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
- MA
said Dear Saad, Well done my friend on writing such a n... - saad
said Ahem: Bit like Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru, the older... - AKB
said Islamophobia: Washington’s New Form Of Coloniali... - AKB said What's in a name?? Calling yerself 'ibn e Ahmed' w...
- AKB said Calling the Mullahs will only make them say you ar...
- tajender
said Perfidious Tajender Hooliganism”.
i pity u pe... - ahem
said to saad
Imagine a bus with two steering wheels... - ben 10 games online said Paktehouse.net is the best and biggest website of...
- ahem said to saad
Everything that involves Pakistan has t...
- ahem said Every islamic state starts with false-sweet (or sw...
NC,
That is a time tested response of these nutty religious folks. If you watched the Rushdie episode on IBN-live, there was a venerable Mullah who instead of answering the question at hand went on at length explaining the etymology of the word ‘rushdie’ and why he should be instead called as Salman Fasadi!
Rex Minor is one such nutcase.
@BM
Having more than one wife was a status symbol appears to be more plausible in ancient times. The rest of the accompanying circumstances have no relevance if we are talking about one or more than one wife for people of the middle east civilisation or the Indian civilisation.
More than one was a privileage for the rich nd powerful in all lands, going back to neandathalers. A harem of many wifes was a usual custom for the Kings, Barons and the high Priests, which is still in practice. People of muslim faith are not the unique example for practicing this debauchry.
Rex Minor
REx Minor,
Dear,
“People of muslim faith are not the unique example for practicing this debauchry.”
Who says that they are the unique example? I am merely asking why the prophet had different rules for himself and his followers? If you don’t know or cannot answer this, just acknowledge. There is no need to drag Kant and Hegel in this trivial issue.
“unique example for practicing this debauchry.”
Isn’t that blasphemous, the use of word debauchery???
Muhammed used allah’s name in vain.
@BM
You are an übel mensch and therefore do not think logicaly. The question you guys should be asking for the purpose of education, why should a person have one wife? Who ordained that people should limit marrying one wife? This should assist you in your research on this subject and not the otherway around.
I said that Quraan is the only holy book which refers to ONE WIFE! no communal comments show that and you have even problems reading it? According to Talmud Prophet Ibrahim(pbuh) had two wives and Prophet Suleman(pbuh) had mote tha hundred! And I am the last believer who is going to look for explanations for Prophets actions.
In India only muslims are legaly allowed to have four women. But in practice non muslims average is more than four women a man. The christians church and the hindus religious leaders were the last to follow the practice as stated in Quraan. Have only ONE WIFE; this is the correct interpretation of Quraan and Mr Jaffery explained this long time ago.
Rex Minor
PS Do you have a better word for a person who requires four wives to satisfy his sextual desires.
rex says: “Have only ONE WIFE; this is the correct interpretation of Quraan”
Sorry for being a nut and (no matter what rex says) a thick nut, but exactly where Quran says “Have only one wife”.
***************************************************
Anyone here care to explain where and how God says “Have only one wife”.
This is what I find in Quran:
“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.”
A well-intentioned verse, radical by the Arab standard, revolutionary by the standard of 7th century, but all I see in it is a great reformer. This verse is not, and Can Not, be God’s universal command applicable to all people at all times, unless, and this is an important unless, it is modified with changing times where the actual words undergo change but the spirit is kept intact. I am sure this is what rex and the many well-intentioned folks here have in mind, but why is it so difficult to admit it?
************************************************************
Coming back to universality of God’s word, how about the tribes in Meghalaya or the scores of native American tribes who are matrilineal? This verse did not apply to them even in 7th century.
@non communal
You ae a nice guy, but a non-believer! You must atleast accept this reality and if you do then you are unlikely to understand the scriptures; this is your destiny, predetermined fo you by the God almighty.
Those who have studied and were brought up as Engineers know that the constructor of a complex machine must also provide the users with exact information and instructions as well as maintanance details. Human system is the most complex machine on this earth, more complex than anything else created in the universe which we call Nature or a man made machine in the world. Buy yourself the Gray’s anatomy book with 780 illustrations( I have one lying not even half a meter away) and if you were a believer of God as the creator, then try to understand the mechanism and the function of human machinery.
