Halala and Mutah - Crime against humanity?- Page 4

Originally posted by: Clochette

bold: accepted... it is a bad wording... sorry

And I completely agree with you about the last point about - until now - I didn't give my own opinion: Mohammad just changed the Arabic habit of husbands to 'divorce' their wife whenever they wanted but equally to take her back whenever they wanted, so the women had been like a puppet in the hands of men/their husbands. The change by Mohammad wasn't a complete change as the wife can't refuse - it still leaves more power to the husband. Nevertheless, the husband had to pay and when a wife wanted divorce, she - THEN - got it too. It just shows that also prophets are humans and not infallible. Still, Mohammad undoubtedly wasn't a misogynist.

@bold - Why yes! Undoubtedly!

Let me ask chatgpt

These are not my views but AI result by chatgpt so don't report me for posting this

Of course you are right by looking at Mohammad with what we define as mysoginist in our times... and that makes me think how that contradicts the take of some members in the BW-forum thread about Jauhar... so decide: modern view or view of that time

I have no problem acknowledging the brutal, outdated nature of 7th-century Islamic laws, just as I have no problem recognizing the tragic, patriarchal horror of medieval Jauhar. As a critic of any religious system that harms human rights, my metric remains the same across the board.

The real question is: Are you willing to do the same?

It is easy to use the modern lens of human rights to rightly condemn the flaws in Muhammad's era. But if you then switch to a romanticized, protective medieval lens to justify or glorify Jauhar, you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.

If we want to fight institutionalized misogyny, we must fight it everywhere-whether it is packaged in a 1,400-year-old desert law or in a medieval wartime sacrifice. We cannot selectively weaponize human rights only when it suits our geopolitical or religious biases.

Originally posted by: Clochette

Of course you are right by looking at Mohammad with what we define as mysoginist in our times... and that makes me think how that contradicts the take of some members in the BW-forum thread about Jauhar... so decide: modern view or view of that time

I have no problem acknowledging the brutal, outdated nature of 7th-century Islamic laws, just as I have no problem recognizing the tragic, patriarchal horror of medieval Jauhar. As a critic of any religious system that harms human rights, my metric remains the same across the board.

The real question is: Are you willing to do the same?

It is easy to use the modern lens of human rights to rightly condemn the flaws in Muhammad's era. But if you then switch to a romanticized, protective medieval lens to justify or glorify Jauhar, you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.

If we want to fight institutionalized misogyny, we must fight it everywhere-whether it is packaged in a 1,400-year-old desert law or in a medieval wartime sacrifice. We cannot selectively weaponize human rights only when it suits our geopolitical or religious biases.

I just gave examples of his misogyny as u said atleast he wasn't a misogynist.

Aren't you judging jauhar from the viewpoint of modern times? In thar case u should apply the modern viewpoint on Muhammad's misogyny as well. so decide: modern view or view of that time?

No one is glorifying Jauhar. Justifying yes, because in that era there were no laws or single acknowledged authority to protect women rights. They had to do what they thought was best according to that time. However it's not even justifying but rather empathising with those women who found themselves in that impossible situation. The least we can do is place the blame where it is due (islamic barbarists) rather than diluting it by blaming it in abstract concepts like patriarchy. Almost every society has problems of patriarchy but not all go arround looting, plundering, r@ping and sex slaving. So spare them when u place the blame for jauhar.

Sad that you label "patriarchy" as an "abstract concept" ... it is (and was) lived and is still very much alive around the world - with or without a religious background.

As for my view on a historical event, it certainly isn't the empathy I've a problem with.

By the standards of 7th-century Arabia, Mohammad was not a misogynist, but rather a reformer. While some verses may support patriarchal structures today, his original intent was pro-woman relative to the pre-Islamic era.

As for Jauhar, by medieval standards, it was a tragic but rational choice in the face of inevitable enslavement and wartime sexual violence. In my opinion, then, Jauhar was not seen as an act of submission or victimhood, but as a severe form of active resistance. It was a way to deny the invading army the ultimate "spoils of war" and trophies of victory. Generally, it occurred in tandem with Saka, where the men put on saffron robes and rode into a final, suicidal battle. Together, Jauhar and Saka represented a community choosing total annihilation over surrender.... Nevertheless, women faced a choice between only two forms of destruction: death by fire at the hands of their own community or brutal enslavement by the enemy. In the reality of a medieval siege, there was no genuine "no" to Jauhar.

Edit: Why should I "spare" anyone... and whom, btw?

