Statutory Warning: All Religions are Equally Stupid
Defenders of Islam and its holy book Quran often seek to rebut charges of severe treatment of Muslim women by pointing to the book’s liberal divorce provisions for women, sanction for widow remarriage, Allah’s denunciations of harsh treatment of the fair sex et al.
Well, that defense certainly has some truth but it’s not the full story when it comes to women and the Quran.
You see, when it comes to the distaff sex God (Allah) seems to have made a Faustian bargain. What he giveth women with one hand, he more than taketh away with the other.
Again, while there are several positive points vis-a-vis treatment of women in the Quran Allah’s Cadillac sometimes makes abrupt U-turns on the Islamic highway leading us to the inescapable conclusion that God (Allah) is no bra-burning feminist.
Here’s some of the evidence from the pages of the Quran itself to support our conclusion that Allah ain’t no die-hard feminist:
God commands you that a son should have the equivalent share of two daughters. (Sura 4, Aya 11)
Sure, you may be tempted to argue that the Quran is a reflection of its times, and of hard, strife-ridden life in the arid Middle East desert of the 7th century AD.
If that is indeed your point, we’d like to counter that God is supposed to stand above such mundane constructs as time or geography.
Now if you think Aya 11 is an aberration, here read this verse:
If any of your women commit a lewd act, call four witnesses from among you, then, if they testify to their guilt, keep the women at home until death comes to them or until God shows them another way. If two men commit a lewd act, punish them both; if they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. (Sura 4, Aya 15 and 16)
Again and again and again, we encounter women getting shafted at the hands of God (Allah) while men tend to get a relatively easy pass.
Read this verse providing divine sanction to polygamy:
If you feel that you will not deal fairly with orphan girls, you may marry whichever [other] women seem good to you, two, three or four. (Sura 4, Aya 3)
To those of you still in two minds, the following verse in the Quran that explicitly allows physical violence against women should set to rest all doubts on where God (Allah) stands in respect to women:
If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. (Sura 4, Aya 34)
Much has been made in the West of verses in the Quran spurring some Muslims to make human bombs of their bodies and unleashing horrific violence against both enemies and bystanders.
Is the below verse promising fighters glory in the hereafter one such siren-call?
Let those of you who are willing to trade the life of this world for the life to come, fight in God’s way. To anyone who fights in God’s way, whether killed or victorious, We shall give a great reward. Why should you not fight in God’s cause and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out…. (Sura 4, Aya 75 and 76)
One of the most vexing things about reading the Quran is the endless repetition.
In the third and fourth Suras, there’s more of the same God is all knowing, God is all Merciful, God is all forgiving, God is all Wise, God is all Pardoning, God will consign the disobedient to the Fire, God is all Wise blah blah blah.
Makes one wonder if 7th Century Middle Easterners were half-wits.
See for instance:
The disbelievers will be fuel for the Fire (Sura 3 Aya 10)
If anyone seeks a religion other than [islam] complete devotion to God, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the Hereafter. (Sura 3 Aya 85 & 86)
Not just the repetition but the puffery gets grating after a while.
God – Allah
Sura – Section
Aya – Verse
To be Continued Tomorrow
SI Reads the Quran – 1; Fasten Your Seat-belts
SI Reads the Quran – 2; Poke Your Wife Any Way You Wish, Allah Has No Objections
FYI, someone wanted to introduce Hukum Hudut in our country which is the Islamic way of punishment. Eg, you steal you get your hands chopped off. There was tremendous opposition from all quarters for this Hukum Hudut esp the rape punishment.
You see if a woman says she is raped, to determine the validity of her story, she would need to bring forward 4 honorable men!! So people were arguing, if they were honorable in the first place what the hell were they doing sitting there and not helping her????
Well, women have it bad in most parts of the world.
“If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. (Sura 4, Aya 34)”
WTF!!? Do Muslim women read Quran? Do they know this and still marry a Muslim??
Man this is really getting interesting and informative…
You write: WTF!!? Do Muslim women read Quran? Do they know this and still marry a Muslim??
ridifuckingulously barbaric.. looks like all religions may not be equally stupid..
You write above: looks like all religions may not be equally stupid..
They are. They are.
Christian excesses in Europe were horrific.
As for the cow-ca-cola drinking Hindus, they are mindblowingly stupid with their worship of snakes and cows and Ganga, feeding of crows and a gazillion other stupid practices
In our not-so-humble opinion, Religion is a symbol of man’s tenuous grip on sanity.
Stupidity is a point of view at a given time. People thought Wright brothers were stupid in trying to build a flying machine. A rocket scientist might think that the ideas discussed in this site is stupid. Would that stop you? Nope.
