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

[Homie]

And yeah, people making unproportional comparisons saying it is the same:
e.g Bringing Indonesia as an example of a nation converted to Islam without the sword, and concluding Islam was not spread by the sword. Completely "forgetting" that Indonesia is the only nation not converted by the sword.

Another example: Finding one islotaed incident in recent history where e.g. Christians were responsible for something bad and concluding that Islam and Christianity is just as violent. Completely "forgetting" that the bad things done in Islam's name far outweighs any other religion or political system.

 

[Shaihulud]

Completely "forgetting" that Indonesia is the only nation not converted by the sword.

Malaysia was converted peacefully as well and parts of Northern China. Methinks that already describes the majority of the Muslim population, most of the supposed muslim countries treatment are more due to being barbarism and racism than religious fervour.

 

[Homie]

Malaysia was converted peacefully as well and parts of Northern China

Thanks for correction . I forgot about Malaysia, and I didn't know China had a big muslim population. Of course they are over a billion people so they are bound to have people of all faiths.

 

[superisis]

The mongols were converted into Islam... and that was definately not by the sword.

besides... there were almost never any forced conversions to Islam.

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.)

1. Oh, well if we aint comparing... then why did you post this?

Completely "forgetting" that the bad things done in Islam's name far outweighs any other religion or political system.

2. Well if you are saying that the religion in it self is violent, then you got to look at history. Or you could could change your claim to read: The modern day version of Islam is inherantly violet.

3. I cannot offer you various interpretations of those specific verse (simply because i have not studied those verses), but I'm sure if you ask some one who knows a lot about Islam (a western scholar perhaps, if you don't trust those biased members of the Ulema). I can offer you verses in the Qur'an that have been interpreted differently by different muslims. Also, as i stated earlier:

Finally some Shia muslims believe that people who have Ilm (sort of traces of god, hard to explain) have a closer connection with Allah, and can therefore overturn the Qur'an, i.e. they have a higher authority than the Qur'an.

 

[magritte]

Islam--like any major religion--encompasses so many schools of thought that blanket statements about what the Qu'ran means are pointless. The divisions in interpretation go back to the very birth of the religion. Abdullah ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas were both companions of Muhammad, yet they had very different views.

 

[bhsup]

Homie, that isn't the reason other religions are brought up. Christianity and Judiasm both have blood in their history, both in historical acts as well as their scriptural writings.

To single out Islam as being unique in some way in this regard is just inaccurate and bashing pure and simple.

I'm a Christian. I worship God who, according to Revelation, is going to willingly kill off about 2/3rds of the population of this planet during the tribulation. That's pretty bloody but I also am not losing any sleep over it because God's never wrong in what he does. Now...where is the condemnation of Christianity in equal measure to the condemnation of Islam? I betcha the Koran doesn't mention anywhere the death of over 4 billion humans (assuming the rapture happened tomorrow...higher numbers as we march through the years).

 

[Tiresias]

the bad things done in Islam's name far outweighs any other religion or political system.

I find this troublesome particulaly the political system part. You might just make a case for religion, but even then... Political systems however have been responsible for far worse, such as say Fascism for obvious reasons, Communism in Russia particulaly, or more generally and still going on Nationalism over which the first world war was fought and many wars before and since.

 

[superisis]

Capitalism too has caused much bloodspill and pain, but that doesn't mean that we should paint the devil's horns on Adam Smith (or Adam Sandler for that matter)... we should just hope to reform that said system... usually te best result comes from supporting those who believe in the said system but abhor the evils of that system.

 

[Tiresias]

capatilism isn't a political system, nor did Adam Smith found it

And all my examples can be very easily attributed to wars and death due to their associated ideologies.

 

[superisis]

read up: I never said that capitalism was a political system... nor that Adam Smith founded it...

and I can post plenty of similar examples, though they have more to do with practice than ideology (although tis all debatable).

 

[Homie]

The mongols were converted into Islam... and that was definately not by the sword.

The mongols are muslims? I thought they were atheists (under communism and all) or had some pagan faiths still. Are you sure about the mongols being muslims?

besides... there were almost never any forced conversions to Islam.

Ehmm.....yeah.

