Dutch government says it plans to ban burqa

[atawa]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When Hindu kids (in the past) are married at 5 years old that means they are sleeping with each other right then. It is outrageous to claim they aren't sleeping together so you need to come up with proof that they aren't!

Yes, when they are both 5 years old, it will take a long time yet before they have sex.
Now compare that of a 30yo man who marries a 7yo girl and starts raping her at 9.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One can make the argument that every marriage at that era was 'rape' or at least coerced. The difference between a 9 year old (and there are quibbles as to how old Aisha actually was at the consummation) and a 11 year old in terms of giving sexual consent are what exactly? Did you think at that era that even 18 year old women knew what sex was if they never had it before (though if she was that old and not married off, there would probably be something wrong with her)?

And I think you'll find it quite often during that period to find much older men marrying younger women, especially from powerful families... one need only to look at a history of the Romans for that.

Did he do anything that was considered to be completely out of the pale in his era?

The problem, once again, is viewing history through the prism of modern morality and considering everyone who differed to be barbaric.

[atawa]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The problem, once again, is viewing history through the prism of modern morality and considering everyone who differed to be barbaric.

The problem is that some people cant see this was a (through modern eyes) barbaric era and think these teachings and rules still aply anno 2006

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by atawa
The problem is that some people cant see this was a (through modern eyes) barbaric era and think these teachings and rules still aply anno 2006

And yet, you are blaming the guy back in the past, rather than the guys who do it today (and you are). Basically pooh-poohing it, saying they are just following their religion, etc. I mean we don't blame the Jews for the Old Testament (another "barbaric era") when wacked out Protestants believe the dictates there should be followed to the letter.

[Ned]

First the French and now the Dutch. Once it was the Jews who were viewed with hatred because they dress differently. Now it is the Muslims.

Europe is so NAZI it is appalling.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ned
First the French and now the Dutch. Once it was the Jews who were viewed with hatred because they dress differently. Now it is the Muslims.

Europe is so NAZI it is appalling.

What, are you smoking Crack? What the Hell is wrong with banning a symbol of oppression of Half the Human race?

[Ned]

Lonestar, religious freedom?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by MikeH
Beating women for not wearing a burqua is wrong, and it's against the law.

Banning burqua's to prevent that happening is the wrong solution to the problem.

Some women genuinely do choose (ie. not be forced) to wear a burqua for religious reasons and they should be allowed to do so.

I suppose you're talking about the hijab. The burqa is an almost exclusively Afghan/Pakistani thing. I've seen self confident muslim women defending the hijab, but not one defending the burqa. And if there's some woman who wears that by "free will" they do so after having been brainwashed for decades.
Like those old women in Africa who are the fiercest resistance in the fight against female circumcision. Why? Because their own suffering only makes sense to them if it was of utmost importance/necessary to go through it. So the young ones also have to...

It is completely blue eyed to claim that we have laws in our countries and a woman that gets threatened for not wearing the burqa/tchador etc. should simply go to the next police station. This disregards the de-facto impossibility for these women to detach from their environment because of emotional, social and financial dependence - beside the fear of physical damage.

[Ned]

Lonestar, if you have a hard time understanding my point, I suggest you actually read Mein Kampf. The behavior and thinking of the Europeans today and is almost identical to their behavior and thinking in the 1920's and '30s.

[Elok]

If the Europeans of today thought like Hitler, the EU would be tied with subsaharan Africa in terms of economic development. Or else they'd be invading people 24/7. Stuff like this burqa thing is just twitchiness in the wake of 9/11 and the various counterpart incidents in Europe since then.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why the hell should a religious leader indulge in politics in the first place?

Why not? It isn't like it is rare. The Popes, who are religious leaders, engage in politics all the time. When you are looked upon by a people as their ultimate leader, you are in the political circle as well. You can't just abdicate all responsibility and say "oh no, look to someone else, I'm just here for the religious philosophy".

Indulging in politics means that your credentials as an unbiased religious figure are compromised.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

He is known to have said, in the Hadith tradition, "Your wives are your field. Irrigate them as you will, or keep them fallow."

And this means you can rape your women?

Secondly, some scholars have shown that most of the hadith (if not all of it) was fabricated after the fact (though many Muslims reject this scholarship, of course). Though even the ones who back the hadith do believe a lot of it was fabricated but there is a core of truth behind it.

That's what it is taken to mean today, yes, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It was quite a regression from the Buddha, who either debated or ignored his critics. The Buddha did not kill a single man. And Buddha was born in the BC years. Or take the example of the Jain tirthankaras, who did the same.

