Ayaan Ali Hirsi and the Big Bad Wolf

8;57 is more clear about what to in order to make an example to the enemies:


008.057
YUSUFALI: If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.
PICKTHAL: If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.
SHAKIR: Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful.

``......i.e. the Quran no mention or justfication for such massacres is offered, in fact it is against the very letter of its spirit.........``


the following verses clearly state the nature of treatment to be met out to the unbelievers. The context may be specific but the verses are revealed as universal prescriptions to all muslims:

047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah`s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

To say that such treatment is NOT justified by the Holy Quran but is wrongly precribed in the Hadith is absolutely incorrect.

There are many more verses that justify harsh treatment towards unbelievers.

2:91

5:33

8:12 is more explicit :

008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ``I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.``
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Zeemax writes <<< Muhammad massacred Banu Quraiza to send Quraish a message >>>

How can you be so sure in your assertion? The facts of the issue are that in the most historical of all documents regarding the life of the prophet, i.e. the Quran no mention or justfication for such massacres is offered, in fact it is against the very letter of its spirit. You are basing your allegations on Ibn Ishaq`s work who lived 150 years after the events and whose work survives as secondary quotes in the work of people like Tabari who lived over a hundred years after him and well known jurists like Maalik discount Ibn Ishaq`s work. Will this kind of evidence stand in any court of law to convict anyone of a crime? Of course not, yet why do the Islam haters cling to it as a drowning person clutching at straws? Because if they rely on the Quran, they have no case against Islam. They have to cringe and crawl to find out, from the whole morass of extra-quranic nonsense that has been lumped under the banner of Islam, a few tales to prove and nourish their bigotry and hatred. They prove nothing in the process and would be laughed out of any civilized court if they tried to use any such evidence to convict anyone of a crime.

jeez beej, didn`t know you had transgendered!!!! would`ve rather heard from the real bina shah, whoever that is, but yeah sleep is always good. and oh i`m glad no one will be calling me for the next hundred years or so. i don`t come here because i`m called on anyway. i`m more or less a crasher!

ta!

#439 by sleeper

[…would miss shah care to comment ….]

Ms. Shah most certainly would not! Ms. Shah most certainly would not because of the simple reason that she already has a long pile of unanswered questions which she has been studiously avoiding – and because running for dear life when everyone has caught you with your hand in the ``kookie`` jar and is chasing you with brickbats is a time-consuming task, as is hiding inside the loo!

So put your question at the bottom of the pile, dear lady, take a number, and return to sleep – and you can rest assured that nobody will be calling you for the next hundred years or so!

Or at least until the “chickens” come home to roost!

would miss shah care to comment on the `crisis` that verdonk`s so-called investigation has caused? that it has led to the resignation of the dutch prime minister and an investigation of ms. verdonk`s claims itself?

or perhaps it is perfectly fine with miss shah that verdonk had a particular agenda in mind in denouncing someone she once backed -- the limitations placed on future immigrants to the netherlands.

or perhaps everyone here is just more content to flap their fingers and discuss what is and is not in the quran, and what women`s rights should be -- a waste of time for those (not) truly concerned with the rights of women?

zeemax:

turman nuked japs because he didn`t want to ``waste`` yankee lives.

japs had not surrendered and were ready to fight to the last child!

your analogy just smacks of your slavery to the arabs.

anyway how come truman has become equivlent to mo???

let me remind you truman was no ``prophet`` sent by god to spread message of peace.

Re: # 438
Netizen
There are many questions as to why the atom bomb was dropped on Japan. It was not just to save Yankee lives. Japan was pretty close to being defeated anyway, at that point. It was partly to send a message of the form, `` Resistance is futile...``. Secondly Japan was a good place to test the bomb. From a racist viewpoint they were not European and being a bunch of islands the result of the nuclear fallout would not affect surrounding areas much. What other reasons? Who knows?

Zeemax
Every person is dispensable at some point in time and uniquely necessary at some other point. This is pretty much what you say. There is something else I wanted to ask you but I don`t want to light a fuse in this arsenal. I`ll send email.

Krishna_abcd
The statement above is not necessarily that of a serial killers viewpoint. A serial killer is selfish. Killings may be done for singular pleasure perhaps. Actually we could ask Dr. Sohail to write an article on that. But dispensability could be for the greater good or even destruction. The vanishing of a species over a period of time is not a great cause for consternation. However it is still tragic. Who has benefited? Who has lost? From the viewpoint of evolution are the periodic extinctions of species tragic? Were they not all dispensable?
Ultimately who can tell?

#61 by Bina_Shah on February 7, 2006 1:42am PT
Re: # 51

Arjun M - I have not rationalized the Paris riots, the targeting of Salman Rushdie, or the murder of Theo Van Gogh, neither in this article nor anywhere else on Chowk. To me this verges on the point of slander and you`d better prove your point by showing where exactly I`ve done any of that or retract your statement.

--From you article ``cartoon clash of civilizations.``

do you guys even blush at times like these? or is it that there is no shame in islam?

dear Teshah aka mirchi

What a decent reply!!! :), I seriously was SHOCKED to say the least. Those days at the Santa Dharam High School did pay off didnt they? you should always express what you feel but your choice of words should be one that befits an alumni of that illustrious institute, mirchi or not.
Now go and read what you said to tahmed32, and imagine if you were at the recieving end of such slander. that was the point i was trying to make. take care.

zeemax

yapity yap yap!! shouldnt truman be called muhammad alif saani? (just wondering)
....................... if only truman was muslim his act would have been SUNNAH, i.e. a preferred act.
..................glad that you have called muhammad a war criminal there is still some hope left out there in the muslim world.

#431 by krishna_abcd

I reiterate ... People are at the same time dispensible as well as supreme. Dispensible when a task is at hand, supreme when the task is done.

Muhammad massacred Banu Quraiza to send Quraish a message. They were dispensible to defeat a bigger foe. Then rebuilt the society after having won. Truman massacred two Japanese cities to send Russians a message. They were dispensible to defeat a bigger foe. Then rebuilt the society after having won. Which one was a serial killer?

To the point reply please ... spare me the mulim-paki bashing rhetoric. Thanks.

zeemax: well at least we share the same aspiration, i.e. an end to these stupid hatreds and groupings of people. what you see as ``optimism``, i see as merely a linear projection of history - the cypriots were the example i was providing. other examples of ``family feuds`` abound: the french and the germans, to take the most obvious case; the japanese and the americans who fought bitterly in the pacific islands just a few decades ago; the persians and the arabs. the list goes on.

And from all indications, this linear projection is not enough. we are going through a momentous change in human evolution itself. when there is no need for competition between groups, and there is every incentive for cooperation. it would take too long to explain - nor do i think i need to, given that you are obviously aware of technological trends (which, as we all know, bring about fundamental changes in socio-political structures).

thus, the pettiness that goes on chowk is merely an indication of just how totally obsolete this mindset is.

end of second sermon for saturday. :-)

#426 Aangaara

[...bechara rajput noni cutwa key chowk pay muslim ban gaya...]

Ama yaar, but why pour salt over the wound?!

#425 by zeemax

[... People are at the same time dispensible as well as supreme. Dispensible when a task is at hand, supreme when the task is done. ]


If you really believe that, you have good potential as a serial killer.

#429 by aangaara

Now you`re incoherent ... forget it. Too many beers?

#426 by aangaara

Calm down ... talk sense ... buddy .... both Rajputs and dravidians and others were all fleas on the Indian dog`s back. Muslims too later. But there were Martial fleas and servile fleas.

Never mind. It doesn`t matter. The more realities change the more these remain the same.