"Religon of peace"

[aneeshm]

I don't really hold much credance to these internet quotes. One would have to read an actual Quaran and ask a Muslim scholar, theres plenty of evil warmongering quotes from the Old Testament but most Chrstians ignore the Old Testament and only follow the new, and most don't take it literally either. I won't pass judgement till I can ask a Islamic scholar and see for myself where it says this in the Quaran.

Go ahead . If you want the opinions of Muslim scholars , there's a book I'd recommend , which distills all the Indian Muslim scholars have said on a variety of issues . It is called "The World of Fatwas" , by Arun Shourie . It'll be easily available in Bangalore . A fantastic if depressing read .

 

[aneeshm]

Yeah...right...those damn Muslims they built us that bloody Taj Mahal, and the Qutab Minar, and the Red Fort, and Fatephur Sikri and brought us Persian literature, and architecture...arr curse them!!!

Have you heard the story about the Taj Mahal - about how Shah Jehan cut of the hands of the artisans who built it , so that anything like it it may never be built again ?

And you forgot something - Hindu temples were used as stone quarries for the monuments you describe . At the base of the Qutub Minar can be seen the remains of the Hindu carvings from which the stone for it was taken .

As for Persian architecture - they did it at the cost of Indian architecture . The Mughals hated India , considered it only as a land fit to expolit , so that they may live in their little copy of Persia . If you want to see what the Mughals were trying to emulate using Hindu money gained through extortionate taxes , go to Isfahan . Now THAT is Persian architecture . Not the pathetic copies they built in India .

If you want to blame someone for imperialist oppression that has left India in the state it currently is today blame the British.

Let me point you to some history , shall I ? Go read this . Do not trust anything the author says . Look critically behind every assumption he makes . Check for yourself , if you want , the historical facts which he has presented . But please read it . Particularly chapters 5 , 6 , 7 , and 10 .

As for your assertion - it is my conclusion that the Muslim imperialists were far worse than the British . Undoubtedly the British harmed India immensely . But the British conquest was possible only because of the previous conquest and weakening of India by the Muslims .

 

[aneeshm]

As he said in his post, violence committed by anyone in the name of religion has gone beyond the tenets of their religion. Those incidents you cite are just that, just as the violent acts committed in the names of other religions are.

These are not incidents . They are the behaviour pattern of Muslim rulers in India for six centuries .

Why is it that there is not a single great temple left in North India ? What happened to all of them ? Was the destruction of hunderds of thousands of temples all over the world , starting the the Kaaba in Mecca , not the doing of Islam ? Is not a religion whose very founder destroyed and commandeered the greatest temple of his country not a religion of peace ?

 

[Mott1]

So I suggest to you too

Thanks for the suggestion, but you see, I have read and researched the Quran and hadith.
It seems you are confidant in you position on Jihad, so I assume you have also researched Islam?

Lets not draw parallels to the constitution or any other doctrine and focus on the OT, Is Islam a violent religion?

The Tollan states:

Whether a religion is peaceful or violent really depends on what the religion itself teaches.

He is absoultely correct.


In your words:

Muslim scholars think that Jihad is a struggle against oneself, other think it is fighting the enemy when attacked, and the last is attaking the enemy when needed.

First this is an opinionated and general discription of Jihad, but do you not see the promotion of violence in this tenet?


Seeing that you believe that Jihad can take any form in which its interpretations are dependant on the individual Islamic scholar, lets then take a look at the understanding of Jihad from a very moderate perspective.

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi is an Islamic Schoalr of 35 years, he was asked by the President of Pakistan to be a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology, which is a constitutional body that suggests responses to various issues confronting the people of Pakistan in the interpretation of the message of Islam.
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi is a not a fundamentalist and believes in democracy and equality for women, he is someone I respect and as far as I am concerned he is part of the solution to the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and not part of it. Unfortunately he is in a losing battle, his opposition is the majority. Clerics from different sects have voiced vehement opposition to Ghamidi's opinions, which are too liberal.

