In Kerala, Inter-Faith Couple Lives in Fear, Plans to Request Chief Minister For Help

[Derolo]

it will come down now. the price of oil has fallen below $80. So terrorism will subside for now. You see.

Good one

But im sure one less Rolls Royce won't stop them

 

[hornbill]

There is no compulsion in religion. Tho who are forcing them are not muslims.

yes there is no compulsion in relgion. then why the issues

 

[ranjeet]

Phir Bhabi nei tujheee Ranjeet Chopra seh Ranjeet Singh kisss tarhan banaa liyaaa ?

Complete with the Turban, the Beard and the other 'k's in the Sikh Faith ?

Joru ka ghulam !

Still needed to be domesticated ... ek do baar pitayi ho jaati hai but kisko chittar nahi padte

 

[SQ8]

Yes it is. I never see such a rise in intolerance level in my state.. Last 3-4 years its very high..

I call it social media hate. The level of intolerance worldwide is at its peak.
Because people all over are opening up in ways not yet thought possible. You should see the debate comments on the US elections.. or comments in the Indian election.. or comments in Hong Kong protests. People as a rule are becoming more polarized in diverse societies.

 

[ranjeet]

what will happen if the girl converts to hindu.

What would she get if she does beside soothing some people's ego? Would she make a even better wife to her husband if she does?

 

[jamahir]

At no point do the existence or tolerance of inter-marriages make them legal by the definitions available in the primary scripture of Islam. And no, Christian men are NOT essentially Muslim ONCE Islam has been introduced to them. Their in-acceptance of them makes them non-Muslims. The status of Jesus has little do with the status of a Christian.

i will give time to those words of yours to understand and then reply to you... but for now... ( Muammar Al Qaddafi: Observance of the Anniversary of the Birth of the Prophet Muhammad | Jamahiriya News Agency ).

Neither Gaddafi nor Nasser are in any way to be considered the final word on the subject.

gaddafi is more or less the penultimate word... he is the present imaam of all muslims... his status ( alive or dead ) doesn't matter... from this point, the next imaam will finalize the status of islami scripture... but in many things iqbal and muammar match words, including islam being socialism which, naturally, will evolve... and that will be the final status of islam.

You may try to interpret the Quran but it is always good to be a little well versed in similar subjects such as the Arabic of the time(with the associated metaphors and so on).

true... the historical context then and the current context then is very essential.

I still am not sure how you are able to get the relevancy of a woman's choosing or discarding of the Burka(in no way the exact definition of what is required by Islam for women to cover themselves) as reflection on the woman's intellect.

i agree with you for your "in no way the exact definition" part.

and most ladies don't choose the burqa... the burqa is meant for a lady to become ashamed of her own physicality... only the anti-female/brainwashed among the females will choose the burqa... google for pictures of aasiya andrabi... read about her... she is someone with mental issues... why would any sensible man want her??

i am in mid-30's... twenty years ago, there was not much of this burqa-baazi in india... nor in many other societies.

a truly educated lady ( not the college degrees ) will never want the burqa... such a lady is the one to attract sensible males of other faiths... as it stands now, western mainstream media has succeeded in associating islam with restrictions rather than freedoms, and in this many "muslims" have contributed in playing to the cliche.

so, how does one attract males to islam if one is constantly saying "convert or no marriage"?? islam should dawn upon a person through enlightenment, not as blackmail... a male will feel cheated if he comes to think that the whole point of the love exercise was to convert him.

i agree with you on some things but above is my opinion.

 

[SQ8]

i will give time to those words of yours to understand and then reply to you... but for now... ( Muammar Al Qaddafi: Observance of the Anniversary of the Birth of the Prophet Muhammad | Jamahiriya News Agency ).



gaddafi is more or less the penultimate word... he is the present imaam of all muslims... his status ( alive or dead ) doesn't matter... from this point, the next imaam will finalize the status of islami scripture... but in many things iqbal and muammar match words, including islam being socialism which, naturally, will evolve... and that will be the final status of islam.
.

