1. You don't have to endorse. Just say that you don't want polygamy. You don't want Sharia Law. You may want to remain silent about caste system. But nobody in this forum will mind your speaking against it.
2. I have never said slaughtering cows during the Eids is an Islamic ritual. But it is done in the name of religion. Now you are talking sensibly. Earlier you were reacting illogically when I called American way of slaughtering
more civilized.
3. Looks like Zakir Naik is a religious fundamentalist. The society will be better off without sermons from people like him and Sayyidi. Modi has supported Hindu Chaturvarna (four castes--Brahmin, Kshatriya, Baishya, and Shudra) in a very subtle way by saying that as a Shudra one undergoes a certain kind of spiritual experience. Indian Hindus will be better off if they do not buy Modi's theory. Be respectful to women. Don't pay heed to a woman who wants her husband to have more than one wife. Opiate of religion has big influence on her. Make them conscious about their own rights. You don't have to be blind to a religious edict.
Sent from my iPhone
1. I have no problem with the state respecting a religious belief. But the question is: which belief? Polygamy? No. Casteism? No. Sharia Law? No. Do not generalize too much, Mr. QR.
>>>>>>>> did not realize, I have to keep repeating myself!!
I am not endorsing any faith BUT I am saying if you wish to change Caste system, HINDUS have to come forward. (Despite me being sincere) if I wish to abolish it, it may be "Perceived" by many as Hindu persecution (Where a Muslim man wish to abolish an old Hindu tradition). It is NOT job of our government to change caste system. If enough Hindus feel strongly against it, they have to make the move.
2. I was talking about "exhibition" of cruelty to animals which we see in Bangladesh in the name of religion.
>>>>>>>>> You are wrong again. Religion does not require us to slaughter any animal openly. Very conservative gulf countries also have specific place for slaughtering animals. During hajj, Saudi government does the slaughtering for the hajis in a specific place. People cannot slaughter animals anywhere.
In Bangladesh, we are a tiny country without any plans for many essentials. Children schools (Most of them have no play grounds), hospitals, slaughtering houses, Qurán classes (Like they have serious Bible classes in the USA) etc. IF one fine morning government provide us enough slaughter houses for us, we can join in without hurting Islamic commands. In fact being conscious of community health concern would be more "Islamic" than how we practice Islam.
3. Your argument in favor of polygamy is that many women may prefer it. You are making your argument too laughable, Mr. QR. please make women conscious about their own human rights. You are talking like those orthodox Hindu leaders who opposed Vidyasagar's widow marriage movement.
>>>>>>>>>> I am not "Promoting" or "Favoring" polygamy. I am essentially wish to keep that option open for women. It is like those people who favor the option of an abortion in the USA. They do not promote or favor "Abortion" but wish to keep that option open for women.
Similarly over 98% of Muslims in Bangladesh and India practice monogamy in marriage. However if a situation requires a second marriage, this OPTION should be open for men and women. Sometime there are couples who cannot have any children, so the man can remarry without divorcing his good trusting wife. As per Qurán men are commanded by God to treat all wives equally.
We have existing laws to protect women from forced marriages, torture against women, violence against women etc. However rarely we see these being able to protect our women.
Dr. Zakir Naik explain this topic while answering to a related question. He said,
A. (#DrZakirNaik): Regarding the first question that – why is Polygamy allowed for the male, and not for the woman?…Why is a man allowed to do Polygamy? Polygamy means, a man having more than one spouse… more than one wife. Polyandry, is the woman having more than one husband. In fact if you analyse, Qur'an is the only religious Scripture on the face of the earth, that says…'Marry only one' it's shocking. Qur'an is the only religious Scripture on the face of the earth, that says…Marry only one. If you read the Ramayana, if you read the Vedas, if you read the Bible, other Scriptures….No Scripture says… Marry only one, except the Holy Qur'an. In fact, if you read the Scripture of the Christians, their saint Soloman, had hundreds of wives – Abraham had more than one wife…the Bible says, three wives. Even the Hindu Scriptures, they had several wives… the father of Rama… King Dashrata – he had more than one wife.The Holy Qur'an is the religious Scripture which says that…Marry only one.
It says in Surah Nisa Ch. No. 4, V. No. 3, Marry woman of your choice, in twos, threes or fours. But if you cannot do justice, marry only one –
Islam puts an upper limit. In other ways of life, you can marry as many as you want – no upper limit. Islam puts on upper limit, of maximum four. But you can marry, only if you can do justice. If you can't do justice, marry only one.
