NationStates Jolt Archive

Here it is...the latest nonsense...a man allegedly utters "talaq" three times in his sleep and the mullahs and community elders insist that the couple be divorced even when the couple does not want to. :headbang: Note that under sharia, a muslim husband can divorce his wife as easily as sending three talaq in SMS and he can walk away from the marriage.

*popup warning*
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1659469,000900030001.htm
Uttering talaq in sleep lands couple in soup

Press Trust of India

Siliguri, March 26, 2006
A Muslim couple in Jalpaiguri district have been ordered by local religious leaders to separate as the husband allegedly uttered talaq three times in his sleep.

While the couple, who have three children, refused to obey the order since there was no discord between them, the community leaders are adamant that they must separate or face a "social boycott".

Aftab Ansari and Sohela have been married for the past 11 years. However, on the night of December 20 last year, Aftab allegedly uttered talaq three times in his sleep after a tiff with his wife.

The matter came to light when Sohela discussed it with her close friends and soon it reached the ears of the Muslim leaders.

The leaders, quoting the Shariyat, ruled that the talaq has to be implemented and if it is not acceptable, the only alternative was temporary separation for 100 days during which the wife will live at her father's house and spend a night with another man.:eek:

She can remarry her husband only after the man has given her talaq.

As the couple was unwilling to accept the verdict, the matter went to the family counselling centre at Falakata police station in Jalpaiguri district.

The counselling centre, attended by judges of the Alipurduar sub-divisional court, discussed the problem in detail on Saturday, but failed to find a solution.:mad: {spineless cowards...they were afraid to rule against the local community elders}

The additional district session judge (second track), Muhammad Abdul Jalil, has directed the general secretary of the Anjuman Committee, Muhammad Abul, to settle the issue, sources in the counselling centre said.

Aryavathra, don't get me wrong, but can't one say that mediocre, rigid, and absurd interpretations may be met in any religion? Can you say Hinduism?

Aryavathra, don't get me wrong, but can't one say that mediocre, rigid, and absurd interpretations may be met in any religion? Can you say Hinduism?

Yeah, but what does your point have to do with him showing Sharia at work?

Yeah, but what does your point have to do with him showing Sharia at work?
Frankly, I think the Muslim world could do without literal interpretations of the Sharia. However, in its defence, I have to say that I highly doubt the Sharia (as opposed to some brilliant figures of authority in the respective community) says "the man shall divorce, even if he said these words in REM".
As to my question to the op: I remember another thread initiated by Aryavathra, in which he basically stressed that, contrary to what the cliche about Hinduism is, he has his own vision and is proud of his religion etc. Why don't you go in and show him Hinduism at work? I'm willing to bet he'll have 1000 theological excuses. Of course. Islam can't have its own...

Some days I wish it were only that easy to divorce.....

But geez, seeing as I'm the woman, I guess in theory it wouldn't be "that easy" for me anyway. And I'd probably regret it anyway.

Simonist']Some days I wish it were only that easy to divorce.....

But geez, seeing as I'm the woman, I guess in theory it wouldn't be "that easy" for me anyway. And I'd probably regret it anyway.
Yeah well according to the law you'd be nothing more than a slave to your Husband.
Sharia law is ****ing insane and If someone tried to force me follow it I would kill them.

Yeah well according to the law you'd be nothing more than a slave to your Husband.
Sharia law is ****ing insane and If someone tried to force me follow it I would kill them.
Well, the upside is that it's very much the other way around, if anything less than equal. I win most of the time anyway :D

Ah, all the more reasons I love my life right now (except for that sick thing)

Simonist']Some days I wish it were only that easy to divorce.....

But geez, seeing as I'm the woman, I guess in theory it wouldn't be "that easy" for me anyway. And I'd probably regret it anyway.

I dunno. judging from this report, all you'd have to do is claim the husband said it in his sleep.

Frankly, I think the Muslim world could do without literal interpretations of the Sharia. However, in its defence, I have to say that I highly doubt the Sharia (as opposed to some brilliant figures of authority in the respective community) says "the man shall divorce, even if he said these words in REM".
As to my question to the op: I remember another thread initiated by Aryavathra, in which he basically stressed that, contrary to what the cliche about Hinduism is, he has his own vision and is proud of his religion etc. Why don't you go in and show him Hinduism at work? I'm willing to bet he'll have 1000 theological excuses. Of course. Islam can't have its own...

