Salah Ali: Re Nakedness of women. Many more interesting details about Muslims and Islam

Submitted by Plato (India), Sep 8, 2009 at 10:21

Salah Ali, you write,

>>There are so many details in the Qur'an, Sharia and Moslem society. There are so many Moslems who cannot be stupid in embracing Islam.<<

Many more billions of people don't believe in Islam than do. The ones who are not stupid and try to leave Islam tend to have their throats slit. Have you considered that this could be a very good reason for many Muslims to pretend to be Muslims (i.e. being hypocrites. Hypocrites have a venerable history from the prophet's time, being mentioned many times in the Koran). I can give you many interesting details from the Koran, Hadith and Sharia. Just one of the interesting details from the Koran is given below:

004.089 YUSUFALI: ……. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their

ranks;- [The 'they' here are hypocrites]

Why does Islam want those who leave its fold killed, my dear Salah Ali?

>>I do not consider women as (vulva) as you said or said Islam maintains.<<

I do no and you may not. But the respected jurists of Islam have reduced women to that status as I showed you.

>>Women are mothers, sisters, daughters and darling wives.<<

So they are. They should be as respected as fathers, sons, brothers or darling husbands. But unfortunately that is not what the Koran wants Muslim males to do. For this read:

004.034 YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, ….. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means ….

Abu Dawood 11. 2142: "The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

Another cute story of wife beating can be found in this hadith: muwatta30.2.13 In this hadith a woman tries to trick her husband so he would stop sleeping with their maid. But Umar tells him to beat his wife and to go to his slave-girl.

Salah Ali your Allah (His prophet and a rightly guided Caliph) allows you to thrash [idribuhunna ] your 'darling wives' if you even fear (let alone wives actually being disobedient) she will be disobedient.

>>It is stupid indeed to think that Islam reduced women to her genital.<<

…Awra is an Arabic term the plural of which is Awrat. Linguistically, it means a hidden and secret place, and a person's Awra is that which must be kept hidden. It also refers to everything that causes shame when exposed, thus, the Awra of an individual is the area of the body which (normally) causes embarrassment if exposed. (Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-Arab, 9/370). [This effectively means a woman should be ashamed of almost all of her Allah-given body]

…The great Hanafi jurist, Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his renowned Durr al-Mukhtar:

"The Awra for a free woman (i.e. not a slave, m) is her full body including her descending hair according to the correct opinion, except for the face, hands.... and feet"‌. (See Radd al-Muhtar, 1/405).

… Imam al-Tumurtashi (Allah have mercy on him) states in Tanwir al-Absar:

"A woman's Awra consists of her whole body except her face, hands and feet. However, she will be prevented from exposing her face in amongst men due to the fear of temptation (fitna)"‌. [This respected Muslim even wants the face of a woman to be hidden from view – i.e wear a niqab ] http://darulislam.info/Sections-article46-p1.html

Most cultures/religions ask only that the genitals be covered. But Islam demands the whole body of the woman be covered because her body (except the face and hands) should also be considered awra, naked, i.e. a woman is just one big vulva.

>>No one believes that at all and I wonder of the profound ignorance of Islam some people have.<<

I also wondered about the profound ignorance of the great Islamic Imams like Malik ibn Anas, and Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi'i. It is time you questioned these so-called scholars of Islam, Salah Ali. Is it time to accuse them of bida or reprehensible innovation because of their rulings on women's dress?

>>I know so many Moslems who are so clean in heart and mind, so many Westerners too. But to generalization runs counter to common-sense.<<

A very wise statement, generalizations about people are completely against common sense. But you will find Allah in the Koran is guilty of this charge. The Koran is full of generalizations about Jews, Christians and pagans. In a sweeping generalization Allah calls all unbelievers unclean in 9:28 and 9:95.

In another generalization Allah dehumanizes non-Muslims by calling them vile beasts in 8:55 and 98:6.

So was Allah devoid of common sense? Perhaps being Allah He had some uncommon sense?

>>Islam is simple in its teachings and practices,….<<

Indeed Islam is a simple religion. To be a Muslims all you have to do is accept that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is His prophet and hey presto all your previous sins will be forgiven and even your future sins may be forgiven for Allah says that the only unforgivable sin is associating anyone with Him (4;48, 4:116)

But the practices of Islam are very arduous. Five prayers a day after ritual purification (even the natural act of passing wind will force you to purify yourself again; funnily enough by washing up other areas and not the offending organ!), month-long fasting from dawn to dusk during which you cannot drink water or swallow your saliva (?). Women are forced into uncomfortable burqas posing a health hazard to themselves and a security threat to society. Islam is not at all simple to practice.

>>… and fine minds as Durant's,Kenneth Clark, Rodinson, Bernard Lewis, Henry Corbin, Massignon, Watt an d many others in the West never make sweeping generalization in dealing with Islam. even bernard Lewis the Jewish theoritician stops short of making generalization <<

They don't because they are great scholars and true scholars research their subject. Which is why you should read them. You will then find what Will Durant discovered Islam did in India - a barbarian attack on an ancient and superior culture. Or Massignon who considered Islam to be a primitive religion (wikipedia). Maxime Rodinson came to the conclusion that Islam's origins can be traced to the social and economic contexts of the time, not very flattering for Muhammad's claim to being Allah inspired (wikipedia).

>>You make your own interpretations and believe them yourself.<<

If one is mature enough and has an average IQ one is entitled to interpret claims made in books or statements, religious or secular. What am I supposed to do if a man comes to me and informs me that he has been made the agent of an all powerful invisible and inaudible being who will burn and torture me if I don't believe it? I ask him who told him he has been given this job and I am told another being visible only to him told him so. How do you expect me to interpret this claim? Will you believe anyone who came to you with this claim?

>>As for the animal metaphor it was Shakespeare in Othello, a sort of early literary polemics, he means Othello topping Desdemona, the way I topped sara, Madeline, mary and Susan ages ago... <<

Are these women real or just Shakespearean metaphors in your mind? Before you 'topped' them like Othello did you Islamically sanctify the 'topping' by helping them to top up their bank balances?

>>When women do what they like, they replace their men with dogs...<<

Western women can have sex on demand, why would they go for a dog? You have been watching too much pornography showing bestiality.

>>Why you passed by the debasement of women in Western pornography?<<

Those who produce and those who pay for pornography are the ones debasing women. I did not want to open that can of worms. Now that you insist on bringing up pornography here is something I found:

"Poverty, corruption and market-demand combine to make pornography a Bangladeshi cottage industry Shaikh Azizur Rahman, in Dhaka, reports

Human rights groups, women activists and religious organisations have strongly condemned the growing pornographic film industry, in which Bangladeshi men secretly film themselves having sex with their wives and sell the tapes in markets in Bangladesh and abroad.

………

Recently, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, police seized and destroyed more than 10,000 pornographic video films, many of which were made in Bangladesh. Police in Saudi Arabia arrested a group of Bangladeshis whom they suspect of smuggling and selling pornographic material……. Since these films are made in a "natural" atmosphere and the women are amateurs they have very high demand in the Gulf countries.

……….

"Only a few husbands have reached such low morals so as to shoot their wives in the nude and sell the pictures. We will be sure to eradicate this menace of pornography in our country… we consider it to be against the fundamental tenets of our religion," he said.

http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/world_2002/ahram-020822.html

Here you have one Muslim country specializing in pornographic material for other Islamic countries. Exploiters of women for pornography (both the seller and the buyer) are Muslims in this reported case.

>> I will come later<<

Please do.

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".