1. I am not alone. There are more as I have mentioned before. Read (don't have to agree) analytical posts of Bain, Roy, Q. Rahman, and some others.
2. Ranindranath is lucky! No evidence has been cited to prove him to be 'faltu' even though he called Muhmed a Maharishi!
3. Was RN not aware of Islamic history? Definitely he was. Was he wrong? My analysis is given below:
RN knew well about ancient sages. He knew about their human limitations and passions. But he could not ignore their great teachings. Vyasdev said through goddess Saraswati,'Nothing is truer than man, and nothing is above him. ' Chandidas echoed it after 2000 years. You can give a lot of examples. He saw Muhammed as nothing more than a man. He saw him as a great sage who was a seer of the past, present, and the future. He had the spirit to overlook the
Human limitations.
4. My concern about the accuracy of the historical accounts born out of oral traditions has not yet been addressed. I hope some one will give his valued comment on it.
5. RN bashers question his moral values (his affairs with women including the wife of his elder brother) and use those to measure and discard him. These people should not be out role models. We need to learn small things and recognize big things. We must do this when we make judgment about personalities who have changed the world.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Mr. Chakrabarty is a self claimed analytical man, though he forgot to spell it properly. Some 'divine revelation' to some 'maharshi' is the 'holy book' on Islam. Not even citations from the 'holy book' are enough to these 'anlytical' men to convince that the 'maharshi' was what was called 'a roving bandit' by Prof. Mancur Olson. The Surah I cited is a small one, but enough to prove the point that the 'revelations' always served the whims of the 'maharshi' Fortunately, in those days even Muslims could be critical of their Prophet and their companions, now they can't.
Of course, nobody should expect an iota of common sense who considers totally illiterate fools as 'avatars' and 'maharshis.' May be the followers of such avatars and maharshis would soon reveal the truth by going into trance(samadhi). A small dose of 'somerasha' may help to bring about 'samadhi' soon.
"We expect more civility." Who is this 'we'? If these 'we' consisted of any moderator, my postings would be forbidden by now. I don't have to learn 'civility' from functional illiterates. I do not write here for the consumption for persons lacking even minimum 'anlytical' abilty.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:29 PM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:1. Again the same typical "school-masterly" temper! This is not your pathsala. We expect more civility. By this time you should have recognized (a man full of himself will never do that any way) that this forum is visited by anlytical and informed people with broadness of mind. You ridiculed Vivekananda as he praised Islam and ridiculed Bankim also as he praised Muslim rulers. Now it is Rabindanath's turn. It has been revealed that he called Muhammad the maharishi of Islam. Probably you will ridicule him soon. That's your choice. I will not stoop as low as you do. Can you please directly go to your arguments without insulting a blogger? Thanks.2. We have been discussing the veiling of women according to Islam. All of a sudden you have quoted a Sura (Verse CHI) without any relevance. I do not what you are trying to prove.3. I read the juicy descriptions that you sent as quotes from well known references. It all sounded like myth to me. They were in such details. I simply questioned the reliability. (Let 100 percent muslims accept these as facts. I do not care. I am an analytical man. I love to go into the depths of the matter.) I did a little research and found that these accounts are not accepted by a big percentage of the readers. There are reasons. Muhammad lived during 570-632, Ibn Ishaq 704-766 (or 761?), and Bukhari during 810-870. About four genrations passed before Ishaq started recording the history and minimum eight generations passed before Bukhari strated his project. We have to take note of the fact that these accounts are not based on written documents. These are based on oral traditions. Traditions have been told and retold again and again. Volumes of traditions both Ishaq and Bukhari collected were so huge that they themselves had to use their own judgements to discard many of them. We also need to understand that when the narration of a fact travels from mouth to mouth over genrations it easily gets distorted. We the blind believers take any thing to be infallible and absolute if it comes from a revered author. We are afraid to challenge him. Only a brave inquiring mind is able to reveal further truths.From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Burqa banning after RAJUK, now Syedpur's Lions school and college: Minority Islam in Muslim majority Bangladesh
Ahadith by Bukhari is the most acceptable there is. Any half wit not appreciating Bukhari, Tabari, Waquidi, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir etc. should read the gibberish 'holy verses' and try to interpret in his own way. Read the verse CXI. It is a short one. "Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!/ .... He shall roast at a flaming fire/ and his wife,..., upon her neck a rope of palm-fiber." Abu Lahab was an uncle of the prophet, and two of his sons were married to two of the prophets daughters before the advent of Islam.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:In this account from WikiIslam the prophet (maharishi in Ranindranath's term) has been shown to be most open minded. This account even seems to bedubious. I did a little google search to discover that the account by Ibn Ishak who on time scale was closest to prophet as a biographer has not been ununimously accepted. Acceptance of Bukhari seems to be less.It is really almost impossible to come up with the real truth. Research should continue.
Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 11, 2012, at 9:29 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:The holy Koran has 'revelations' from earlier sources as well, e.g., Oracles of Delphi and other temples, the Old and New Testaments etc. Other literature on Islam cites to Umar being proud on receiving the revelation on hijab before the Prophet.
Now, may I add from WikiIslam,"The reason that Muslim women wear the hijab today is not a spiritual one, nor is it a matter of piety. Covering the hair/face cannot be considered an act of modesty because Muslim men are not required to cover theirs. The sole reason they do it is because Umar bin Al-Khattab, a companion of Muhammad, wished that Muhammad would reveal verses from Allah requiring women to wear it. When Muhammad did not oblige, Umar did not pray to Allah for assistance. Umar knew he had to make it personal for Muhammad himself in order to bring the revelation down. He followed Muhammad's wives out when they went to go to the toilet and made his presence known. When Muhammad heard of this, the revelation that Umar had so wanted was sent down from Allah. Umar knew where these revelations were really coming from, which is why he pestered Muhammad and harassed his wives instead of asking Allah.Although the revelational circumstances for the hijab were ridiculous, the consequences that we can see to this day, are not. The requirement for the hijab has had the effect of placing full responsibility for Muslim-male self control onto the females - freeing the men of responsibility for their actions if they see an unveiled woman. Lack of self control is not an inherent attribute to men, because men in non-Islamic societies do not have such self control issues; when it is rare to see a woman covered so in these societies. The hijab's purpose, as revealed and to this day, is designed to protect Muslim females from the now acceptable behavior of Muslim males; behavior which has been deemed socially acceptable precisely because of the requirement of Muslim females to wear the hijab."One may notice that the Prophet did not prevent Umar from stalking his wives even to the place of defecation. It might so happen that he actually instructed to spy on them.
Thank you for sharing the source of your post. We can learn from it as well.
However do note that, ALL revelations in the holy Qur'an were revealed to prophet Muhammad (PBUH) NOT anyone else. Hazrat Omar (RA) might have wished for the clearer direction about the level of modesty required and that is acceptable to me. Revelations only came to messengers of Allah (SWT) not to anyone else. It would be a mistake to think Allah revealed any verse to Omar (RA).
A complete body cover excluding the eyes
Also note that, the covering the whole body but eyes is not part of the revelation. It is an assumption and there are differences of opinions among scholars of Islam. Generally some scholars feel women are required to cover whole body ( Including face except eyes) but majority of Islamic scholars feel just covering head and rest of the body is required. So you may see Muslim women with face veil (Niqaab) and others cover their heads and body (Hijab). So there are differences of opinions about "Levels of modesty" among scholars.
Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Sun, Mar 11, 2012 7:42 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Burqa banning after RAJUK, now Syedpur's Lions school and college: Minority Islam in Muslim majority BangladeshNarrated 'Aisha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).
Sahih Bukhari 1:4:148 The quotation above is one of the versions of the story.2012/3/10 Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>I read somewhere (maybe K, Armstrong) that veil was a sign of aristocracy and that's why prophet's wives and other women had to wear it. I believe every sura has to be analyzed in the light of the given context.
Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 9, 2012, at 10:44 AM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
The 'wahi' on the imposition of 'Burkha' came to U