Then essentially this is reverence of Gaddafi and not at any point an informed debate on the subject. We can agree to disagree then with me stating that you are incorrect.

In addition , I find massive inaccuracies in Gaddafi's ideals as he has stated in his speech. But that is for another thread and another time.

 

[Iggy]

Intolerance is on the rise all over the world especially in our part of the world; whether on ethnic, religious, sectarian, linguistic or even ideological lines (secular in nature) !

Yaar we were a state which had high respect to each other's religion.. In my Mom's place from my child hood I have seen devotees lighting candles in churches before going to Sabrimala, which is a holy place for Hindus. Heck even these devotees first visit a Mosque called Vavar Masjid before starting their Sabrimala pilgrimage.. I can show you plenty of pictures where RSS guys preparing food for fast ending of Muslims.. Here in my place, the refreshment whenever there is a Christian holy pocession, the refreshment were given by Hindu people and we used to do the same for them too.. When I hear about these kind of news its just hard to bear.. I mean when will these people going to respect other human beings?

 

[Iggy]

This is shameful, girls dignity/life shouldn't be held ransom to religion.

Unfortunately, they had.. I give full credit for communist guys for supporting them, even though they were the one who started these radicalisation.

 

[Levina]

Waisee Sarthak I was thinking about why @levina apa always picks on me ?

Do you think it could be because I'm an Aryan and she is a Dravidian ?

I pick on you??
whoa!!!
Look who's talking
Yes I'm a Dravidian and a very proud one at that,i can kick a few Aryans in one go...wanna try???

DISCLAIMER: Any religious critique will result in a ban for the offending member, questions are welcome but bigotry is not.

Now, Levine.. Ill highlight the problem by looking at it as both a Muslim and a third party observer.In addition, I will tackle those apologists who wish to garble the matter around semantics on the clarity of the edict regarding the issue of a Muslim girl marrying a non-muslim man.
I will start with an incorrect argument that has been given on common sites(such as wikipedia) in this matter.
The background for this issue is usually given with verse 60:10. The previous verses all speak about friendship and relations with those non-Muslims who have declared war with islam previously and are more than likely to detract Islam and speak against it when given the chance, that they hold grudges and hence friendship with such people is not-recommended/forbidden.

The particular verse talking about looking at Muslim Women "refugees". But there has to be a look at the context of it. This verse was revealed along the time after a peace treaty was made between the Prophet and the non-Muslims of Mecca. The terms of the treaty.. literally translated were as following



Essentially, it refer to the right of extradition for people coming and going from the different sides. Differing accounts point to the case of a woman who left the side of the non-Muslims to go to the Prophet's camp. Her husband asked for her return and she refused.. upon which this verse came about.

A reasonably well backed review of the incident is as follows ..taken from here.
Surah al-Mumtahana, Chapter 60 | An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Qur'an vol. 18 | Books on Islam and Muslims | Al-Islam.org

A certain woman by the name of Subay‘a converted to the Islamic faith at the time and joined the Muslims at Hudaybiyya. Her husband went to the Noble Prophet (S) and asked for her return to him as per the newly concluded treaty. The blessed Verse in question was revealed commanding the Muslims to examine the emigrant women in terms of their faith.

Ibn ‘Abbas is quoted as saying that they were examined by being asked to take an oath to the effect that their emigration had not been owing to hatred against their husbands nor liking for the new land nor for any other mundane goal but they had emigrated solely for the sake of the Islamic faith. The woman in question took the oath.

Thus, Allah's Messenger (S) reimbursed the mahr paid by her husband and the other expenses borne by him saying that the treaty solely includes men rather than women. Such occasion of Revelation is mentioned in the majority of Sunni and Shi‘i exegetic sources.

The blessed Verse depicts a clear picture of the Islamic faith as the one fostering justice. Firstly, the emigrated woman is not left on her own. Secondly, the right of the disbelieving husband is not ignored but the mahr and other expenses borne by him are reimbursed from the Muslim public treasury (bayt al-mal).