As for that comment about other people who lived in a similar time - consider the example of Adi Shankara, who finished of Buddhism in India - without the help of a state of of a king. His preferred method of spreading the faith was debating. His debates were always risky, because the condition was that the loser would become the disciple of the victor. And he won every single debate he took on, and won back the royal patronage Hinduism had lost. All without any military nonsense.

Both were solely religious leaders dealing in philosophy. Neither had control of a people (Buddha gave up his responsibility). Neither was considered a political leader by his people. They had the luxury of disengaging from politics and could say, as Jesus would, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". It's a bit harder if your people look to you as a political leader.

That's what I'm saying - they become a political leader at all? Becoming one would force you to do things which are against your philosophy.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How iconoclastic was he, exactly?

Did he not attack attacks cherished beliefs or traditional institutions?

There is a difference between attacking and denouncing as worthless certain institutions and going out and destroying them. Buddha tried to either reform or render irrelevant the things he did not like. Mohammed actively destroyed - as in physically - the things he did not like.

I repeat - how many temples did Buddha have destroyed?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But there is a man who does live up to any modern criticism which can be levelled against him, and that is the Buddha. He is a person who can be used as an ideal in his entirety even today.

It is nice when you can disengage from the world in such a way. Most people don't have such luxury. And that, in the end, is a good thing. Because people need to be a part of the world and advance humanity through technology and work.

I knew you'd say that.

The Buddha preached that you should not renounce the world, you should be part of it and do your bit, but you should try to be as unattached as possible.

[Elok]

Originally posted by aneeshm
That's what I'm saying - they become a political leader at all? Becoming one would force you to do things which are against your philosophy.

Because, uh, Mohammed was living in dramatically different circumstances from those in India c. 600 BC? And his faith was quite different from Buddhism?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Would your response have been the same if he had been talking about Hitler?

If he was using it to bash German people... YES!


What the hell kind of stupid question is that?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Hindus have a coming of age cerimony. Also being engaged is entirely different from being married. Mohammed was married where as Hindus were simply engaged via arranged marriage. I'm not a big fan of arranged marriage especially at a young age since it implies that the marriage is forced.

Child marriage is banned since Independence, as well it should be. That doesn't stop it from happening, but don't forget that these marriages are not consummated until these people at at least eighteen (usually even older).

And again, it is forgotten that child marriage was forbidden according to the ancient law-books. Read the ArthaShastra if you ever find the time. The Muslim invasion set us back culturally a hell of a lot.

The practice arose during the Muslim period because Hindu parents wanted to stop their daughters from being kidnapped, raped or simply taken by Muslims as concubines, so they married them off as early as possible, many times even before the child was born!

Let me quote to you the first link that I get when I search for "origin of child marriage" in Google (without the quotes).

The origin of child marriages may be found in the Muslim invasions that began more than 1,000 years ago. Legend says that the invaders raped unmarried Hindu girls or carried them off as booty, prompting Hindu communities to marry off their daughters almost from birth to protect them. Today, these invaders have been replaced by superstition: the local view that any girl reaching puberty without getting married will fall prey to sexual depredations, some from men imbued with the common belief that having sex with a "fresh" girl can cure syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

And you know where these prudish ideas about women came from? From the Muslims and Victorian British!

So it was ultimately because of Islam that this practice started in India.

I call that "pwned"!

Originally posted by Oerdin

Then again those every day Hindu families didn't found a religion did they? They are not held up to be the ideal for all mankind to follow are they? Yet, Mohammed is and that is why people need to be educated about Mohammed's evil actions. So that when people make claims about how good Mohammed supposedly was those lies can be exposed by the truth. The murders, the rape, the pedophilia, the genocide.

To the contrary, Hindu families are in violation of the ancient laws relating to marriage when they marry off a child.

And the most important thing to note is that laws in Hinduism are simply smriti, and are not binding. If I want, I have the freedom to rewrite the lawbooks in accordance with my vision of an ideal Hindu society and propagate them. Nobody is going to kill me for that, unlike in some religions. Hindu laws are not rigid and god-given, they evolve with the times. Take the example of how all Hindu organisations today are fighting against the caste system.




It is when people like Mohammed are held up to be examples for all of us to follow that society craps itself, as is happening in Muslim cultures and subcultures all over the world.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Oerdin


And what about places like the UK which have laws against people walking the streets or going into places like banks or public buildings wearing masks of having their faces obscured? Should these people get a free pass on a law which applies to everyone else?

No, of course not. This is a very common sense issue...