A Journey Through Our Conscience

Re: # 286

``I could start another thread of explaining to you the geo political situation beyond the headlines for your untrained minds, but then, they may not be able to handle the stress.

So just read my post again to see WHEN and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES such actions were taken; also whether the behaviors of USA and Coalition of Willing has any similarity or not...``

---

Yeah right..

Don`t you think the same ``WHEN and WHAT circumstances`` apply to Bush as well..*after Sept 11, it is no longer possible to ignore Muslims as just a set of regressives who want to take the world back to the 7`th century..``

Looks like we need to get trained by you to understand your logic.. I don`t want to end up in Guantanamo bay though.. thanks but No thanks..

---

Regarding this article, I emphathise with the author and understand the suffering of women. As you can see from the direction of the discussion, there seems to be a quite a number of people who believe in the correctness of a 7`th century document and its universality. If you read Quran you`l find where all this treatment of women is coming from.. Unfortunately I think there is little hope in fighting for respect or equal rights in a society that is formed on the basis of a dogmatic religion entrenched in regressive beliefs..

Just to end on a positive note, you can try to invoke religion to get some rights, like having a women`s jamaat to decide on women`s issues etc.. rape cases need to be handled by a sharia court with women judges etc.. fight for equal rights in mosques or form a separate mosque etc

Re: # 289 & 290

I think for now Yale & Harvard would suffice you to learn the basics of logic and its relationship with rationale. Noam Chomsky there will be wonderful resource for you to begin with. Perhaps, then you`ll be ready to understand what this whole thing is really about.

``Don`t you think the same ``WHEN and WHAT circumstances`` apply to Bush as well..

NO!

I think you need to take some time off chowk and read the various international reports to understand what exactly is going on... too much CNN, BBC, and Fox are not good for anyone`s intellect.

*after Sept 11, it is no longer possible to ignore Muslims as just a set of regressives who want to take the world back to the 7`th century..

It is not about Muslims trying to take the whole world back to 7th century. How many Muslims do you think are in South America? How about China...do you think N. Korea has a sizable Muslim population?

It is the US led Coalition of Willing who are taking the world in that direction...even farther back to 7th century BC. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestinian camps are just a few clear proofs of that. But the truth seldom jumps out from the headlines; one has to dig deeper to get to it.

Do you think the growing global economic gap between the rich and poor is being widened by the Muslims? Do some studying to see who`s driving this train backwards.

Why do you think that after thousands of arrests, torture, killings by the US and the rest of the Coalition of the Willing there has not been ``1`` single SOLID ``conviction`` on terrorism?

Why do you think after 5 years of Bush reign, Palestinian issue remains where it was when he stole the White House? Sure it must be the Palestinians... `cause Bush, Sharon and AIPAC, AEI, The Hudson Institute, etc are mere lambs and doves of peace and prosperity for all.

Why do you think Iraq continues to burn 2 years after the mighty Coalition forces removed the terrible dictator? Do you think they really don`t have the means to crush the rebellion?

With their control over Afghanistan, do you think they`re really that weak to stop the poppy cultivation and most horrible law & order situation? What`s seems to be the problem when the Taliban have been chased off and they recently had successful elections?

Why do you think not one Hindu fanatic has been charged in the Gujrat riots yet? Even when official Indian reports have declared that Muslims did not instigate it. Which century do you think those Hindus were from...500 BC, or the stone age to have cut out the unborn babies from their alive mother`s wombs just to see what would happen to their tiny heads on their tiny bodies if a boulder was dropped on them? Do you think it would take the Indian govt. that long to find the culprits and mete out justice, when they allegedly have a formidable force to swallow Pakistan effortlessly and then take on the Chinese?

But hey, the`re the largest democracy of the World, majority of whose population is being pushed into destitution, drugs, thuggery, prostitution, etc etc etc. It has come to the point that one of the elightened Indians here claims that ``Prostitutes are most liberal women`` `cause they have the guts to work alone at night. The dim wit doesn`t realize that muder and robbery are even more gutsy acts, which would then make the hardened criminals more and more liberal as their rapsheets gets longer. And it is so refreshing to see that NONE of the liberal women came forward to correct him. Nor did any of the Righteous Liberal Men had anything to say about it. It must be the new trend. WOW!

I don`t know about you or the aforementioned groups, but I`ll be bluntly honest with you that I cannot allow women of my household to reach this new summit of Liberalism.

You need to read the Quran on your own, instead of reading verses here & there and believing what the disoriented ``moderate`` Muslims here have to say in order to modernize Islam, beofre you form an opinion about it. As Pink Floyd said, these people are comfortably numb in their western cocoons. Little do they (or even the non-Muslim mouth pieces of the Corporate Crooks and King makers of G8) know that even if they reddened their hands with Muslims blood to appease the Coalition of the Willing, the latter will slaughter them before they have a bout of conscienceness. It was recently demonstrated in Bosnia, Kosovo, Gujrat, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

But one cannot expect the Headline Generation juveniles to put in that effort.

