To Shakeel: Get real for once

Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), Jul 2, 2007 at 04:52

Shakeel your comments are in inverted commas and you wrote:

"---Prophet (sws) had a direct communication link with Allah. And he knows those things which we cannot know. So when Prophet says, someone is hypocrite, he says because Allah has told him about that person---".

Now isn't that interesting? Allah has established direct communication link with his Rasool. Allah is all powerful. He can easily establish direct communication with all is creatures. He did not do it. So the majority of his creature will go to hell. Allah wants the majority of mankind to end up in hell. Why? Allah knows best! Or Allah is not all-powerful, He can establish contact only with one creature at a time.

"---Abraham's sacrifice is completely different with those of greeks whom you compared with Abraham. Abraham was also a Rasool, and Allah tested his love for Him. Abraham longed for a child. Allah gave him a child when he was very old man. And when the child grew bigger, Allah asked Abraham to slaughter his son in path of Him and Abraham did the same---"

You have not explained why Abraham's sacrifice is different. The Aztecs/Incas were also sacrificing to propitiate their God. Why should Allah test him when he already knows that Abraham loves (fears, rather) him enough to commit murder. Does it not sound sadistic to torture an old man with a demand for a sacrifice like that?

"---By doing so, Abraham testified that for him no one is more important than Allah. Although, he has a great love for his child but not greater than his love for Allah. Further he set an example for the next people that for the believer Allah is first and foremost.---"

Who is Abraham testifying to, if not Allah and He needs no such testification. I totally disagree that Abraham did it because he loved Allah. He could have only done it because he FEARED Allah. He knew that if he did not do as told he would end up in hell. Abraham feared being in hell more than he loved his son i.e. he was willing to sacrifice his son for Allah's favour of a place in paradise. He had absolutely no faith in Allah's forgiveness if he failed to sacrifice his son. All those other people who indulged in human sacrifice were also testifying that they loved or feared their God so much that they were willing to commit murder for Him.

"---Further (read carefully), Allah saved Abraham's son from being killed. Because Allah does not need the blood of his son (as you called Him blood thirsty- I am very sorry about it). What Allah was testing, was Abraham's love, in which he was true.---"

Did Allah not already know that Abraham loved Him. You test someone only if you have doubts about him. How could Allah, who even knows our future intentions, doubt Abraham's love (fear) for Him? Let us assume that Allah does not need human blood (which I very much doubt, because he keeps goading believers to kill or be killed in His cause 9:41, 9:111, 2:216). He does seem to need animal blood. Your animal sacrifices are always in His name.

"---Once again you are posting the verses, relating to Rasool and his struggle against the Kafireens.---"

In that case are you admitting that those verses have only historical importance and no scriptural relevance?

"---If you remember my previous posts, I said to you, that punishment against the wrongdoers comes in two forms either with natural disasters or with the hands of believers. If the Rasools believers are less in numbers, then Allah's punishment comes as a natural disaster, but if they are in sufficient numbers, then it comes with the hands of believers.In case of Muhammad, punishment came with the hands of believers.---"

Yes I do remember. And I think you also said that natural disasters after the last Rasool are just that, natural disasters and not punishment. Otherwise you have the problem of explaining why Allah is quite unbiased in bringing about these natural disasters as they affect both the believers and unbelievers. The guide who is guiding you has all the answers all nicely worked out, even if they seem to have no logic whatever. When you say that punishment comes at the hands of believers only when they are powerful enough it is an indication that you believe in the law of the jungle. Which is what your Rasool indulged in. When he was in Mecca Allah's messages were all sweet and sugary. When he has gathered an armed following in Madina, Allah's message is all about punishment and war. When the prophet started his gazwas (raids) on peaceful caravans at Nakhla what punishment did the person killed and those captured deserve? Why does he promise booty, including women and childern as slaves? Why are the believers punishing the women and children?

"---You did not get my point, people lies when it is apparent to them that to lie is wrong. In a similar way, people reject Rasool even when it is apparent to them that he is true. In the words of Allah, such people are stupid, because they preferred this world over the next world.---"

I think we should reach our own Itmam ul hujja on this point. When you say that Allah calls such people (who reject Rasool despite clear proofs) stupid, you are just restating what I said. That these people are so stupid that you can't really blame them, especially since Allah himself created them stupid. Completion of argument. I hope?

"---Allah gave us pubic hair to see, whether we follow His commandment of being clean.---"

Hahahaha... But I think this one also deserves an Itmam ul hujja. Allah gave us nails that grow and have to be trimmed also for the same reason. Allah gave us skins that perspire and generate unpleasant odours also to follow his commandment of being clean. He created noses which clog up also to see whether we follow the cleanliness commandment as we have to blow them or dig out debris in them to keep them in working order. I feel sorry for a Being who has to keep track of whether we have kept our private and not so private parts clean of hair, nail, snot etc. What did he create our appendix for? To keep poor surgeons in business? Do we have an Itmam ul hujja here?

"---As told by hadith, it is clear that prophet married to Safiyah because she was chief mistress and we also know that because of Safiyah, her tribe folks were released. And when Safiyah tribes members were released, Prophet offered her to either join her people or accept Islam and marry her and she accepted the later.---"

Shakeel, I am afraid you have mixed up Safiyah's story with Juwairiya's. What you have told here happened to the Banu Mustaliq tribe. Juwairiya was the Mustaliq chief's daughter. Safiyah's tribe, the Banu Nadir, was expelled from Medina and the land and loot obtained made the Muslims rich. The booty from the hard working Jews was so much that the Prophet and his companions literally overnight became rich. You might be interested to know that Allah came up with one of his convenient revelations, promising them much booty soon, when his companions grumbled about the treaty of Hudaibiya. It was the Banu Nadir treasure that Allah (Mohammed) was referring to.Context sometimes can be dammning. Mohammed attacked the Banu Nadir claiming he had received a revelation that the Banu Nadir were planning to kill him during a negotiation. You, of course, will believe this revelation story as you claim that Mohammed had a direct line of communication with Allah! If he did why did Allah delay in telling him until the negotiations started. Allah knows best!

"---It is general instruction. Have you bothered to read the context of it before claiming such thing?---"

I have no clue to what part of my reply this comment refers to. Your comment about context also does not give me a clue.

"---To beat, does not mean to brutalize. So all of your words are nonsense. I would rather happy, if you put your efforts in getting my point.---"

My words would be nonsense if the injustice that the Koran has inflicted on Muslim women is not on display almost on a daily basis in Muslim countries. The results of brutal beatings (shown on TVs even in Muslim countries), the honour killings rampant in almost all Islamic countries are not something I have dreamed up. You are in denial about the injustice this verse does to Muslim women. The Koran has placed no limitation on the meaning of the word beat. It is present day Muslims like you, ashamed of such unjust scriptural licence, who have tried to soften Allah's word (remember all those words like 'tap', 'lightly' you have added to Allah's ?).

Have we reached Itmam ul hujja on any points yet?

Warm regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".