Kerala story - Page 4

Originally posted by: carisma2

You do understand that Religious laws are different to Democratic ones?

It is not about law. Religious Rules are different from ordinary law. Muslim men can marry women of certain faiths and I mentioned those already.

If you are looking to reform things written in our scriptures- then I have a question for you... when will you start eating beef?

Funny how people want to change things written in our scriptures.. how about leading the way and changing them in yours first.

The whole idea of belief is that you believe in the religion with everything it comes with.

Law is not a belief... law can be reformed.. not Religious rules.

There's a difference.

I mean if people don't like our religion it doesn't matter - be happy with yours. Do not expect us to change ours. And let's get real.. life is not fair so if people feel hurt by certain things then it is what it is. I know hindu communities are very much set on same caste marriages and that is not even a holy requirement. So maybe for the concern of people that anyone has.. start changing that - starting in your own home religion first. That's my advise.

Here this topic talks about love jihad with forced conversion done with intent.

Normally when two people genuinely fall in love the other person will convert or they won't. Sometimes they end up as SRK which is not really allowed or they go the Aamna Sharif way and the Muslim converts to a different religion. It's rare but it happens.

you are basically saying some laws cannot be enacted because they go against the teachings of Islam. But we live in democracies that separate "church" (mosque) from state. We are not living in countries like Iran where the mullahs decide the laws. We don't want to live in these mullah countries, do we?

no problem if laws get formulated in a democracy regarding beef, whether to eat or not. Laws should be common for all, based on modern values, not based on the thinking that existed during some medieval era. I happen to think eating beef is unhealthy and responsible for the epidemic of cardiac problems in the middle-east, but be my guest.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

you are basically saying some laws cannot be enacted because they go against the teachings of Islam. But we live in democracies that separate "church" (mosque) from state. We are not living in countries like Iran where the mullahs decide the laws. We don't want to live in these mullah countries, do we?

no problem if laws get formulated in a democracy regarding beef, whether to eat or not. Laws should be common for all, based on modern values, not based on the thinking that existed during some medieval era. I happen to think eating beef is unhealthy and responsible for the epidemic of cardiac problems in the middle-east, but be my guest.

Carishma is from Pakistan And It is govened by islamic laws....just saying

Originally posted by: Funtuss

Carishma is from Pakistan And It is govened by islamic laws....just saying

it's hard to debate something if people are dogmatic and unwilling to question or think through things critically. That's the problem imo with Islam and a lot of religions of the book- they claim to be infallible, an assertion based on faith and a circular reasoning that they are the word of their God/ Prophet, and so become unchanging, unyielding. Evolution, development and modernity means change, and that should apply to man-made constructs like religion.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

it's hard to debate something if people are dogmatic and unwilling to question or think through things critically. That's the problem imo with Islam and a lot of religions of the book- they claim to be infallible, an assertion based on faith and a circular reasoning that they are the word of their God/ Prophet, and so become unchanging, unyielding. Evolution, development and modernity means change, and that should apply to man-made constructs like religion.

Haan theek hai par tumne usko jo democracy wala gyan pela woh sab waste gaya

To the blocked and ignored nuisance. I would be grateful if I was from Pakistan, India and Africa, it would be an honour. But you live in the swamp somewhere, hence ur uncivilised manners.

However, I am all the more grateful that I live in UK. And I am a proud British Citizen. I love my country, I adhere to it's rules and the only negative thing I can say is, I don't like the current Prime Minister much.

This is a country which gives us the right to freedom of religion and belief as one of the rights protected by the Human Rights Act.

Birdie,

I can understand the lack of education of the person I referred to above but I'm disappointed in the argument you are drawing. It knocked common sense out cold.

Religions have contributed many ideas to democratic thinking and standards, as well as human values relating to solidarity, human dignity and the behaviour of the individual in society.

The Democratic society needs the fundamental.consensus about the necessary values of humans life.

Equality and Diversity is a huge point in the society where I live. Therefore

The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone because of religion or belief, or because of a lack a religion or belief.

As per the law of this country, the English Law, there is no restriction on a marriage between a Hindu and Muslim person. No bill was ever put in the parliament to reform marriage conditions for the Muslims regarding conversions to get married legally as per Democratic law. There is no punishable breach as per the countries law.

The Democratic law applies to all races.

So the rule is a religious one, it invalidates the marriage.