The last decree treats of those women who turn away from the Islamic faith to join disbelievers saying whoever of the women turning away from the Islamic faith is supposed to pay the bridal gift in the same manner as those women who turn to the Islamic faith and whose bridal gift is supposed to be paid to their former husbands.

Now, the issue in question here wherein the idea of Muslim women not being fit for Non-Muslim men came in from. The verse clearly talks about the time of the treaty and if taken in a later perspective about those leaving their non-Muslim husbands for Muslim men. In today's context it might mean that the Muslim man or state should compensate the non-Muslim guy for his expenditure on the woman for him taking the other fellows bride. For a woman that leaves Islam to go with the non-Muslim fellow, it means that she returns the "Mahr" to her Muslim husband.

This is clearly linked to the treaty mentioned earlier.. and has very vague implications especially this matter. So how did a verse that was revealed in context of a treaty suddenly become relevant to the harassment of a woman and her husband?

The truth is that this verse has little relevance to the matter as will be seen throughout those arguments that bring this up. Time and time again it is defined that marriage is a matter of faith as well as a social bond throughout the Quran. Hence belief can only co-exist with belief and not otherwise. This has both spiritual and religious background and implications and goes to another verse (24:3).. which refers to that women of dis-belief only gather men of dis-belief. Hence, regardless of how the woman feels, whether or not she had pre-marital sex with the man.. her choosing a man of dis-belief and his remaining a dis-believer voids the idea that the bond between them be considered a legal marriage in Islamic terms and hence its only status is that of sexual activity. Hence the woman is NOT in line with Islamic teachings.. and that aspect of the matter then remains with herself and God.

NOW, how does this reflect upon the actions of those in her society. First, the girl does serve as an influence to other girls to consider faith as a secondary matter in their choices for partner.. hence it is a threat to the integrity of Muslims all around the girl that their women too choose a non-believer over a believer. It reflects on the future of the Muslim society's growth and propagation of Islamic values. In addition, since this bond is NOT considered marriage.. and essentially sexual in nature..the spread of pre-martial sex is likely to follow suit which only adds to the status of the girls act as detrimental to society. In a nutshell, her act is NOT sanctioned nor allowed nor to be condoned by ANY muslim.

Finally, what actions are to be undertaken regarding her. This has less background in the Quran.. the verse previous to the one I mentioned (24:2) talks of women with bad character(prostitutes etc) who are to be lashed/banished from the society(on the condition that Muslims rule the area and an Islamic state exists) due to their bad influence on the rest of Muslim society. In this case the treatment too depends upon the existence of the Islamic state where she lives or not. If there is an Islamic state, the woman(and her non-muslim husband) are to be banished from it to non-muslim lands. If the area is not an Islamic state(as is the case here).. the only act permitted is a complete social boycott of the woman to minimize her influence on the rest of society. There is to be NO abuse, NO stoning, NO threats.. NO killing or anything whatsoever. The LAWS OF THE STATE in which the Muslims reside MUST be followed.

I hope that clarifies both what is stated by Islam on the matter and what is the required reaction of the Muslim society around her(in both cases).



Ill repeat the disclaimer

DISCLAIMER: Any religious abuse or bigotry will result in a ban for the offending member, questions are welcome but bigotry is not.

