature is so that limitations create desires, anger , longing, lusting and fanaticism. Dungbettles came out of Dung at night time and looked at the stars and claimed that stars were in the sky to welcome their arival . Little they knew their level of awareness but for them this was the whole truth and nothing exist beyond that particular immdediate surrounding oiled up neighborhood.
Rex Minor,
I apologize I missed that question earlier. Frankly, I don’t know about that Bihari king, but I shall try to answer as best as I can.
Firstly, impotence doesn’t necessarily imply lack of sexual ability. The guy may simply have a low sperm count or maybe his chief queen was impotent. After all, generally, the son borne by the chief queen was the assigned successor.
Secondly, even if we assume that he lacked sexual ability, having more than one wife was a sort of status symbol for kings. I doubt, however, that he went on advising his subjects of not having more than one wife. There were specific laws with regard to rights of a woman locked in a marriage with an impotent husband. She could legally asked for annulment of marriage. It’s a different case that this was rarely, if ever, invoked.
I am not too sure, however, why you are bringing that example. He was just a king, after all, and not a prophet, who cannot be criticize because his word is word of God, etc.
Now, can you explain to me why you brought that example and that by insisting that Quran tells a man to have only one wife, aren’t you committing a blasphemy? I mean this particular fact about Quran is clear as daylight and there is no need to indulge in name dropping like Descartes and Hegel to throw a smokescreen. I have spent a considerable part of my life in academia and such things do not impress me at all.
Please stick to the point and answer the specific question that No communal asked. And no need to butter him or beg him as you are not going to get any relief from him.
Miles to Go Before you awaken them. Because, This is to set the the height of Morality for ever and ever. Here Duality trancending God’s words again passomg the test of being true in Past, present and future and great example of spirtual elevation stuck to physical needs and desires. To laugh or cry is your own decison .
“God did not make your adopted son as your own sons. To declare them so is your empty claim. God’s word is righteous and constitutes true guidance. (Q.33: 4).”
“After a term of married life with her husband, We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son provided that wife has already been divorced. That is God’s commandment which must be fulfilled (Q.33: 37).”
rex minor
You said,
“No one is allowed to have more thn one wife, and Quraan is the only divine scripture which refers to it.”
Where exactly does Quran forbid to have more than one wife? I apologize for being thick, but I would really like to know.
You further said,
“The commandments of God are absolute for all times. The Quraanic suras are equaly divine and are for all times to come. No one is permitted to quote Quraanic suras out of context or use them for reference purpose.”
You are saying the context of Arabs in 7th century is important, but right in the same sentence you are also saying the Quran’s commandments are absolute and for all times.
*****************************************************************
Is there anyone, anyone reading this blog, who can explain this doublespeak? Lest it not be misunderstood, I don’t want to “awaken” anyone, just want to know.
@no communal
you are not thick by any standard. I have already given my answer to you in post script of jan. 28 comments. Have a nice day sir.
Rex Minor