From: debchat@vax2.concordia.ca (DEB CHATTERJEE)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Book Review: Negationism in India
Summary: Marmaduke Pickthall, Mahmood of G..., Al-Qur'an
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:55:00 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.bangladesh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Concordia University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug10.204421.25989@menudo.uh.edu>, mece1e3@Jane.UH.EDU writes...
>In article <10AUG199216260662@vax2.concordia.ca>, debchat@vax2.concordia.ca 
>(DEB CHATTERJEE) writes:
>....... (deleted) .....
>>In article <1992Aug7.224603.10837@menudo.uh.edu>, mece1e3@Jane.UH.EDU writes..
>>...... (deleted) ......
>Ah, ah : Did I say the quotation is not explicit?
>The interpretation as given by you is the traditional Mullahic interpretation.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 I see ! Isn't traditional interpretation the true interpretation of Al-Qur'an ?
 By that I mean there are verses in the Pickthall's translation, which clearly
 say that: Do this, and, Do that ! Regarding marriage, the concept of love as 
 you mention, is NOT mentioned in Qur'an. Thus, all traditional Moslems are 
 compelled to marry without ever considering the Arrow of the Cupid piercing two
 hearts. You may say that Al-Qur'an has not said `No', so one can marry by 
 falling in luv ! IMO, that is taking advantage. Strict interpretation requires
 a stricter following of ALL the dictates of the Book. You cannot take a very
 `short cut' approach. 

>However, even as a Muslim, I am not required to follow their interpretation.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 How can you say that ? IMO, then according to the Al-Qur'an, you are defined as
 a `lukewarm' Moslem (who is a Hypocrite), and, is taken contemptously ! This is
 clearly defined in the Al-Qur'an. 

>By believers, Muhammad (PBUH) meant those following Muhammad(PBUH)'s teachings
>and not anybody who just happens to be born under Muslim parents. 

 Yeah ! This is an acceptable explanation.

>..... (deleted) .....
>Love,
>Arindam

 There are many verses, which if I quote from Pickthall's translation, gives
 idolators, Jews, Christans very stern warnings. Now who is an idolator ? 
 Perhaps you may say that the interpretation varies from time and place. That
 could be true, but, MANY (who follow Muhammad (PBUH)'s teachings) may say that
 anyone who worships an idol is an idolator. Therefore Hindus are idolators and
 so must be dealt with by the sword if necessary. Al-Qur'an however commands NOT
 to attack first, but, only to defend if attacked. Again this commandment has
 been very skilfully misused by Moslem invaders via the following strategy.

 Imagine a Moslem invader like Mahmood of G..., coming after idolators - whom I
 will call Hindus. By the Qur'an he SHOULD NOT ATTACK FIRST. However, he knows
 that the moment Hindus see him coming with his horsemen with shining swords, (
 in a most fearsome form), the Hindus will attack without no choice, because it
 is in the nature of a human being to protect himself first. The moment Hindus
 also attack, Mahmood (inwardly) takes refuge to what Qur'an says, and, starts
 attacking the Hindus. THIS IS THE BASIC TRICK ! In short, the idea is to start
 provoking first, but, don't attack. However, when being retaliated out of sheer
 provocation, attack mercilessly stating that idolators have touched a true 
 follower of Allah. Thus, shouting:

  Bismillah'r-Rahamani'r-Rahim (In the name of Allah, Beneficient, Merciful)

 Mahmood will attack, and, destroy. I have observed this action of the Moslem
 oppressors in the history books in India, and, could not understand why this
 happened. Now, upon reading Marmaduke Pickthall, I understand the reason. The
 whole process is to justify to oneself (in this case Mahmood) that he/ she is
 attacked first. I think that this is what I strongly object to, and, why I have
                 ===============================================================
 NO respect for a large majority of Moslem practice(s).(There are exceptions on
 ======================================================
 the network - Naveed Sherwani, Syed Hyder, Naveed Memon, Anisul Haque, Kazi,
 Mujtaba, and others - who are not stereotypes of Moslems. It is rather awkward
 - if you meet them.) Also, Al-Islam DOES NOT want its followers to question or 
 employ logic. Consequently according to the strictures of the Qur'an I find 
 that the complete Islamic society should remain archaic - in this sense. Thus,
 whatever the Hindus do, follow egalitarian principles of Gandhi or your Bahai
 faith, the threat remains as to how Al-Qur'an is interpreted. To me it seems 
 that a child is given a loaded revolver. Anybody can get can killed. 

 In this sense, I find that yours and many other progressive minded Moslem's
 explanations very bewildering. The fundamentalist (I did not name the ones on
 SCP, but, it starts with Asim Mughal and his chamchas) attitude continues to
 dominate. Thus, chances of reconciliation are VERY SLIM.

 - deb chatterjee
(a good samaritan)
Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:4403 soc.culture.indian:27773 soc.culture.pakistan:13543