O you who believe! When believing women come to you as fugitives (Muhājirāt), examine them (famtahinūhuna). Allah is best aware of their faith. Then, if you find them to be believing women, do not send them back to the disbelievers (kuffār). They are not lawful for them (the disbelievers), nor are they (the disbelievers) lawful for them.” Qur’an 60:10
Asma Lamrabet : What does the Qur’an say about the interfaith marriage?
We should be aware of the fact that this order made sense because it was revealed at the time when polytheists were engaged in a merciless war against the believing Muslims. And also these polytheists were belonging to an aristocratic class of obscene wealth and indecent conduct, and whose lifestyle was reconsidered by the new social values of fairness and equity of Islam.Muslim men and women were ergo encouraged to get married to those who believe, like them, in one God.
The woman you told me about was Oum Kelthoum, who was the only one to convert to Islam in her family, and who escaped from one of the most hostile environments, begged the Prophet not to repatriate her to her tribe so as not to be exposed once more to their unfair treatment.
The explanation of the verse above mentioned shows that it does not tackle in any way the marriage to non-Muslims, but was rather revealed to meet some strategic requirements of protecting women who converted to Islam against the will of their family and who voluntarily asked for the Prophet’s protection.
In the absence of any proof that justifies the prohibition of the marriage of Muslim women to the followers of other monotheistic religions, the contemporary scholars justify their attitudes by “the natural weakness” of Muslim women who may go astray under the “bad” influence of their polytheist husbands.
It is worth mentioning that scholars agree unanimously on the prohibition of the marriage of a Muslim woman to a Jewish or Christian, while no part of the Qur’an provides for such prohibition that justifies this discrimination.
It is true that marriages called “mixed” can be more exposed to misunderstanding due to the cultural or religious differences that may at any moment, lead to marriage instability. However, this concerns all marriages, but the most important is to have a common interest at the intellectual and spiritual levels strengthened mainly by mutual respect.
Despite all the differences and the problems that may arise during a marital life, it is fundamentally the mutual respect which will spread shared serenity and the harmony of love whose strength lies once again in the respect that one shows to the other’s beliefs and traditions.
The purposes and the moral of the Qur’anic verse that talks about the interreligious marriage should be discussed through a dispassionate debate that goes beyond emotions. Muslims should review the real and deep meaning of some concepts in our globalized and multicultural societies such as “the believing men and women” and “People of the Book” … We should stress the main value and the initial spiritual trend that underlie this verse that calls for honesty, decency and the mutual respect as the pillars of any marriage.

 

[Iggy]

I call it social media hate. The level of intolerance worldwide is at its peak.
Because people all over are opening up in ways not yet thought possible. You should see the debate comments on the US elections.. or comments in the Indian election.. or comments in Hong Kong protests. People as a rule are becoming more polarized in diverse societies.

Well they say lack of education is the root cause of every issues.. Now it seems education is the root cause of every evil!!

 

[nair]

Well they say lack of education is the root cause of every issues.. Now it seems education is the root cause of every evil!!

Yeah that is why they say "Adhikam ayaal Amrithum Visham" (please do translate it for me )

 

[ranjeet]

Unfortunately, they had.. I give full credit for communist guys for supporting them, even though they were the one who started these radicalisation.

This vote bank politics has provided the much needed stoke to the smoldering Hindu right wing and the way BJP is breaking the caste barriers among Hindus and things aren't looking right for such pseudo secular parties. I understand why some Indians here take on RW Hindu guys but you do have to understand, we have been abused enough under the guise of this secularism.

 

[Iggy]

This vote bank politics has provided the much needed stoke to the smoldering Hindu right wing and the way BJP is breaking the caste barriers among Hindus and things aren't looking right for such pseudo secular parties. I understand why some Indians here take on RW Hindu guys but you do have to understand, we have been abused enough under the guise of this secularism.

But you guys are barking under the wrong tree. I mean what other religions have to do with politicians misusing the term secularism? In times we asked for what we wanted, it true but we never asked them to support only us or bash Hinduism..

 

[ranjeet]

But you guys are barking under the wrong tree. I mean what other religions have to do with politicians misusing the term secularism? In times we asked for what we wanted, it true but we never asked them to support only us or bash Hinduism..

I guess things wouldn't have been this bad if people from within concerned religions stood up against the bigotry of their respective faith. You can't tell me that there are no nutcases found in India in any other religion beside Hindus. I understand short comings in my religion and I am open to discuss them but if you shoot down my arguments when it comes to talking about things wrong with your religion by calling me names like Internet Hindu/Right winger/ communal this isn't fair. This is where secularism goes out for a toss. Secularism means we can have a civil debate about religions without offending others. But political parties have spoiled the minorities through appeasement and whenever a Hindu raises concern about say ... Subsidy for Hajj, he is labelled communal and as an attack on the secular fabric (by you I don't mean specifically you its in general term)