Q&A on Islam

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed May 15, 2002 6:05 am

Thank you CM for your explanations.

I will try to think of some Qs for you.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu May 16, 2002 10:03 am

Thank you CM, you're an excellent source of information

I have many questions as usual, but my time is limited, so my first question is in regard to Tuesdays attack on the army camp in Kashmir.

Do you view this as a guerilla warfare attack rather than a terrorist attack? Why were so many women and children killed? According to the Western news, no organisation has taken responsibility for the act, and India seem to believe it was sanctioned by Pakistan. What do you think about the situation? It sounds dangerous

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Thu May 16, 2002 11:08 pm

On the issue on homosexuals...

...a very close female friend of mine is seeing this female who acts like (and yes, even looks like) a man.

This man-like female is a muslim.

My friend keeps on telling me that this lover of hers have expectations from her women as if she was a male. (i.e., more than 1 wife, her women to be at the house, subservient, etc.).

Your thoughts on this.

CM · Post by CM » Mon May 20, 2002 4:44 am

Ok I have been really busy and will be for some time.
By the end of the week i can give detailed answers on Kashmir, Hamas etc.

For now i can answer Mar's question.
It is a sin plain and simple.
No ifs and buts about it.

However is the person South Asian?
If so this is where CE can help.
In South Asia we have Hijras, men or women born without sexual organs, or born with both.
This is native only to South Asia.
They are mainly men who are very very feminine.
They aren't gay.
But their facial features are female, while body is male.
It is very obvious that they are both male and female.
You will understand whne you see one.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon May 20, 2002 4:50 am

Originally posted by CM
In South Asia we have Hijras, men or women born without sexual organs, or born with both.

The English for that particular phenomenon is hermaphodite, it is extremely rare. I presume that you are referring to when a person has both sexual organs?

Ode to a Grasshopper · Mon May 20, 2002 4:52 am

Or androgynous when they don't have either genders reproductive organs.

EDIT-Besides, CE's an adopted Swede. She was, IIRC, raised as a Swede from a very early age, and I seem to recall her saying she thinks of herself as being more Swedish than Asian. People born in one culture and raised in another (sorry if this sounds a bit racist, it's not intended to be) generally identify with and are more familiar with the culture in which they are raised, rather than the one they were born in.

Swede is the right term for a person from Sweden, isn't it?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon May 20, 2002 5:02 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Or androgynous when they don't have either genders reproductive organs.

There is that as well

Swede is the right term for a person from Sweden, isn't it?

Yep.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon May 20, 2002 1:08 pm

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Besides, CE's an adopted Swede. She was, IIRC, raised as a Swede from a very early age, and I seem to recall her saying she thinks of herself as being more Swedish than Asian. People born in one culture and raised in another (sorry if this sounds a bit racist, it's not intended to be) generally identify with and are more familiar with the culture in which they are raised, rather than the one they were born in.

Swede is the right term for a person from Sweden, isn't it?

Yes, unfortunately Swede is the right term

Ode is right, I spent only the first few months of my life in Asia, the rest in Sweden with Swedish parents, so I now nothing more about Asia than the average Swede - what I've seen when travelling there and what I've heard from other people.

Regarding hermaphrodites (people with genitalic features from both sexes) or androgynes (people with mixed features), I know one thing about South East Asia, and that's the much higher acceptance for these conditions as well as for transgender or transsexual lifestyles. Transgender is a psychological term that spans everything from people who are sporadic closet crossdressers, to people who who have surgery and hormone treatment to change gender. As I understand this, the higher tolerance compared to the Western or Arab world, is a cultural thing and thus, a South East/South Asian person could have a transgender condition and don't view it as wrong even if he/she is a muslim. Culture affects how religions people view their own religion - homosexuality is a sin according to the bible as well as the koran, but I know several christian gay people here in Sweden, and very few Swedish christians interpret the bible's negative view of homosexuality as valid in the modern time.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Fri May 24, 2002 1:08 am

Thanks, brethren...

Originally posted by CM
Ok I have been really busy and will be for some time.
By the end of the week i can give detailed answers on Kashmir, Hamas etc.

For now i can answer Mar's question.
It is a sin plain and simple.
No ifs and buts about it.

