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

[utraash]

In Kerala there are no riots. The people are too lazy to go on a rampage. Hindus and Christians are the laziest. Muslims were also the same, only now (very recently) some are becoming an exception.

Any before 1947 during some khilafaat movement or so ?

 

[SQ8]

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???



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.

And I disagree with her assertion that this verse has ANYTHING to do with the matter at hand..
in addition, her cross-reference the word "mu'mineen" as mentioning all believers in one god excludes the basic pre-condition that these "believers" cannot commit Shirk..which in Islamic refers to in terms of believing Jesus as the son of God.. That in itself turns her whole argument upside down which in itself seems more apologetic rather than looking strictly at the text. I have read the interpretation of Ibn-Kathir which she mentioned frequently.. and it seems like my understanding of what is written in it is entirely different from hers.

Lets take another verse that is more direct that she has given as reference...

Indeed, this Qur’anic verse that many commentators allude to says: “As to marriage, you are allowed to marry the chaste from among the believing women and the chaste from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you); provided that you have given them their dowries, and live with them in honor, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines.”Qur’an (5:5).

First, she has done academic dishonesty by excluding the word Women from the translation as Ibn-Kathir(whom she refers to) has done so clearly. Which makes her message..and the statement she gives here.. rather ironic

It is high time to have the intellectual courage to tackle such topics while debating Islam to avoid the moral suffering and the feeling of guilt experienced today by many young Muslims, mainly, those who live in the West and are more likely to meet non-Muslim partners in their personal life.

Clearly she did not show the same when tackling the subject to not paraphrase if she was quoting. The premise then extends to only Muslim men and not women. Even if it did not extend to just Men, the Women would be forbidden to marry the non-Muslim purely on the basis of him being un-chaste as neither Judaism nor Christianity are as strict as Islam on alcohol or pre-martial sex as Islam is in definition of Chastity( the irony is that by this strict definition of chastity a lot of Muslim men and women are also un-chaste in today's Muslim society).

As I have stated before, this is less of a defence of Islam or its laws...and more of stating it as plainly as it is without the apologies that seem to follow/precede other views.

 

[SQ8]

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

Tell me something, how you define education? the ability to read and write is literacy.. does that qualify as education?

 

[jamahir]

Now, I might be wrong on this one, but the attitude that I got from both the sides spewing hatred is that they viewed women as having no agency to themselves.

no... you are very correct... that is south asia.

 

[utraash]

Oye.... Kisi ka beewi ke bare mein aisa bath karna thuje sobha detha hein kya?

kya Hindi padha dada especially shru k teen words ne hi kill kar Diya.... Just kidding .....
@levina is master of many langs .... Nauni ji.....

 

[Iggy]

Tell me something, how you define education? the ability to read and write is literacy.. does that qualify as education?

Not at all..I used think it was.. But if you look at the leaders of current terrorist organisation, you will see doctors, engineers etc etc these guys see lot of people in their people.. Interact with many people.. If these guys do not know the value of humanity, then who will?

 

[SQ8]

used think it was.. But if you look at the leaders of current terrorist organisation, you will see doctors, engineers etc etc these guys see lot of people in their people.. Interact with many people.. If these guys do not know the value of humanity, then who will?

Hence, suddenly we are left looking(including in the context of this thread) the gauge by which we see education. What is education then? how does one gauge it?

Is getting a degree from a good university at any point related to how much tolerance we have.. say.. at a traffic signal?
Where is the educational institute for that?

 

[jamahir]

I am married to a Muslim girl

Hinduism is a much tolerant religion than Islam is, thats a fact.

does she read your pdf posts??

 

[Iggy]

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)

There are many who stood up against the bigotry but their voices are not heard.. Where did I deny that there were no nut cases in other religions? There are plenty of it.. If you look at this forum itself, there are people who openly criticise the short comings of their religion. Be it Christian, Hindu or Muslim.. But branding all Muslims are traitors and All Christians are loyal to Vatican only kind of statements will not be tolerated..

 

[utraash]

Irony......... Here you are speaking about secularism and advocating it..... were as i have few of my country men who believes Secularism is the problem in our country!!!!!!!!!!

Mostly like me are opposing khoongressi version not the true version of secularism.....

 

[Iggy]

Hence, suddenly we are left looking(including in the context of this thread) the gauge by which we see education. What is education then? how does one gauge it?

Is getting a degree from a good university at any point related to how much tolerance we have.. say.. at a traffic signal?
Where is the educational institute for that?

Frankly, I have no answer for these kind of questions.. But I used to think that understanding other religions would have made people respect other religions and its people.. Even understanding his own religion correctly would have made people respect other people.. But we are on a age where anyone can write or speak about any nonsense about history or religion and there will be plenty who believes it.

 

[acetophenol]

They are living my dream.

 

[Levina]

kya Hindi padha dada especially shru k teen words ne hi kill kar Diya.... Just kidding .....
@levina is master of many langs .... Nauni ji.....

Thanks!
thats because I've been brought up around India. Unlike other languages south Indian languages 're very diff from Hindi and so we mallus dont use it much. Next time appreciate the attempt made.
Sorry for the off topic.

 

[HeadHunter]

Indicites doing atrocities as usual.

 

[ranjeet]

There are many who stood up against the bigotry but their voices are not heard.. Where did I deny that there were no nut cases in other religions? There are plenty of it.. If you look at this forum itself, there are people who openly criticise the short comings of their religion. Be it Christian, Hindu or Muslim.. But branding all Muslims are traitors and All Christians are loyal to Vatican only kind of statements will not be tolerated..

your first line answers the concerns you raised. No one heard them, now why didn't anybody heard it? because secularism in India meant only speaking against the majority. But when the majority spoke in clear terms in these elections suddenly you see every flag bearer of secularism crying foul and doubting the secular ideals of Hindus. This forum is but a small place, what has been followed for so long and at far much larger scale can't be undone with civil debate here.