Morghe Sahar Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Who but Ahle Mohammad (as) is closer to Mohammad (pbuh).Ridiculous. I leave you to your Oriental rape fantasies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Tony jee, slavery is allowed in Islam? surely the mercy to mankind was against slavery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Why do you ask the question if you already know the answer. Or is that another Indo-Scythian trait besides female infanticide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Then why don't you tell me. I do have an academic interest in Islam, so I am interested in knowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted February 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Mohammed traded in slaves and in one hadith there is a reference to slaves being auctioned in a Mosque! Muslims accept that slavery is allowed in Islam but then try and portray Islamic slavery as some kind of holiday camp! Morghe, Are you sure you read the small print when you signed up for Islam? No doubt rape of slave girls by their masters will shock any person with a sense of morality and ethics. So the question arises are you in denial about this fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Is there any reference to this in the actual Quran, or just the hadiths? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 There are 3-4 Quran verses that say men can have sex with their Wives and slave women/captives of war. All other women are forbidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 There are 3-4 Quran verses that say men can have sex with their Wives and slave women/captives of war. All other women are forbidden. WOW, such high moral ethics. Brings tears to my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Mithar wrote: "WOW, such high moral ethics. Brings tears to my eyes." That's exactly what I thought when I read the Charitropakhyan. Coming back to the issue of the slave girls. Let me first of all remind you that Sikhism has never abolished or reformed slavery. In fact that rahitname literature confirms the existence of slavery such as for example parents selling their kids. So before raising the flag of "Vee are besht sherbants of bite mashter" you guys should maybe look into your own history. Especially the Ranjit Singh part. I am sure you'll have a lot of theological justification to do when it comes to explain how Ranjit Singh used to have concubines and dancing boys. I assume these dancing boys didn't chose homoerotic sodomy with the Shere Panjab voluntarily. Unless that is another trait among Indo-Scythians. Now back to the slave girls. There is one verse in the Quran allowing sexual relations with a slave girl.Namely: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. Surah Nisa 4:24 This verse allows for a man indeed to have sexual relations with his slave girls i.e. right hand possessions. The question arises whether or not a master is allowed to rape them. The answer is simple and clear: no. Why? 1. First of all because in Islam the slave has a contract with his master. According to Shi'a fiqh the maximum length of such a contract is seven years. After which the slave may be go freely in exchange for a prefixed amount of money. If he/she doesn't have that amount, it can be provided by the baytol maal, the treasury of the Islamic state. The master is to respect the contract and the rights of the slave such as: decent clothing and food, respect of corporal integrity. 2. A master doesn't own a slave, he owns his/her guardianship. The slave has a similar status as the child before adulthood i.e. he is under the care of an authority that has the obligation to protect him/her. 3. A master cannot force a slave to commit haram acts such as stealing, prostitution, fornication or missing prayers because of the issue of corporal integrity. A slave may only perform the duties as specified in the his/her contract. Given the fact that sex outise marriage is haram there is no way a master may force himself upon a slave girl. 4. The verse cited above refers to rules of conjugal relationship with free women and slave women. Nowhere does it specify that a slave woman has less conjugal rights. In Islam a woman may refuse herself to her husband if her reasons are valid. 5. Several hadiths from our Imams about the issue of divorce in the case of muta' clearly mention slave girls and hence imply that sexual relations with a slave girl are only licit with a prior muta' marriage. Otherwise it would be fornication and hence a sin. 6. If the slave girl is pregnant her child will automatically be considered the master's child and be free. She will obtain the status of umm e aulad and will hence also be free. 7. The Qoran and the hadiths prohibit cruelty against slaves and that includes rape. Tonyhp32 may quote all the Sunni hadiths he wants. Fiqh is fiqh and as we know many of the Prophet's so-called companions were not good examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Maharaja Ranjit Singh has never been portrayed as an example of all Sikhs to follow so your snide comment fails of course. Whereas Allah himself wants Muslims to look on the 'prophet' as an ideal human being and worthy of being emulated by Muslims. Hence the stories one reads from the Middle East and Afghanistan of old men marrying little girls. As for the little boys, where is the proof of this? Are you sure you are not mistaking the court of Lahore with the way heaven is described in the Quran? Constantly regenerating virgin concubines and little boys belong to Jannah. You are obviously lying about the slave master not being able to rape his female slaves. Leave aside slavery even in the Islamic marriage the mehr a man gives as well as his providing protection and food for the wife is a form of payment for the enjoyment of the wife's vagina. Before some Sikhs rightly become outraged at this comment, please note that this is exactly how some scholars have termed the Muslim marriage! You will of course be aware that a Muslim woman has to be constantly available for her man and can only refuse her husband during her period. If she refuses him for no good reason apparently all the Angels curse her in heaven! As if Angels have nothing better to do than take offence as Abdul's wife not being in the mood when he is! A master's right over the female slave is even more than a man's right over his wife so it is a well established right in