That being said, lets examine his interpretation of Jihad and see just how different it is from the Islamic hard-liners.

Introduction to the Divine Law Regarding Jihad

In religious parlance, this use of force is called Jihad1, and in the Qur’an it can be classified in two distinct categories:

Firstly, against injustice and oppression.

Injustice and oppression as percieved by Muhammad dictated in the Quran,not how you and I percieve injustice and oppression.

Secondly, against the rejecters of truth after it has become evident to them.

The "truth" of Islam has been evident to me and I rejected it, therefore according Islamic law use of force (jihad) is justified against me.

Bearing witness to the truth in such a manner is called ‘شهادة’ (shahadah).
Once the process of ‘شهادة’ (shahadah) is complete, the truth is unveiled to a people in its ultimate form, and if they now deny it in spite of being convinced about it, they are punished in this very world. At times, this punishment is through earthquakes, cyclones and other calamities and disasters, while, at others, it emanates from the swords of the believers. As a result, those who have denied the truth are totally vanquished in their land and the truth reigns supreme in it.

It is to this very fact which the following words of the Qur’an allude:

قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمْ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ

Fight them and God will punish them with your hands. (9:14)

http://www.al-mawrid.org/Content/ViewArticle.aspx?articleId=122

This is the interpretation of jihad from the perspective a very moderate Muslim Scholar. Do you not see the promotion of violence in this description?
There may be subtle differences in the interpretation of jihad among Islamic scholars, but the very principle remains intact.

 

[sysyphus]

These are not incidents . They are the behaviour pattern of Muslim rulers in India for six centuries .

The pattern of violence that occurs with every other major religion on earth. Of course, the misdeeds of other religions always seem to get conveniently swept under the rug.

I'm not impressed.

 

[skadistic]

The pattern of violence that occurs with every other major religion on earth. Of course, the misdeeds of other religions always seem to get conveniently swept under the rug.

I'm not impressed.

Swept under? Thats one of putting it. I say since were talking about Islam other religions are moot points. Stop trying to compair islam with other religions.

What are you not impressed by? How islam has utterly destroyed the hindu temples and killed untold numbers of hindus in the name of islam? Its nice how you just sweep it under the rug.

 

[The Tollan]

4. Some modern examples of religous wars/atrocities by major religons.


Now chistianity
*The KKK
*Nazi Germanys attempt to wipe out non-chistian/Eroupean groups
*The IRA
*The 30 years war fougfht solely over religon between protestants and catholics.
*The colonial wars in which christian Eroupe forceibly converted native peoples
*The exterination of American indians in part because they were non-christian.
*The Crusades
*The first world war was heavily religisized by the churches of America.
*Various modern abortion clinic bombings etc.


There you have some examples to try an refute.

If you read the Bible, specifically the New Testament, would you say that it indicates that one should ignite total wars of populations throughout portions of entire continents (in reference to the World War claims). Do you think murder is forbidden in Christianity or considered good (regarding points 2, 4 and the last one)? Do you think that it is considered good in Christian morality to conduct actions like the Crusades and the Thirty Years War or contradicts it? Examine the books of the New Testament rather than statements of various later writers when answering this. It either is a contradiction of the religion (and thus against it) or supported by it.

If any of you have watched the recent seasons of the sci-fi show "Stargate SG-1" You will see that the Ori are basicaly christians being able to watch them from an outside point of view may help you realize exactly what christianity and other monothastic religons are about.

The followers of the Ori believe in a type of polytheistic belief system (though the Ori are not actually gods). It is possible that the producers are showing the problems with violently imposing beliefs however they are not denouncing monotheism itself. This is especially clear when one looks at how Origen (however it is spelled) is not monotheistic. One might argue that the Ori all cooperate and thus appear more monotheistic in behavior than polytheistic (while admitting Origen is not actually monotheistic). One response to this argument is that the followers of Origen view (falsely) both the Ori and Ancient as gods (though they claim the Ancients are actually evil). Since both the Ancients and the Ori oppose one another they do not cooperate usually. In at least one episode the producers seem to try to indicate they are not attacking all forms of religion (it was one of the episodes shortly after the start of Season 9. So you seem to be set against monotheism how about consider this positive: Many historians view monotheism as having started the idea of a "sense of time" in history and thus being part of how the modern West views history (along with Greek and other influence).

