Nura: Something more to keep you amused – Part I

Submitted by Plato (India), May 17, 2008 at 23:45

Nura, you wrote:

>>Plato, pagans by definition are less bloody? What kind of argument is that? Let's look at the Arabs before they received Islam. They were burying their babies alive in the Sand.<<

If they were burying their babies, especially the female ones, how come there were so many Arabs living during the time of the prophet, many of the men even having several Arab women as wives? While he was about it why did the prophet also not ban female genital mutilation, slavery and the barbaric eye-for-an-eye laws prevalent. Could it be that your prophet saw nothing wrong in these cruel practices

>> Regardless of what changes India has made, there are still more than enough of the problems and cases that I present. I rest my case of Hinduism. The Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Persians, Vikings, ancient EGYPT, human sacrifices in the Americas, I really I don't have time for this nonsense.<<

By mentioning these problems with Hinduism, the human sacrifices of some cultures you think the problems with islam will go away? You are sounding more and more like Mansoor. Islam treats half of all humanity as lesser humans than men. Hindus treat some of their brothers like dirt but now we have laws, almost draconian ones, to stamp this out. Will any Muslim dare to stand up and denounce 2:228. As a woman affected by this verse are you willing to denounce it like the Hindus denounce the parts of their scriptures they consider unfair to some of their countrymen?

>>Can you prove that your religion is the truth. Again, what type of argument is that? Yes, I can prove that my religion in the Truth or I would not be Muslim!<<

Pasted below is your statement and what I had responded with.

[[>>One of the most fundamental reasoning when choosing a religion is that you have to actual believe that it is the truth.<<

I would argue for choosing a religion not on the basis of mere belief that it is true but on the basis of being able to prove it to be true. If you cannot prove any religion to be true and you feel the need to choose one then at least it should be an ethical one. Given the fact that Islam calls for the killing of infidels merely on the basis of disbelief, that it condones slavery, allows keeping slave women as concubines, considers women a degree below men and allows men to thrash women who they believe are being disobedient, it will rank far below many a pagan religion.]]

Believing your religion to be true and proving it to be true are entirely different. It is not an argument. I was suggesting that you examine the reasons for accepting your religion as true. You still haven't given any reason, let alone show that it is an ethical one.

>>"If one god can pop out of nowhere and no when why can't a zillion of them"

Good reasoning Plato, then go further and ask why a zillion gods would share one Kingdom? Humans can hardly share one Earth. They would all kill each other until only one was left anyway. That is why there can ONLY BE ONE!!<<

You really are sounding like Mansoor a fellow poster here. You are equating godly behaviour with lowly human ones. Like Saddam and Bush battling it out for supremacy, you think sublime creatures like gods also have jealous minds like human ones. Reading the Koran Allah's cantankerous and madly jealous mental state is obvious. Allah flies into a towering rage even at bits and pieces of wood or stone which some poor human mistook for a god.

It is just possible that as you indicate this particular Allah of yours, because of his violent nature, went about destroying the more peaceful kinds of gods who must have popped up. What a lovely piece of work Allah is, eliminating all other gods who managed to come into existence!!!

>>Here we go again about the Invading Arabs. How can you invade your home They WERE ARABS! This is really comical.<<

I read my post again twice and I could not find anything about invading Arabs I wrote. What exactly are you talking about? But now that you have brought it up did not Saddam invade Kuwait. Since both were Arab countries your logic, seems to say that there was no invasion. Was that just a brotherly spat? If I was comical what are you?

>> I think I am enjoying this too much.<<

Thank you for crediting me with giving you cause for merriment. Now let us see how less comical your next statement is.

>>The arguers forget that Arabia was warring tribes and nations before Islam. Islam united them. Made them brothers. Very Ethical in principle.<<

Nobody denies Arabs and much of the world at the time were warring tribes and nations. Now let us look at what Islam did to the Arabs. You have read about the prophet's lifetime. How many wars and raids did he conduct. 70, or 80??

What happened the moment Muhammad died? Abu Bakr slaughtered quite a few apostates during the ridda wars. Not bloody enough? The prophet's favourite wife Aisha went to war against his favourite nephew, Ali. Three of the rightly guided caliphs got assassinated by brother Muslims. Is this the brotherhood that came out of the ethical principles the prophet taught his closest companions? I would have laughed except for the fact it is a sad story of humans denuded of their humanity because of their religion.

