Clearing up misconceptions about Islam ( the religion ) , and a request . . . . . .

[Imaginos]

People always attack the source when they cannot attack the material the source presents. If the source is unreliable, why not simply quote the lies the source provides, oops, because you can't find any.

Both of the sources are clearly anti-Islamic in content. They promote anti-Muslim thinking. Of course they are unreliable.
The websites are meant to be for the promotion of Hinduism. So, from these to websites. does this mean that Hinduism as a religion promotes and advocates Hindus to be anti-Islamic or anti-anyone not a Hindu?
Or does it only mean that those who wrote in those sites are just using Hinduism as an excuse to incite anti-Muslim feelings?

The actions of idiots should be blamed on those idiots themselves.
Not on the name of the religion which these idiots claim to subscribe to.
Be it Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, etc...

 

[Renata]

And what does this have to do with my criticism of the texts themselves ? I know a Muslim like Capulet - he wants to believe all the good things about his religion . He is content in what he believes to be a peaceful faith , and I am content with his ( rather fuzzy , to be frank ) vision of Islam ( for him ) .

Of course , the fact that you know them immediately preculdes the possibility of them holding a gun to your head - they come from a similar social circle , and thus hold similar views . Once you move into the world of the Ulema , things are no longer so rosy .

I love the way you jump to conclusions about both me and the people I know. The "similar social circles" bit is completely wrong.

All religions have nasty things in their scripture, their history, their traditions, or their common practices. That you choose to ignore this for all other religions and overemphasize this for Islam speaks to me of nothing but pigheaded bigotry.

 

[AceChilla]

can you source these?

A describtion of the killing of the poet Asma Bint Marwan for critizing Mohammed is well documented and can be found in plenty of biographys of Mohammed's life, for instance one of the earliest biographys of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq "The Life of the Apostle of God". She wasn't the only poet slain on Mohammeds behalf by the way.

The tribe Im talking about is one of the Jewish tribes who orginally inhabited Medina and who didn't accept Mohammed as a prophet. Supossedly all the men of this tribe were killed the woman were sold as slaves. Altough there is doubt about these claims because the Conserning Hadith have not been written for 200 years after the facts. But that many were killed has pretty much been established.

Fact is Mohammed was a warrior and a man of the sword, nobody will deny that. He didn't scared away of killing people who opposed him or his message. And at the same time his life is supossed to be the primary example for any muslim worldwide. So it isn't surprising violence is a fundamental part of Islam.

 

[Japanrocks12]

A describtion of the killing of the poet Asma Bint Marwan for critizing Mohammed is well documented and can be found in plenty of biographys of Mohammed's life, for instance one of the earliest biographys of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq "The Life of the Apostle of God". She wasn't the only poet slain on Mohammeds behalf by the way.

The tribe Im talking about is one of the Jewish tribes who orginally inhabited Medina and who didn't accept Mohammed as a prophet. Supossedly all the men of this tribe were killed the woman were sold as slaves. Altough there is doubt about these claims because the Conserning Hadith have not been written for 200 years after the facts. But that many were killed has pretty much been established.

Fact is Mohammed was a warrior and a man of the sword, nobody will deny that. He didn't scared away of killing people who opposed him or his message. And at the same time his life is supossed to be the primary example for any muslim worldwide. So it isn't surprising violence is a fundamental part of Islam.

So? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? The several wars of religion? St. Bartholemew's Day Massacre? My question to you is, why is this exclusive to Islam only?

 

[Imaginos]

All religions have nasty things in their scripture, their history, their traditions, or their common practices. That you choose to ignore this for all other religions and overemphasize this for Islam speaks to me of nothing but pigheaded bigotry.

How very true.

Aneeshm,
all those Hindu-Muslim (or if you prefer, Muslim-Hindu) violence that occured in India the past decades, were they ALL instigated by the Muslims? Were the Hindus always the victims and never ever the ones going around killing Muslims at all?

Or the Hindus who killed the Christian missionary a few years back and others who were accused of trying to convert Hindus to Christianity? Did they do it because it was written in the Hindu scriptures to kill those who try to convert people away from Hinduism?


