Offtopic post from SS thread.

[Quwa]

The facts on the ground at all times (including the time of the prophet) are completely opposite to the utopia you are painting here. War booty was always the main motives for early Arab Muslims to go to war. Ransom taking for hostages of war was common and encouraged. One even hears of a zombie pointing out his own brother for the biggest ransom.

Sure; if war booty and money was the case, then Prophet Muhammad SAWS had no need to claim prophethood nor a new religion. Prophet Muhammad SAWS was from Banu Hashim, and the most noble a ruling clan of the Quraysh. He already had enough influence among the other rulers with his previous title of Amin and Siddique to accumulate more troops and resources to take over Arabia a lot earlier. His own paternal ancestors were generals of old Meccan armies. In fact, he was even offered absolute rule over the Quraysh many times, and in return for 1-2 non-Islamic holidays.

A lot of Islamic History has been fudged since the height of Western colonialism. Fact is...Christianity is still in the Middle East; Hinduism is still in India; Jews are still around; the words sugar, lemon, algebra, etc, entered the Latin dictionary; Jerusalem will stand witness TWICE to how Muslims treated locals when they captured the city...i.e. once under Hazrat Umar ibn Khattab RA and again under Salahuddin. A little bit different when Babu Raju and his Thugs entered Gujrat.

Rapes of women captured is again captured in the Hadhiths themselves with the Arabs asking the prophet if they can do "coitus interruptus" to avoid making the women pregnant and thus reducing the ransom amount!

Even to have sex with a slave woman you need her permission, and impregnating her makes her a full member of your household. There are even hadiths of slaves filing anything from rape charges to even complaining that their masters couldn't "satisfy them" properly. Whether wife or slave, rape is something that was punishable by death.

Did you know that in pre-Islamic customs, it was expected of a man to yield his wife to a noble (or nobles) of the higher caste clans such as Banu Hashim? If the Prophet Peace Be Upon Him and his followers were fixated on such things, trust me...it would have been done without the need of Islam.

Very convenient to say that no state in Islamic so you avoid having to defend anything that is currently happening in the Islamic world and that gives a complete lie to the Utopian world of your dreams. The Taliban came closest to the Islamic rule in modern times and one has seen what that means. The segregated women hospitals didn't have anesthetics there as the women are supposed to bear pain! That is if they were lucky enough to get treatment in the first place.

Did you know that providing girls education and letting women roam free within their residential city is part of Shariah? So how close were the Taliban to Shariah? BTW, it is also allowed in Shariah for a doctor to treat victims of the opposite gender, this was shown many times in the Sunnah in many situations. Male physicians had to treat issues pertaining to birth complications to women physicians treating soldiers on the battlefield. So how close were the Taliban to Islamic Law?

Please show some results on the ground rather than lofty preachings. They fool no one, they should not fool you guys into believing any of this to be true too.

Right on. Spain, Persia & North Africa...take a look at Jewish history.

Since you're so fixated on colonialism...also remember the Late Victorian Holocaust.

 

[Vinod2070]

The mentioned rulers did what everyone else was doing in their time. Muslim or no muslim is irrelevant.

Two problems with this.

One, it is not true. In India such monstrosity was never seen before. May be in the harsh places these nomads came from, it was commonplace!

Two, following Islam should have made them more humane as per the claims by Muslims. It clearly did not happen!

At the very least it gives a lie to the claim that Islam is any kind of answer to the problems of the world. It could not make even the people who followed it any more humane, probably only worsened it as the religious bigotry was added to the mix of being cruel by birth!

 

[qsaark]

Perfect fuel to the like of Ali Sina and that Dutch film maker!

I dont see anything in the referenced post that is a perfect fuel for anyone, unless one creates something out of nothing in his mind.

I see why some people say that the problem in not with Muslims.

The facts on the ground at all times (including the time of the prophet) are completely opposite to the utopia you are painting here. War booty was always the main motives for early Arab Muslims to go to war. Ransom taking for hostages of war was common and encouraged. One even hears of a zombie pointing out his own brother for the biggest ransom.


War booty was a secondary motive but not the only motive. Is is difficult to get through your or many present day muslim's mind because such people dont believe in the faith or after life. Nothing you have mentioned can only be associated with the muslims of that time. Those were the norms of the time and the arab muslims were not the martians.