>>India, So India does not have an Imperialistic history! They did not have warring tribes and nations that subjugated people under an empire. We could go on like this forever Plato.<<

You had some sarcastic comments about Arabs invading Arabs. Remember writing this: ‘How can you invade your home They WERE ARABS! This is really comical.' Nura, I could as well tell you, they WERE INDIANS! But I will not because it is true that Indian princes and kings fought among themselves. But have you heard of any Hindu king who brought death and destruction to your holy land? Do you want to show me that Arabs and Muslims did not invade India?

>>How far do you want to go back? Islam first influence with India was not through war.<<

Let us go as far back as the first mosque built in India. It was in the south of the country at a place called Crangnore, in present day Kerala state by peaceful Arab traders. Now think a little more about the implication of this first mosque. Did the local Hindus oppose it on the grounds that it would house worshippers who considered them infidels who their Allah has cursed and abused and threatened with terrifying tortures? Now imagine what would have happened if Hindu traders had landed on the Arabian peninsula and wanted to establish temples to their monkey god or elephant headed deity. Reflect deeply on the differences that mark out Hindus from Muslims.

Most of the other mosques in India were established over the bloodied bodies, sometimes literally, of the Hindus. Temples were razed, their sacred idols used as stepping stones and mosques built over the ruined temples, to rub salt into the wounds of a defeated people. Does it make you proud to be the descendant of the followers of a religion capable of such mayhem?

You think I am making this up? Just ask me and I will quote for you chapter and verse from the history written by Muslims full of admiration for what the Muslim rulers did in India. For starters just google Gazni, Ghori, Allaudin Khilji, Mohammed bin Tughlak.

>>Mosques were built in India and there was a following of converts before the Turks arrived on the scene.<<

Read again what I have written above.

>>Don't forget that Muslims were major players in India's independence from Britain.<<

Admittedly some Muslims were. But a large majority of the Muslims were worried about what would happen to them when the British left and Hindus regained power. They thought that the hindus would turn vengeful and give them a hard time for a thousand years of life as dhimmies. That is why they partitioned the country.

Millions of Muslims were left behind in India, and ironically they were the ones who had rooted enthusiastically for Pakistan. And even more ironically the Muslims left behind in Hindu India, rather secular India, live a more free, and prosperous life that the Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Proof? Bangladeshis are flocking to India in their thousands. Indian Muslims have achieved more in all fields, science, art, business than the Muslims in Pakistan or Bangladesh.

>>Second rate Human? What are you talking about? My husband does not abuse me.<<

Have you heard the English saying ‘One swallow does not make a summer?' Read 2:228 again and keep a copy of it tacked to your refrigerator. Thank your stars (and not Islam) that you have a democrat and a good human for a husband.

>>What don't you check out those statistics in your religion.<<

I have no religion. But if you mean Hindus, then they will readily admit that many things need to be changed and they have been changing. But islam is stuck with the unchanging word of their god

>> Food for thought:

Women

If any do deeds of righteousness, be they male or female,
and have faith, they will enter Paradise
and not the least injustice will be done to them.
[Quran 4:124]<<

They become equal in paradise. But what about now? Read 2:228 again to add some spice to 4:124

>>O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and God will bring about through it a great deal of good. (4:19)<<

Great aya. But some food for thought in the exception – ‘when they become guilty of lewdness'. What happens, Nura, if a woman is guilty of lewdness. The answer is in 4:15. Don't neglect to read it and also read 4:16 to get a taste of Allah's idea of equity between men and women.

>>Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger ………….

Allah's Messenger (PBUH) said, "When a woman …….

The Prophet (PBUH said,
"Paradise lies at the feet of your mothers."<<

These are a few sources that women are loved by Allah as any Man. Paradise is for Man and Woman, and so is Hell.<<

You have quoted a number of hadith to show islam's consideration for women.

Nura, let me also quote some hadith for you to consider:

Muslim: Book 008, Number 3366: (also 3367 and 3368)

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: When a woman spends the night away from the bed of her husband, the angels curse her until morning. This hadith has been narrated through the same chain of transmitters (with a slight variation):" He said: Until she comes back."

Bukhari: Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him."

Nura, you know we can keep lobbing hadith at each other and not exhaust our ammunition. That should tell you something about the hadith. No big secret there. Now how about the sira? Ibn Ishaq quotes the prophet's famous last sermon thus:"…lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having NO CONTROL OF THEIR PERSONS…." Page 651 The life of Muhammad, translated by Guillaume.

Or ‘The History of al Tabari', Vol 9, The last years of the prophet. Page 113: "..Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves."

Clearly the prophet is addressing only men, women are not included in this last pep talk he is giving to Muslim men and his opinion of women is like that of any man of the jahiliya.

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".