1. Oh, well if we aint comparing... then why did you post this?

The context in which I wrote that makes it pretty darn obvious. You're an intelligent guy, you know this, so don't be a smart a$$.

Abdullah ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas were both companions of Muhammad, yet they had very different views.

But Muhammed was THE prophet. Christians ask themselves What Would Jesus Do, muslims ask themselves What Would Muhammed Do. He is THE man in islamic faith. And with him as a role model it is not strange one would be OK with using violence to achieve one's goals.

 

[Homie]

To single out Islam as being unique in some way in this regard is just inaccurate and bashing pure and simple.

No, I think the critique is perfectly justifiable considering what the Koran says and looking at the life of Muhammed. And it is not singling out, because the topic of this thread is Islam, therefore it is sensible that Islam is being discussed.

I worship God who, according to Revelation, is going to willingly kill off about 2/3rds of the population of this planet during the tribulation

How on earth could you compare this? Do you honestly think its the same if a Holy Book says that God will kill many people and another Holy Book says that its adherents should kill other people?

I find this troublesome particulaly the political system part. You might just make a case for religion, but even then... Political systems however have been responsible for far worse, such as say Fascism for obvious reasons, Communism in Russia particulaly, or more generally and still going on Nationalism over which the first world war was fought and many wars before and since.

Hmmm, you might be right about this one. Because the population on earth during those political systems was much larger than when Islam came into being. Those political systems were also involved in full-scale war with advanced weaponry that could kill more people.

 

[Capulet]

No, I think the critique is perfectly justifiable considering what the Koran says and looking at the life of Muhammed. And it is not singling out, because the topic of this thread is Islam, therefore it is sensible that Islam is being discussed.

Sure, Islam is being discussed. But you're singling it out. Comparisons to other religions are totally justified - if you think Islam is violent, then you should think Judaism and Christianity are too.

I could quote numerous verses of the Old Testament, the basis for both religions, that could be understood to support violence.

How on earth could you compare this? Do you honestly think its the same if a Holy Book says that God will kill many people and another Holy Book says that its adherents should kill other people?

You obviously haven't read the entire verse of the Qur'an that supposedly calls on Muslim to go on a wild killing spree.

Let us look at Noble Verses 9:28-29 "O ye believe! Truly the pagans are unclear; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear povery, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, For Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, from among the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Let us look at Noble Verse 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

As we clearly see in the above Noble Verses, the laws of killing the unbelievers or the pagans were for particular and specific times, and not for all times and all places. Notice the quotes "...after this year..." and "...when the sacred months have passed...".

It is important to know that when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him started preaching Islam, he had to deal with 360 Arab pagan tribes at first, and he and his followers had to go through a lot of battles that were imposed upon them by the pagans who were afraid that their dominance on the peninsula and reign of barbarism was threatened by the advent of Islam and it's morals.

Like I've repeated many times on this forum: the first Muslims were no more than a few hundred, who were fighting against thousands upon thousands of Pagan and Jewish Arab tribes. They were fighting a war for their ultimate survival; not for dominance. The verses were talking about the war for survival they were fighting at the time, not for all time.

 

[blackheart]

This thread is getting old. It has broken down into one side criticizing Islam and the other defending it. I motion that we close this thread and let those who are in ignorance stay there until they can emerge in the next thread war.

 

[Capulet]

This thread is getting old. It has broken down into one side criticizing Islam and the other defending it. I motion that we close this thread and let those who are in ignorance stay there until they can emerge in the next thread war.

Well, this thread was originally "aneesh's Islamic Rant" thread, where he tried to convince the entire forum that the Hindu nationalist view of Islam is the correct one. And Homie thinks that anyone who thinks otherwise is being politcally correct.

 

[Homie]

They are
..................

 

[Capulet]

They are
..................

You think you're politically incorrect.

But you're really just incorrect.

 

[sysyphus]

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)

Why should other religions be exempt from scrutiny, especially when the sources quoted in the initial post is a religious based one?

Nobody is justifying any actions by Islamic terrorists, nor should they.

2. People shifting focus from the present to talk about history. (Again, like that justifies anything)

The issue is the fundamental tenets of Islam. Those have been the same throughout time, thus historical events are perfectly relevant to this discussion.