The beievers have just one book ” the Quraan” given to us from the constructor. The guiding force also includes the geist(mind and soul) which we cannot touch but only feel along with the server/the brain which has the potential we can not fully utilise in our life time. Every word therefore in Quraan and those uttered by the Prophet of God, coded or not coded, is of more value to a believer than the dimonds on this earth. Philosophy, science and mathematic acuracy is all imbedded in these words and are the keys for the optimal performance o the human mahinery. Ignorantts are those who are of the opinion that they do not need to understand the arabic language, and ignorants are those who believe that without having a basic knowledge of philosophy and the methodology of reason and logic, they could decode the secrets or even form an accurate basic knowledge of the human potential.
No sir, as I said before “How and Why” were the beginning of the padagogy, human learning and experience, research work and clinical studies have supported the development of humans and has advanced the civilisation.
Non-believers of one God have in the mean time hung on to their ancient practices and rituals and many believers who went along with one God concept, hung on to their backward traditions, customs and privileages and even today succumb to the culture of forefahers and do not hesitate in the worship of mortals and material leaving the development or destruction of civilisation to others and the later generation and times, making it difficult to form a globalised rational, just and a free sociey.
As I said to BM no other ancient book other than Quraan mentions about one wife which today is the norm in most parts of the world. Non Commnal, what you do not follow or comprehend does not automaticaly mean that it does not exist. Warheit or Truth exists without wahrnehmung/perception. And the caravan of civilisation moves on as ordained and planned by the constructor, the Creator.
Rex Minor
@ no-communal et al
What I gather from the following verse is that Muslim men are allowed to take more than one wife or max 4 wives only in times of Jihad when many women are widowed and left with orphaned children. The idea behind it is to provide a ‘status’ ,rank and protection to those widows and their children as that is what is needed for them in such a typical situation is prevention from prostitution , neglect and estrangement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[[[[“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.” Al Quran]]]]]
@NON-COMMUNAL:
1.(A) i HAD answered in “No” to the query: ARE AHMADIS NON=MUSLIMS. tHEY ARE NOT NON-mUSLIMS!!
You ask about 4 wives permitted in Islam ONLY BUT ONLY if anyone can treat FOUR wives equally and equitABLY. tHAT CONDITIONALITY IS AL;L-PERVASIVE. sUPPOSE, that you are non-Muslim (that is your right and your choice), yes! you may wed four wives if (IF!!) you cAN treat them all equally and equitably. (B) I wont have four wives because (i) I cannot treat all people, personally all-equally/ invariably,I have hunman flaws, drawbacks and lows.(ii) I wont like my wife to be in any conjugal relationship with anyone else. (I hope I sensibly answered your very gracious query).
2. As for as ABC-XYZ Gilani goes (I hope he does soon), i must suggest with all liberalism at my command that he should have himself interned in some pagalkhana or mental home.
So does this verse apply to non Muslims as well. Suppose while doing jihad a non-Muslim kills a Muslim, then can he take the wife and daughter of the Muslim.
Allah says
” it’s mandatory henceforth to read quran and hadiths before converting”
Rex,
If human civilization is 6000 years old and an average human generation is of 20 years, the entire civilization really then spans only 300 generations. If you or I live for 60 years, that’s 3 generations, which is already a full 1 percent of the entire human civilization in our own lifetime. So the civilization that humans have built is not really that long.
If humans first came into existence 2 hundred thousand years ago, human civilization is then only 3 percent of the total human existence. Considering the age of the universe in the billions of years, total human existence itself is much less than a millionth fraction of the drop of an eyelid, the civilization we know of is a nano-fraction thereof, and the time during which what you call the notion of the God of Ibrahim has existed is less than one third of a nano-fraction of the drop of an eyelid. See for yourself how insignificant the notion of the God of Ibrahim has been to the goings on in the universe.