Islam that the master can take his female slave against her will. According to Al Hilli as Shia theologian the master can allow his friend to have sexual relations with his slave. The only restrictions Islam placed on the rape of slaves is that the master should not rape a female slave belong to his wife!! As for your contention of freeing a slave after 7 years, I believe that this is only the case of a slave who has become a Muslim. If I am wrong then feel free to correct me. Unlike the western slave trade which was based on economics, the Islamic slave trade was based on sexual gratification. A majority of slaves were females which were brought with the express object of their being used to satiate the lust of their masters. The problem with Islam is that it did not abolish slavery. Quite surprising given its claim to be a 'perfect' system. As Bernard Lewis writes, there is no contradiction between someone being a devout Muslim and being a slave owner. No doubt various rules were made which set out ways in which a slave could be released but without the abolition of the whole system all this does is create more demand for slaves. If a master frees a slave especially in the case of where payment is made by the slave for his release then the master has capital to buy another slave and thus more demand is created. Your contention about the freedom given to a slave girl once she is pregnant is also not correct. She can only be freed once her master has died and in Shia Islam only in cases where the master has died and the child is still alive. Given the high infant mortality of those times it is very likely that a female slave would be raped many times and get pregnant and then her child would die and she would be in exactly the same position as before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 The decadent lifestyle of the Shere Panjab is well documented in both Indian and French accounts. And in any case your Charitropakhyan makes any sensual description of jannah look like softporn compared to the tales contained in the Dasam Granth in which may I remind you there is plenty of female slave enjoying going on. So please spare me your holier than thou attutitude that consists in trying to portray yourself as morally superior when all well know that two thirds of your Dasam Granth are about let alone the rahitname that explicitly allow slavery. Maybe you should spend more trying to justifiy the tales of anal rape and zoophilia in Dasam Granth before you even try to talk about the issue of female slaves. As for the Muslim marriage: quote me one passage in gurbani that allows women to refuse themselves to their husbands. Show me one passage in gurbani that prohibits men to beat up their wives. You quote Hilli yet you forget that you're quoting his opinion on the matter and that in fact the opinions on the issue of slave girls diverge aming the scholars. Your arguments therefore lack substance because you are forgetting the element that unfortunately some scholars missed themselves in fiqh: akhlaq. It's once thing to give fatwas based purely on jurisprudential abstract principles and it's another to give them with akhlaq being the foundation stone of it. Ask any specialist of fiqh: You can twist fiqh to allow anything under the sun when you take akhlaq out of it. And that is what you have done. I leave you to your long re-reading of the tales of adultery, zoophilia and homosexual rape in Dasam Granth. I am sure that will give you and idea of what a "lustful master" really is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 "That's exactly what I thought when I read the Charitropakhyan." You are knowingly refering to Sri Dasam Granth out of context. Funny, that if this what you thought when you read Charitropakhyan, how you still were totally dedicated to it and defended it for many years when you were a wannabe hybrid Nihang-Nirmala, or could it be that you used to understand and refer to it in the correct context... It's sickening, that just because 1 or 2 people question your beliefs - you feel the need to portray Dasam Bani this way - that Granth that you put your forehead to for so many years.... Hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malwe Da Sher Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Oh please, thats what you thought while reading Charitropakhiyan? Someone sent me a paper you wrote on it, you mention nothing of the sort! Liar, now theres a certain Muslim trait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 With whose permission did they send it to you? Or is that another Indo-Scythian trait: stealing. You must have learnt that from Madra and Parmjit I guess. The Charitropakhyan is excellent erotic literature. It has great humour and funny stories. It would make wonders if ever filmed. As much as one my appreciate the style of it I find it hypocritical for Sikhs to pick on Islam's sexual costums when they themselves have two thirds of their Dasam Granth full of well written stories with let's explicit content. It's like watching a good French movie with loads of sex in it. Doesn't mean I agree with the content. But I will say with a French accent: ziz was really well filmd, ze way he place ze camera was parfait. What I mean is that if someone writes a tale about homosexual rape and if it is well written I'll say that it's well written. Doesn't mean I condone homosexual rape.What I don't like is people going on about slave girl sex when Dasam Granth has loads of it itself and more. I would understand the holier than thou attitude coming from a Catholic nun because apart fron the Song of Songs Christianity hasn't got any really explicit erotic literature. Whereas Sikhism holds the all time Hugh Heffner award for the huge proportion of colourful and spicy 400 or so stories of the Charitropakhyan. Keeping in mind the fact that the Chaupai Sahib is from the Charitropakhyan itself it makes it impossible for one to say: Erm but this was written by poets. What I mean is: You guys have 400 stories worthy of beating Caligula and the Marquis de Sade any day in terms of sheer amoral decadence. Be proud of it celebrate it. Don't try and hide it. Be proud and stop picking on others for having let's say less exciting sexual fantasies. That's all I am saying. Vive le Charitropakhyan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 The content in Charitro Pakhyan is not meant to be followed by sikhs, but serves more as a warning to the