This thread is just an excuse for aneeshm to rant on Muslims. Why is it allowed to last so long? If it was a racist thread it would have been closed 8 pages ago.

 

[Imaginos]

[Aneeshm: "The Brits expanded for money , the Islamics for religion . That much is clear from the accounts written at the time "]


If the 'Islamics' had expanded for religion, why did they stop at northern India? Why didn't they even expand to the whole of southern India and to the island of ceylon? Why did'nt they continue eastwards into the kingdoms of thailand/cambodia/Laos/Vietnam or even northwards to Tibet or even to China? Why only stop at northern India?

If the "Islamics" had expanded into India for religion, and 'forced people to convert by the sword', why is it that the majority of the Indians remained Hindus?

The invaders knew about the power and wealth and riches to be had in India at that time in history. It was all about the power and the money.

 

[luiz]

Here's my take on the issue:

It doesn't matter if Islam is fundamentally violent or not. The "true Islam" means nothing to me, as it is nothing more than arab mythology.

What is important is that the average muslim identify his religion with peace. The West should do everything in it's power to convince muslims that their religion is actually against the acts committed by terrorists. It is irrelevant if Islam is violent on its core, all that matters is that the believers think it isn't.

 

[EdwardTking]

And now you see where that path has taken them - the path of terrorism . The Bali bombings have not yet faded from public memory . Nor have subsequent terrorist attacks . Do not forget that Bali is the one Hindu-majority island in the whole of Indonesia .

I think that US should have sent a carrier fleet to support
Balinese declaration of independence from the Islamites.

 

[Homie]

Have you ever gone to visit one? Or spoken to a Muslim cleric about your understanding of the passages you hold to show Islam is a violent religion and asked him to clarify those passages?

Aneesh, if your gonna take Imaginos advice I suggest you put on your running shoes

Both of the sources are clearly anti-Islamic in content. They promote anti-Muslim thinking. Of course they are unreliable.
The websites are meant to be for the promotion of Hinduism

Like I already said, it doesn't matter what they are trying to promote as long as the content they provide is true and logical. You are still avoiding this alltogether, hiding behind the "unreliable source" tactic, which is almost as bad as the ad hominem approach (attacking the poster, not his point), or the "shift tactic" (in this thread that would be when people try to shift the focus over to other religions to try to avoid answering the questions raised about Islam - the actual topic).

If you think aneesh's sources are crap, what you should do is take some examples from them and show how they are in error, either that they are lying or being illogical.

 

[Homie]

This thread is just an excuse for aneeshm to rant on Muslims. Why is it allowed to last so long? If it was a racist thread it would have been closed 8 pages ago.

Wow, you people fit my description so well.

Here it is:

...so today we feel like we shouldn't criticize anyone with a different skin color or culture because that would be "racist" or "intolerant"....

If it was just muslim bashing I would agree with you. But the point is that this thread has a point, arguments have been made (and not debunked btw) and I don't see the problem. Its not like there aren't enough threads discussing how bad Christianity and Christians are (at least that is what many of them turn into). You don't know how many times this scenario has played out in such discussions:
Homie - makes argument
Debater - well, ehh....What about the Crusades!
It makes me go

 

[Homie]

Btw, I don't have any beef with muslims, they don't try to hide what they really think (except for maybe some Western muslims that have been assimilated). Those I do have beef with, is those western liberals who completely dismiss the obvious, trying to rationalize it.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Btw, I don't have any beef with muslims, they don't try to hide what they really think (except for maybe some Western muslims that have been assimilated). Those I do have beef with, is those western liberals who completely dismiss the obvious, trying to rationalize it.

Its kind of a double edged sword, being conservative may go against American liberal social-economic policy but when it comes to security and education and morals, American conservatives are a lot closer to something a communist and an Islamic fundamentalist government would want.

Btw I used the term American liberal and conservative because there seems to be some differences between the US and western nations in Europe as to what liberal and conservative is.

 

[Capulet]

Just a picture - as you can see, all the territories were brought to Islam by conquest.

And yet traders brought Islam to the world most's populated Islamic nation, Indonesia.