In this country Nikha and Indian Vivah ceremonies are marriages conducted under religious rights. The Country requires a Civil marriage also to recognise it as a legal marriage under the law.

So the Religious beliefs and it's rights are protected and it's coincides with Democratic law.

The Mullahs didn't make up laws. It is the Arabic countries which follow certain guidelines by precedents in a way. Quran is a book of guidance, an encyclopedia of knowledge and an account of the journey of Islam. It is not something you will understand as it is not as straightforward and a book of Mythical stories and events. However, Hindus also seek guidance from the Geeta. It is not straightforward because the way it was written during the 14 years of it's revelation and not something afterwards.

Religion is a belief, you need to stop mixing it up with law. And no it's not a law handbook which will update as law reforms. It is not a medical bnf that will update with new drug inventions. It will not be changed. The past 3 previous books had been and therefore new religions developed. This one will stay like this till the end of time.

Once same sex civil marriages was accepted by democratic law and members of the LGBTQ society wanted religious wedding ceremonies, the mosques and temples and gurdwaras said no. The religion recognises marriages between a man and a woman and same sex marriages are not allowed in the perimeters of our religion. However they were forced to conduct these marriages in the mosques and temples and gurdwara. No Quran, Bhagavad-Gita or Guru grant Sahib was changed to accommodate this democratic regulation. Yet only Thr Cburch of England is not binded by this.. all other churches are affected of the new rules. No Bible was changed.

Do know the Quran states what it states, if people chose to follow the religion they can abide by it if they want a marriage that is spiritually validated not just on paper.

And Birdie ur asking people to rewrite religion. That's stupidy and won't be entertained by any religion.

Rem people follow religion, religion does not follow people.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

it's hard to debate something if people are dogmatic and unwilling to question or think through things critically. That's the problem imo with Islam and a lot of religions of the book- they claim to be infallible, an assertion based on faith and a circular reasoning that they are the word of their God/ Prophet, and so become unchanging, unyielding. Evolution, development and modernity means change, and that should apply to man-made constructs like religion.

Maybe your ideology is more siding with aeithism. Then your argument and badgering on about democracy is not credible of an ideology when you are putting it against religion. You literally want to wipe out religion dude.

Originally posted by: carisma2

To the blocked and ignored nuisance. I would be grateful if I was from Pakistan, India and Africa, it would be an honour. But you live in the swamp somewhere, hence ur uncivilised manners.

However, I am all the more grateful that I live in UK. And I am a proud British Citizen. I love my country, I adhere to it's rules and the only negative thing I can say is, I don't like the current Prime Minister much.

This is a country which gives us the right to freedom of religion and belief as one of the rights protected by the Human Rights Act.

Birdie,

I can understand the lack of education of the person I referred to above but I'm disappointed in the argument you are drawing. It knocked common sense out cold.

Religions have contributed many ideas to democratic thinking and standards, as well as human values relating to solidarity, human dignity and the behaviour of the individual in society.

The Democratic society needs the fundamental.consensus about the necessary values of humans life.

Equality and Diversity is a huge point in the society where I live. Therefore

The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone because of religion or belief, or because of a lack a religion or belief.

As per the law of this country, the English Law, there is no restriction on a marriage between a Hindu and Muslim person. No bill was ever put in the parliament to reform marriage conditions for the Muslims regarding conversions to get married legally as per Democratic law. There is no punishable breach as per the countries law.

The Democratic law applies to all races.

So the rule is a religious one, it invalidates the marriage.

In this country Nikha and Indian Vivah ceremonies are marriages conducted under religious rights. The Country requires a Civil marriage also to recognise it as a legal marriage under the law.

So the Religious beliefs and it's rights are protected and it's coincides with Democratic law.

The Mullahs didn't make up laws. It is the Arabic countries which follow certain guidelines by precedents in a way. Quran is a book of guidance, an encyclopedia of knowledge and an account of the journey of Islam. It is not something you will understand as it is not as straightforward and a book of Mythical stories and events. However, Hindus also seek guidance from the Geeta. It is not straightforward because the way it was written during the 14 years of it's revelation and not something afterwards.

Religion is a belief, you need to stop mixing it up with law. And no it's not a law handbook which will update as law reforms. It is not a medical bnf that will update with new drug inventions. It will not be changed. The past 3 previous books had been and therefore new religions developed. This one will stay like this till the end of time.

