From: dchatterjee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Diatribes of Mehul Sanghvi (Reply to Sanghvi and Yadav)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:35:26 CST
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

                      BISMILLAH-U-R-RAHAMAN-I-R-RAHIM
                      ================================
          (In the name of The Allah, The Beneficient, The Merciful)
           ======================================================== 
In article <1992Dec14.163347.19464@athena.mit.edu>, tyadav@athena.mit.edu (Tapesh) writes:
>..... (deleted) .....
> 
>  No, the fundamental differences have not been made clear by Ed in NYT. 
>  He does come up with interesting opinions and some facts. His conclusions 
>  need to be cross examined too.
>
 First, I thank you for verifying that the article appeared on NYT. Otherwise
 Mehul would have run towards me with a ..!!!! :-)

 Second, cross-examining his (Ed's) opinions are basically subjective. Ed
 Gargan is *not* writing a treatise on the Hindu-Muslim conflict in India.
 He is stating his observations, and what I am trying to emphasize is that
 I *feel* that his opinions are definitely correct.

 Third, you have *probably* not lived in *different* parts in India. I did.
 I have lived in India in Hyderabad, Lucknow, Kanpur because I was working
 from 1983-1987 with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and was made to go on duty
 the various divisions for professional reasons. Thus, my knowledge of what
 Muslims are, is pretty much correct (IMHO) on what I have seen and not heard or
 read. It is from my personal experience in living/ frequently visiting these
 places from time to time that I can clearly associate my experiences with what
 Ed Gargan wrote. (The reference to Raheeduddin Khan *is* important.) 

 Muslims in India *hate* Hindus because of several reasons. The reasons are
 not all unfounded. The practise of sati and caste system and child marriage
 are the ones that produce more venom aside other feelings. I *do not* condone
 those rascals (Hindus) who had oppressed people to serve their own devious
 objectives. I *emphasize*  that these *are* not Hinduism at all. If they were
 so, like many creeds in Islam, then would have never been abandoned. In the
 late 18th century, Raja Rammohun Roy with the help of the British passed the
 law that has banned sati. (There is an interesting history of sati, and, if
 there is time, please go to your nearest decent library that might have
 archived some books on this. You may also read some of the books, and must
 particularly look up the cross-references of some of the books I have put in
 at the bottom of this article.)  You must also be made to know that Hindus are
 idol-worshippers and Muhammad (570-632 A.D) destroyed idols in Madinah and
 established Islam - meaning submission to the Supreme Will of Allah.

 The other differences are:

 (1) Idol worship - a serious offense considered by Islam.

 (2) Hinduism is polytheist while any Muslim is *OBLIGATED* to swear that
     " I hereby testify that there is no God but Allah, and, Muhammad is His
       messenger "

 (3) Inerrancy in the Islamic scriptures - a faith that must be preserved by
     Muslims.

   Moreover, Islam *commands* its followers/ believer. Islam does not allow
   you to question. (Read the Qur'an, if you want to ask questions sensibly.)  
> 
>  Which special privileges are you/Ed talking about here?
>  Is it a privilege to marry four times? or be able to divorce by saying 
>  "Talaq...?" These aren't privileges in any sense to me. 
>  Help us know the privileges you are hinting at.
>
 I must admit that you are talking like a green, fluttering kid. If you have
 not read the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah, Sharia and not travelled thru' the
 mid-east, then you are unable to know what I am talking about. Please read the
 Qur'an that I have referred to at the bottom of this article. Mr.Tapesh Yadav,
 Al_Qur'an contains 127 Surahs listed according the length *not* in their
 chronological order. In Surah IX (Repentance), Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) *does
 not* utter " Bismillah-u-r Rahaman-i-r-Rahim ". In all other Surahs he does.
 Why ? Because in that Surah, Allah *asks* Muhammad to slay idolators after
 the sacred months have passed. (The sacred months refer to the time of the 
 treaty.) Since, Qur'an is the Highest source of instruction, and a Muslim is
 obligated to accept *each and every* word of God (Allah) without altering any
 of them, what was true 1400 years ago must be true as today to the verbatim.
 Please ask any of your Muslim friends on this.

 A Muslim is also obligated to follow the laws of Hadith and Sharia, Sunnah.
 Alims (Islamic Scholars) If there is something not clarified/ missing in the
 Qur'an, then the other three texts are there to clarify it. Consequently, a
 Muslim following the Sharia must live his/her life and obey the laws of the
 Sharia. He/ she is *not* answerable to anything else but the Sharia. A muslim
 life thus faces contradiction when confronted with "western style democracy"
 when confronted. However, it is upto the situation when the laws will be
 implemented or not. (This is why Ed Gargan makes the observation " .... when
 convenient .... obliterated when necessary .."). Turkey, being a predominantly
 Muslim country has *not* implemented Islamic theocracy. 

