Nura: You are a true Muslim. You accept the gag imposed by 40:4 and 40:35

Submitted by Plato (India), May 18, 2008 at 03:10

Nura, you have been gagged by 40:4, 40:35

Let me take up your last para first:

>> Plato, this is my parting between you and me. Once an issue is clear, Muslims are advised not to debate further. I believe that I have presented enough evidence and analysis for fair critical thinking. Try it. You might like it.<

The Koran has given you a nice escape route in 40:4 and 40:35 to wriggle out of difficult corners it has painted Muslims into.

It is funny you say once an issue is clear Muslims are not to debate it further. This means a Muslim is banned (as demanded by 40:4 and 40:35) from debating the Koran. If you are a true Muslim you should not ‘wrangle' with infidels like me about what the verses of the Koran mean. Only those who have been given a warrant for such argument are allowed to do it according to 40:35. Obviously you have not been given that warrant!

Before you take leave of me, as instructed by the Koran, I have a few comments on what you have written. I have enjoyed this repartee with you.It was fascinating to observe you morphing into characters like Mansoor, or Bilawal on this forum as the debate progressed.

>>Thanks for the Dictionary.com definition. I know what Imperlaism means in the West. Islam is NOT Imperialistic. As stated in the definition it is the subjugation of a people by a people. Islam does not fall under that Characteristic.<<

Nura, you fail to understand that making statements without proof does not convince anyone. Your saying Islam is not imperialistic does not make it so. Was what Muslims did to Persia not imperialistic by the definition I gave you. You show the common Muslim attitude of thinking that whatever Muslims do is by definition good and ethical and those Muslims who do not meet your criteria are again by definition not Muslims.

I read your rider about the definition being a western one. What you are hinting at probably is that by Islamic definition any conquest is by Allah's permission and cannot be considered imperialistic. For you the crusades which followed the conquest of Christian nations are imperialistic but Muslim conquest is about bringing the word (more correctly the sword) of Allah to the poor ignorant infidels.

>> It was the commandment and plan of Allah to establish Islam in the land as the religions before it was established.<<

You said it. The Muslims have the commandment of Allah to establish Islam in the land. Why do you shy away from using the word conquer, Nura. You need not be afraid as Allah is openly for establishing his imperialism on the rest of humanity by conquest. Read 61:9 and 3:85. Also read 9:29, can you deny the imperialism it reeks of? Merely using establish instead of conquest does not make Islam less imperialistic.

>> In the Caliphate, authority is to ALLAH first, then his prophet, then those of authority. This is grossly different that imposing the laws of man, Kingdom, on the people.<<

Again Islamic imperialism exposed. Authority should be first for Allah and then those in authority. Allah is not significant in the life of infidels and follow man-made laws (according to Muslims, that is) and so Muslims have the right to impose the will of Allah on us. Is this not what you are saying Nura?? Just link what you have said with 61:9.

>> Islam should not have Kingdoms, and you do not see Kings in early Islam for this very reason. This different than British, France, ect. Whose laws of subjugation came from a King, or Queen who is held as being the supreme authority. There is a difference.<<

Yes there is a big difference. Islam brought in such a weak system that democracy ended within a generation after the Prophet. Now you have dictators in almost all Muslim countries imposing their own laws on Muslims who think that they have to obey those in authority (remember what you said about authority from allah percolating to those in authority?).

The British, French etc had laws imposed by their dictators (kings) to begin with but the people overcame and imposed their own laws on themselves. Are Muslims incapable of getting rid of their dictators? The small kingdom of Nepal has recently overthrown the monarchy using both the gun and the ballot. The king of Bhutan is democratizing his country. Muslim leaders either claim that their masses are not ready for democracy or democracy does not fit into the mould of islam.

>>Account from Oliverus Scholasticus, during the crusades on the kindness of the Muslims during war: "Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power."<<

Elsewhere in another post you have said that Muslim history should be by Muslims. Remembe writing this in your "What" post of 15/05/08: ‘Who is better to write it than Muslims themselves!!! Why do you quote a Christian historian now?