MJ,
nt, beleive me man you are sick. and your sickness has much to do with the inability to see it......

That`s it? Is that the best you could come up with? LOL

You turned out to be hot air after all. afsos sud afsos....sighhhhhhhhhhh

The straitjacketed inside an asylum always consider the ones outside as mentally sick

since you`re into poetry, I`m sure you could explain this following one to me;

badal ker bhase phir atay hain her zamanay mein;
agarchey peere hai adam, jawan hain laat o manat;
wo aik sajda jisay to gira(n) samajhta hai;
hazar sajdon se deta hai aadmi ko nijaat.

Beware though; do come up for air when its depth begins to drown you :-)~~

Ciao

but sattar, they were all liars.......

MJ,

But first, here’s more on Banu Quraiza issue … that was raised earlier. I have read and understood the following …

Muslims had entered treaties with different communities in Medina, agreeing to defend each other if attacked. During the Battle of Ditches, the Meccan army laid a siege to Medina. Muslims dug ditches to prevent the enemy from charging in. Forests, mountains, and settlements etc. prevented attacks from the (3?) remaining sides. Meccans then conspired with Banu Quraiza. The plan was that the Meccan army will attack from the front, and Banu Quraiza will launch a simultaneous attack on Muslims from behind.

Muslims found out about this plan, posted army to prevent being attacked from behind, and repelled frontal Meccan attacks. The plan failed. Eventually the Meccans got tired, packed their bags, and left. It was now time to deal with Banu Quraiza for their betrayal.

And this is where history becomes somewhat contentious …

Leaders of Banu Quraiza did not want Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the judge over this issue. They did not trust him and did not think he’d be fair to them. Instead they chose one of the senior Jewish leaders to be the judge (name?). Muslims led by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) agreed to this choice. The judge strictly followed Torah on the matter, and the verdict was that of death, as specified by Torah.

Much uncertainty surrounds the number of Jews hence executed. Some accounts indicate that all adult men of Banu Quraiza (totaling 800?) were executed. This very well may not have been the case. It is hard to imagine all adult male population directly involved in this attack. Furthermore, since people were following orders, it is not fair to blame all men who participated. My understanding is that mainly the ring leaders of Banu Quraiza were executed for this conspiracy … which probably totaled 20 - 40 or so men … which ain’t bad at all.

Furthermore, I think remaining population of Banu Quraiza was given a choice … if they wanted to stay or leave. They chose to leave … and were allowed to go. It is quite possible that some were taken as slaves for additional compensation as decided on the matter.

Some fair-minded historians think Banu Quraiza leaders erred by rejecting Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the judge. Noting the general amnesty granted at the fall of Mecca, some historians are of the opinion that if given a chance, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) may have been lenient on this matter.

+++++++++

As for kick a$$ stuff on Mirza Sahib or anyone else for that matter … I am not your man. I think they were all good men … Moses, Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna, Jesus, Mirza … and all. They taught good lessons, made personal sacrifices … and did what they could to alleviate human suffering. May they all rest in peace … may we too find peace on earth … and may my options recover a bit more over the next fiscal year … amen, amen, and amen.

... and that’s too many posts for one day ... have a good weekend mate …

hamidm,

I hear you chief … I am just busting some mullah chops here. They come in all flavors … some are wide-eyed jihadis … others try to rationalize their holier-than-thou hang ups. They’re all f#$%ing hypocrites.

Keenness to preach Quran seems to be their common trait. Maybe there’s something hideous about the book itself … or at least those sermonizing others on it. Or maybe the ummah is missing out on benefits of having an occasional drink to loosen up. In any case, no amount of taqwaa is worth the an@l sense of self-righteousness that often accompanies it.

+++++++++

ntsyed (#272), here`s one more for blessed friday …

``More power to the ones (whoever they may be) believing #202.``

Your cousin Urstruly believes in #202. No kidding … just ask him. And when you do, also ask about #259. You`ll be shocked ... and will probably shave off your beard.

Re: # 281 sattar,

you are doing a great service to prophet hamidm by busting mullah chops and pointing out the funny side of quran and it`s author.

but to let you enter the heretic club, you will have to pass thru the litmus test.

now that you have cut the base on which you were standing, why not move on the next logical step? in short, we need to hear some kick a$$ stuff about mirza sahib of qadiyan.

come on man, you can do it........

Again, ntsyed is just a name. Other than that, everything is the same as it always was.

Dullabhati,

My comment was in response to Urstruly’s assertion. He had suggested that those who reject prophethood of Mirza Sahib are considered non-Muslims by Ahmadis. This is incorrect. According to Ahmadi views, rejecting Mirza Sahib (or other prophets that may follow) does not make one non-Muslim.