**************************************************************
You talk about ancient people, pagans, and how monotheism or the God of Ibrahim have shown universe the light, all during less than one third of a nano-fraction of a drop of an eyelid of the universe. Well, this is how I understand monotheism and one God. In my parts of my country there is a significant tribal population. Ancient tribals (no disrespect to tribals) dance around large rocks and think it has power over the forest, the river, and over their destiny. Somebody steals the rock but the legendary power of the rock lingers on, what you get is another of the world’s great monotheistic religions.
************************************************************
What your or AKB’s posts essentially boil down to is that the context is important, be it the 7 th century Arabs, or the time of Jihad. Well, then the verse is not applicable to humankind everywhere at all times, period. Jafree Sb. talks about the condition that the male partner has to ensure that he can treat all four wives equitably. The problem is even if he succeeds in doing that, it is quite clear that the Quranic verse shows no regard to the psychology of the women involved. Because even if the man does show the same love and respect to all of them the very concept of sharing the husband with three others, and the fact that God allows it, is heart-wrenching to at least some (if not all) women.
So no, sir, the verse is not the loving God’s universal command to all humans, male and female, everywhere at all times. Quite clearly it’s the noble attempt of a leader of Arabs to reform the dilapidated warring Arabic society and restore it to some dignity. One who insists otherwise has been undermining Muhammad’s status as a reformer and has been turning him into a butt of world’s ridicule.
****************************************************************
We could continue but let’s give it a rest.
NC and Sir Jafree,
“Quranic verse shows no regard to the psychology of the women involved. Because even if the man does show the same love and respect to all of them the very concept of sharing the husband with three others, and the fact that God allows it, is heart-wrenching to at least some (if not all) women. ”
Very important point.
The notion of fairness to 4 wives is totally from the male point of view. It completely ignores any legitimate concerns of the wives involved. How can one ensure fairness? Wife A would want sex everyday, ditto for wife B; wive C may want rough sex with whips et al.; wife D prefers the tender sensual love and fresh flowers everyday and camel milk chocolate. I am amazed that one guy can satisfy so many women at the same time with fairness. And this is important: we are talking about fairness and not just equality. If the claim is that there is the clause about fairness to make it extremely difficult to have 4 wives, one wonders why have such an arrangement in the first place.
*
The prophet had a lot of redeeming qualities, but, I am afraid, when it came to women, his over reliance on a reluctant angel gabriel every time there is a sticky situation is not one of his shining moments. I would have had greater respect for him had he said that he married 8-9 wives out of love rather than some angel said this and that. Imagine how the wives would have felt!
@ Milestogo
[[[[[[Milestogo
So does this verse apply to non Muslims as well. Suppose while doing jihad a non-Muslim kills a Muslim, then can he take the wife and daughter of the Muslim.]]]]
This had happened in the time of Prophet Muhammad but the problem was resolved through ‘barter’, or ‘exchange’ …(read the truce of Hudaiybia)
Normally, a non-Muslim alone cannot kill a Muslim and perchance if he does other Muslims wouldn’t wait to finish him up. However, during battles or wars a Muslim may be killed by a non-Muslim but there is remote chance that he will take his wife and daughter as wives. And if he does other Muslims, sooner or later, are bound to retrieve their women folk from illegal capture or have them exchanged with non-Muslim women they have captured…
FYI a Muslim cannot hold any other Muslim as a slave….nor can he allow others to keep Muslims as slave. This is what Jihad is commanded for, so be on your toes before Muslims get united and go for Jihad!
Jibreel also make quick diplomatic appearance after Sex Slave Coptic girl Maria experience the blessed right hand possesion method of infusing mercy. In modern time Jibreel made similar appearnces after accepting and assumeing the duties of Baghdad Bob to bring in glad tiddings for every holy conquest.
@ Bade Miyan
I wonder how you became a bade miyan at your tender age? You seem to be easily impressed by little things. I haven’t met any Muslim yet who has 4 wives. However, I have seen Muslim men having 2 or 3 wives and the profound responsibility with which they share their time and money between them.
So, it is absurd to think that the Prophet could not maintain his wives with equal justice. Moreover, I am not sure but the Prophet never had 3 or 4 wives at any time in matrimony. If you think it is impossible to maintain 4 wives at a time fairly then you would only be surmising how a woman gives birth to one, two, four or six babies at a time out of her single womb!!