Originally posted by: Clochette

Sad that you label "patriarchy" as an "abstract concept" ... it is (and was) lived and is still very much alive around the world - with or without a religious background.

As for my view on a historical event, it certainly isn't the empathy I've a problem with.

By the standards of 7th-century Arabia, Mohammad was not a misogynist, but rather a reformer. While some verses may support patriarchal structures today, his original intent was pro-woman relative to the pre-Islamic era.

As for Jauhar, by medieval standards, it was a tragic but rational choice in the face of inevitable enslavement and wartime sexual violence. In my opinion, then, Jauhar was not seen as an act of submission or victimhood, but as a severe form of active resistance. It was a way to deny the invading army the ultimate "spoils of war" and trophies of victory. Generally, it occurred in tandem with Saka, where the men put on saffron robes and rode into a final, suicidal battle. Together, Jauhar and Saka represented a community choosing total annihilation over surrender.... Nevertheless, women faced a choice between only two forms of destruction: death by fire at the hands of their own community or brutal enslavement by the enemy. In the reality of a medieval siege, there was no genuine "no" to Jauhar.

Edit: Why should I "spare" anyone... and whom, btw?

Okay maybe patriarchy is not an abstract concept but (supposedly) if you face domestic violence from your husband will you blame him and file case against him or patriarchy?

If by the standards of 7th century Arabia Mohammed was not a misogynist then by the standards of 14 century India Jauhar wasn't because of patriarchy either. U cant pick and choose to apply 7th century standards on Mohammed and 21 century standards on Jauhar.

Then u take objection when we say you are biased towards Islam (for reaons you may know better). But it's visible to everybody, however much u deny.

Now we are speaking something - Jauhar was indeed a form of active resistance.

However, Death by fire was not "at the hands of their own community". It was entirely their choice do or not do jauhar. Some queens didn't do jauhar and became sex slaves. Either way it was THEIR choice. If anyone forced them to do so it was the Islamic barbarians, whom they wanted to evade.

No no don't spare anyone. Grab any man you can find ... Hold him by the neck... And give him full 20 minutes lecture on patriarchy. That would definitely stop r@pes and sexual violence. Do as you please 🙏

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

Okay maybe patriarchy is not an abstract conceptbut (supposedly) if you face domestic violence from your husband willyou blame him and file case against him or patriarchy? 1)

If by the standards of 7th century Arabia Mohammed was not amisogynist then by the standards of 14 century India Jauhar wasn'tbecause of patriarchy either. U cant pick and choose to apply 7thcentury standards on Mohammed and 21 century standards on Jauhar. 2)

Then u take objection when we say you are biased towards Islam(for reaons you may know better). But it's visible to everybody,however much u deny. 3)

Now we are speaking something - Jauhar was indeed a form of activeresistance.

However, Death by fire was not "at the hands of their owncommunity". It was entirely their choice do or not do jauhar.Some queens didn't do jauhar and became sex slaves. Either way it wasTHEIR choice. If anyone forced them to do so it was the Islamicbarbarians, whom they wanted to evade. 4)

No no don't spare anyone. Grab any man you can find ... Hold himby the neck... And give him full 20 minutes lecture on patriarchy.That would definitely stop r@pes and sexual violence. Do as youplease ? 5)

replying to the paragraphs...

1) I would blame both - the person who does domestic violence (also women can be violent towards their husbands) a n d the upbringing/influences... and most probably I wouldn't be a docile, repeated violence suffering wife...

2) Where in my post when I used the view of the time when Mohammad lived/ Jauhar happened did I use the argument of patriarchy??? (you see how quickly you, too, spin a narrative about my writing) It was me, who stated that the view on things were different then from what our views are from our position today.

3) To me, there is a difference between Islam and other religions as Islam isn't only a spirituel concept but also a socio-political (a fact I detest) ...actually, I detest what was done and still is done in the name of Islam. However, as a non-religious person, I'm not biased towards a n y religion relative to its spiritual content... but I've learned that people pick from what I write what suits them... I'm not responsible for what you pick...

4) I am aware of three medieval sources that recount Jauhar proceedings at the time they happened... two refer to Muslim conquerors (Padmanabha's KanhadadePrabandha and the original Padmavat epic), and one refers to a Hindu conqueror (the aforementioned Rajatarangini). In addition, there are the Khyats, the Rajput bardic chronicles.... They are not modern interpretations. When these texts explicitly detail the weeping, the terror of the mothers, and the agonizing deaths of the children inside the fort parameters, and that even male guards watched over the proceeding and that doors got sealed, they are - in my eyes - providing a raw, unvarnished historical record from within the culture itself. I think that citing these genuine medieval documents is the exact opposite of being biased; it is anchored in respect for the true, documented history.

