Ayaan Ali Hirsi and the Big Bad Wolf
Bina Shah July 1, 2006
#461 Posted by Aangaara on July 11, 2006 10:17:44 pm
#460
lol ah! the resonable voices of islam, u have come a long way from......
``2) I have stated before on these boards that massacre of Banu Quraiza was a crime. In my opinion Muhammad did that to gain leverage over Quraish for the Hudaibya treaty in showing immense cruelty, when he had previously been content to exile Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadeer.``
mr. zeemax as long as you dont justify ``immense cruelty`` as halaal strategy, i have no problem with ur fantasies about the virgins of heavens. may u get 140 instead of the lowly 70.
now since we are evolving can masadi take a look at these pictures and then discard the hadiths about the age of ayesha??
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5541006
lol ah! the resonable voices of islam, u have come a long way from......
``2) I have stated before on these boards that massacre of Banu Quraiza was a crime. In my opinion Muhammad did that to gain leverage over Quraish for the Hudaibya treaty in showing immense cruelty, when he had previously been content to exile Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadeer.``
mr. zeemax as long as you dont justify ``immense cruelty`` as halaal strategy, i have no problem with ur fantasies about the virgins of heavens. may u get 140 instead of the lowly 70.
now since we are evolving can masadi take a look at these pictures and then discard the hadiths about the age of ayesha??
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5541006
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#460 Posted by zeemax on July 11, 2006 9:16:18 am
#459 by masadi
Agreed. I think I`m getting to see your reasoning.
Thanks.
Agreed. I think I`m getting to see your reasoning.
Thanks.
#459 Posted by masadi on July 11, 2006 7:09:57 am
There are no historians that wrote about that incident except for one person, who is not considered a reliable historian and whose work survives in secondary docs of others that lived over a hundred years after him and he lived a hundred and fifty years after the incident. The Quranic verses I quoted simply reveals as lesson, the immorality of judging someone without having information, in the case of the prophet his generation has long passed and we are not responsible for what they might or might not have done~ infact accusing someone of something based upon hearsay, as these tales amount to be, is considered a major crime in Islam. Now, when this case of these Islam haters who cherry pick tales from a whole morass of tales, that would not hold up as historical documents or evidence in any court of law, to convict the prophet, is busted they feel the pain and I have witnessed their ``pain`` many times when they have been stumped.
#458 Posted by zeemax on July 10, 2006 11:14:12 pm
#457 by masadi
Indeed Al-Baqara is a Madani Surah and particularly addressed to Jews. As I understand your contention, the quoted ayats from Al-Baqara point to the various incidents culminating in the end of Jews in Madina. I don`t know the exact chronology of these ayats, but if these were revealed after the Banu Quraiza incident, then there would be much more to this incident than is understood by the historians. Certainly, these ayats are not in any way aggressive in their tone or gloating etc, but rather tragic ... so you may be right.
Indeed Al-Baqara is a Madani Surah and particularly addressed to Jews. As I understand your contention, the quoted ayats from Al-Baqara point to the various incidents culminating in the end of Jews in Madina. I don`t know the exact chronology of these ayats, but if these were revealed after the Banu Quraiza incident, then there would be much more to this incident than is understood by the historians. Certainly, these ayats are not in any way aggressive in their tone or gloating etc, but rather tragic ... so you may be right.
#457 Posted by masadi on July 10, 2006 6:47:17 pm
Zeemax writes <<< Do you agree, masadi? >>>
The tale about Banu Quraiza is ahistorical, and even in that it is uniquly based on the writings of a single source that survives only in secondary documents, that well known historiographers like Ibn Khaldun have disputed, and the most historical of all documents on Islam, the Quran does not offer any such justification for massacres. That is my point and in the criminal justice system, if the prophet was being tried for this, my claim rather than Ballush*t`s claim would hold (I feel his pain (sarcasm) since all his claims against the prophet just got busted, now he has no case). Innocent until proven guilty and the ``proof`` is badly tainted, worse than he said, she said. That said, since we cannot pass any judgment, I rely on the Quran`s edict:
[2.134] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.
[2.141] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.
The tale about Banu Quraiza is ahistorical, and even in that it is uniquly based on the writings of a single source that survives only in secondary documents, that well known historiographers like Ibn Khaldun have disputed, and the most historical of all documents on Islam, the Quran does not offer any such justification for massacres. That is my point and in the criminal justice system, if the prophet was being tried for this, my claim rather than Ballush*t`s claim would hold (I feel his pain (sarcasm) since all his claims against the prophet just got busted, now he has no case). Innocent until proven guilty and the ``proof`` is badly tainted, worse than he said, she said. That said, since we cannot pass any judgment, I rely on the Quran`s edict:
[2.134] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.