Bade Miyan …
bade ho jaao
choti choti batoan mein
sur na khapaaO!
@ Sachbol
Angel Gabriel is said to be favorite of Mirja ghulla who got so enchanted by his dreams and visions that he declared himself a faux frofet without leaving any chapter or book behind!!
Shame how people try to corrupt the Quran or its meaning, then whine after getting kicked on the ass!
@ no-communal
You too need some shrew to teach you the tricks of taming her and her ilk.
India would be a better place to try keeping a harem…..and even if you failed they would immediately opt for satti or end up crawling over the shiva. krishna linghams happily …!
Even Mirjai’s are allowed to take 4 wives…if they can afford to, sexually and financially. But unfortunately their faux frofet Murja Ghulla was admittedly impotent and left most of his work for other men to do!
Regarding the issue of polygamy, and in response to the question that if the Prophet was allowed a specific number of wives, why not everyone else, I would like to draw the attention of my friends to the following points:
1. Polygamy is not an instruction. It’s a conditional permission. And the condition is a tough one – “wa in khiftum an laa taadiloo fawaahidatan” – meaning “if you fear you would not be able to establish equality and justice among your wives, then marry only one”. To begin with, God does not instruct us to first marry more than one wives and then see whether we can maintain equality between them. Instead, we are taught that even if we sense that we would likely fail in maintaining equality among more than one wives, we should not even consider the option. Now one wonders why there is such an option at all. The post WW2 days are not a distant past. People who witnessed those days of human misery are still live. Many among the nations who participated in this long and bloody war, saw their male population substantially lessened due to war casualties. The disparity between the male and female populations increased greatly, leaving more and more women without suitors. The Quran offers a solution for such situations of national and milti-national proportions. Certainly, such situations do not arise every day, but when they do they leave mankind with a huge challenge. So, a teaching had to be there. Again, let me repeat that this is a permission, not an instruction. But the guidance had to be there.
2. The Prophet had more than four wives and the maximum limit for all other Muslims is four. Firstly, this exception was not made by the Prophet, it was made by God. The Prophet was unique not only in that he was given this specific permission, but in many other respects as well. The Prophet was also entrusted with the formidable task of establishing accord in the war-torn Arab society. The multiple marriages of the Prophet greatly contributed to this cause. Many tribes and clans were brought close together, merely due to the fact that their respective ladies had been wedded to the same person.
3. Polygamy is not the only conditional teaching of the Quran. The teaching of Defensive Combat, known as “Jihad bis Saif”, and may I add not “Jihad” per se, is also a conditional teaching. “Jihad bis saif” means Jihad by means of the sword. God says in the Quran: “Permission of combat is given only to those against whom war has been waged, because they have been wronged” (22:39). Not everyone is permitted to take up arms. This is also a conditional permission granted only to those against whom war has already been declared and it is permitted solely for the sake of defense and for the purpose of self-preservation, which no doubt is a fundamental human right.
@no communal
You and BB are still trying to overstretch your ability to understand the suras of Quraan; they are not meant for non believers. Also your mathematical model for calculating the age of ‘ Notion of the God of Ibrahim’ is faulty and misleading.
However, because of your interest in monotheistic God, may I suggest that you read Karen Armstrong book on the story of God, which I found very interesting. In the meantime let the subject rest.
Rex Minor
Amaar,
“Firstly, this exception was not made by the Prophet, it was made by God.”
Do you realize how silly that sounds?
“The Prophet was also entrusted with the formidable task of establishing accord in the war-torn Arab society. The multiple marriages of the Prophet greatly contributed to this cause. ”
First, you create an environment where war becomes a distinct possibility and then you get special permission to marry more than 4 wives to maintain peace!
I mean, think about it, if some x,y,z claims that he is marrying more than 4 wives not because he wants to but to avoid a war like situation, would it make that exception more credible? This reasoning is just fantastic!
Bade Miyan
If the Prophet was inclined to marrying on a whim then he could have done so quite easily when his first wife Khadija (widowed and 15 years his senior) was alive – a span of 25 years. He did not marry any other woman as long as she was alive. I think I have made this point already. So it does not make any sense if a person were to remarry in their old age when they did not do so in younger years unless this could help achieve his goals to removing discord.