Actually, what is true for a levantine religion regarding dogma and tradition is not true for Hinduism. Hinduism really is a smorgasboard religion where people can pick and choose what they like. They can accept the Vedas or ignore them. They can be aescetics or they can be wealthy. They can eat meat or they may practise strict vegetarianism. Warfare can be justified and even holy duty (Bagavad Gita) or completely abhorrent (Jainism- and yes Jainism is often considered separate by western scolars but Indians don't draw a substantial line, Gandhi was a Jain and also refered to himself as a Hindu). The peacefull guru is a Hindu, but so were the Thugi, who strangled people to death and cut out their hearts in sacrifice. Hindus may even worship gods unknown to other Hindus on the subcontinent, they will often have different personal saviours. Even then culture and tradition is hugely variant from region to region and between castes. Considering the variance inherent in Hinduism its really not fair to draw a comparison with Levantine religions that tend to be quite similar and have arguments over little details, ie, who was the heir to the caliphate once upon a time, now, when there is no caliphate? or is this biscuit really the flesh of the saviour? Or should i be allowed to shave my curly side burns?

-snip-

Actually, I was very much aware of the innate absurdity of calling "Hinduism" an "-ism", before I posted my first reply.
But: Hindutva or Hinduism do exist in modernity, because activists who seek an identity find one (as the op did). Note what I had said in the post you were replying to - I should add that Aryavartha uses the word, and draws borders within (if I remember correctly, he also believes Jainism to be Hinduism).
As to the Levintine religions, your argument is faulty. Although Hinduism is inevitably the most diverse (or, indeed, as diverse as not to exist at all - I may agree, but ask the op if he does), expand arguments about Judaism, Christianity or Islam beyond what you needed to combat me just now, and you'll see why the "distinction between each and Hinduism(s)" fails me: consider the Druze, consider the wine-drinking Sufis, consider the distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic Melkites, consider Modern synagogue-going-pork-eating forms of Judaism in comparison with the Breslau sect, consider the Jews who share the disdain about Jesus being the Messiah but instead consider Israel ben Eliezer to have been one (in comparison with those Jewish Christians who are still Judaic, or the Nazarene), consider the Gnosis, the Ethopian Christians, the autocephalic Ortodox Churces in their relation to Constantinople, consider whether the Mormons are Christian etc etc etc.
But again, the point is that all religions have a modern and political avatar (or several ones, but a limited number). That is what we were talking about, apparently: "the common man's perception" (which I don't share, but it makes for nice rhetoric against "a monolithical Islam"). That was my point.

What’s really bad is like most practitioners who write or practice secular law codes, you’d swear none of them had actually read the holy book they based it on. I often feel the same way about Christians, who swap between the Old Testament and the New Testament according to their moods, and whether they want to persecute someone or get mercy from someone else. For starters, the Holy Quran states very specifically that Men and Women are equal but different.

The only reason that multiple wives was tolerated in the Quran was the same reason it was tolerated in any warrior-nomadic culture. In the old world, when your brother or friend died you took his wife as your own to ensure that she had a place, because back then the state social welfare system wasn’t really well developed.

Since the Islamic people were in a state of warfare during the writing of the Quran, casualties were high and they were telling people to look after their own according to their means. A rich man could thus have four wives, but only if he was an exceptional being. Of course since all rich men think that they are exceptional being (don’t their servants tell them it is so?) they go with multiple wives and even go so far as to have a huge harem to show other Muslims how exceptional a being they really are.

The actual references to the Quran on divorce do allow for it but never with this whole repeating three words over and over or clicking their heels together three times for that matter. Trial separation (3 months) and outright divorce are discussed in detail. It’s even mentioned that if a man divorces a woman who is with child, then he’s on the hook to support her. It also states very clearly “And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable;” S.II 228.

-snip-
Only too true, Bruce.