However is the person South Asian?
If so this is where CE can help.
In South Asia we have Hijras, men or women born without sexual organs, or born with both.
This is native only to South Asia.
They are mainly men who are very very feminine.
They aren't gay.
But their facial features are female, while body is male.
It is very obvious that they are both male and female.
You will understand whne you see one.

...for your highly appreciated honest response.

Sorry though for the belated expresion of gratitude.

No, my friend's lover is a Thai muslim woman.

CM · Post by CM » Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:09 am

Chanaks reply to my thread on the detained men after Sept. 11th reminded me of bring this thread back up again. I will once again state, that these are my views of Islam. Islam is simply subjugation to Allah. So my interpretation is and can be far differnet from others.

On to the replies i missed. Back then there was a question on the Palestinain groups fighting. Now there is a major change. Arafat has decided that all 18 "fighting" groups are to be joined to form 1 or 2 organizations. So the new system is screwed up right now. So ignoring them right now would be the best idea. Though if you guys want a great map of the PLO, check Time Magazine from when the Intifada started. I have the hard copy here somewhere i think. I used that as a primary source for all the above info.

The Hamas was created in the 80's to rival the PLO for the leadership of the Palestinain people. This is when Israel considered Arafat enemy #1. According to many it is said Hamas was created by the Mossad with the approval of Shin Bet and other organizations. However it turned out to be the dog that bit the hand that feeds it. I don't know how much of this is true. But i am putting it out there.

Anyway the Hamas was created with extremists zealots in mind, and they work like that. Yes they have asked for the eradication of Israel from Palestinian land. I am not going to comment if that is right or wrong. The Hamas as well as being a military organization is a social-welfare system as well. I posted this on another website some time back. Anyway check Time magazine, with the cover story of Women dealing with the Intifada (i think April this year). It is a damn good article. It also covers a woman who is a teacher in a Hamas school for women and young girls in Gaza. The school holds nearly 1000 students, all females.

The problem is that western media takes OBL and the Taliban as the definitive of Extremists zealots. When that is not true. Hamas lost popularity in the mid-90's. The PLO was on a high. The peace could have been achieved. Then Sharon showed up and well you know the rest. That is when the armed struggle began again. However before then Hamas provided education, social resources, like providing jobs and even free food and drinking water for those who did not have it.

Hizbollah in Lebanon is by far the largest political party. It has support from all quarters, Christian, Muslim (both sects) and even Druze (who are a heritic group in Islam). It is only the wise decision of their leader not to run for govt/parliament during the elections nearly 2/3 years ago. Harari is an excellent president, but if the Hizbollah had run, they would have taken the majority of the seats. I wonder how would the west react if the Hizbollah became the ruling party. Hizbollah gained its popularity due to its armed struggle as well as providing food, water and medical services on the illegally occupied territory Israel captured and held for 20 odd years.

That is enough for now I think. So any more questions or anything I have missed, please tell me.

Edit: I noticed I missed CE's post on Kashmir and the act there. Also the reason i asked CE to explain the Herm....something part, is not because she is asian. But rather she has a sounder grasp of biology and other sciences then me, and I think many others here, so i thought she could explain it far better.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Jul 11, 2002 2:57 am

Kashmir:

There has been an independence struggle in Kashmir since 1986 officially. Even before that according to some organizations. The main problem started during the Afghan war. There was alot of money and arms coming into Pakistan from the US and other western countries. As people saw that the Mujahids of Afghanistan were getting help and forming groups, Pakistanis followed suit establishing many organizations within Pakistan or helping establishes ones in Kashmir. They bought their materials in the markets which were clogged with simple hand guns to stinger missiles. So weapons were every where, they just needed people to use them and fight.

Thus in the late 80s Pakistanis started helping kashmiris who were waging a war even then. To date Foriegn Journalists are not allowed into the Indian side of Kashmir on their own. They need to give a full detailed list of what they are doing and going to do where they will stay etc. Heck diplomatic officials and military personel would be with journalists under the pretense of their security. Even when CNN is in Kashmir, it is with the govt approval and they know exactly where they are going and someone is with them. It is not a place where freedom of speech is in use, in my opinion.

HRW and AI have detailed documented cases, of gang rapes, executions, violations of human rights and some crimes which would fall under the statute of the ICC i.e. they could be classified as war crimes.