5) Firstly, it needs much more than my 20 minutes, secondly, there are - fortunately - a lot of men not having a patriarchal mindset, and thirdly, raping and sexual violence have also other reasons than a patriarchal mindset.

Have a nice Sunday

Originally posted by: Clochette

replying to the paragraphs...

1) I would blame both - the person who does domestic violence (also women can be violent towards their husbands) a n d the upbringing/influences... and most probably I wouldn't be a docile, repeated violence suffering wife...

Glad that you wrote women can be violent towards their husbands too. So if you are going to blame both husband and patriarchy when husband is violent, which 'archy' will you blame when the wife is violent?

Also, you can file a case against your husband in court but can you file a case against patriarchy and get patriarchy punished in court? Such 'concepts' can only be changed & reformed. But in practical life just like your husband will be punished in court, the Islamic barbarians would have been punished in courts (if there were courts at that time) and not patriarchy.

2) Where in my post when I used the view of the time when Mohammad lived/ Jauhar happened did I use the argument of patriarchy??? (you see how quickly you, too, spin a narrative about my writing) It was me, who stated that the view on things were different then from what our views are from our position today.

Here is the ss of that post. I've marked the relevant part where you blamed patriarchy.

You have held patriarchy responsible for concepts of honour or moral and possesive mentality and the mentality of women as properties of men...which led to women perforing Jauhar to save their honour and morals. You were even keen to write an essay on that. Now u blame me for spinning a narrative. Something is definitely spinning and its not my narrative but my head reading how you are so incapable of accepting even what you yourself wrote

3) To me, there is a difference between Islam and other religions as Islam isn't only a spirituel concept but also a socio-political (a fact I detest) ...actually, I detest what was done and still is done in the name of Islam. However, as a non-religious person, I'm not biased towards a n y religion relative to its spiritual content... but I've learned that people pick from what I write what suits them... I'm not responsible for what you pick...

It would have been better if you wrote this in your essay where u just called it an "elevating spiritual philosophy". Now before you say u meant it was Halala let me remind you, you already clarified that it was for islam as a religion, in one of your previous posts. Don't make me search for that too cos it would take some effort but i will.

Your actions seem different than your words. Your enthusiasm towards critiquing controversial aspects of Hinduism, Hindu traditions & India but avoiding dealing with controversial aspects of Islam, Islamic traditions and Pak/ Bangladesh is very much evident to me, and i can see, others too. But as you are always right so i and others must be wrong in seeing that.

4) I am aware of three medieval sources that recount Jauhar proceedings at the time they happened... two refer to Muslim conquerors (Padmanabha's KanhadadePrabandha and the original Padmavat epic), and one refers to a Hindu conqueror (the aforementioned Rajatarangini). In addition, there are the Khyats, the Rajput bardic chronicles.... They are not modern interpretations. When these texts explicitly detail the weeping, the terror of the mothers, and the agonizing deaths of the children inside the fort parameters, and that even male guards watched over the proceeding and that doors got sealed, they are - in my eyes - providing a raw, unvarnished historical record from within the culture itself. I think that citing these genuine medieval documents is the exact opposite of being biased; it is anchored in respect for the true, documented history.

I can understand You HAD to do research when i said why didn't Jauhar happen when Hindu kings defeated other Hindu kings. I'm guessing that's how you found out Rajatarangini. Being a white German it seems very interesting that you were so invested in proving me wrong that you had to research those texts that even most of us Indians wouldn't know about. And then you wonder why people suspect you and your intentions. Anyways expecting " raw, unvarnished historical record" from Bollywood is like expecting Ranbhoomi to be sweet & friendly with you.

5) Firstly, it needs much more than my 20 minutes, secondly, there are - fortunately - a lot of men not having a patriarchal mindset, and thirdly, raping and sexual violence have also other reasons than a patriarchal mindset.

Those are the men i wanted to you to spare when i said - "So spare them when u place the blame for jauhar". To which u replied "why should i spare anyone". Imo it's unfair to blame those husbands (of patriarchy) who lost their family members lives as well as their own lives because of Islamic barbarians. Even if you blame not the men but the society for Patriarchy in concepts like honor or morals (as you can confirm in your post whose ss i added above) you are taking away a large part of the blame from direct perpetrators and distributing it over the whole society to dilute the blame on direct perpetrators.