Actually, I was very much aware of the innate absurdity of calling "Hinduism" an "-ism", before I posted my first reply.
But: Hindutva or Hinduism do exist in modernity, because activists who seek an identity find one (as the op did). Note what I had said in the post you were replying to - I should add that Aryavartha uses the word, and draws borders within (if I remember correctly, he also believes Jainism to be Hinduism).
As to the Levintine religions, your argument is faulty. Although Hinduism is inevitably the most diverse (or, indeed, as diverse as not to exist at all - I may agree, but ask the op if he does), expand arguments about Judaism, Christianity or Islam beyond what you needed to combat me just now, and you'll see why the "distinction between each and Hinduism(s)" fails me: consider the Druze, consider the wine-drinking Sufis, consider the distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic Melkites, consider Modern synagogue-going-pork-eating forms of Judaism in comparison with the Breslau sect, consider the Jews who share the disdain about Jesus being the Messiah but instead consider Israel ben Eliezer to have been one (in comparison with those Jewish Christians who are still Judaic, or the Nazarene), consider the Gnosis, the Ethopian Christians, the autocephalic Ortodox Churces in their relation to Constantinople, consider whether the Mormons are Christian etc etc etc.
But again, the point is that all religions have a modern and political avatar (or several ones, but a limited number). That is what we were talking about, apparently: "the common man's perception" (which I don't share, but it makes for nice rhetoric against "a monolithical Islam"). That was my point.

Well put. My point though is that the Levantine's are highly dogmatic, the little differences are important. Within a group all other groups are usually either considered mixed up or heretical. Hinduism, on the other hand can have very differing veiws within the same family, I know one family where the mother and children are vegetarians, but the father sees nothing wrong with eating meat. Hinduism is quite inclusive, even Sikhs, who have become quite different from Hindus are considered by many Hindus to be just another kind of Hindu. Strangely, if you tell a Hindu that Jesus is the saviour and the son of god, it is not that strange for him to agree with you and go on to tell you that Rama and Krishna are also. I'm just saying variation is to be expected in one medium, and is discouraged in the other.
By the way, about wine drinking Sufi's, I was under the impression they don't actual condone drinking wine, but use it as a metaphor to refer to the raw experience of god through euphoria.
The point is that the concept of heresy is a part of Levantine tradition, and there is heavy infighting whenever there is disagreement, not so much in Hinduism (except in early periods regarding atheists). Just look at your list of variants and look at the ones that don't exist (or practically don't) anymore, they were destroyed because they were variants.

-snip-

Of course, we agree on most of these. But you are stresing a nuance that would establish a distinction for Abrahamaic religions which I can perfectly match in virtually all forms of Hinduism (just as you will have to agree that it is not to be found in Quakerism): the innate concept of heresy matches the innate concept of alterity. Since all beliefs have a sense of self, this is the one that unites their outlooks: very important for "hinduism", which was indeed viewing itself as the world (and slowly coming to terms with the fact that the world was larger than that). Perhaps what helped to add "ism" to "Hinduism" was indeed the other (the Megasthenes, the Mahayana Buddhist, the Muslim, the Brit).
That being said, I believe we can attribute a working identity to a single Hindu concept, and I believe that the concept has been made even more clear by the willingness of modern Indians to identify with it (and, indeed, with inter-comunal battles that definately equate alterity with pure-and-simple heresy). Furthermore, since this (these) modern identity (-ies) Hinduism has establish the willingness for a mainstream to exist, and since they all look for a tradition, I think that my original question to the op is perfectly legitimate and fair.

We should all be so lucky to live under the Sharia.

I don't believe this story. I would like to see corroborating evidence of its occurence from an unbiased source. Until then, I put this up there with Weekly World News's "Batboy".

I don't believe this story. I would like to see corroborating evidence of its occurence from an unbiased source. Until then, I put this up there with Weekly World News's "Batboy".

What are you living under a rock or something? I think you’d have to have shut yourself off from the world, except maybe MTV, not to know about this story. It’s like saying you don’t believe the story about the rescue of captives in Iraq by Task Force Black. It's good to keep an open mind and scrutinize what people post, but you also need to watch the news once in a blue moon.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/27/christian_afghan060327.html

Aryavathra, don't get me wrong, but can't one say that mediocre, rigid, and absurd interpretations may be met in any religion? Can you say Hinduism?

Mediocre, rigid and absurd interpretations of "Hinduism" - yes. Community leaders justifying it and enforcing their interpretation over the law - no. Can some Hindus have utterly disgusting practices that they try to justify as their religion/culture - yes. There are plenty of instances like that. But nobody can enforce their interpretation on others and claim that it is sanctioned religiously like how the community elders in this case are enforcing their shariat views on the couple.