An Islamic army never landed in Indonesia.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

And yet traders brought Islam to the world most's populated Islamic nation, Indonesia.

An Islamic army never landed in Indonesia.

I'm not sure what your point is but I'm pretty sure your ignoring the current attrocities Muslim govenments and militias are carrying out in Africa as they try to impose their will on native tribal and Christian Africans.

 

[superisis]

Can a woman walk along the streets of all the muslim countries without having to have her head wrapped in some short?

I can tell you from personal experience, that in the three muslim countries I have visited (Albania, Jordan and Turkey) women could walk around without veils. A lot of women wore veils (esp i Jordan), but there were also a large amount who didn't.

In Kashmir , women who walk about without the veil sometimes have acid thrown at their faces .

Sounds like BS to me. How many times did this happen? Once? Why would they use acid anyways, acid is usually expensive, hard to get and annoying to carry around. Are you saying that most muslim people in Kashmir randomly carry around acid just incase an unveiled woman should walk by? It seems more likely that they would berate the person, or beat them... but acid? Sounds a tad far fetched.

Christianity in its beginning was spread not by the sword. Islam was. That's the point here.

Well, not quite. The Islamic tribes did conquer large parts of the former Byzantine and Sassanian empires, but they did not spread Islam to a great extent. Most people remained christian and didn't convert until much later .

Obviously you choose to only remember part of history. This is true for the beginning of Muhammed's prophetic ministry, but towards the end things were quite different. Jews and Christians and pagans were slain allthesame, and have been ever since.

Well, it is more or less well establish within Islamic law (and has been since the dawn of Islam) that Jews and Christians were fellow people of the book (i.e. of the same God) and should thus be respected and protected. Never were conquered Jews and Christians treated in the same manner as pagans. The times when muslim rulers wanted to break from that rule, they would conjure extravagant excuses to cover their actions (but that was an act based on politics, not on core Islamic law)

It's funny how the Islamic golden age is pictured in the Western world like it was a land of milk and honey and freedom for all as a way to show Islam isn't so bad after all. Don't ever think Jews and Christians were treated equall to muslims in those days. The muslims in those days tolerated small Christian and Jewish communities, but in no way at all had they equal rights as muslims.

But the Jews and Christians were treated much better by the muslims than the Jews and Muslims were treated by the Christians.

 

[Capulet]

I'm not sure what your point is but I'm pretty sure your ignoring the current attrocities Muslim govenments and militias are carrying out in Africa as they try to impose their will on native tribal and Christian Africans.

My point is that Islam in the most populous Muslim nation in the world was spread by spice traders.

Edit: I just realized that this was already discussed and shown to be correct in this thread.

"My bad."

 

[superisis]

I'm not sure what your point is but I'm pretty sure your ignoring the current attrocities Muslim govenments and militias are carrying out in Africa as they try to impose their will on native tribal and Christian Africans.

As opposed to what the christian governments did and still do in Africa?

 

[GrandAdmiral]

My point is that Islam in the most populous Muslim nation in the world was spread by spice traders.
Edit: I just realized that this was already discussed and shown to be correct in this thread.
"My bad."

Oooh,,,, yeah.

As opposed to what the christian governments did and still do in Africa?

Oh so it must be ok then.

 

[sysyphus]

What does that have to do with my point ? As I said , I criticise the religion as laid out in the books , not by the behaviour of its adherents ( unless they behave in accordance with what is set out in the books , which is clearly not the case here ) . I think I made that clear in the opening post itself .

What you made clear in the opening post was that you only listen to overbiased wackos who reiterate your point of view.

 

[Homie]

This is funny how this thread has deteriorated exactly like aneesh said it would:

1. People shifting focus from discussing Islam over to other religions. (Like bad stuff other religions have done make Islam ok)
2. People shifting focus from the present to talk about history. (Again, like that justifies anything)
3. People completely ignoring what the Koran and Hadith says, saying it is all about "interpretation". This would be ok if ANYBODY could offer an alternative interpretation to the verses discussing jihad, but none have. (note, the "inner struggle" has been thoroughly debunked.)