Religions were created centuries ago to help manage social interactions. In ages where the average literacy was low it did promote good social behavior through examples. Superstitions on the other hand are irrational or at times ignorant. Difference between religion and science is that religion does not adapt with expansion in human knowledge and remove superstitions.
The difference between major religions is not whether you have superstitions but whether the practice of religion infringes on other people’s liberties. When the fundamental belief of a religion is intolerance towards other faiths, how can you claim that all religions are equally stupid?
1. Araj’s comment yesterday addresses some of the points you make such as adapting to the times.
2. You write: When the fundamental belief of a religion is intolerance towards other faiths, how can you claim that all religions are equally stupid
All religions with their inherent my faith is superior (mis)belief are intolerant. Some overtly and others covertly. Different religions are intolerant at different times depending on the prevailing power structure and perceptions of strength and weaknesses.
Now, Muslims appear more intolerant. A few years back, Hindus went on the rampage in Gujarat. Christianity has witnessed strong intolerance within the religion itself, between Catholics and Protestants.
At its fundamental level, all religions are equally stupid with their notion of an all powerful, all knowing, all wise and all beneficent God/Gods but yet does little to alleviate the wholesale misery, suffering and injustice plaguing this planet.
I don’t think Gujarat riots involved God at all. I think the core reason for the riots was the Masculinity of the Hindus, which got terribly affected after continuous invasions by Muslims, and then living under their rule for quite a few centuries.
Even after independence Hindus were looking for some kind of revenge.
Alas! that type of things became impossible after independence. The feeling of defeat in the hands of Muslims has always been buried in their head and they were looking for chances to vent out their anger by destroying (ok. killing) a few Muslims and then feel happy about their great achievement. Godhra incident made to possible to start their ultra inhumane acts.
1. You write: I don’t think Gujarat riots involved God at all. I think the core reason for the riots was the Masculinity of the Hindus….
All religious/communal riots have ‘God’ as the sub-stratum of the consciousness..
2. You write: Even after independence Hindus were looking for some kind of revenge.
More like the Dutch courage provided by the Narendar Modi BJP administration.
In general, the Hindu guile and courage is no match for that of Christians or Muslims.
“In general, the Hindu guile and courage is no match for that of Christians or Muslims.”
Pray tell me where do you come with these weird notions?
Courage has anything to do with one’s religion. In fact, if a person derives any sort of sanction for violent acts from his religion, that is the “dutch courage” you are talking about.
You mistake pacifism for lack of courage. You couldn’t be more wrong. Take Gandhiji’s non-violent movement. If it requires courage to hit back, it requires much more courage to resist peacefully, withstanding the blows but not cowering beneath the persecution.
Go back in history, you see more of this quality.
Stop making these utterly baseless statements.
Despite their numerical superiority, India’s Hindus have for centuries been whipping boys for anyone in the mood for some serious p*ssy-whipping.
It was so in the past and it is now in the present.
It might be instructive to read your history.
Mohammad Bin Qasim, Mahmud Ghazni, Mahmud Ghori, Timur Lane, Babur, Nadir Shah, and now Pakistan have p*ssy-whipped the Hindus into submission with impunity.
Recognize any non-Muslims among the attackers? Now, don’t bother responding because it was merely a rhetorical question.
At best, India’s effete Hindus can bitch and moan but will ultimately spread their legs to the next round of Muslim attackers.
Gandhi may have been a brave man but his pacifist strategy in the face of British oppression and exploitation probably delayed the dawn of Indian independence.
“Mohammad Bin Qasim, Mahmud Ghazni, Mahmud Ghori, Timur Lane, Babur, Nadir Shah, and now Pakistan”
Don’t include the Paki pu***s here. Everytime they have raised their ugly head openly against us, we have whipped their ass. To the discredit of India’s erstwhile and present leaders(mind you, the americans pressured us severely during each war, so can’t blame only our leaders), India has allowed those scum to gradually sneak in again. In fact, the pakis are the real p*ssies. Since they will lose if they fight directly, they have launched the proxy war using impoverished muslims and luring them with the promise of “heaven” and large sums of money to their families.
As for the others, there is a glaring presumption here. There is a world of difference between saying hindus have lost many wars(but not meekly and without putting up a brave fight each time as you make it sound), and to say it is because that they are hindus they have lost the wars. Now that is a ridiculously silly argument, because, by your yardstick, physical prowess is directly proportional to the religion which you belong, which is plain rot.
Btw, you conveniently missed out the fact that despite centuries of oppressive muslim rule and a couple of more centuries under british and other european countries rule, india has remained a hindu-majority country which cannot be said of Persia, Afghanistan, and many more. We indians (not only hindus, all indians) bend a lot, but never break. After periods of adversity pass on(as they always will eventually), we spring back into vitality like the feather into the air.