[2.141] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.
#456 Posted by tahmed32 on July 10, 2006 11:08:30 am
Kulharee: #454 Echosqueek gets his jollies by posting pictures of gora muslims in-between his cut and pastes of lengthy write-ups from the internet (which he presumably thinks anyone actually spends all his day reading). dont take that away from him...please. this makes him happy. and chowk is about making people happy. right?
#454 Posted by Kulharee on July 10, 2006 8:47:07 am
Re: # 453
Itchyboobs, why don`t gora muslims care about Kalay muslims of Darfur that are being raped by Wahabi white (actually less kalay) muslims? What are your views on that?
Itchyboobs, why don`t gora muslims care about Kalay muslims of Darfur that are being raped by Wahabi white (actually less kalay) muslims? What are your views on that?
#453 Posted by echoboom on July 10, 2006 8:40:31 am
For the Westoxicated scum in the slavelands where goraa left but left his droppings
....``buy we excell in sniffing the goraa-ass in english ...`` yelp , in american accents, the canines from the cantonement & colonies
The veil is not the issue
According to a recent poll, Muslim women care more about voting and their countries’ problems such as violent extremism, corruption and lack of unity among the countries. It is unfortunate that women did not use the survey as a way to express their “own” problems and needs. If they don’t speak up, nobody will do it for them.
It might be surprising to hear that the veil, or even the burqua, is not the main problem facing Muslim women. None of the women surveyed mentioned this issue.
Maybe people should stop stereotyping veiled women and focus on more important problems. A good example is a recent Jordanian survey showing that women find it acceptable to be beaten by their husbands!
What is really alarming is that more women, married and unmarried, found beating acceptable compared to their male counterparts.
Women are not challenging the status quo. In fact, they might be ingraining it even more. Are they afraid or are they oblivious?
— Gihane Askar, Internet Division, The Washington Times
The problem with Western civilization is they tend to judge everyone by their standard and do not fully comprehend the power of religious belief. In Middle East like you rightly observed, the veil or wife-beating is part of the socio-cultural-religious system. It should not surprise you that Middle East culture is completely at 180 degrees from the West. The West needs more studies like this to fully understand non-Western culture.
Andy Woodward Says:
After 11 eleven years in 3 countries the Mideast I agree the veil is not the issue. There’s no great pressure from women to get rid of it and few are forced to wear it. There’s much more concern about not having access to decent jobs, to being hassled on the street and over the phone by young men, to domestic violence and forced (not arranged) marriages. There’s an awful lot that women worry about in Arab society and the veil is the least of it.
Our belief has the power of Truth to liberate both men and women subject to the erroneous and oppressive morality of a contrary religious conviction.
If we are going to “dialogue” with Islam, we should not tie our religious selves behind our backs. For if we proceed on solely a modern subjective or enlightenment morality, we will fail because they are incapable of pronouncing any reason for its own superiority.
Apparently, nobody in this forum is actually reading these “surveys”.
In nearly all cases, the majority of Jordanian men and women DO NOT believe that striking a woman is justified for any reason other than adultery. It is true that, compared to Americans, Middle East cultures are far less tolerant of adultery.
It would also be helpful if someone noted that domestic violence is also one of the major challenges facing the American society. Estimates of the percentage of American women who have been the victim of domestic violence range as high as 33%.
At best, we can only say that Americans might be slightly more respectful of women. But even that is only true if we ignore pornography, a practice that is virtually nonexistent in Muslim cultures.
All replies are screened by The Washington Times prior to posting. All fields are required. The views expressed are your own and unless specifically stated are not those of The Washington Times. The Washington Times is not responsible for the content of any external sites or comments referenced. If you think the content violates the Terms of Use then please alert the The Washington Times. The Washington Times reserves the right to edit posts as required. Submitting a comment does not imply that it will be posted. Please see the posting guidelines.
....``buy we excell in sniffing the goraa-ass in english ...`` yelp , in american accents, the canines from the cantonement & colonies
The Washington Times
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
The veil is not the issue
According to a recent poll, Muslim women care more about voting and their countries’ problems such as violent extremism, corruption and lack of unity among the countries. It is unfortunate that women did not use the survey as a way to express their “own” problems and needs. If they don’t speak up, nobody will do it for them.
It might be surprising to hear that the veil, or even the burqua, is not the main problem facing Muslim women. None of the women surveyed mentioned this issue.
Maybe people should stop stereotyping veiled women and focus on more important problems. A good example is a recent Jordanian survey showing that women find it acceptable to be beaten by their husbands!