Yes, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the highest deity in Islam. Quran calls him the most exalted prophet (Seal of Prophets), the “best example”, “mercy for all worlds”, and asks believers to obey him.

Your point has some validity in that arguably one must accept prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) in order to be a “Muslim” … since the term Muslim comes from Quran, which also attests to prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). However, owing to mullahs selectively ignoring Quran, all bets are off. No kidding. There are all sorts of theories floating around among ullema ... about which verse of Quran or recorded hadith abrogates which verse of Quran. It gets very complicated ... just ask Naqshbandi ... who pointed me to a few sources ... before discovering the truth about me. Like Urstruly, he too no longer talks to me. I guess I must have upset him ... or something. Oops!

Now why do some mullah get very defensive about prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but not so much about Allah … is a bit of a mystery … which I too have noticed at times.


ntsyed,

I have asked Urstuly … may be you can help … with the question I raised in #259. I think the fire is under his tail, as well as yours. Crack, crack, boom.

Water? Or chusni?

Aah the Jews!
They voted with their feet. If there was ever such an injustice they would not have flocked to the muslim-ruled lands.

Spain, Morroco,Aljaazair, Egypt, Iraq, Iran--keep counting there are hundreds of names.

Oh yeh they did go to ``christain`` and ``pagan`` lands but only during the last century.

Their most glorious rennaisance was under the muslim lands; of course as dhimmis. Every Jewish writer attests to that.

The jews of Calcutta , who have now more or less dwindled to a few now,, speak eloquently and fondly of their muslim friends, servants and mullahs [ as recently reported in the Toronto Star]. So much so that even during Taliban days they refused to migrate[no it was not the money]. Jews in Pakistan held important goverment positions & prospering--it is only recently that they emigrated from other lands to Israel & the west--India, Russia included.

David, the well-known Indian actor personally told me about the treatment he received at the hands of fellow racist (europen Jews) who refused to accept him because of his Anwar Sadat looks. He insisted that Moses and Jesus really looked like him ( Haa Haa). They refused him burial in their cemetry. It was the muslims who buried him. Even in Israel all jews who are de-jewed by their Levis ( Brahmins) are buried in muslim cemetries. Even in Toronto two years ago there was a huge procession and police was called in when a `jew` was not allowed in a Jewish cemetry.

So let the descendants of Bani-Quraiza figure such intra Islamic-Jewish affairs. Their is no need for the Hanumaans for this monkey-chatter & jumping from tree to tree. The true subject to discuss is Ghori & Ghazni--and I admit that there is a lot of catching upto do there.

re: # 273-276

We get too caught up with names, ntsyed is bad or such is good. These are just names, individuals. In the march of time, individuals come and go.

The religious belief system then is exactly the same as it is now. Merely the outer layering and labelling gets changed in a tactical response to time and place.

As always I have directly put this question:

Irrespective of where it went and what outer form it took, has Islam changed in any fundamental sense since the day Ijtehad began?

---

If people still continue to get confused with names, labels, and outer forms, then truly, we may have nothing really worth preserving of our own.

re: some A-hole`s comment
``After winning the war, if the prisoners accepted Islam, they would be set free. Otherwise, they would be beheaded. Why? In the Quran, Allah tells the Prophet (pbuh) to tell the non-believers (when the latter was confronted with same question as yours today) that yes, killing is abhorrible, but their mischief (fitna) is even worse. Meaning, if the non-Muslims did not desist from threatening the Muslim communities - militarily or otherwise - they are begging to be killed. In other words, snakes never befriend anything except their kind, thus should be killed before they turn into serial killers.``
I am not active in this thread (thank God for that). This seems to be an islamic thread and i can see why it stinks.
Some of u guys seem to be in a time-warp, still living in bedouin Arab land, forgetting that the world has moved on.
It also shows why Islamic countries are so regressive.
The above sentence that some A-hole quoted seem to justify killing of non-muslims.
Muslim invaders came to India, conquered, raped and killed. They did not give the population any choice to live in peace with them without having to renounce their religion. The choice was: convert or perish.
So, if your prophet said that this was O.K, tell u what, i have just lost respect for him. In my many years on Chowk, one thing i never did was to lash out against your prophet but i think it is time now to do so.
You guys are just pathetic. You still hang on to some goddamn outdated book written in a language most of u do not understand. I just feel like puking all over the keyboard.
Sridhar

Re: # 275

``Muslim invaders came to India, conquered, raped and killed. They did not give the population any choice to live in peace with them without having to renounce their religion. The choice was: convert or perish.``

This is not quite true. After conditions stabilized, Hindus were able to, and did, live according to their religious beliefs. The only condition was to accept a subservient status, which they did. Some Muslim rulers are said to have gone even farther and respected some Hindu sensitivities, such as wrt killing of cows.