I do not doubt that all that Oliverus has written is true. He wrote what he observed or heard about. The crusaders proved that much more cruel than the Muslims of the time. You also must read about the stories of what Muslim conquerors did in various times and places. Taimur for instance. Or Saddam Hussein. Or even Hafez al Assad. And how about Khalid bin Walid? You are a historian. You must have read what he did after the prophet conquered Mecca?

>>(Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities.Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors. (Al-Baqarah 2:190)<<

This is one verse the Prophet himself rejected when he went on raiding parties. You are a historian. You must have read about the battle of Badr which the Muslims instigated by trying to raid a Meccan caravan. You must have read of the surprise attacks on the Banu Mustalik and on Khaibar. Who began hostilities in these cases? Is the prophet exempt from Allah's injunctions?

>>The Banu Quraiza: It never fails!! How many times am I going to hear this as evidence of Islamic terrorism.<<

Nura the fate of the Banu Quraiza will echo through history as long as Islam exists. It will not fail to bring on murmurings of terrorism, ethnic cleansing and gross miscarriage of justice because that was exactly what it was. All the perfume of Arabia will not deodourise the stench emanating from this incident.

>> It's really good evidence that there is not much to say. Do you know the rest of the story? The whole story? This event happened during the battle of trench. Another defensive battle that had a particular war strategy "a trench", hence the name.<<

Muslims have nothing much to say about this incident because the more they talk about it the more they entangle themselves and struggle helplessly to wash away this great sin.

How many attacks did the Muslims launch on the Meccan trade route beginning with Nakhla? Count them in your history books. Were the Meccans not justified in ending attacks by the predators who preyed on their defenceless caravans?

>> The Banu Quraiza, had a treaty with prophet Muhammad. They were not to go to war with each other or help others against each other. They were to fight in defense of either group that was attacked.<<

The Banu Quraiza never made any overt move against the Muslims. They might have conspired with the Meccans but they were soon out conspired by the Prophet with a double agent who sowed doubts among the conspirators. After this the Banu Quraiza did not fall for the blandishments of the Meccans.

>>When the Pagans were planning to attack the Muslims, this tribe believed that the Muslims would be defeated, this is after the battle of Uhud. They then made a coo and convinced other tribes to commit treason against Prophet Muhammad.<<

Where is the evidence they committed treason? The Meccans only convinced the Quraiza to commit treason but no treason was committed.

>>They did the same. After the battle was over and the pagans fled, The males of the treasonous were executed. What's the problem?<<

Cool. The males were executed. What's the problem? The males who conspired could only have been a handful leaders. Boys who had pubic hair were also executed. How old could they have been? Muslims claim that girls reach puberty by the time they are nine (the Aisha story) so the boys too must grow pubic hair two or three after the girls. That would make them twelve or thirteen when these innocent boys would have been beheaded. There would have been some very old men too. No problem Nura, this is what Islamic justice and the sharia is all about.

>>Their treason could have been disastrous for the Muslims, If they were not punished, what would prevent this treasonous act from happening again?<<

Killing those boys with fresh grown pubic hair was necessary? Beheading the granddaddies among them was necessary? Beheading boys and old men for the treason committed by a few leaders was necessary? Wouldn't executing the leaders of the tribe have been sufficient? Is this prophet the person you claim is the mercy to all mankind.

>>It was necessary, and very common in times of war.<<

You are a historian. Give us a few examples of what you claim was common in times of war.

>>Islam had the Geneva conventions thousands of years before Europeans developed them. There moral character during war has been unmatched in history.<<

Beheading of people accused of being conspirators and enslaving their women and children must also be part of your Geneva convention then. Trying to link Muslim war behaviour with the Geneva convention is dishonest to say the least. You are a historian. Dig out a copy Cyrus the Great's charter and compare with what your prophet did to the people he conquered.

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".