Again, nobody is justifying anything. You just wish they were though don't you?

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.)

All religious texts contain similar literal justifications for voilence, and use the same interpretation argument. Again, why should Islam be exempt?

Read the scripture as you may, in practice, the vast majority of muslims are peaceful people. Argue text all you want, the existence of peaceful muslims is proof that a practising muslim is not obligated to incite violence.

 

[superisis]

The mongols are muslims? I thought they were atheists (under communism and all) or had some pagan faiths still. Are you sure about the mongols being muslims?

I meant the mongols of around 1200, the generation after Djingis Khan.

besides... there were almost never any forced conversions to Islam.

Ehmm.....yeah.

Give me some proof of mass conversion by the sword yes, I know of the janissaries, but as a %age of the total non muslim population they were not a large group

But Muhammed was THE prophet. Christians ask themselves What Would Jesus Do, muslims ask themselves What Would Muhammed Do. He is THE man in islamic faith. And with him as a role model it is not strange one would be OK with using violence to achieve one's goals.

He might be a role model but that doesn't mean that everything that Mohammed did is sanctioned by Islam. Take as an example Mohammed's view on the Mut'a (temporary marriage) and Islam's view on the Mut'a.

 

[allhailIndia]

To add a few more points to this debate: Trying to stick to the facts.

Yes, there were Islamic invasions of India and yes, there was Islamic rule in India.
Yes, temples were destroyed by the Muslims.
Yes, Aurangzeb and some of his ilk were rabid in their anti-Hindu activities.
Yes, there have been and were communal riots were hindus were killed.

These are facts.
Yet, the following are also facts and one must also take them into the account while drawing a fulll picture.

Hindu rulers also invaded Sri-Lanka and destroyed the Buddhist temples
Hindu rulers routinely saw destruction of temples as a way of striking at Buddhism and Jainism
Muslims were also killed in communal riots.

How much of a person's violence can be attributed to religion is a great debate. Gandhi and Golwalkar both used the Bhagwad Gita to draw opposite conclusions on violence in the Hindu religion. Martin Luther King and the Crusaders both used the same text.

As a law student, I can point to a thousand judgments where the same rule has been interpreted in absolutely contradictory ways by the same courts, sometimes even the same judge. If religious texts presrcibe certain courses of action, will it not be possible that any person can interpret absolutely contrary to what another person may interpret it as?

I have great respect for Arun Shourie and his work. However, I believe that he has come to the wrong conclusion. Presenting facts is one thing which he is brilliant at, and perhaps, it is easy to see a certain facts and come to the conclusion one wants, without looking at the broader picture.

On a side note, I challenge the very definition of Hindu and Muslim. Let me illustrate.

The word Hindu comes from the river, Sindhu, or the Indus as the Greeks called it. It is used to denote all the people who lived in the Indo-Gangetic plain upto the Himalayas. There is no separate word for religion as distinct from justice and belief. There never was, nor has there been a single unified "Hindu" religion. At the bare minimum, one can possibly say that there was a sort of adherence to the rules laid down in the Vedas and the Gita, but this too was more for 'classification' purposes as large groups of people followed differing interpretations of the same text. More appropriately, it was a way of life, and not a religion as understood in the western sense, like Islam, Chrisitianity. There was no prescribed mode of worship universal to all, no one deity universal to all, and not even one book which claimed to be THE truth. One can, technically, even be an atheist and be a hindu, because the word itself refers to a people and not a religion.

Islam on the other hand IS a religion. It is far, far more diverse than what it is made out to be, and India has numerous sects and sub-sects which are thrown under the broad classification of "muslim" for lack of a better term. When one gets down to it, one has to resort to go to shrink this definition to say that one who follows the Quran and who is not anything else. This in itself is a very broad, and all encompassing definition which, in the Indian context is grossly insufficient to describe what is too easily described as a homogenous community.

In fact, the labels, Hindu and Muslim, have only been used since the British times for administrative and divisive conveniences. Since the 1850s, one sees a more marked effort to try and categorize people in terms of caste, race, language and religion that was not present before.