Once same sex civil marriages was accepted by democratic law and members of the LGBTQ society wanted religious wedding ceremonies, the mosques and temples and gurdwaras said no. The religion recognises marriages between a man and a woman and same sex marriages are not allowed in the perimeters of our religion. However they were forced to conduct these marriages in the mosques and temples and gurdwara. No Quran, Bhagavad-Gita or Guru grant Sahib was changed to accommodate this democratic regulation. Yet only Thr Cburch of England is not binded by this.. all other churches are affected of the new rules. No Bible was changed.

Do no the Quran states what it states, if people chose to follow the religion they can abide by it if they want a marriage that is spiritually validated not just on paper.

And Birdie ur asking people to rewrite religion. That's stupidy and won't be entertained by any religion.

that's a total fallacy. The Old Testament was written over a period of thousand years. Now dont tell me that kind of composition was not implicitly interpreted by people who wrote it. Every writer interprets. The New Testament too was written in Greek by some dude, not in Hebrew and not in Aramaic by the Moses people which one might have thought otherwise. Greek was the language of scholars back then. Now dont tell us that God/ Prophet revealed the book to the Greeks, because that sure was not the case. It was "written" up in Greek by some dude. What that should tell you is that these books have been "rewritten" into languages, and we have no idea how they changed... The Orthodox Russian versions are different from others for sure. So let's not treat it as if change is not possible. Its just that people dont want to change it anymore and they use the excuse that it cant be changed.

as for english law, the way you were going on about Islam it seemed you would have problem with the same british laws you are now talking about if they went againt your tenets. Would you be fine if the british law were in opposition to Islamic laws? For example, taking on multiple wives aint happening there, is it?

ps- lets keep the personal out. I see Funtuss as making a lot of valid points contributing to the discussion and he has done it with humor and incisiveness.... things we can use around these parts. Not nice to name call.

Originally posted by: carisma2

Maybe your ideology is more siding with aeithism. Then your argument and badgering on about democracy is not credible of an ideology when you are putting it against religion. You literally want to wipe out religion dude.

I am not an atheist. I am a hindu, and like a lot of hopefully enlightened people, do question my own religion and try to reconcile my beliefs with science and modernity. That way, I am more spiritual and less ritualistic when it comes to my religion. I also don't go around justifying dangerous chapters from various texts on the sad excuse that they've been misinterpreted. As far as i am concerned, if a lot of people misunderstand some text and go off the deep end reading it, then good people should get together and amend that text. I dont treat any text as some infallible piece of manna from heaven.They are written by men, subject to the same failings and motives writers have always had.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

I am not an atheist. I am a hindu, and like a lot of hopefully enlightened people, do question my own religion and try to reconcile my beliefs with science and modernity. That way, I am more spiritual and less ritualistic when it comes to my religion. I also don't go around justifying dangerous chapters from various texts on the sad excuse that they've been misinterpreted. As far as i am concerned, if a lot of people misunderstand some text and go off the deep end reading it, then good people should get together and amend that text. I dont treat any text as some infallible piece of manna from heaven.They are written by men, subject to the same failings and motives writers have always had.

I'm going to reply to both messages within this.

Maybe if you roll of your high horse and read the post again, you may come to realise it wasn't dangerous text. What to do in the case of being ambushed.

This was a war, I gave you the text to that last time and I will not repeat it here,

You are extremely biased, if Muslims were attacked and ambushed in a war then they were supposed to just surrender? offer them their head on a silver platter? If Israel does the same, you cheer on and enjoy the genocide. You urge for more blood. You talk about striking places down with nuclear weapons and bombing and that is what Islam taught. How can the Qur'an talk about using bombs and nuclear weapons, when they hadn't been created yet.

No hypocritically you rant about, 'change the text', and 'make it more understandable'. So I told you, there has been an English translation, and to furthermore explain the Quran in more details - Go read 'The Meaning of The Glorious Qur'an', An Explanatory translation Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall. It is a revised Modern English edition by Dr .S.M. Bleher. If you can't find it, let me know I will post it to you - page by page.

If you want to know more about our Prophets from the first one to the last then English version of Qisas al-Anbiya is available.

Now people like yourselves, who want to manipulate people into believing the verses are promoting violence despite being told otherwise can easily turn to the Bagvaad-Gita and say

"Do thou fight for the sake of fighting, without considering happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat-and, by so doing, you shall never incur sin".