 

[sysyphus]

Swept under? Thats one of putting it. I say since were talking about Islam other religions are moot points. Stop trying to compair islam with other religions.

I will compare all I like. The misdeeds of some under islam does not excuse the misdeeds committed in the name of other religions and they shall be subjected to scrutiny as well.

What are you not impressed by? How islam has utterly destroyed the hindu temples and killed untold numbers of hindus in the name of islam? Its nice how you just sweep it under the rug.

I sweep nothing under the rug. But apparently Hindu acts against Muslims have been.

 

[aneeshm]

The pattern of violence that occurs with every other major religion on earth. Of course, the misdeeds of other religions always seem to get conveniently swept under the rug.

I'm not impressed.

How many Muslim places of worship have been destroyed by Hindu rulers : a sum total of ZERO .

In the interests of full disclosure , however , I am compelled to state : the one time that an out-of-control Hindu mob ( not ruler , but angry irrational mob ) tore down a mosque ( with their bare hands and sticks and stones , without premeditation ) , a mosque which was unused and unmaintained for more than fifty years , it was because the Muslims had built it , as a mark of their dominion , on top of a Hindu temple to one of the principal deities of Hinduism which they had destroyed .

How , precisely , are the two cases comparable ?

 

[aneeshm]

I sweep nothing under the rug. But apparently Hindu acts against Muslims have been.

OK . Here is an open challenge for you . Find me anything - and I mean anything - comparable to the Muslim destruction of Hindu temples done by Hindu rulers to any other religion , and I'll eat my hat .

Remember - you have to find me a region of the Earth as large as North India ( physically , culturally , or populationally - I'm leaving you lots of space ) where Hindu rulers have totally decimated the local religion and have left no trace of the existence of their great places of worship . Fine me a single geographical feature which is named after Hindus killing anybody ( the paralled in this case is the Hindu Kush , which means "The Killer of Hindus" , referring to the great number of Hindus who died on that mountain pass while being taken to the Arabian slave-markets ) . Find me a single region of the planet as brutalised by Hinduism as North India was by Islam .

You won't be able to find anything . Because that is not the Hindu way . The Hindu way of expanding , which might seem alien to you , is of co-opting the local traditions . As an example , I give you pre-Islamic Indonesia . There , after being defeated a few times by armadas sent by South Indian kings , the local kings desired the authority Vedic ( Hindu ) religious sanction would give them . So they imported priests over from India . These priests did not ask anything of the king except that he regularly perform certain sacrifices ( Ashwamedha , Soma , Agnistoma , etc. being the primary ones ) .

Slowly , after seeing that the new religion did not threaten the old , and that the new religion considered the old holy places to also be the new holy places , the elite of Indonesia adopted Vedic rituals . Seeing them , and seeing adoption of the elite religion as an entry into the elite , the common people adopted Hinduism . The way of life remained the same , the rituals and art remained the same , the holy places remained the same , the modes of worship were superficially changed , but there was the new religion . That is how Hinduism spread in Indonesia - by a slow process of osmosis . It did not destroy the old holy places - it co-opted them and gave them a new , grander status . Look at Parambanan .

If there was an old god , a paralled was found for him in the vast Hindu pantheon and he was called another form or another name of that God . If no paralled was found , then he was somehow made into a relation of some god in the Hindu pantheon . This is non-disruptive . Unlike the Islamic idol-smashing that was made fashionable by Mohammed .

And precisely because this is the Hindu way is why you will never find the example I have challenged you to find .

 

[sysyphus]

Was it the "Hindu way" to murder Mohatma Ghandi, the ultimate man of peace, because he valued Muslims as equals to Hindus?