The difference is that the law enforcement and judiciary usually has the last say in these kinds of matters when it comes to the hindus, but it is increasingly not so in the case of muslims. They try to shield their decision by making it a case of "it's our religion".

Another case in point is that Imrana episode where a muslim woman was asked by the local elders to treat her husband as her son, because she was raped by her father-in-law. The ulema declared that she is now the mother of her husband and they annulled their marriage! There may be similar instances of a father-in-law raping a woman in a hindu household too. In those instances, he goes to jail without religious figures interfering like this.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jul/16imrana.htm

I don't believe this story. I would like to see corroborating evidence of its occurence from an unbiased source.

Hindustan Times is a reputable newspaper when it comes to reporting news. It is not a tabloid.

I don't believe this story. I would like to see corroborating evidence of its occurence from an unbiased source. Until then, I put this up there with Weekly World News's "Batboy".
I actually believe this could've happened.

wasn't there a story where a double Wedding in India ended up with the women marrying the wrong men?

the story goes (and will look for the article) that the veils that the women wore were so thick, it obstructed their vision. so when they circled their husbands to be, they circled the wrong men.

the only way out was that they had to get a legal divorce and re-marry.

Frankly, I think the Muslim world could do without literal interpretations of the Sharia. However, in its defence, I have to say that I highly doubt the Sharia (as opposed to some brilliant figures of authority in the respective community) says "the man shall divorce, even if he said these words in REM".

Well, why don't you look up what Sharia says about divorce ?

There have been cases of a man divorcing a woman by sending "Talaq, talaq, talaq" in SMS to her cellphones. Why don't you look that up too?

Why don't you go in and show him Hinduism at work? I'm willing to bet he'll have 1000 theological excuses. Of course. Islam can't have its own...

Why should I give excuse for the stupid behavior of some hindus? I can only give an eplanation from my experience. I have no obligation nor intention to defend stupidness of hindus. Just because they call themselves hindus, does not mean that we share the same religion. "Hinduism"- as pointed out by Revnia, is hardly a monolithic centralised religion. Precisely why nobody can force their interpretation of hinduism on me nor can I on others.

Oh and a small clarification.

Nowhere here (in this thread) have I attacked Islam. I am attacking Sharia and the community elders who are enforcing Sharia over the couple against their wishes. This is not an attack on Islam because sharia is not Islam. Sharia (especially the ones based on dubious hadiths) is the bane of Islam - ask Keru. By making a case of Sharia = Islam, you, my friend, are the one who is attacking Islam.

What are you living under a rock or something?

Ummmm .... nooooo .... I simply don't cruise the news looking for new and exciting ways to attack Muslims or to find yet another reason we should wipe that filthy Islam stain off our planet. So it's the first I'd heard of it and I don't care if it's on NPR or straight out of Reuters, if it's a single source, I question its validity.

If you have a problem with that, tough. Though seeing as how no one person can know every tiny little thing that's happening all over the world, I will remember your little rant next time you haven't heard of something "omg everyone who is teh 1337 has heard about this!11one!".

Hindustan Times is a reputable newspaper when it comes to reporting news. It is not a tabloid.

Nod, and I imagine so ... just don't like taking a single source on such things. Never know when someone has an agenda and an editor was sleepy.

I don't believe this story. I would like to see corroborating evidence of its occurence from an unbiased source. Until then, I put this up there with Weekly World News's "Batboy".
I just saw it on the news.

To Aryavartha (and sorry for misspelling your pseudonym in my first post).

The point you are making, as you have said, addresses a belief held by some in accordance with a view that may or may not be characteristic of the religion (even if the majority would endorse it - which remains to be proven - it still would not count as an argument, since it does not say much about the religion itself, as vague as the religion may become as a result of this). In this instance, the comparison with Hinduism still stands. If you were talking about law concerns in India, let me point out that the terrorists group claiming Hindutva would not, by definition, care what the law is (in fact, the little I know about India tells me that both fringe views attack the secularism of the Indian state - whereas the other views in both beliefs either back it or accomodate it).
About the sharia: as I have mentioned, I think it is created by apostasy. However, in its defence, I would have to say that it is still not as bad as the interpretations given it by elders in a village (in Sudan, India, Afghanistan, or Nigeria), Wahhabis, or modern pan-islamists. Other groups which have incorporated the sharia still have no need to act this way. Pointing out other examples of its use/abuse bring nothing new to the dabate, since this is about principles (indeed, the sharia could not be as specific or as ahead of its time as to regulate cell phone use or talking in your sleep - which, again, points out to interpretation over letter, and the sheer arbitrary usage of something which may be wrong, but arguably not as wrong).
As to your interpretation of Hinduism against others': setting individual interpretation/knowledge/background/inspiration against what co-religionaries believe works for any Muslim out there (even after taking in view the allegedly much more permissive -for lack of a better word- character of Hinduism, as well as the arbitrary use of ism with the latter). I hope you give them at least the benefit of the doubt.