Re: # 249

MJ, I do not argue if my information is incomplete. You`re fooling yourself to believe that I`m shying away. I don`t believe in shooting from the hip in these matters. As I said, Insha Allah, I`ll look up your allegation and give you a solid answer simply to perpetuate your nightmare :-)~

I looked up Dr. Lactantius` paper. Let me just put it this way: I can dissect his each and every argument for you, but then you may lack the attention span for it. I`m glad you don`t claim yourself to be a Muslim if you fall for people who constantly trip over their own tongues. Read the article carefully and you`ll see it for yourself.

As for the banu quraiza... I dread to ask you of its source lest it be a devious yahudi like danial pipes.

Generally speaking though, as the Muslims were establishing their sovereignty, the practice was to invite every non-Muslim individual and communities to Islam; particularly the ones in proximity. If the invitation was rejected, then treaties were offered to respect each other`s territories and trade cravans passing through. If the non-Muslims rejected/breached the treaties but their mischief was did not pose an imminent threat to Muslims, they would be given certain amount of time to rethink their options. Otherwise, if the Muslim community was imminently threatened, the enemy would be called to war. After winning the war, if the prisoners accepted Islam, they would be set free. Otherwise, they would be beheaded. Why? In the Quran, Allah tells the Prophet (pbuh) to tell the non-believers (when the latter was confronted with same question as yours today) that yes, killing is abhorrible, but their mischief (fitna) is even worse. Meaning, if the non-Muslims did not desist from threatening the Muslim communities - militarily or otherwise - they are begging to be killed. In other words, snakes never befriend anything except their kind, thus should be killed before they turn into serial killers.

If the women of the vanquished accepted Islam, they were set free and allowed to marry the Muslims. Same with children. Otherwise, keeping them as slaves was more feasible than leaving them on their own for survival, which often forced women into prostitution. Most of the prostitues today are also forced to dehumanize themselves out of economic deaperation, regardless of how much some idiot claims that prostitutes are most liberal women. I know, you`d like the latter option, but not only it strikes at the heart of moral fabric of the societies, it spreads diseases which directly threaten the societie`s well being in more ways than one.

Now read carefully again before you compulsively hammer your response on the keyboard.

Frankly, you continue to disappoint me more and more by believing anything and everything without its context. It seems that even Canada has failed to instill objectivity in your thought processes, but you expect others to be objective.

Afsos sud afsos...

Re: # 267

``In the Quran, Allah tells the Prophet (pbuh) to tell the non-believers (when the latter was confronted with same question as yours today) that yes, killing is abhorrible, but their mischief (fitna) is even worse. Meaning, if the non-Muslims did not desist from threatening the Muslim communities - militarily or otherwise - they are begging to be killed. In other words, snakes never befriend anything except their kind, thus should be killed before they turn into serial killers.

If the women of the vanquished accepted Islam, they were set free and allowed to marry the Muslims. Same with children. Otherwise, keeping them as slaves was more feasible than leaving them on their own for survival, which often forced women into prostitution. Most of the prostitues today are also forced to dehumanize themselves out of economic deaperation, regardless of how much some idiot claims that prostitutes are most liberal women..``

---

WOW, what a defence for prophet and his army`s (s)exploits.. ?. I`m replacing a few words from your sentences..

``In 2003, God tells George Bush (pbuh) to tell the Muslims (when the latter was confronted with same question as yours today) that yes, killing is abhorrible, but their mischief (fitna) is even worse. Meaning, if the Muslims did not desist from threatening the non-Muslim communities - militarily or otherwise - they are begging to be killed. In other words, snakes never befriend anything except their kind, thus should be killed before they turn into serial killers.

If the women of the vanquished accepted American democracy, they were set free and allowed to marry the Christian soldiers. Same with children. Otherwise, keeping them as slaves was more feasible than leaving them on their own for survival, which often forced women into prostitution. Most of the prostitues today are also forced to dehumanize themselves out of economic deaperation, regardless of how much some idiot claims that prostitutes are most liberal women..``

---

Don`t know why you guys are making a big hue and cry for ``Abu-ghraib`` or ``Guantanamo``. The American soliers were just following the Quran and the prophet. You should be proud..

:-))

Re: # 273 masanamuthu,

ha ha ha ha

jawab nahin yaar....

Re: # 267

``Meaning, if the non-Muslims did not desist from threatening the Muslim communities - militarily or otherwise - they are begging to be killed. In other words, snakes never befriend anything except their kind, thus should be killed before they turn into serial killers.``

Going by that logic,what Bush and his allies are doing to muslims after 9/11 is correct.Where will this lead to ?