 

[skadistic]

Was it the "Hindu way" to murder Mohatma Ghandi, the ultimate man of peace, because he valued Muslims as equals to Hindus?

Was it the "muslim way" to call for the popes assination? Was it the "muslim way" to call for the death of Salmin Rushdi? (sp?) Is it the "muslim way" to kill people who denouce islam as thier faith and express they want to convert to some thing else?

 

[Princeps]

Was it the "muslim way" to call for the popes assination? Was it the "muslim way" to call for the death of Salmin Rushdi? (sp?) Is it the "muslim way" to kill people who denouce islam as thier faith and express they want to convert to some thing else?

Was it Christian way to bless the enslavement of hundreds of thousands of people? Was it Christian way to attack Iraq because God told so?

We could go on forever, you can't find anything which could turn Islam into your ultimate scapegoat.

 

[sysyphus]

Was it the "muslim way" to call for the popes assination? Was it the "muslim way" to call for the death of Salmin Rushdi? (sp?) Is it the "muslim way" to kill people who denouce islam as thier faith and express they want to convert to some thing else?

I would suggest that the murder of Mohatma Ghandi is in fact not the Hindu way, and I would say that teh murder of the Pope would not be the muslim way. To add, I would not say that the murder of abortion doctors is not the Christian way.

The people who carry out these acts have lost sight of the core tenets of their religion. They have sacrificed their divinity in the name of tribalism. It is therefore not fair to associate those who reject the tribal instinct, and hold their tenets with those who commit heineous acts.

 

[skadistic]

Was it Christian way to bless the enslavement of hundreds of thousands of people? Was it Christian way to attack Iraq because God told so?

We could go on forever, you can't find anything which could turn Islam into your ultimate scapegoat.

I'm not looking for a scapegoat naziassbandit. What I doing is keeping the questions on track with the premis of the thread wich is islam not Hindu not christian not budist. Speaking of ultimate scapegoats shouldn't you be blaming Israel for everything and insulting them all with you cute remarks about how they are all criminals?

 

[Mott1]

The people who carry out these acts have lost sight of the core tenets of their religion. They have sacrificed their divinity in the name of tribalism. It is therefore not fair to associate those who reject the tribal instinct, and hold their tenets with those who commit heineous acts.

What knowlegde do you posses to make this claim? What postion of authority do you have that makes your argument even remotley valid? What proof do you have to claim that the people who carry out violent acts have not ascribed to their core tenets? what? show proof and convince us.
So far you have provided nothing but rethoric.

 

[sysyphus]

What knowlegde do you posses to make this claim? What postion of authority do you have that makes your argument even remotley valid? What proof do you have to claim that the people who carry out violent acts have not ascribed to their core tenets? what? show proof and convince us.
So far you have provided nothing but rethoric.

It's not rhetoric at all. Admittedly it is based on observation I've had minimal chance to familiarise myself with religions other than Christianity which I was brought up under (albeit loosely but I have read the New Testament on my own accord). I've planned on reading the Quran to gain better knowledge of Islam, haven't had time for it yet.

Certainly anyone who has read the New Testament will see that Jesus would not approve of violence for any reason.

I've known people of various religions, including Islam, and I'm married into a Jweish family, I am learning more about Judaism in the process.

Generally, I see the same themes coming up over and over again, and most often is that very few practising religious people I have spoken with believe that acts of violence are acceptable in their religion. What authority do I have to not take them at their word?

So no, I don't hold a doctrate in theology, I make no apologies for that. I try to understand the best I can. Certainly I have no less than anybody else commenting here.

 

[nc-1701]

If you read the Bible, specifically the New Testament, would you say that it indicates that one should ignite total wars of populations throughout portions of entire continents (in reference to the World War claims). Do you think murder is forbidden in Christianity or considered good (regarding points 2, 4 and the last one)? Do you think that it is considered good in Christian morality to conduct actions like the Crusades and the Thirty Years War or contradicts it? Examine the books of the New Testament rather than statements of various later writers when answering this. It either is a contradiction of the religion (and thus against it) or supported by it.