A misconception of vedas

"A) Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”

This is a mis - interpretation because of some of the words.

Some Hindus do state that there are in fact several violent verses in Vedas, Upanishads, Gītā and several dharma śāstras.

Verses from any scripture can be interpreted in various ways and you can assign ‘violence’ in there if you want.

There are historical passages, legends and mythologies in the Vedas. These speak of violence committed during war / conflict. (eg between Devas and Danvas).

The hindu religion has removed some of the violent verses and reformed. You cannot expect that other religions should follow suit.

Nasadiya Sukta with English translation:

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,

There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.

What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?

Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

Hindu's believe that Brahma created the world, but then the passage shows that there is an uncertainty and that the God's came in later. There seems to be a faltering of belief.

That's the difference between your religion and mine. We go by the same narrative, we are adamant in our belief. That is why we believe and take shahadah.

Abrahamic religions have provided in their texts is enough scope of mis/interpretation to justify killing of anybody opposing the faith and this has led to mass-murders in every century. This is recorded.

The Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel appearing to him in a cave on Mount Hira. The angel spoke to Muhammad and Muhammad began reciting the words from God.

As he recited the words, it was in presence of sahab'as and every word was written with confirmation from all that they were hearing, understanding and writing the same. It was written with precision, these are not the words of a man or even the Prophet. These are the words of God which have come to us through the voice of Muhammad (P.B.U.H).

It is therefore important to keep the Quran in it's original text. Most people pray the Qur'an in arabic but do not understand it. We are required to read it and it was not forced upon us to understand it. Understanding the Qur'an is a process, it is a whole study course. When scholars are looking at it's meaning then a number of them have to look at it together. Children attend mosque over a number of years daily to learn about the religion and it's teachings. I do not recall anyone teaching me to kill non believers.

To round off.

1. Do not quote me, and accuse my religion of being dangerous, or teaching dangerous practices. I took out the time and gave you the translation of the verses in details. But you were not really seeking that were you> You just needed an excuse to throw hate filled remarks/accusations when and where you can.

2. Cont... from above.. You stated that a clear translation should be available. I advised you it is I use it. I used that, to bring you the information. Then you have the audacity to claim, I quote you, "I also don't go around justifying dangerous chapters from various texts on the sad excuse that they've been misinterpreted". Does it look like I am running a Micky Mouse Club House here? My time is precious to me, do not use my posts and comments to take your frustrations out in and to waste my time.

3. Do not assume and accuse other peoples religion and faiths if you have no intention of genuinely knowing. Do not forget that your scriptures can also be misinterpreted.

4. Whether you like it or not, and I really can't care less at this point of what you stand for and what you want, The Holy Book or any part of it does not need to be changed for the likes of those who want to just hate on Islam regardless or for any other reasons. Materials are already available to explain the Qur'an further as well as other things related to religion. It is not allowed to be changed. You may think there are things wrong in the passages, but because of your lack of understanding of it and ignorance to accept the translation of it's intended meaning.

5. In answer to your Question, We do not have to be like Mullah Countries. There is no fixed rule that all Islamic countries have to follow the Classic way.

Countries such as; Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Maldives. Follow the Classic rules, meaning, they are adhering to the classical model of Islamic law either incorporate Islamic law as their common law, have legal codes based completely or partly on Islamic legal principles, or invoke Islamic law if there is no relevant controlling statute.

• The state adopts Islamic laws derived from the Quran and Sunnah. These national laws may or may not be codified, but typically are based on Islamic legal principles governing civil, criminal, and personal status disputes.
• Legal provisions may be similar to those in secular countries, particularly for emerging areas of law, science, and technology.
• Islamic law may be interpreted in parallel by both judges (empowered by the ruling government to decide legal cases) and Islamic law scholars.

Countries such as: Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines (BARMM), and Mali. These countries follow the Mixed model meaning, incorporate Islamic law into legal statutes. The constitution may require that laws do not violate Islamic principles, but the state may also have laws incorporating customary law or non-Muslim legal principles.

• Secular civil and criminal codes may be influenced by Islamic law or drafted so as not to violate Islamic legal principles.
• Personal status laws (addressing inheritance, marriage, divorce, and custody) are typically regulated by Islamic law. Many mixed-Islamic law systems recognize the religious law of other faiths, including Christian, Jewish, and various denominations within Islam.
• Islamic law may be interpreted in parallel by both judges (empowered by the ruling government to decide legal cases) and Islamic law scholars.