Rapes of women captured is again captured in the Hadhiths themselves with the Arabs asking the prophet if they can do "coitus interruptus" to avoid making the women pregnant and thus reducing the ransom amount!

Before going to such acquisitions, I am expecting you to quote the Haith source. Until than it is nothig but your opinion.

Very convenient to say that no state in Islamic so you avoid having to defend anything that is currently happening in the Islamic world and that gives a complete lie to the Utopian world of your dreams. The Taliban came closest to the Islamic rule in modern times and one has seen what that means. The segregated women hospitals didn't have anesthetics there as the women are supposed to bear pain! That is if they were lucky enough to get treatment in the first place.

Most were not so lucky! They died miserably as that was preferable to being treated by a male doctor.

First of all, Taliban don't come closest to the Islamic rule in modern times. This credit goes to the KSA and Kuwait, Yemen etc. Secondly, Taliban are ethnic pashtoon, who are very touchy about their customs. Things that you have mentioned has more to do with thier tribal customs than with Islam. There are several dozen variations of Hinduism exist among various ethnic groups and the same is also true for any other religion.

Please show some results on the ground rather than lofty preachings. They fool no one, they should not fool you guys into believing any of this to be true too.

They are not lofty preachings, and even if they are, they are not for you. Nothing happens overnight, everything that is in existance today was once only a thought.

 

[roadrunner]

Exactly the kind of verses that were quoted in the movie made in Holland about Islam recently (I am forgetting the name).

Many Muslims then talked of some sort of context, something in the preceding or succeeding posts that made even this verse a bit more palatable.

Guess, it was all a sham!

The context has been given. It seems rational when looked at in the context.

However, I could quote pages and pages of verses from Hindu books that lack any context but are plain horrid and genocidal against the "inferior" non Hindus and lesser peoples to the Brahmin caste.

 

[qsaark]

Two problems with this.

One, it is not true. In India such monstrosity was never seen before. May be in the harsh places these nomads came from, it was commonplace!

It just happened that muslims were the ones who were powerful, ambitious and geographically connected. If India was located between Tigris and Euphrates, it would be Romans. I would equally blame the inhabitants of the India for all that happened to them in the first place. Obviously, your text books wont tell you how much hindu blood was shed by the other hindu much before the advent of Islam.

Two, following Islam should have made them more humane as per the claims by Muslims. It clearly did not happen!

No, as I said earlier, religion can only show you what to do. It cant force you to do it.

At the very least it gives a lie to the claim that Islam is any kind of answer to the problems of the world. It could not make even the people who followed it any more humane, probably only worsened it as the religious bigotry was added to the mix of being cruel by birth!

You would better serve your time by telling the same things to your right wing people, who also believe that hinduata is the answer to all the problems of the world.

It is useless to debate with a person who believes in 'being cruel by birth' non-sense. At the time of my birth, did I know I was a muslim so I should be cruel by default?

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Rapes of women captured is again captured in the Hadhiths themselves with the Arabs asking the prophet if they can do "coitus interruptus" to avoid making the women pregnant and thus reducing the ransom amount!

woah hoh! where did you pull that one out of? the coitus interruptus incident was brought up by a sahabi who did not want to have a child with his wife at the moment, how can you possibly misinterpret this hadith? the hadith had absolutely nothing to do with the spoils of war chapters, rather it was based on guidelines for intercourse.

further reading of that hadith will reveal that the man was following advice from jews, that coitus interruptus is the same as killing a child. the Prophet (SAWS) corrected him and explained to him that when Allah chooses to create a child, no one can stop him.

it's quite obvious hindutva fanatics like you pick stuff of your liking and play around with it to defame islam.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

female captives are supposed to be left alone, so that they can be exchanged with captives on the other side. we value the lives of muslim prisoners more than captives, hence the word "captive".

not to mention intercourse with female slaves was actually despised back then, courting someone of a lower status was deemed to be lowly. People were exceptionally cautious of their lineage, in order to have intercourse, the slave would have to become a permanent wife of the master.

 

[Flintlock]

The mentioned rulers did what everyone else was doing in their time. Muslim or no muslim is irrelevant.

In that case, what is it about being muslims that made them so special, if they were the same as "everyone else"?