 Finally the most difficult of all, is the fact that in Islam the mosque and
 the state (king and priest) are the same - according to the words of their
 prophet. In the modern society, please don't bring irrelevant references 
 about mideaval church etc., this is really a tough reconciliation. One can't
 turn back the hands of the clock. The mode of civilized progress is to
 reject what was antiquated, and, accept what is better today. (FYI, youth will
 replace the old - law of nature). The fact that scriptures are holy and
 inerrant, is a dividebetween Hindus and Muslims. We Hindus are not at all 
 obligated to believe in God. (Lokayat Darshan of Charbak totally rejects the
 existence of God.) Muslims hate this concept. (Christians must believe that
 God exists, but, Christ had separeted the church and state.) The Lokayat 
 philosophy is considered divine by ancient Hindu theorists.
> 
>  
>  First we need to discuss is "what is meant by uniform civil code/law?"
>  "What are laws, and what are they needed for?"
>  When you say - the solution is *one* single civil law for all Indians (or
>  replace this by your favorite nation) - I would first seek to know: What
>  do you mean by civil law? *One* single civil law comes latter. And then comes
>  the issue whether "it is physically possible" to implement one code - whatever
>  the term "physically possible" means.
>
   The laws are what is the modern judiciary - functions of the state. The
   Constitution provides separate laws for Muslims. (I know that these laws
   are few (?) in number, but, this definitely a discontent between the Hindus
   and Muslims.)There are many other historical reasons, but, this is the major
   one concern. The main reason that there will be different set of laws for
   Muslims, *is* definitely a concern for most Hindus. Shahbano case showed 
   that for the same offense, a Muslim may go scot free. (Imam Bukhari raised
   serious concerns when Supreme Court ordered teh old, 70 year old lecherous
   person to pay alimony). I think that over-ruling the Supreme court's law
   is really a shame for the whole country. You may be an Islamic apologist
   but I find that your questions most bizarre and humiliating. 
 
   Muslims may/ may not be governed by laws of the state. (Ask Mehul Sanghvi
   who has lived 11 years in an Islamic country.) This is the major source
   of conflict and has been fumed by all political parties - for election
   benefits. Why should a Muslim get benefits that I don't get ? Islamic
   laws have been used quite surreptiously whenever convenient to bypass a
   set of laws imposed by the state. You may feel, sitting in U.S, that it
   does not affect you, but, many Hindus do.

   To top it all, Muslims have *always* been trying to associate themselves
   with Pakistan. Pakistan has been funding the JKLF and Jammat-i-Islam-Hind
   in India. Amanullah Khan has his base in Islamabad. Why Kashmir should be
   given away ????? Did Pakistan pay tax for the state ? The fact of the matter
   is that secessionist movements have always been fostered by Islamic groups
   and surprisingly Muslim League (from Gandhian times) have maintained a
   strange duplicity on this. (Read Ed. Gargan's issue on 20th November that
   has been titled: Where Violence has silenced Verse.)
   

>  It is easy to rush into emotional rhetoric. 
>  Please, let us know what you mean.
> 
> T.Y.
> ----
> tyadav@athena.mit.edu

  Anyone can ask questions, like a child, as we all know that some one from
  a distance can look wise, but, the moment he/ she opens his/ her mouth the
  fool comes out. (A Sanksrit sloka of Chanakya - minister in Vikramaditya's
  court.)

        - deb chatterjee
      (a good samaritan)

                        REFERENCES
                      ==============

 [1] Muhammad William Marmaduke Pickthall, "The meaning of The Glorious
     Koran", Ginn, Boston (?). (This is particularly important, because
     you must read the Qur'an which Muslims have allowed. This translation
     has been accepted by the orthodox Muslim school. Pickthall's Qur'an is
     authentic. Yusuf Ali's translation is also widely used, but, the books
     are too heavy and bulky. That would make you go bananas.)

 [2] Muhammad Asghar Khan," Islam Politics and the State: A Pakistan
     Experience", Zed Books, London, England, 1985. (This book contains
     chapters that refer to Islamic books and are quite authentic. The author
     is a very educated person, and, was the former Air-Chief Marshall of
     Pakistan Air Force from 1958-1965.)

 [3] Schopenhauer," Collected Works ". (??? - don't recall the exact details
     as I read it long ago.)

  P.S: I will *not* respond to any more replies - as it is a waste of time !

                                      .