Oh and a small clarification.

Nowhere here (in this thread) have I attacked Islam. I am attacking Sharia and the community elders who are enforcing Sharia over the couple against their wishes. This is not an attack on Islam because sharia is not Islam. Sharia (especially the ones based on dubious hadiths) is the bane of Islam - ask Keru. By making a case of Sharia = Islam, you, my friend, are the one who is attacking Islam.
Perhaps you have not read my posts.

Frankly, I think the Muslim world could do without literal interpretations of the Sharia. However, in its defence, I have to say that I highly doubt the Sharia (as opposed to some brilliant figures of authority in the respective community) says "the man shall divorce, even if he said these words in REM".
As to my question to the op: I remember another thread initiated by Aryavathra, in which he basically stressed that, contrary to what the cliche about Hinduism is, he has his own vision and is proud of his religion etc. Why don't you go in and show him Hinduism at work? I'm willing to bet he'll have 1000 theological excuses. Of course. Islam can't have its own...
Hinduism at its core is about as peacful as Bhudism. When Hinduism is taken to extremes you get people who will usher bugs out of their homes rather than kill them. You get people who wear protective breathing clothes not for themsleves but to protect any bugs they may accidentally injest whilel breathing. This is a far cry from what you get when Islam is taken to an extreme.

Hinduism at its core is about as peacful as Bhudism. When Hinduism is taken to extremes you get people who will usher bugs out of their homes rather than kill them. You get people who wear protective breathing clothes not for themsleves but to protect any bugs they may accidentally injest whilel breathing. This is a far cry from what you get when Islam is taken to an extreme.
Is this your all-knowing expertise or a subjective assessement? In any case, it's beside the point: extereme violence is extreme violence, and it is in a world of its own. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or whatever are to be separated from these interpretations for the sake of dialogue: it ultimately has no relevance to religion.
Plus, you're using the "if I can utter the word, the word will define something" attitude, and both religions become monolithical because you feel like it.
Even if I am to remain within your perspective, let me address the fact that Hinduism has relied on social discrimination and ensuing violence for millenia in a row: compared to that, modern "Hinduism" is still a mere moment, and it is still doubled by cohersive and rudimental approaches. In my own book, if I were to use that criteria, Islam wins by much (and its popularity with the lower castes in India at the time of its arrival would tend to back me up). If you are going to use theologocal nuances (the relativity of Hinduism, the many faces of Hinduism etc) to counter me, let me use nuances to defend Islam (the relativity of Islam, the many faces of Islam etc). The fine and dandy survival of my own Christian country under 400 years of Muslim domination should render your point useless.

Is this your all-knowing expertise or a subjective assessement?It is my subjective assesment - one I find relevent to teh here and now. In any case, it's beside the point: extereme violence is extreme violence, and it is in a world of its own. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or whatever are to be separated from these interpretations for the sake of dialogue: it ultimately has no relevance to religion.That's not true. All social phenomenon happen within a cultural context. Cultures that tolerate or even celebrate violence are far more likely to resort to it. Witness the difference between Ghandi and Osama.
Plus, you're using the "if I can utter the word, the word will define something" attitude, and both religions become monolithical because you feel like it.No, its because teh establishment of said religions define themselves. That is not to say that there aren't sects and differences in worship, but Hindus define themselves as Hindus and Muslims as Muslims. The inescapable fact is that all religions have a face that is defined by the prevailing actions and beliefs within the religion. Does this mean that all whatchamacallits are whats? No, but it does mean that if most whatchamacallits are whats that in terms of policy and dialogue it is useful to recognize that fact.
Even if I am to remain within your perspective, let me address the fact that Hinduism has relied on social discrimination and ensuing violence for millenia in a row: compared to that, modern "Hinduism" is still a mere moment, and it is still doubled by cohersive and rudimental approaches.And yet here we find ourselves, today, dealing with living people making history right now. While it is useful to understand history, you are not dealing with the Islam or Hinduism or Christianity or Bhudism of a milenia ago. You're dealing with teh religions as defined in the year 2006. In my own book, if I were to use that criteria, Islam wins by much (and its popularity with the lower castes in India at the time of its arrival would tend to back me up). If you are going to use theologocal nuances (the relativity of Hinduism, the many faces of Hinduism etc) to counter me, let me use nuances to defend Islam (the relativity of Islam, the many faces of Islam etc). The fine and dandy survival of my own Christian country under 400 years of Muslim domination should render your point useless.Again, this is 2006 and we are dealing with a prevailing reality. Not everyone in Afghanistan wanted to kill the guy who became a Christian, but enough did that to ignore the prevailing attitude towards this guy as a popular sentiment is folly. You might as well ignore the fact that George Bush was reelected president of the US when deciding what approach you will take towards yoru policy with regards to the US. Hey, a great many of us didn't want him, but we got him and you should act accordingly.