This is your opinion largely based on your observations post-british time. Post-1947, UP, Bihar or MP were not run by muslims, they were run by the majority party, so if you don't see any progress in these provinces as compared to the HP, Kerala, TN, Karnataka, put the blame on the post-47 politicians.

Its not my opinion, its facts. And even in 1947 or for that matter in 1847, the aforementioned regions were doing far better than the ones under Islamic rule.

Infact, the caste discrimination grew worse under Islamic rule. Ironic, isn't it?

No place is a paradise, even US has its shortcomings. Blame goes to the people who rule, not to the religion they follow unless they are living their lives strictly according to whatever the releigion they follow, and this is not the case.

So basically you are reverting to the old excuse that "real" islamic rule was never implemented.

 

[Flintlock]

This superiority complex exists every where. Muslims are no exception and hindus are not immune to it. And yes, this complex is causing more problems every where. Reliogion makes good people better and turn the bad people into worst. This is all about the very psychology of the human beings. Very few follow the religion, most only use it to cover their vicious interests.

Why are you arguing with me then? Please reply to Mark Sein's post regarding how the life of one muslims is worth more than the entire world, and that Islamic rule over India (i.e. Islamic imperialism) is the ideal solution to all of our problems.

 

[Flintlock]

The context has been given. It seems rational when looked at in the context.

However, I could quote pages and pages of verses from Hindu books that lack any context but are plain horrid and genocidal against the "inferior" non Hindus and lesser peoples to the Brahmin caste.

Is that a threat?

For that matter, even I could quote Hadiths which describe the worst kind of attitudes and deeds, but you guys will always have the ready excuse that those particular hadiths are 'invalid" or "fake' or "out of context".

 

[qsaark]

In that case, what is it about being muslims that made them so special, if they were the same as "everyone else"?

Nothing. The thing that makes one special is his deeds not the religion per se. It is all about doing the right thing. That is why I dont give any credit to any conqueror just because he was born to muslim parents.


Its not my opinion, its facts. And even in 1947 or for that matter in 1847, the aforementioned regions were doing far better than the ones under Islamic rule.

It is your opinion of course. Majority hindus were ruled by the minority muslims. No one likes that. Even if muslims had done good things, they were not given the credit for the same reason. I am a scientist, so if you are talking about the facts, present me with the facts. Is there anything objective that is supporting your claims. Any gazette or a report or something like that?

Infact, the caste discrimination grew worse under Islamic rule. Ironic, isn't it?

NOTfact dude. This is your bias and nothing else. Either you dont have full understanding of your religion or you are thinking I am clueless about hinduism. OK, lets assume it happened during the muslim rule. What made Ambedkar converted to Buddhism in 50s? Now try to find a muslim hand in this as well.

So basically you are reverting to the old excuse that "real" islamic rule was never implemented

Basically I believe that the name 'Islam' was used to further political interests but was never implemented since it was too restrictive for the rulers.

 

[qsaark]

Is that a threat?

For that matter, even I could quote Hadiths which describe the worst kind of attitudes and deeds, but you guys will always have the ready excuse that those particular hadiths are 'invalid" or "fake' or "out of context".

There is a scholarly system of validating Hadith. And this is to settle disputes among the muslims. However, since non-muslims dont believe in Islam let alone in our prophet, they will always try to associate bad things with him. Therefore, their opinion carries no weight and is not worth investigating.

However, if you can find a hadith from Saha Sitta (the correct six), and give the proper reference, we'll be glad to explain this to you.

 

[roadrunner]

Is that a threat?

For that matter, even I could quote Hadiths which describe the worst kind of attitudes and deeds, but you guys will always have the ready excuse that those particular hadiths are 'invalid" or "fake' or "out of context".

Does it feel like a threat? Open a new thread on the subject and i'll quote to your delight, if you like.

Btw, Hadith can be weak or strong, and also depend on context.

 

[roadrunner]

"There was no holocaust "?????????????

Many people died during WWII. Exactly how many is speculation.

Neither you know it, nor do I.

 

[Flintlock]

Does it feel like a threat? Open a new thread on the subject and i'll quote to your delight, if you like.

Btw, Hadith can be weak or strong, and also depend on context.

Excuses, excuses.

There are plenty of Indian texts with verses that would seem immoral in modern times. However, we are not the ones making lame excuses like "weak hadith" and "out of context".