“At best, India’s effete Hindus can bitch and moan but will ultimately spread their legs to the next round of Muslim attackers.”
Why this fixation with pinning the blame for all of India’s woes solely on the hindus? Just because they form 70-75% of the population doesn’t mean they are the only ones “bitching” and “moaning”. This unwillingness to be provoked into fights is entrenched in the Indian mindset and is equally prevalent in indian christians, indian muslim and indians of all religions. This is an INDIAN malaise.
See how very eager “sikh” Prime Minister ManWoman Singh and “christian” Sonia “maino” gandhi are to go to bed with the pakis. To somehow spin this as a hindu trait is a fallacy.
1. You write: Everytime they have raised their ugly head openly against us, we have whipped their ass.
Not every time. Unless you rewrite the history books.
For instance, despite what we learned in school we now know the 1965 war with Pakistan was at best a draw. Source (Ramachandra Guha, India after Gandhi). That’s hardly in the whipping category.
Even during the 1947 war, we lost territory.
2. In our futile attempt to spin the repeated defeat of
IndiansHindus at the hands of the Muslims through excuses such as fighting openly, proxies et al, let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Hindu mindset is enervated, corrupt and effete. Physical prowess is secondary to the mental fortitude to stand up to enemies, within and without.
The malaise runs deep and wide.
3. You write: We indians (not only hindus, all indians) bend a lot, but never break
That’s the dirge of the losers.
4. You write: you conveniently missed out the fact that despite centuries of oppressive muslim rule and a couple of more centuries under british and other european countries rule, india has remained a hindu-majority country
Muslim rule in India was not always oppressive. some like Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar better known as Akbar forged strategic alliances with Hindus.
5. You write: Why this fixation with pinning the blame for all of India’s woes solely on the hindus? Just because they form 70-75% of the population…
Not because of the population but because much of the country is run by the Hindus.
You mention Timur Lane, yet a simple wiki search on him reveals that Timur himself had nothing but admiration for the courageous and valorous hindus. As he says in his own book Tuzk-e-Taimuri:
“The Hindus and gabrs of the city showed much alacrity and boldness in fighting.”
And one more thing. When Timur waged his war, India was already under muslim rule, and the “muslim” tughlaq dynasty proved to be no less “puss*ies” in resisting the invaders.
We’ll respond to this point once we find more authoritative sources than Wiki. Our local library must surely have something on Timur.
“And why would God allow this to happen. Why do bad things happen to good people? Religion has masqueraded as the paranormal since the dawn of time to justify some of the most horrible acts in history.”
What do you think about this quote? Its from the TV series X files. This is a response to the question as to whether god exists or not?
But how many ponder over the questions in the quote.
Even if they do, some books like the Quran insist God is all Powerful, all Knowing, all Wise, has his reasons blah blah blah that prevent you from raising these questions or promise you a reward in the unverifiable ‘hereafter’ from which none have journeyed back to tell us about the Garden filled streams or their trysts with the virgins.
uh oh, fatwa coming fatwa coming! Osama Bin Laden’s gonna rape your @$$ and he won’t care if you are a man or woman. Get ready to have 4 men be your witnesses. LOL!
Osama bin Rat is holed up in some rat-hole with his tail up his canal, praying that the heavy boots of the American soldiers won’t squash it to pulp.
Just wondering if you read this piece of news. It supposedly happened around Christmas time (wonder why it took so long to report this piece of news):
If this indeed happens to be true, SRK should consider himself lucky to get away with a rectal breach the next time he steps on U.S. soil.
No, we hadn’t read the piece before. At least, can’t recollect it.
But if Fox News is the main source (as the above Herald piece says it is) for the news, then we’d exercise some skepticism.
The worship of snakes and cows is not mentioned in any single revealed book of God. You may choose to laugh, criticize or abuse the practice, you will not be committing blasphemy.
Hinduism is that it does not talk about single prophet and single book. As a way of life (social, liturgical and political) that evolved for 50 centuries, it has multitudes of books and ways of thought. In a major way, it is a reflection of what all has happened in our centuries old civilization. I hope you know that the civilization from which we have sprung flourished along the Ganges. I may not worship it with flowers but I bow silently in my mind at this mighty, perennial life-giver of our ancient land. You cant compare the legacy of your land to monstrous cults started by illiterate, delusional men. Do you know the extent of butchery on the back of which Islam has spread?
1. You write above: I hope you know that the civilization from which we have sprung flourished along the Ganges….I bow silently in my mind at this mighty, perennial life-giver of our ancient land.
That’s why we Shit in the Ganges, Pee in the Ganges, Empty our Sewage in the Ganges, Dump half-burnt human and whole animal carcasses in the Ganges.
2. You write: You cant compare the legacy of your land to monstrous cults started by illiterate, delusional men. Do you know the extent of butchery on the back of which Islam has spread?