Have a nice Sunday

Have a nice Sunday you too

My replies in red

Thanks for replying

I'm eager to learn and I don't shy away from accepting when I am/was mistaken, so

1 - yes, you were right, Patriarchy is an abstract concept... it designates a social structure, and also is an analytical tool. It isn't the system itself but describes a social system in which power, leadership, and privilege are primarily held by men. I made the mistake because its real-world effects, laws, and institutions are concrete. However I learned that the system itself is an abstract framework used to analyze power dynamics.

2 - yes, relative to Jauhar, I alluded to the concept of patriarchy as it seemed to me being the subject of the thread in combination with the cinematic rendition by Bhansali (I couldn't read the TM's posts). After having watched the movie, I learned more about this proceeding. The fact that through the circumstances of wars and conquests the female part of the defeated were left with actually no choice than killing themselves to keep their dignity, made me feel sad for their situation...and also angry towards a system where women aren't allowed to fight actively against the attackers probably dying in the battle.

To me, that had to have a source because I already knew that in Hinduism and in the Indian history also women were shown as fierce fighters. So I also learned about the Manava-Dharmashastra.

3 - I searched for the posts as I never would associate practices like Halala and Mutah (which came after Mohammad) with an "elevating spiritual philosophy". First I mentioned this term in my post #8 (introduction): "a deeper socio-historical and neurobiological lens reveals a timeless pattern shared across almost all world religions: the subversion of an originally elevating spiritual philosophy into a weapon of patriarchal control."

In your posts #26 and #28, you already showed that you misunderstood something... sorry that I didn't react appropriately at that time... maybe because of those biased people before. Also I had the illusion that I made my negative takes crystal clear, but either my texts didn't get read properly or they are misconstrued deliberately when coming with reproaches that don't fit what I wrote.

"Your enthusiasm towards critiquing controversial aspects of Hinduism, Hindu traditions & India but avoiding dealing with controversial aspects of Islam, Islamic traditions and Pak/ Bangladesh is very much evident to me, and i can see, others too"

When you take this away of everything I post (and also just posted as critical view on Islam in the BW-Jauhar/Padmavaat thread), then you already have me put into the same box as the fake Beginner & Co and whatever I've written and may still write may not bring a change in that perception. Confounding my criticism of a government (BJP/RSS) that uses the religion to make Hinduism also a socio-political concept and not only violates human rights but also betrays and loots the own people with what I underlined leaves me with no argument except that it makes me sad.

4 - "Being a white German it seems very interesting that you were so invested in proving me wrong that you had to research those texts that even most of us Indians wouldn't know about."

Didn't know, that you are thinking in rassist categories, especially when telling me that you like to question things. I don't know who wrote it, but you're right, I wanted to counter a historical lie... I already knew from my research about Jauhar that it was a wrong perception, but I didn't know the source anymore... so I looked for the source... sources, actually, which had given me the knowledge at the time I researched for Jauhar. And just to let you know: when the TM hadn't made the thread about the controversial take on Jauhar, I may never have written about this subject... and not even about the one of this thread.

5 - "To which u replied "why should i spare anyone" You didn't answer that question... so I didn't elaborate...

It's again a far too long post, but I still wanted to reply to you... maybe because I hope that you want conversation... and not the bashing...

Originally posted by: Clochette

Thanks for replying

I'm eager to learn and I don't shy away from accepting when I am/was mistaken, so

1 - yes, you were right, Patriarchy is an abstract concept... it designates a social structure, and also is an analytical tool. It isn't the system itself but describes a social system in which power, leadership, and privilege are primarily held by men. I made the mistake because its real-world effects, laws, and institutions are concrete. However I learned that the system itself is an abstract framework used to analyze power dynamics.

2 - yes, relative to Jauhar, I alluded to the concept of patriarchy as it seemed to me being the subject of the thread in combination with the cinematic rendition by Bhansali (I couldn't read the TM's posts). After having watched the movie, I learned more about this proceeding. The fact that through the circumstances of wars and conquests the female part of the defeated were left with actually no choice than killing themselves to keep their dignity, made me feel sad for their situation...and also angry towards a system where women aren't allowed to fight actively against the attackers probably dying in the battle.

To me, that had to have a source because I already knew that in Hinduism and in the Indian history also women were shown as fierce fighters. So I also learned about the Manava-Dharmashastra.