khalsa for the corrupt ways of kalyuga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 That's one way of looking at it. But to be frank: I don't need to shown a gay porn movie in order to know that homosexuality is a sin.A simple list of dos and donts would suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Lol, as per usual, his hypocrisy remains unaddressed. Funny how you read and worshipped Charitropakhyan for sexual entertainment, where as Sikhs (those who read it - which are a tiny % of the population may I add) read the large part of it as a means of wordly education and focused on the moral/objective/warnings of the story rather than the details. How people differ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 As I said: I don't need to be told graphic stories about anal gay rape to know that homosexuality is a sin. But as I said I don't mind if people read these stories. They shouldn't pick up on others when it comes to slave girls when they themselves have 400 or so stories full worse stuff. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Well if Gurus, avatars and prophets etc come as teachers to set an example in their way of living then why should'n they also tell us the various manifestations of kaam krodh lobh ahankaar? Thats how i see Charitro Pakhyan.. Manifestations and living examples of the vices mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib... In the hikyats there one of the sakhis is concluded "Look at the ways of the world, this is how they behave" or something similiar to that. The rehitnamas tell us that each yuga has its vice and kaam is the strongest in Kalyuga. In Bachitar Natak Maharaj says that he was sent to kalyug to spread Dharma and one way of doing this is to warn people of its strongest vice: kaam, hence the charitro pakhyan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 That's like having someone come at the end of a porn movie saying:"This is how people behave nowadays. Such a shame". Give me a break. The sakhis are funny,exciting,hilarious and actually quite well written but please don't give me "it's for educational purposes" story. That's like showing a porn movie in sex education class "Alright kids, this is how it's done in the world of adults. And don't forget boys, never let the soap fall when you have a shower with other boys." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragmaala Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Lol, as per usual, his hypocrisy remains unaddressed. Funny how you read and worshipped Charitropakhyan for sexual entertainment, where as Sikhs (those who read it - which are a tiny % of the population may I add) read the large part of it as a means of wordly education and focused on the moral/objective/warnings of the story rather than the details. How people differ... SOLID ARGUMENT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 If Rumi could use examples of women having sex with donkeys(using fruit as some sort of protection) to pass forth a message then what is wrong with Maharaj giving examples on the ways of kalyuga? Ask any sikh what vice destroys him the most and he will probably say kaam. The beginning of Charitra Pakhyan goes: "The one who could not swim, how could he, without a boat and support of your Name, swim across the sea? ........ ........... ........... .......... With your blessing i have narrated this, although with a bit of exaggeration. In the kalyuga one can depend only on the sword, the faculty and self-determination." These lines give the essence of Gurmat. The following 405 sakhis are examples of how wrong it can go if you dont stick to these items that are the only support in Kalyuga. Your argument is not valid ji... When i took driving lessons they showed me pictures of car crashes to prevent us from speed driving... If you buy a pack of cigarettes there will be a picture of a damaged lunge.. the same essence is used in Charitro pakhyan with examples of the cruel manifestations of kaam krodh lobh moh hankaar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 "Your argument is not valid ji..." What argument, I think you meant to say bitterness. His well known strong views during his many years of 'secondment' to the Sikh kaum invalidate his so called arguement and insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 What argument, I think you meant to say bitterness. So true. He just can't hide his bitterness. The man was probably the biggest supporter of Charitro Pakhyan and now he is using it against us. WHAT A HYPOCRITE!! Where does it say for Sikhs to follow the examples of Charitro Pakhyan?? in fact we are supposed to gain knowledge from the text and avoid making mistakes mentioned in the stories. On the other hand, the examples that Prophet Mohammad had set are to be followed by the Muslims since he is seen as the ideal man. Is it any wonder that Muslim plunderers and invaders had always broken Hindu idols, temples and carry off into slavery hundreds of thousands of Hindus since that is the example set by "the mercy to mankind" himself. People in glass houses just should not throw stones. He gives the example of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. But since when has Maharaja Ranjit Singh been considered an example to follow by the Sikhs? He was not our prophet or our Guru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 That aside, who is to say, that what was written about M Ranjit Singh is true? M Ranjit Singhs amazing military and political prowess and success in capturing Muslim lands (or recapturing Hindu lands lol) didn't exactly make him very popular). The only thing Sikh sources verify is that he had relations with a Muslim woman - which was an offence - and one for which he was called to account for it by the Akalis... bit different to his stupid propogation and hate mongering of the 'Soor-dhand' nonsense, which apparently was common practice amongst the same Akalis! I don't understand how someone who obviously mocks our faith and is known for hate mongering against Sikhs is still allowed to participate in this forum... If a Ghagga or Kala supporter was here ridiculing Sri Dasam Granth Sahib he would be banned in an instant, but this clown seems to be exempt from the congestion charge? At least they do not ridicule 10th Master per se, what exactly has clown here being implying regards the author of Charitropakhyan.... N30/ADMIN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts