Dhimmie/Plato, go your way, I'll go mine!!

Submitted by Nura (United States), May 22, 2008 at 15:36

Dhimmi:

I am not a man sitting in his mother's basement. Perhaps that is your situation! I am a woman, mother of two who often writes responses to your ridiculous arguments at the kitchen table. Furthermore, I am not affiliated with the tablighee Jamat, or any other group. I am a Muslim who follows the Quran and the Sunnah. I do not have any one Imam or teacher.

So you are a pagan Dhimmie? You chose to worship a god that you can see. Why don't you look into the mirror and worship yourself then?

Plato is a "Self worshipper". He claims to have not a religion, but he defends Hinduism. You call me to a religion that you do not believe in? Evidently you found some problems in the religion that you have called me to. How unjust!! The truth is you are envious, as Dhimie, that I have certaintly. That I actually believe that My religion is the truth. Plato wants to judge which religion is better based on ethics, what did you come to?

The significance of Hindus, Hindu-like people who respond to this topic:

1. Just as Islam is sweeping over the West, Hindus feel that Islam has already claimed most of their society. India has slightly more Hindus than Muslims. They are afraid of the further indoctrination of their country as the West is. Plato: How long after the Turkish arrived did the British arrive? It was not a long span was it? If the people were massacred as you said, or forced to leave their religion, why did they not return to their religion once the Ottomans were overturned? Why did they remain not only Muslim, but wanted an Islamic state where they would be separated from polytheism. Why is it that they cling to the religion now? If my ancestors were brutalized by a people, I would not keep that religion. I guess that is why you hate Pakistanis so much Dhimie. They are envious as the West that Islam is a stronger, fulfilling religion to it's people. One that is known to be a great resister to indoctrination.

2. Hate that was instilled by India's colonizers. You are both examples of Colonized minds.

Plato: so you like the game tit for tat

"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!"

You are not clever enough to turn my statements back on me. I said:

"India, So India does not have an Imperialistic history! They did not have warring tribes and nations that subjugated people under an empire"

Did I say that Indians invaded India? No, I said that India has a history of imperialism and subjugation of it's people. They probably didn't invade the Arabs because they did not have the might to do so. Was it against their religion to do so? People who have the might usually use it.

" Let us go as far back as the first mosque built in India."

Plato, I think that the fact that there was a mosque in India proves two things. One, that Muslims were not seen at the barbarians that you have tried to assert. There were Muslim traders who went to India to trade goods. India had a pre-relationship with Islamic people, which did not threaten them. If they had been threatened would they have allowed a mosque? Secondly, that Muslims call to India was not a call of forced conversions!!! Indians converted to Islam willingly before the Turks arrived. To make it clear, I do not endorse the acts of ANY leader other than the Prophet(PBUH) and the four righteous Califs. In Islam we have four leaders who actually followed the tenets of Islam. The rest I do not claim to support their actions. I support Islam, and I argue against those who try to defile it.

"I am not about to recount the whole of Islamic history not because there is no time and space but because I know only bits and pieces, the interesting bits probably"

You are right Plato. You don't know about Islamic history. You know only pieces. The end of the story. How can you start a book from the end? You must know the entire account to be able to judge the actions that result. It is only fair!!

Abu Bakr, did wage a war against a group of hypocrites who tried to cause division after the Prophet(PBUH) died. Insurrection. Again, your point? One of the greatest conflicts that arise within a nation, is when a part if it wants to be independent. This conflict almost never ends well. Abu Bakr, sought to keep the Ummah from being divided by a few troublemakers.

"By that logic the only people who should write Hindu history are the Hindus. Or is it still a case of only Muslims being capable of writing undistorted history? "

You use sources based on European historians without question!!! What a hypocrisy. Only Europeans are capable of writing unbiased history? You are using sources from a people who hated Islam. Don't you think that there could be some bias arguments, out and out lies in the history books? Yes, I would rather hear Indian history from Indian historians. What is the problem in that, but to a colonized mind.