Now there have never been suicide attacks in Kashmir or in Pakistan. Rather the attacks in Kashmir or say on the Indian parliament are fidayeen groups. They are what you would call in modern day military terms limited objectives commando (something along those lines) squad. An example is in 1999 or maybe earlier, when 7 Mujahids, captured the Srinagar Airport for 8 hours. Of those 7, 5 survived alive, while killing army officers there. They were suicide bombers.

Now the scenerio CE is talking about is the death of 32 indians in Kashmir. Of which many were women and children...honestly i dont know the reason for the killing of women and children. I know they attacked a military base killing soldiers and firing indiscriminately. Women and children should not have died, i agree. I cant say anything to support the death of Women and children, as that is what is happening to the Palestinain people. I would believe that would be hypocritical of me to support the death of women and children in India just becuase they are hindu....

Do i see the war as legit. Yes. Do i agree with it. Yes. I believe Kashmir is a Part of Pakistan, but the people should be allowed to decided. If give the choice I know they will opt for Pakistan. Do i believe in the methods used, yes as long as innocents arent killed. If they are then i am sorry. However the military is a very valid target and i see nothing wrong in attacking an occupying force.

As everybody now knows, the situation has de-escaleted, even though India has said it will not remove its army even in october. October is a very sensitive period for Pakistan, as that is when the elections are being held. On the 10th to be precise. So this would influence the outcome of the election greatly.

Now once again i ask you guys if you have any questions. I do this because, i have seen so much ****ing crap written about Islam and Fundementalism by sorry to say this but westerners who know jack ****. I went through a book on wed, at the local book store Payot. I found 3 mistakes, these arent intrepretations rather, lies (the facts were simply wrong) in the first chapter. So i rather you guys ask me, but dont keep me as the only source.

You all are well read, and frankly i believe atleast everyone of you has done some reading on the issue after sept 11th. if you have any questions pertaining to something read in these books then feel free to ask. I will not preach and thus if you dont ask questions i will not further post in this thread. And that will be a shame.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 3:36 am

Kudos to you COMMrade...

...as this is an excellent venue for everyone to be more aware regarding these matters pertaining to the Islamic Faith...

...of course everyone wouldn't take everything in as you would explain them but at least they can verify these things on their own and perhaps return to you either to debunk or to support your statements.

Too bad SYM has yet to have an Indian to air out their other side of the story (I think Prateek is Indian though I'm not so sure if he is up to speaking out for the Indian side since I believe that he is an American). It would be interesting how this discussion would turn out. If ever, I have so much faith in the mods and fellow SYMians that even in a sensitive issue such as this, we could still end up civil enough to clarify things.

@Fas: I have read in the paper that some Malaysian politicians are rallying for Islamic law to rule over their country. Do you think that Islamic Law is flexible enough to be used as the sole basis for a nation's Constitution/Law? Opponents to this proposal fear the exodus of foreign investors if and when such a proposal will be put into effect.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Jul 11, 2002 3:49 am

Honestly i think Islamic law can work in the way it was first established. Not the way in which it works today. Look around the Islamic world Mar how many 'Islamic republics\states' do you see? Countless. Pakistan, Saudi, Iran are just 3 examples and they see everything differently. In Iran the clerics rule so tv was banned once upon a time. In Saudi the clerics rule, and women are covered from head to toe (though not in Iran) but you can watch porn. In Pakistan women are not covered head to toe, there are no clerics but we are responsible for military training of radical groups.

There is no unity at all on islamic law or the way an islamic state should be governed. so how malaysia does it i dont know...but i believe they will do it right. They had the first Islamic investmen site, which rocked. Used that as a source for seeing how to invest islamically. Damn good site.

Islamic law is only applicable to muslims. This is something all the religious zealots and rulers forget. Our laws are not applicable to people of other religions as they have their own laws. Thus laws that allow interest free loans are only for muslims - something set up in Malaysia already. That people call discrimination. I have no clue how to answer that. But we are told to apply our rules only to muslims. So if you look at it from that point of view, it should not affect anything. But sadly that is not the case.

Islamic laws are not fleshed or discussed as other laws are. They are viewed only by the conservatîves and they seem to hold a monoploy on intrepretating them. The problem is most of these people are ****ed up illeterates and narrow minded. They cant see past their own blindness.