And the Qur'an says in Surah Nisa, Ch. No. 4, V. No. 129, that… It is difficulty to do justice between your wives. So don't altogether turn away from them.
It is nowhere mentioned, that if you marry more than one wife, you get more blessings. No where its mentioned – Its optional.
.................................................................... Please click here for the rest of the article.
If we study and understand the purpose of this "Option", we'll know this provides more than enough safeguards for women. The problem is not with the law but lack of application when men abuse women by twisting this option. Again, this is an option ONLY with many tough per-conditions.
I have over two thousand members in my extended family. NO men have taken more than one wife in it (Except few cases of divorces). So having multiple wives means a man is taking ONE more tough condition upon himself (Treating all wives fairly). For practicing Muslim men, this is no joke.
For world class a$$ holes who happen to be Muslim, it may look like a joke but let me assure you it is not.
I know some of our non-Muslim friends are sincere when they show concern about this subject but it is misunderstood by them and many Muslims as well. As we lack proper teaching of Islam. In order embrace Islam, we have to learn the letters of laws and SPIRIT of laws as well. let me share one hadith on this topic. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said,
The most perfect of the believers in faith are the best of them in morals. And the best among them are those who are best to their wives
Source: Narrated in MosnadAhmad, #7354, and Al-Tirmizi, #1162
In Islam every rights came with more obligation (With power comes responsibilities). Sadly most Muslim men from Bangladesh are not aware of it. That is why I am for educating our population with proper Islamic teachings.
May peace be unto you!
-----Original Message-----
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 8:16 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Do Hindus respect their women? Any Mukto monas beating their wives and having multiple mistresses?
1. I have no problem with the state respecting a religious belief. But the question is: which belief? Polygamy? No. Casteism? No. Sharia Law? No. Do not generalize too much, Mr. QR.
2. I was talking about "exhibition" of cruelty to animals which we see in Bangladesh in the name of religion.
3. Your argument in favor of polygamy is that many women may prefer it. You are making your argument too laughable, Mr. QR. please make women conscious about their own human rights. You are talking like those orthodox Hindu leaders who opposed Vidyasagar's widow marriage movement.
Sent from my iPhoneI will touch only one point. I don't know what you mean by your statement that I see every thing through religious glass. Did you mean that an atheist should be indifferent to whatever is going on in the name of religion? I>>>>>>>>> Nope, a smart atheist has to realize that there are people who claim to be part of a religion are capable of looking at certain things without depending on religion. For example, you said both Bangladesh and India "both the countries are simply abiding by the Islamic junctions"
Both of these are SECULAR countries (India is not Hindu or Bangladesh is not an Islamic republic). However they are both democratic countries. So it is ONLY natural for policy makers to be respectful to religious beliefs of significant number of citizens. It is NOT endorsing religion (Then Bangladesh has to run by sharia laws).
No laws forces me not to eat beef in front of my Hindu friends. This is just good manner.
Classical atheist is indifferent about religion and denies existence of God. However SOME atheists are anti-religious. Being anti-religious is being insensitive and disrespectful to his/her neighbors and friends.
By making polygamy legal only to show respect to a religion, the state is discriminating against our women.
>>>>>>>>>> How about those women who are comfortable with it polygamy? We already have laws against forced marriage and (As far law is concern, this is enough). This is your biased half-baked understanding.
According to you, by making Hindu caste system illegal, the Indian government is showing disrespect to Hindu religion.
>>>>>>>>> This is another "Brain freeze" moment. Go and read my post AGAIN!!
I said, this is a matter Hindus have to decide. It would be bad manner for me to dictate Hindus about their faith. READ it and UNDERSTAND it before you expose your biases again.
You are really confused. Allowing Hindus to celebrate their religious festivals and allowing them to have multiple wives are not the same thing
>>>>>>> Nope I am very comfortable with what I said. I said it is being respectful to give government holidays on major Hindu festivals (Which we do in Bangladesh). However "Hindu family laws" has to be examined by Hindus not Muslim. This is a very fair position to take.
I don't think America will let Hindus sacrifice goat openly as is done in Banglades
>>>>>>>>>> Well, America offer slaughter houses. Since open slaughtering may pose a threat to communities around USA.
Does this make America disrespectful to Hindu religion? No, in not showing cruelty to animals for satisfying one's spiritual needs, this country has proved itself to be more civilized
>>>>>>>>> You are just full of it today SIR.
Americans (Average ones) love their steaks. So mutton chops and beef stakes are still in high demand in the US of A. Slaughter houses do not sing romantic songs to the animals before they are