What is really alarming is that more women, married and unmarried, found beating acceptable compared to their male counterparts.
Women are not challenging the status quo. In fact, they might be ingraining it even more. Are they afraid or are they oblivious?
— Gihane Askar, Internet Division, The Washington Times
11 Responses to “The veil is not the issue”
The problem with Western civilization is they tend to judge everyone by their standard and do not fully comprehend the power of religious belief. In Middle East like you rightly observed, the veil or wife-beating is part of the socio-cultural-religious system. It should not surprise you that Middle East culture is completely at 180 degrees from the West. The West needs more studies like this to fully understand non-Western culture.
posted at 1:15 AM
Andy Woodward Says:
After 11 eleven years in 3 countries the Mideast I agree the veil is not the issue. There’s no great pressure from women to get rid of it and few are forced to wear it. There’s much more concern about not having access to decent jobs, to being hassled on the street and over the phone by young men, to domestic violence and forced (not arranged) marriages. There’s an awful lot that women worry about in Arab society and the veil is the least of it.
Our belief has the power of Truth to liberate both men and women subject to the erroneous and oppressive morality of a contrary religious conviction.
If we are going to “dialogue” with Islam, we should not tie our religious selves behind our backs. For if we proceed on solely a modern subjective or enlightenment morality, we will fail because they are incapable of pronouncing any reason for its own superiority.
posted at 2:32 PM
Apparently, nobody in this forum is actually reading these “surveys”.
In nearly all cases, the majority of Jordanian men and women DO NOT believe that striking a woman is justified for any reason other than adultery. It is true that, compared to Americans, Middle East cultures are far less tolerant of adultery.
It would also be helpful if someone noted that domestic violence is also one of the major challenges facing the American society. Estimates of the percentage of American women who have been the victim of domestic violence range as high as 33%.
At best, we can only say that Americans might be slightly more respectful of women. But even that is only true if we ignore pornography, a practice that is virtually nonexistent in Muslim cultures.
All replies are screened by The Washington Times prior to posting. All fields are required. The views expressed are your own and unless specifically stated are not those of The Washington Times. The Washington Times is not responsible for the content of any external sites or comments referenced. If you think the content violates the Terms of Use then please alert the The Washington Times. The Washington Times reserves the right to edit posts as required. Submitting a comment does not imply that it will be posted. Please see the posting guidelines.
#452 Posted by Kulharee on July 10, 2006 6:49:41 am
Do Zeemax and Masadi consider the Sudanese Janjaweed Wahabi rapists as part of the Ummah? Why does Masadi run away from talking about Darfur genocide being perpetrated by his Ummah collectively?
#451 Posted by ballukhan on July 10, 2006 5:08:11 am
My last post to you Mr. Asadi...............
Go back to your madarassa. Cleanse you heart which is full of hatred. Do some Dhikr from heart and stop showing off.
Stop confusing the gullible Ummah with your Islamist nonsense. ........
Go back to your madarassa. Cleanse you heart which is full of hatred. Do some Dhikr from heart and stop showing off.
Stop confusing the gullible Ummah with your Islamist nonsense. ........
#450 Posted by ballukhan on July 10, 2006 4:57:27 am
I doubt Asadi , despite his claims to `scholarship`, has even read and understood the Chapter 8 (AL-ANFAL) of the Holy Quran .
#449 Posted by ballukhan on July 10, 2006 4:11:46 am
Re: # 447
``Perhaps the circumstances of the Banu Quraiza event are not clear to you. Banu Quraiza never fought Muhammad. There was no battle or war. ``
There is no question of SHIFTING moral grounds for a true follower of Islam..............it is nonsense to say that such moral relativism is prescribed any where..............the fact is that these massacres were justified both by the Hadith and the Holy Quran............it is a bitter fact we have to accept!!
``Perhaps the circumstances of the Banu Quraiza event are not clear to you. Banu Quraiza never fought Muhammad. There was no battle or war. ``
There is no question of SHIFTING moral grounds for a true follower of Islam..............it is nonsense to say that such moral relativism is prescribed any where..............the fact is that these massacres were justified both by the Hadith and the Holy Quran............it is a bitter fact we have to accept!!
#448 Posted by ballukhan on July 10, 2006 4:08:13 am
Re: # 447
The point made by Asadi was that the Hadiths are not accurate and massacare would not have been justified if we look at the holy Quran.
He made the statement:
``i.e. the Quran no mention or justfication for such massacres is offered....``
In that respect, as always, he is absolutely wrong.
The point made by Asadi was that the Hadiths are not accurate and massacare would not have been justified if we look at the holy Quran.