Speaking of the rules it would be nice to know which rules they are talking about. Economic? Social? Political? As each is different in Islam and each requires a lenghty explanation. I hope this helps. But my response has been vague and general. If you can provide more details that would be nice.

Oh yeah on kashmir. These are my views and that of many Pakistanis and some muslims in the Islamic world. An indian would have a very different view point.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 4:18 am

I'll try to come up with the article...

Originally posted by CM

Islamic law is only applicable to muslims. This is something all the religious zealots and rulers forget. Our laws are not applicable to people of other religions as they have their own laws. Thus laws that allow interest free loans are only for muslims - something set up in Malaysia already. That people call discrimination. I have no clue how to answer that. But we are told to apply our rules only to muslims. So if you look at it from that point of view, it should not affect anything. But sadly that is not the case.

...regarding more details on this Malaysian proposal. As for the paper, I read The Bangkok Post

Discrimination? I don't think so, for as long as they themselves are willing to be subjected to ALL restrictions (and not just privileges) expected from Muslims.

Narrow mindedness of "exalted" leaders/clergy is not just limited to Muslims... *sigh!* ...we Catholics have a problem with that too.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 5:53 am

CM--what is your opinion of the tribal council in Pakistan that is being prosecuted by the government for ordering the gang rape of the sister of a man who had married out of his class? Does this not show one of the major flaws of islamic rule? Also, does Pakistan have a caste-like system similar to India's?

CM · Post by CM » Thu Jul 11, 2002 6:13 am

Voodoo:
The men should be captured, after that they should be put to death. I personally find rape a vile crime and the people dont deserve to live if they have comitted.

According to Islamic law anybody who commits rape is put to death. It is that simple.

Now the whole affair is totally messed up. The male that they accuse of having the affair is 11 years old. The woman is 29 or something. There is no where written in Islam that such an act is allowed. This is a messed up group of people who deserved to be killed.

The girl who was raped was done so by a self-styled council, outside the rule of law of the country and religion. Then men most likely wanted her and decided that this was the best way to do so.

Islam does not allow the caste system. That again is simple. The problem in Pakistan is that many people converted from the Hindu religion to Islam. Though they adopted the religion they kept many practices that are unislamic - like dowry. The caste system is one.

In today pakistan the castes no longer exist, rather the family names exist. So people who are rajput are considered to be a high family ( a former caste i think) and thus cant marry a poor or less well off family, what ever their name be there. So in reality the caste system has been replaced by a messed up version of blue blood etc type thinking.

This is not allowed in Islam at all. The problem in Pakistan is that the educated are the majority. The ones with the common sense and intellect are the very small minority. Thus the idiots who destroy my religion are allowed to rule. Nothing would please more than to have all the 7 accused stoned to death.

<quick edit, just for the sake of keeping this thread from any problems>

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:47 pm

@CM, is there a division of Islam that rejects everything except the Qur'an, and pays no attention to the issue of Muhammad's line of succession?

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 3:37 pm

Bumping for CM's reply!

CM · Post by CM » Mon Jul 15, 2002 4:48 am

Sorry have no net at home recently, so i post from work.

Mar can you give me the exact link to the article, i searched the website but i couldnt figure out where the article was.

Fable i am a little confused by your question so here is a general answer:

Muslims follow 3 things.

1. The Quran - that is pretty simple.
2. Sunnah - Sayings of the holy Prophet (SAW)
3. Hadis - Which are statements from Allah to the Holy Prophet (SAW) I believe.

Shariah law is constructed from these 3 and muslims follow all three. Now on the issue of succession. Islam and the Holy Prophet himself said that his succsors should not be treated with prophets as they are not. But rather as humans. Thus his son in law Ali became the 4th Khalifa (ruler) when Hazart Abu Bakr, the Holy prophets closest friend was chosen at his death with the blessing and implicit approval of the Holy Prophet (SAW).

The Shia sect places emphasis on the succession line, Sunni muslims dont. There are 2 Hasmite (descendents of the holy Prophet) Kindgoms. Jordan and Morroco, where the rulers are descendents of the Holy Prophet (SAW)

Does that answer your question?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 5:17 am

In a way it does--though I am still confused why there are formally acknowledged divisions in Islam over the question of the succession, when Islam itself is concerned with the three things you name. I suspect, reading between the lines, that this is a matter of cultural and social infilitration at various points in time, not unlike the founding of the Anglican Church.