Secondly, marriage in ancient times was sometimes a method to forge tribal loyalty (remember Akbar married Jodha which led to peace between the Mughals and Rajputs). We can see the effect of such marriages as conflicts and wars declined immediately afterwards.
In any case I have made my point. You are free to interpret as you choose and have to answer yourself before the Creator.
“The post WW2 days are not a distant past. People who witnessed those days of human misery are still live. Many among the nations who participated in this long and bloody war, saw their male population substantially lessened due to war casualties. The disparity between the male and female populations increased greatly, leaving more and more women without suitors.”
I feel sorry for you. If you have to travel so far to peddle such Zakir Zaikesque arguments, it’s a truly sad situation.
*
It’s true that in ancient times marriage was one of the ways to forge bonds but don’t say that such marriages are allowed only on the basis of fairness. Clearly, in case of the prophet, this was not the case.
*
“So it does not make any sense if a person were to remarry in their old age when they did not do so in younger years ”
*
That is a very simplistic point of view. A lot of old men marry for reasons other than the ones you have listed. Of course, if marriage was the only way that the discord could be gotten over, then clearly his message didn’t impress the other tribes.
1. “I feel sorry for you. If you have to travel so far to peddle such Zakir Zaikesque arguments, it’s a truly sad situation.”
There is no solution but polygamy -with contraints and conditions- when there is a severe imbalance between male and female populations. Any other solutions you have to offer?
2. “A lot of old men marry for reasons other than the ones you have listed. Of course, if marriage was the only way that the discord could be gotten over, then clearly his message didn’t impress the other tribes.”
Fine. But we know that most of the warring tribes whose women married
the Prophet became allies and peaceful in their conduct.
3. “but don’t say that such marriages are allowed only on the basis of fairness.”
Not sure I understand your point.
Rex Minor
One hardly needs any superior intelligence to point out the inadequacies in Quran. I have seen devout Muslims make countless arguments for the perfection of the suras, but all that is basically a house of cards. When it falls at the slightest push, the time-honored argument is what you just made, you are a non-believer you won’t get it. Well, I am a believer in humanity, compassion, and reason, when I see the flawless depiction of these qualities I do get it.
**********************************************************
Take, for instance, the latest argument by Amaar, that polygamy
is permitted in Quran only in times of war. This is such a weak argument it’s baffling that Muslims, even intelligent ones, make it. If that was really the case, that permission for polygamy was only
for during or the immediate aftermath of war, all that was needed was to add it to the verse itself.. That, in a single stroke, would’ve stopped most if not all Muslim countries from practising polygamy during peace time, the problem of women oppression and malnutrition in large poor families with multiple wives, and the rampant misuse of the Quranic allowance to satisfy lust and unfaithfulness. At one stroke it would’ve given a fair and just deal to the women. But that didn’t happen. Apparently God simplydid not foresee any of the possible problems and misuses of his well-meaning allowance. Quite clearly the sura is an imperfect work of men, well-meaning but imprefect, influenced as it is by the customs and conventions of the day, and by the constant state of war between tribes. The writer(s) simply did not see hundred years ahead,the possible relevance and misuse of the allowance in peace time. Do you want to ascribe such a work to an all-knowing God, it does not make sense.
***************************************************************
I can give examples on and on. Sometime ago someone asked why Quran is so vicious to the idolators. Why do verses exist that say:
“when the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush …” etc. etc.
The answer was, predictably, that
these verses exist because the idolators were the original enemies of Muslims. So the verse had to be understood in the context of that enmity in 7th century Arabia, and the term idolators really meant aggressors. Fair enough, one would think, except that it was
anything but fair, to people in the subcontinent hundreds of years later.
******************************************************
I think it was BM who pointed out, that if that was really the case, that by idolators the author(s) really meant aggressors,
why didn’t they simply use the term “aggressor”, in stead of summarily making the followers of a different mode of worship, no matter how passive and non-violent, all enemies of Islam. You may ask what difference would it have made, after all the idolators in Arabia were really the enemies of Islam, so idolators and aggressors were really synonymous with each other. The answer is it would’ve made huge, HUGE, difference in the Indian subcontinent. Large scale “misuse” of this verse has had such an adverse effect in the subcontinent we all are still paying for it in blood money.