We are waiting to be enlightened by the savants like you. 😉
1.A very sweeping indictment. But what are you saying- that Hindus are stupid because they worship the ganges or that they are stupid because they dont worship it enough to keep it clean? Cant be both ways.
Will a Hindu ever shit near a temple idol? If they did not shit near the river out of reverence but kept it stuffed in their bowels, then I would call them cult stupid.
If I worship the earth should I point my rear to the sky and try shooting turds into outer space?
Give them sanitized toilets like yours and they wont shit near the river. do you think the whole of Benaras takes an early walk to shit-worship the ganges?
btw, I am sure you did not see anyone shit or pee ‘in’, ganges, did you?
2. plz dont call me savant, reminds me of the villain in Deewar 🙂
1. You write above: But what are you saying- that Hindus are stupid because they worship the ganges or that they are stupid because they dont worship it enough to keep it clean? Cant be both ways.
Why? Because your list of conjunctions begins and ends with ‘or’ and has no place for an ‘and?’
Actually, both ways because the Hindus are Chutiyas for first worshiping sewage masquerading as water and secondly for not ensuring in the first place that the water they hold holy was not ‘polluted’ by sewage.
2. You write: Will a Hindu ever shit near a temple idol?
In Incredible India, no
turdground is sacred. They shit on the railway tracks (read Rohinton Mistry’s A Fine Balance and don’t tell us it’s just a novel), they shit by the river, they shit near the temple, they shit by the road and on the road….. Heck, in India they shit everywhere.
3. You write: do you think the whole of Benaras takes an early walk to shit-worship the ganges?
Of course, need you even ask. Both shit-worship the Ganges and worship the shit in the Ganges.
A quick glance at the history of independent India shows that its leaders were Hindus only in name, not in deed,just like David Hedley, the Islamic terrorist whose name sounds very christian.
When the blood of millions of Hindus was spilled, when such a holocaust like partition had already occurred, what more prrof was required that Hindus and Muslims could not live together? Still Pakistan is freely Islamic, while the Hindus died like fools, to get a ‘secular’ government. Where was this secularism when Hindus were being brutalized across the subcontinent? Still, the government foolishly dreams, that Hindus and Muslims can live together? What is the reason for this hope? Then why did partition happen? Was it a timepass? Again, was any referendum conducted? How did the founders of constitution reach the conclusion that people wanted a secular country.
The result of forced secularism is there for all to see. There are no Modi equivalents for people to abuse in Pakistan or Bangaldesh, because the Hindus have been so demoralized, defeated and subdued there that they dare not throw a stone at a Muslim , forget about burning alive 60 helpless Muslim men, women and children in a closed train compartment. So why will there be a Muslim backlash? They dont have to wage movements to build a mosque in place of a temple, they will just go ahead and do it, without a squeak from anyone. So why will there be any riots? What backlash happened when the Muslims in Mlasia cut a cow’s head and threw it before a temple? But Hindus in India must keep presenting their certificate of secularism to all and sundry, and no one has to give them perenially tolerant dolts any credit for remaining so tolerant for so long.
Karunanidhi, before asking Ram’s educational qualifications, had garlanded (or slapped) Hindu deities with shoes and chappals in his youth, yet he is a Hindu. The communists are sworn enemies of Hindus, and yet are Hindus. There are scores in the government who are christians with Hindu names. Nehru considered it his misfortune that he was born a Hindu, he called himself Hindu by accident. The govt of AP is mostly Hindus, but they are dying to go beyond the ‘secular’ constitution, and reserve seats everywhere for Muslims, a la an Islamic republic. Hinduism has got nothing to do with it. A government that doubts if Ram existed, what difference does it make if it is Hindu or not? India has seen no Hindu government ever.
1. You write above: Karunanidhi, before asking Ram’s educational qualifications, had garlanded (or slapped) Hindu deities with shoes and chappals in his youth, yet he is a Hindu.
We’ve seen processions where the highlight was Rama’s ‘pictures’ being slippered by DMK/DK followers in Tamil Nadu. Not an unusual sight in the old days.
In the years past, we knew a painter and a die-hard DMK acolyte who enthusiastically participated in the above such processions but later
sins-erelyremorsefully atoned for it with another equally stupid act – by performing a ‘rolling pooja,’ where the idiot repeatedly rolled around the idol at some Hindu temple. No kidding. Strange are the ways of our people. 😉
2. Given that the Quran, the guiding light of Muslims everywhere, is unwilling to even consider alternate view-points, we ‘re inclined to view this notion of ‘moderate Muslims’ as a contradiction in terms (much to the chagrin of our desi ‘secular’ friends in the U.S.).
3. If we remember our history right, Nehru was an atheist.