This sounds pretty Klingon to me.

Aryavathra, don't get me wrong, but can't one say that mediocre, rigid, and absurd interpretations may be met in any religion? Can you say Hinduism?
Why does someone always instantly jump to the defence of patriarchal oppressors just because they're Muslims?

Perhaps you have not read my posts.

Your post " I'm willing to bet he'll have 1000 theological excuses. Of course. Islam can't have its own..."

implies that this shariat interpretation = Islam when really learned people (including learned muslims) do not think so.

I am sure you are making some point with your post # 26, but I could not get what you meant to say. Dumb it down for me, English is my third language.

If your point is that there is some equivalency between hindus who commit transgressions against law and defend it by saying "it is my religion" and this case of muslims doing the same, you are wrong.

While there is no dearth of criminal behavior amongst people of any religious persuasion in India, hindu community elders cannot get away by saying "it is my religion".

In my house Dad eats meat. No hindu religious leader can dare tell him that he should not eat meat since it is forbidden in hinduism. In my local temple in India, a low caste born person is the temple priest. No religious leader / community elder can dare tell him that priesthood is reserved for brahmin born person alone. In the ISKCON temple I go to, a black and a white American are priests. No hindu leader can claim that the black and the white cannot be priests. Sure, the discrimination is still there. But it is not institutionalised and a person can successfully challenge the prevailing dogma/societal pressures if he tries.

But that is not the case in this instance and the Imrana instance I cited. Community leaders and mullahs continue to violate law by using the religion card.

Well this doesn't even square with real Shariah law.

The man has to say Talaq 3 times in public, whilst in possession of his faculties(ie not drunk or whatnot).

No one could argue that whist someone is asleep they are fully able to make such a declaration, and plus it wouldn't have been in public. What gets me though is how(or why) the local elders missed that...

No one could argue that whist someone is asleep they are fully able to make such a declaration, and plus it wouldn't have been in public. What gets me though is how(or why) the local elders missed that...

I'm wondering who was listening in on them while they were sleeping ...

-snip-
I'm gonna point of these:
-you use the concept of "collective responsabilty". I do not.
-your definitions of Hinduism and Islam are in strict contradiction to what a Hindu and a Muslim have posted on this very thread. Work it out, or at least see the paradox.

-snip-
I have mentioned before: collective responsability doesn't work. My point was that, if it would ever work, it would be so for Hinduism and Islam as well (no matter how much less distinct or definable "Hinduism" is - especially since modern politics based on "Hinduism" isn't; also, as I have pointed out, no matter how roughly defined the community is, it always point out to an otherness* in relation to it).

Funny that English is my third language as well: my vagueness is my own fault, I'm afraid.

______
*to a certain extent, the notion of "people of the book" and "Islam as monotheism itself" would also, in theory, provide one with a basis for questioning the makeup of Islam as (s)he would for "Hinduism".

Why does someone always instantly jump to the defence of patriarchal oppressors just because they're Muslims?
Why does someone always instantly jump to reading only one one post and posting an absurdity?

Why does someone always instantly jump to reading only one one post and posting an absurdity?

Why does someone always steal a bite from my lunch whenever I go to the bathroom?

Why does someone always steal a bite from my lunch whenever I go to the bathroom?
I was hungry.