********************************************************
I will give you just one example, one out of many, and it’s not to heighten tension and create bad blood between us. Hare Krishna movement of Bengal was one of the most non-violent, non-aggressive, Bhakti devotional movement that started from early Bengal on the footsteps of the famous Bhakti saint Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. (The near omnipresent ISKCON temples and Hare Krishna movement of today is a modern day offshoot of this original movement.) In this period, as in most of the middle ages, Bengal was under Muslim Pathan rule, and the treatment of Hindus (idolators?) by ruling Muslims is described in the following verse from one of the authentic biographies of Chaitanya. Since the author had no political ambition, or was not speaking to the modern day Hindutvabadis who came 500 years later, it can probably be assumed he was being at least partially truthful.
**************************************************************
“The wicked mlecchas pollute the religion of the Hindus every day. They break the images of the gods into pieces and throw away the articles of worship. They throw into fire Bhagavata Purana and other holy scriptures. They forcibly take away a conch shell and bell of the brahmanas, and lick the sandal paints of their bodies. They urinate like dogs on the sacred Tulasi plant and deliberately pass faeces in the Hindu temples. They would throw water from their mouths on the Hindus engaged in worship, and harass the Hindu saints as if they were so many lunatics let large.”
—I. Nagara Advaita-prakasa
****************************************************************
So you see quite clearly the two words idolators and enemies meant one and the same thing to millions of Muslims even when the idolators were of the most non-violent, most non-aggressive kind. What was true in Arabia, that idolators were indeed the enemies, was applied wrongfully and ruthlessly throughtout the sub-continent, and untold lives were lost.
********************************************************
Do I think Muhammad would’ve ordered defiling or killing of the idolators who were not his aggressors in the Indian subcontinent?
No. Do I think he, or his followers, made a HUGE mistake by not clearly differentiating between idolators and aggressors? Most definitely yes. But it was a mistake made out of short-sightedness, inability to look beyond Arabia, in short, it was a Human Mistake.
***************************************************
I go back to what I said earlier: Quran is a noble attempt of a leader of Arabs to reform the dilapidated warring Arabic society and restore it to some dignity. One who insists otherwise is doing a disservice to Muhammad’s status as a reformer by turning him into a butt of the world’s ridicule.
Allah has issued a clarification –
“men can marry more than 1 upto 4 women and women can marry more than 1 upto 4 men Only in a situation where there is imbalance between the number of men and women”
Going by the above clarification by allah and Given the fact that there are more men in Pakistan – Pakistani girls can marry more than one man provided they do equal justice with each of their husbands. Once the sex ratio stabilizes this option will be withdrawn.
Allah restates –
” if you do not follow my orders, I will throw you into molten tungsten”
Allah says
“sex slavery is haram henceforth. No person can take another person as sex slave under any situation”
Amaar,
“There is no solution but polygamy -with contraints and conditions- when there is a severe imbalance between male and female populations.”
*
Have you asked a woman that question? I mean, really, have you? That is such a disgusting question to start with.
*
“But we know that most of the warring tribes whose women married
the Prophet became allies and peaceful in their conduct.
3. “but don’t say that such marriages are allowed only on the basis of fairness.”
Not sure I understand your point.”
*
That means that the fairness clause is an afterthought to assuage some guilt in what is clearly an unfair choice to start with. Because, the foremost issue in the mind of the prophet was that the warring tribes should be reconciled(if your version of history is to be believed), and not fairness. It seems that he realized that one cannot be fair to so many women, so a prompt call to ever obliging angel gabriel, and viola you have this figure of 4 wives(why this figure and not 2 or 3 is also a complete mystery). While his aims seem noble, but I don’t see the point in sacrificing happiness of hapless women to fulfill that aim. Of course, let’s not even go there about this old tale of timelessness of his message, because if the neighboring tribe was so pig headed as to not get his message then what to speak about the rest of the world. I can understand 1,2,3, or even 4 wives, but 9? To reconcile the tribes? I mean, how many were there to start with? That is something anyone can do. You don’t need a prophet for that.
As I asked before, what would your answer be to a guy who said that he is taking the fifth wife only because the neighborhood guy is such a dolt that he won’t stop abusing me till I take his sister’s hand in marriage.
NC,
To be fair to Rex Minor, his troll is the standard answer given by many a religious nut when confronted with uncomfortable question. If you hear Deepak Chopra, that old rascal gives similar kind of answers, except that he loads it with useless jargon so as to impress lay followers. His latest gem is to incorporate quantum mechanics to fool his innocent followers. These guys are the ultimate marketing gurus.
NC,
“Quran is a noble attempt of a leader of Arabs to reform the dilapidated warring Arabic society and restore it to some dignity. ”
*
I don’t think the Arab society was that dilapidated as the Islamic historians make it out to be. A lot of it is just unadulterated nonsense.
@ no-communal
[[[[“when the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush …” etc. etc.[[[[
stop quoting and interpreting Quranic verses out of context. Islam abhors idolatory and commands Muslims to kill them all during Jihad otherwise they will kill you!!Gotcha??
Ammar is right……Muslim men ‘adopting’ more than one wife during war times is fair enough for them as well as for preserving the honor, safety and security of ”abandoned’ women and children who have lost their men folk!
Women by their nature are not capable of maintaining more than one husband at a time or are they in your ‘religion”?? If so forward me some!!
Muslim men love wimmin…..they are lovable creatures no doubt!!
@ Bade Miyan
Next aufklarung is going to take place in Indoooostan!!
Muslims will again rule this earth and make you gay!!
@ Milestogo
Allah says
Kill infidels where ever you find them….
@ Milestogo
Allah says
Carry on your mission even if you have ‘Miles to go”..destroy evil where ever you find it!!
@ Milestogo
Allah says
Tell the disbelievers to bring forth a sura (chapter) like the Quran if they can! (NB: abt 1500 years would be passing but no one has yet the balls to write down a sura as in the Quran!! Mimicking and mockery by people like Milestogo doesn’t provide any rational answer to his problem….he gotta see a shrink!! )
@ milestogo
Mirja Ghulla declared that he was impotent. so there is no question of you being a victim of sex slavery….at the hands of a Muslim or a Mirjai. Hindu brahmin will do you job….it’s his lingham that you worship.Keep licking and blowing the shiva/krishna linghams, screwing your mother cows and drinkin your urine to bring about next aufklarung in Indoooostan!!
“screwing your mother cows and drinkin your urine to bring about next aufklarung in Indoooostan!!”
AKB,
You are hilarious sometimes..lol!
Allah says
“kill evil not infidels”
Allah repeats -
” I will torcher you if you do not follow my commands”
For muslim men the most important thing is about how many women to have for sex before and after death.
The debauchery and lack of wisdom in their so-called holy book can be seen in that it permits muslim men (or all men?) to have four wives at a given time but not in their whole lives.
The so-called crown-prince of Arabia who died recently had 11 wives. Some died, some he had divorced at his whim.
If the kuran tells that a man can have a total of 4 wives in his entire life then that sets a certain limit on lasciviousness and sexual misbehaviour by (such) men. That wisdom is missing in the kuran.
In the muslim quarters of Hyderabad (AP) old muslims, many of them arabs, come to “marry” very young muslim girls from very poor families for one night or one week. The mullah gets a lot of money for arranging such “marriages” where divorce papers are signed simultaneously with the “marriage” papers. Thus kuran and islam reduce women to sex objects for rich muslims. The family of the poor raped girl gets a small sum as price, thus making the muslim parents of the girl into de facto pimps. The muslim “marriage” lacks the concept of holiness. It is just a rape-sex permit given by the mullah, who knows that is a big business bringing him much power, arrogance and money.
Bade Miyan
War is not the only situation that justifies multiple marriages; inability to conceive or unhappiness in a couple may be others which are genuinely just ones. The irrevocable condition of maintaining equality and justice among the wives would still stand. This is by no means an easy challenge to meet. Of course, I wouldn’t disagree with you on the fact that a second marriage would not really be relished by the first wife. But then the emotional sacrifice on the first woman’s part will inevitably happen due to another woman. The point to reflect is that there is a teaching for each situation.