He made the statement:
``i.e. the Quran no mention or justfication for such massacres is offered....``
In that respect, as always, he is absolutely wrong.
#447 Posted by zeemax on July 10, 2006 1:48:28 am
#444/5/6 by ballukhan
Masadi is right. Perhaps the circumstances of the Banu Quraiza event are not clear to you. Banu Quraiza never fought Muhammad. There was no battle or war.
All the verses you quote sanction no mercy for the opponent in battle, but that was not the case here. Quran indeed does not sanction any such measure as occured with Banu Quraiza.They were actually accused and convicted of having betrayed a treaty of neutrality with Muhammad in their surreptetiously helping Quraish cross the Ditch.
The vital factor in explaining this event is that the sentence of their execution was not awarded under Quranic Law, but under the Jews` own law.
As reliable accounts go, it was decided that an arbitrator should be appointed. As Banu Quraiza were allied with the Aus, they named Saad b Muaz, the leader of Bani Aus, as the arbitrator. The Muslims agreed and accordingly Saad b Muaz was appointed as the arbitrator. On his appointment, Saad b Muaz took a pledge from both the parties that whatever decision was given by him would be binding on both the parties. After the pledge had been given, Saad asked the Jews as to what was the penalty of traitors under Jewish law. It was discovered that the penalty in such cases was death. Saad next posed the question whether the Jews had any pact with the Muslims. It was brought to light that there was originally such an agreement. Saad then asked whether it was a fact that they had repudiated that agreement on the occasion of the battle of the Ditch. This could not be denied by the Jews as Saad himself had come to them as an emissary and they had told him at that time that they had no agreement with the Muslims. Saad accordingly gave the award that as the Jews had acted as traitors, all the adult male Jews deserved to be killed under the Jewish law. The sentence was duly executed and that was the end of Banu Quraiza.
It could have been a brilliant tactic to kill two birds with one stone i.e. getting rid of the last remaining jewish tribe in Medina, as well as sending a clear signal to Quraish, while at the same time not violating any Quranic injunctions.
Do you agree, masadi?
Masadi is right. Perhaps the circumstances of the Banu Quraiza event are not clear to you. Banu Quraiza never fought Muhammad. There was no battle or war.
All the verses you quote sanction no mercy for the opponent in battle, but that was not the case here. Quran indeed does not sanction any such measure as occured with Banu Quraiza.They were actually accused and convicted of having betrayed a treaty of neutrality with Muhammad in their surreptetiously helping Quraish cross the Ditch.
The vital factor in explaining this event is that the sentence of their execution was not awarded under Quranic Law, but under the Jews` own law.
As reliable accounts go, it was decided that an arbitrator should be appointed. As Banu Quraiza were allied with the Aus, they named Saad b Muaz, the leader of Bani Aus, as the arbitrator. The Muslims agreed and accordingly Saad b Muaz was appointed as the arbitrator. On his appointment, Saad b Muaz took a pledge from both the parties that whatever decision was given by him would be binding on both the parties. After the pledge had been given, Saad asked the Jews as to what was the penalty of traitors under Jewish law. It was discovered that the penalty in such cases was death. Saad next posed the question whether the Jews had any pact with the Muslims. It was brought to light that there was originally such an agreement. Saad then asked whether it was a fact that they had repudiated that agreement on the occasion of the battle of the Ditch. This could not be denied by the Jews as Saad himself had come to them as an emissary and they had told him at that time that they had no agreement with the Muslims. Saad accordingly gave the award that as the Jews had acted as traitors, all the adult male Jews deserved to be killed under the Jewish law. The sentence was duly executed and that was the end of Banu Quraiza.
It could have been a brilliant tactic to kill two birds with one stone i.e. getting rid of the last remaining jewish tribe in Medina, as well as sending a clear signal to Quraish, while at the same time not violating any Quranic injunctions.
Do you agree, masadi?
#446 Posted by ballukhan on July 9, 2006 10:54:20 pm
Here is an explicit prescription from the Holy Quran for the SLAUGHTER.
Please Mr. Asadi explain these verses for the benefit of all:
008.067
YUSUFALI: It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.
PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Please Mr. Asadi explain these verses for the benefit of all:
008.067
YUSUFALI: It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.
PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 9 Good... Three Cups of Tea
- MeiraJ08: yes, Morni my city... The Cry of Karachi
- morni: If any one can... The Cry of Karachi
- tahmed32: Tea for you, Masadi... Three Cups of Tea
- tahmed32: yawn...so,how was your weekend,... The Republican Red Scare
- peonofthewest: see how pathetic you... Three Cups of Tea
- altar: I am going to... The Heart of Starkness:
- KaalChakra: "Now or Never" is... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