3 - I searched for the posts as I never would associate practices like Halala and Mutah (which came after Mohammad) with an "elevating spiritual philosophy". First I mentioned this term in my post #8 (introduction):

In your posts #26 and #28, you already showed that you misunderstood something... sorry that I didn't react appropriately at that time... maybe because of those biased people before. Also I had the illusion that I made my negative takes crystal clear, but either my texts didn't get read properly or they are misconstrued deliberately when coming with reproaches that don't fit what I wrote.

"Your enthusiasm towards critiquing controversial aspects of Hinduism, Hindu traditions & India but avoiding dealing with controversial aspects of Islam, Islamic traditions and Pak/ Bangladesh is very much evident to me, and i can see, others too"

When you take this away of everything I post (and just posted as critical view on Islam, also in the BW-Jauhar/Padmavaat thread), then you already have me put into the same box as the fake Beginner & Co and whatever I've written and may still write may not bring a change in that perception. Confounding my criticism of a government (BJP/RSS) that uses the religion to make Hinduism also a socio-political concept and not only violates human rights but also betrays and loots the own people leaves me with no argument except that it makes me sad.

4 - "Being a white German it seems very interesting that you were so invested in proving me wrong that you had to research those texts that even most of us Indians wouldn't know about."

Didn't know, that you are thinking in rassist categories, especially when telling me that you like to question things. I don't know who wrote it, but you're right, I wanted to counter a historical lie... I already knew from my research about Jauhar that it was a wrong perception, but I didn't know the source anymore... so I looked for the source... sources, actually, which had given me the knowledge at the time I researched for Jauhar. And just to let you know: when the TM hadn't made the thread about the controversial take on Jauhar, I may never have written about this subject... and not even about the one of this thread.

5 - "To which u replied "why should i spare anyone" You didn't answer that question... so I didn't elaborate...

It's again a far too long post, but I still wanted to reply to you... maybe because I hope that you want conversation... and not the bashing...

Replying to relevant part.

First of all you yourself have called yourself white euorpean or white German many times. Now calling me racist just for repeating that? Great 👍

I have seen & remember your posts during pehelgam attacks where you were constantly questioning the Indian side while defending Pakistani stand as per your secret sources (pakistani friends) which u didn't what to reveal.

U may be an intellectual but severely lack emotional intelligence. it's a very basic courtesy to not keep criticising the country on whose platform you are active and even worse to support that country's enemies.

I'm sure you will deny even this but forgive me if I don't agree with you.

Now i don't even want any conversation anymore. Conservation is good only if both sides present their views honestly & clearly and not deny or go back on them creating confusion which you have been constantly doing. And, despite feeling I'm wasting my time with you, i continued. Not anymore.

So, this is the end of the 'conversation' on this topic from my side.

Have a good day 👍

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

Replying to relevant part.

First of all you yourself have called yourself white euorpean or white German many times. Now calling me racist just for repeating that? Great 👍

I have seen & remember your posts during pehelgam attacks where you were constantly questioning the Indian side while defending Pakistani stand as per your secret sources (pakistani friends) which u didn't what to reveal.

U may be an intellectual but severely lack emotional intelligence. it's a very basic courtesy to not keep criticising the country on whose platform you are active and even worse to support that country's enemies.

I'm sure you will deny even this but forgive me if I don't agree with you.

Now i don't even want any conversation anymore. Conservation is good only if both sides present their views honestly & clearly and not deny or go back on them creating confusion which you have been constantly doing. And, despite feeling I'm wasting my time with you, i continued. Not anymore.

So, this is the end of the 'conversation' on this topic from my side.

Have a good day 👍

Gosh... sometimes it would be better to see each other... to me the tone of your " "Being a white German it seems very interesting that you were so invested in proving me wrong that you had to research those texts that even most of us Indians wouldn't know about." felt negative (no wonder with all the condensed bashing yesterday)... if I assumed something wrong in your wording, please excuse my reaction

No, I did n o t defend Pakistani stand, but I questioned the authorities not having cared enough for the security of the tourists in such s sensible region... and I criticised the way the solving of the crimes got handled.

I don't support India's enemies...

So, as a German, I don't have the right to voice critic against the Indian government on an international Indian Forum??? Strangly, I don't voice critic about the common Indian people... so, to show emotional intelligence, the government is tabu for a German member???

Okay, but I hope you still read my replies (even without responding)... thanks for the time you invested in someone you think to be dishonnest and a waste of time...