2. What if a woman wants to have 4 husbands?
Put Islam aside for a moment. Even in most non-Muslim societies it is considered inconceivable and unacceptable generally for men to have their wives shared by other men. To put this bluntly, I am sure you would not want to share your wife with another man. On the other hands, since eons, men have had multiple wives for whatever reasons.
So this goes to show that religion or no religion, human nature is such that this only works this way. This may be terrible but this is what it is.
To regulate this behaviour, the Islamic solution is that a woman can seek a divorce and remarry if she wishes. On the other hand, a man can also remarry but he does not have to divorce his first wife.
It is not about the number of wives (or husbands) but about the number of children. The muslims are practising demographic aggression against non-muslims. That is more dangerous. Muslims are quite arrogant and shameless about this. The kuran is a very primtive and irresponsible book in this regard. Kuran lacks the intelligence and wisdom to manage human lives in the 21st century. All other discussions only distract from this major problem of the kuran. Muslims are therefore danger not only to the non-muslims but also to their fellow muslims. Hence there is much hate, bloodshed and fascism in muslim lands and muslims are sending killers into non-muslim lands. At any given time some muslims are planning the killing of non-muslims or their fellow muslims for the sake of islam.
Allah says
” women can have 4 husbands the same way men can have 4 wives.”
Those who go against this rule, will rot in hell.
@ no-communal (Jan 30, 2012 at 9:16 am)
“Apparently God simply did not foresee any of the possible problems and misuses of his well-meaning allowance”
Okay. That’s your point of view. In my opinion, God did foresee this risk and it was for this reason that His Messenger foretold us that God would send the Mahdi to guide us and expound the teachings.
@non communal
I thought the subject was going to rest! T
No one in today’s civilised world should justify the killings of children!
The Americans regard this necessary in the so called war against terror and have given it a name “collateral damage”. A number of orthodox juwish Rabbis quote their Talmud and claim that if the child is likely to be your fatal enemy tomorrow, it must be killed even though it is a child.
Those muslims who have told you their doubts about Quraan Suras are no different from those like you who are sceptics and want to read the translation scripts and reckon that one hardly needs a super intelligence to point out the inadequacies in Quraan! This sentence itself indicates the level of the IQ you possess or the one who translated Quraan verses in English language, which is one of the poorest Germanic language!! Mr Amaar is eualy a fool, trying to understand and explain the motives and the performance of the Prophet of Islam!!
We are all sinners, some are more than others and among us their are criminals, lunatics, and violent people, who would desecrate graves, commit arsons against their fellow humans, commit hineous crimes against others, justifing it for one or other reason. You will not kill is the commandment of God; nothing and I say can justify the killing of another human.
Does this mean that killing will stop in the world? You will have one wife, not stated in any other scriptures or hindu faith related books. Islam was the first to announce one wife, others including the church and the hindu leaders followed. There are ofcourse peole like Mr Amaar and they are trying to find a loop hole to have four wifes. Sure you need a super intelligence not for reading but to understand what the words and the suras mean? The farther we move into new centries the more we shall know what the particle of God means and how the universe was created, for this is the destiny of humans to breakout of their self created babylonian prison.
when Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) returned from his visit to the skies and the universe, one of his inquisitive followers asked of him , O’h Prophet of God how could you make this visit in such a short time, when the chain on the door of the mosque was not yet still. THe Prophet(pbuh) reply was that where he want the time we know does not exist.
And how many years it took for humans to understand the relitivity theory?
Rex Minor
@Observ
You appear to have a lot of knowledge about the debauchry in Hyderabad, india. Now AKB the terrier chasing the works of his murshad late Mr Gullah, is going to tell you that the arabs are all infidels, and simply dressed up as arabs!
BTW is the Indian program of sterilising women to control the population growth is not offered to muslims? If so this is a real discrimination against the minority. I would suggest that those muslims who want to have more than one wife should also be offered the sterilisation program?
Rex Minor