Mansoor: Amazing! You are attempting to abrogate 9:29

Submitted by Plato (India), Mar 26, 2008 at 21:26

Mansoor, you wrote:

>>see your different posts and this one was amazing...

I would like to give you reply on your various points raised regarding verse 9.29 translation of which is quoted in full down here

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited….

These are purely wartime instructions why are you using these verses to malign others; mind????<<

You quoted to Nuha, http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/123485, Sura 48:1-3 Surely, We have granted you an open victory…) which was Allah's response to disgruntled Muslims telling them that their loss of face at Hudaibiya was actually a great victory. This surah is purely in response to Muslims who grumbled about the Treaty. Not the Surah says ‘we have granted' clearly indicating a past event. Why did you not tell Nuha that this verse is totally contextual?

Now you are telling us that 9:29 which is commanding Muslims to fight the people of the Book, humiliate them and make them pay a humiliation tax stands abrogated whenever you are not at war with them. Great. But Islam teaches that countries which are not Muslims are dar al harb, the abode of war. The majority of nations today are still dar al harb. The verse, unlike Surah 48 is not talking about a past event. Voila! The commandment of Allah in 9:29 stands.

Why is context of Surah and verses a matter of convenience for Muslims??

>>One thing is to be cleared here. The universe and everything in it is Allah's property and he has full right to implement law of his choice and acceptance.<<

Mansoor, can you show us the registered title deed of Allah for being the owner of the universe. Do you realise how absolutely silly you sound with your granting Allah title to the whole universe? You sound as silly, if not more, as your prophet claiming the whole world for himself and his Allah.

>> But it is his full right to implement his rule on this earth through his true believers.>>

Allah has been struggling for 1400 years to implement His rule here. And it was Allah Who claimed that he created the whole universe in 6 (give or take 2 days) days. What kind of all-powerful god is this Allah? Besides yourself can you point us to where we can find his ‘true believers'.

>> You can have complete tafsir about the verse you quote on the above link. I expect that the tone of the Tafsir would flare you up but this cannot change the reality.<<

I had a quick look at Ibn Khatir's tafsir. It is just as boastful of Allah as you are. This boastfulness of Muslim's about Allah's powers only indicates that they feel powerless themselves and so imagine their god waiting impatiently to seize infidels and torture them endlessly. You are welcome to your fantasy.

>> For Women you said the laws are not justified

For Women the share in inheritance it is a clear logic that a women gets share from different sides,
Fathers' property,
Husband's property,
Son's Property.<<

Just a little mental exercise for you Mansoor. With all that property raining on them from all sides why do most Muslim women depend for their daily necessities on men. Let me ask a leading question. Could it be that Muslim men rob women of their wealth? If you can answer this question honestly a lot of things about women's position in Islam will become clear to you.

>> For women ....you are extremely wrong.. Islam never allowed women to confine at homes, they are even allowed to offer prayers in mosques. But they are not made compulsory to do so as their domestic duties are declared important for them.<<

Going to worship in a mosque is a great freedom? They have the freedom to stand behind men in the hall or stay in hiding behind a curtain. But to go anywhere they have to be tailed by a male member of the family to ensure that other men's lecherous eyes do not stare at her burqa-clad female flesh.

The domestic duties of Muslim women like cooking, washing, feeding the children and most important letting the husband have a romp with her in bed whenever he wishes are so important that she cannot possibly have even the time to ask for the freedom to earn her own livelihood.

>> For two women are the equivalent of one man in judicial hearings

There is a great logic behind this. Women are mostly more emotional than men and sometimes their emotions overcome their ability to express truth.<<

Your madrassa has really trained you well, even teaching you a thing or two about the emotions of women and men. As usual women end up with emotions that show her as inferior to men. This seems to be particularly true of Muslim women.

Infidel women do not seem to have any such failing. They are as good at giving accurate evidence as men. No judge in infidel countries has ever faulted their evidence on the strength of their possessing different sex organs from that of men. Our infidel women not only give faultless evidence but they also make very good judges. It is really sad that Muslim women are not as capable as infidel women.

You might object that the Koran means all women not just Muslim women. And you would be wrong there because the Koran always talks of Muslims when it sets out laws. Ask your maulana, the chances are that an infidel male's evidence might be rejected out of hand as not even worth a single Muslim woman's.

You have next given an abstract from a scholarly western publication to buttress your claim that women are emotionally weak and unreliable. I have a suggestion. Before you post such material you should show it to someone who can understand what the article is saying before using them to support your cause as you might end up damaging your cause as this one does.

"We assess evidence for gender differences across a range of relationships and consider whether the form and quality of these relationships affect the psychological functioning of men and women differently. Data from a national panel survey provide consistent evidence that men's and women's relationships differ. However, we find little evidence for the theoretical argument that women are more psychologically reactive than men to the quality of their relationships: Supportive relationships are associated with low levels of psychological distress, while strained relationships are associated with high levels of distress for women and for men. However, if women did not have higher levels of social involvement than men, they would exhibit even higher levels of distress relative to men than they currently do. We find little evidence for the assertion that men and women react to strained relationships in gender-specific ways--for example, with alcohol consumption versus depression."

The first underlined sentence sets out what the researchers have set out do. The second underlined sentence says they find consistent evidence that men and women differ in their relationships. The third underlined sentence says they find NO evidence to support the argument that women are more psychologically affected than men by the quality of the relationships. And the last underlined sentence tells you THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in their emotional reactions to strained relationships.

Mansoor, you latched on to the second underlined sentence which says men's and women's relationships differ. That is very different from saying they are more reactive in their emotional reactions.

>> I am quoting a source "Non Islamic" which would be more acceptable to you rather than one having Islamic perspective. <<

So the evidence you have brought for women's emotional weakness has fallen flat. The evidence you have given says exactly the opposite of what you wanted to prove.

You are wrong in thinking that only non-Islamic sources would be acceptable to me. If you bring me properly researched Islamic sources, (not the Harun Yahya type of science or research whose sole goal is to fit the square peg of Koranic verses into the round holes of known science), I will readily accept them.

Mansoor, remember you quoting ancient Hippocratic science about female ejaculation and Harun Yahya nonsense science which tells you the seven heavens stretch only to about 500 kilometres? Unless you select the matter you post with care you are likely to end up with pie on your face.

>>It is very easy to call Islamic laws inhuman but for me our creator knows what is best for us.<<

Mansoor, Islamic laws are inhuman because they come from a non-human source, Allah. Your creator's laws guide you towards death. I am not saying this, Mansoor, you have indicated as much in many of your posts telling us Muslims' inclination for chewing bullets, washing up in red water. And do you remember writing this to Nuha: ‘Muslims are ready to die, they love their blood spilling on the sand and their necks are ready for cut throat, they enjoy being blown up into uncountable pieces and they still smile because their reward is with Lord.

>>We have sufficient proof on the ground to accept that Our Lord has perfect system designed for us whether we like it or not...<<

If you have sufficient proof, bring your proof, as your Koran says.

>>It is all up to us how we take the message of our Lord. For you it is clear offense when you read about toughness of Islamic laws and for us it is a guiding light and source of satisfaction that our Lord is so great that his laws are so perfect that cannot be proved wrong even if the disbelievers do their best.<<

This is the usual Muslim bombast. You keep claiming that your Lord's laws are great and perfect without offering any proof. The simple proof that Islamic laws are ancient un-evolved tribal laws is the fact that it continues to accept the principle of an eye for eye, has no strictures against slave keeping, and does not recognise equality between man and woman.

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".