Countries such as: Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Albania, and Senegal. In Muslim-majority countries where the legal system is Secular, as well as countries where Muslims are a minority, Islamic law may be followed by citizens in matters affecting family law, personal property, and lifestyle (e.g., prayer rules, the giving of charity, and interpersonal conduct). The state, however, does not formally incorporate Islamic law into its laws or jurisprudence.

• In Muslim-majority countries with largely secular systems, there may be government offices responsible for religious affairs or mandates that specify government positions be filled by certain religious or ethnic groups.

In Turkey, the principle of secularism is constitutionally enshrined, but the government Office of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) administers places of worship and religious education in schools.

In Lebanon, civil and criminal laws are largely secular, except for personal status laws where the religious laws of those affected by a dispute govern the matter. In addition, the constitution mandates that certain political offices be held by representatives of certain ethno-religious communities (Maronite Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Shia Muslims).

6. I have no interest in your advocacy regarding your buddy. I have said this many times, I don't play when it comes to religion. Her antics probably amuse you as it is not your religion she is insulting. And valid points for whom? No need to answer, I'm as I'm aware of it. Misguided quotes and a bunch of passages from here and there, constructed manipulatively does not equal to constructive arguments and handing out valid points.

7. Other than the Quran, no other book recommends having 1 partner only.

There is a reference to multiple wives in this context. Back in those days men had more than 4 wives already. They were instructed, that they can keep 4 and let the others go.

It was not a recommendation that go have 4 wives.

Don't sit there and talk about me condemning British laws prohibiting Polygamy marriages without even knowing my own view on it. But yes there is a law regarding having 1 legal wife. So some men do have multiple wives, 1 with the Civil marriage who will be the legal wife in the eyes of British law and others by Nikha. They will not have the same contractual rights legally. However Islam expects the man to treat all of them the same. Back in the day, your Lord Ram's father had 3 wives. Your Lord Krishna had 16108 wives and only 8 of those being his principle wives whilst the rest were freed by him after the death of Narakasura. Infact the reason why The Hindu Marriage Act came into place was because, Hindu's men were converting to Islam for getting married multiple times. So they legally came up with this Act to get over that loop hole.

So ur point was actually.. pointless. No pun intended. You made no sense here, what so ever, in the quote below.

I quote you, "as for english law, the way you were going on about Islam it seemed you would have problem with the same british laws you are now talking about if they went againt your tenets. Would you be fine if the british law were in opposition to Islamic laws? For example, taking on multiple wives aint happening there, is it?"

8. As to your rambling regarding the books, I've already told you the history of the books and whom they were given to, You can chose to believe it or not believe it, doesn't change a thing. You have completely gone off point talking about language, of course language can be can be interpreted, but you miss the point entirely, there are translations available. The Qur'an was revealed a bit by bit to guide the way in situations. It was not revealed in one go. Neither was it done after. As situations rose, guidance was given and it was recorded, that is how the Quran is written.

Do not reply back Birdie, I have said all I want to say and I am not going to go in circles over this because clearly that is what you want to do. This is a current Affairs forum and I have requested 24 hrs ago that religion should not be discussed here in this manner.

Goodnight.

carisma2=>

this entire discussion on Islam/ religion got launched after you brought it up in reply to my idea of having a cooling-off period. My proposal had no mention of any religion, just that it should apply to everyone. You brought up nikah objections from Islam to counter that. In fact, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, most of us would prefer that we never had to deal with Islam or have it come up for discussion. Unfortunately it does, because its adherents seem to go off the deep end reading it. You can claim all you want, but the proof is in the pudding. Look at the level of violence and mayhem committed by adherents of Islam all over the world. Yes, people from other denominations are not saints either, but it's relative.

your snide remarks on Hinduism don't bother me. I just happen to like it because it is most consistent with the physics/ cosmology that is being unravelled even today, and has enough substance and tolerance built in to accommodate diverse points of view. It sure as heck does not have cuckoo stuff like the sun revolving around the earth or the earth being flat, embarrassments of the highest order.

as for my remark about bombing places, your bringing it up here had no relevance. But since you did, you have conveniently skipped the part where I justified american nuking of japanese cities too. It wasnt just iran. That way, I am an equal opportunity advocate of tough actions against rogue/ terrorist nations. Nothing against any religion, unlike what you were saying.

and as for rambling, i am not the one writing essays.