Oh, again an book written by a European with translation right? Regardless, the whole story is not told in those excerpts. Islam clearly does not support the massacre of any people. As I told you before, I do not endorse the POLITICAL AGENDA of any rulers or leaders other than the ones that I mentioned and I am skeptical of western historian accounts of history in General. My faith does not rely on the actions of Muslims but on the word of the Quran and the Prophet(PBUH). In other words, evidence that a group of Muslims in history committing atrocities does not sway my belief so much as the weight of an atom. It would only show me more evidence for the reasons for a return to Islam. I have not argued that Muslims are or have been perfect. I have only argued, that in the context of history, Islam is not a religion of atrocities In spite of flaws. The need for the return of Islam is all that it shows.

In addition, You will also see in Islamic history conflicts that could not have been religious because both parties were Muslims. There is a difference between political conflicts and religious ones. Islamic history is an example of both of these conflicts. The Abbasid,Omayyad, and ottoman Empires do not resemble the leadership of Islam as seen with the Prophet(PBUH) or the four leaders after him. There is a great difference in the conflicts at time and the agenda of those conflicts. You really need to look at the history to understand.

"Muslims seem to think that unbelievers cannot, do not, or will not understand the Koran, probably taking their cue from the infallible Koran itself (18:57, 17:97)"

You can not!!! Why was not the Quran sent down from heaven in one day? Why did it take 20 years for the word to be completed. Although the Arabs spoke Arabic, they did not understand many aspects of the Quran. This is why there was a Phrophet(PBUH) who taught them the meaning of versus in the Quran. This comes to the verse of Allah misleading people. I'm glad you brought it up:

19:76 "And Allah doth advance in guidance THOSE WHO SEEK guidance: and the things that endure, Good Deeds, are best in the sight of thy Lord, as rewards, and best in respect of (their) eventual return."

9:115 And Allah will not MISLEAD a people after He hath guided them, in order that He may make clear to them what to fear (and avoid)- for Allah hath knowledge of all things

Allah leads those who seeks guidance. I think that your question of Allah misleading people is a good one. To understand this term, you have to understand that Allah has power over all things. This means that He could make all humans believers in him. For Allah to allow people to make their own choices regarding belief, would mean that he allows people to be disbelievers. It is for this very reason why Muslims are forbidden to force non-believers into belief. How can humans force what Allah does not? He does not force belief, so humans are forbidden to force belief also.

Allah has the power to lead all if he chose. The design of our free will allows us to chose if we will consent to be guided:

"So from whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque; and wheresoever ye are, Turn your face thither: that there be no ground of dispute against you among the people, except those of them that are bent on wickedness; so fear them not, but fear Me; and that I may complete My favours on you, and ye May (consent to) be guided;

This consent is given in the hearts of man. If a person truly looks for the truth, then Allah will guide him. When he opens the Quran he will see evidence, signs of the truth. This is how Allah leads people to the truth. People usually find what they are looking for either disbelief or belief.

If the heart is hard, and refuses guidance, then Allah allows him to remain in darkness. When he opens the Quran he only seeks to find error and lies. He does not seek for truth, so the Quran can lead him further to disbelief. It is known that what our hearts desire reflects on every aspect of the perceptions in our lives. It is no different in the Quran. It only leads those who Sincerely wish to be lead. It misleads those who seek to dispute in it.

So in other words Allah leads and misleads based on what is in the hearts. To be lead or mislead is an individual decision. This is the meaning of free will.

n addition. Allah created all in the Earth, including the Satan, who misleads people. For Allah to allow him to continue to mislead people is also the plan of free will, which Satan also haves.

Finally, this is what Muslims are advised to say to those who dispute about Islam:

Surah 109:
Al-Kafiroon (The Disbelievers, Atheists)

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

1. Say : O ye that reject Faith!

2. I worship not that which ye worship,

3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

4. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,

5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

6. To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Allah speaks the truth!!

Amine

---

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".