The followers of the Ori believe in a type of polytheistic belief system (though the Ori are not actually gods). It is possible that the producers are showing the problems with violently imposing beliefs however they are not denouncing monotheism itself. This is especially clear when one looks at how Origen (however it is spelled) is not monotheistic. One might argue that the Ori all cooperate and thus appear more monotheistic in behavior than polytheistic (while admitting Origen is not actually monotheistic). One response to this argument is that the followers of Origen view (falsely) both the Ori and Ancient as gods (though they claim the Ancients are actually evil). Since both the Ancients and the Ori oppose one another they do not cooperate usually. In at least one episode the producers seem to try to indicate they are not attacking all forms of religion (it was one of the episodes shortly after the start of Season 9. So you seem to be set against monotheism how about consider this positive: Many historians view monotheism as having started the idea of a "sense of time" in history and thus being part of how the modern West views history (along with Greek and other influence).

Ok number one I'm not stating that God or Jesus or whomever said violence was good. but that in the religons modern context it like Islam is incredibly violent. How it was originally meant to be is irrelavent. The important part is that the modern version is bad. Do you think Karl Marx meant for millions to die in mass famines from his communist idea? The answer is no but that doesn't mean that communism hasn't commited such horrible crimes.

The Ori are not actualy monotheastic of course I'm just saying there are a few to many parallels to discount or haven't you noticed that Ori/Ancients are basicaly Devil/God?

@some others I'm not just talking about Islam, but rather all religons especialy the Abrahamic ones.

 

[Mott1]

It's not rhetoric at all. Admittedly it is based on observation I've had minimal chance to familiarise myself with religions other than Christianity which I was brought up under (albeit loosely but I have read the New Testament on my own accord). I've planned on reading the Quran to gain better knowledge of Islam, haven't had time for it yet.

Your argument is based on observation rather than any knowledge of the Islamic doctrine. Yet you present this claim as fact:

The people who carry out these acts have lost sight of the core tenets of their religion

First, how can you make this claim solely on the observation of a few adherents? and why are you discarding your observation of the adherents that do commit acts of violence?

Secondly, an argument based on selective observation is a logical fallacy. Argument By Generalization.
If you have little or no knowledge of the principle tenets of a belief system then it is dishonesty on your part to argue on behalf of these religious tenets.

Certainly anyone who has read the New Testament will see that Jesus would not approve of violence for any reason.

And I don't see how this statement has anythiong to do with the argument at hand. What connection are you trying to make?

Generally, I see the same themes coming up over and over again, and most often is that very few practising religious people I have spoken with believe that acts of violence are acceptable in their religion. What authority do I have to not take them at their word?

The authority of Free will? Common sense? do you take everyones word at face value? Is it possible perhaps that they themselves are not knowledgeable on the subject?

So no, I don't hold a doctrate in theology, I make no apologies for that. I try to understand the best I can.

There is no need to hold a doctrate in theology, one does not need a doctrate in theology to be considerded knowledgeable on the subject.

Certainly I have no less than anybody else commenting here.

You have no less knowledge on Islam than anybody else commenting here? are you absolutely certain about that?

 

[The Tollan]

Ok number one I'm not stating that God or Jesus or whomever said violence was good. but that in the religons modern context it like Islam is incredibly violent. How it was originally meant to be is irrelavent. The important part is that the modern version is bad. Do you think Karl Marx meant for millions to die in mass famines from his communist idea? The answer is no but that doesn't mean that communism hasn't commited such horrible crimes.

I was not so brief in my wording however I think I have found some way to bridge our ideas.

The Soviet Union and other regimes which claimed they were communism generally contradicted Marx's final objective (I am not talking about the violence aspect yet). I would say that many Leninist communists and Stalinist communists were guilty of severe crimes. Many of their allies throughout the world viewed their atrocities as positive deeds. This does not affected Marxist communism (the original communism). Marx may have be guilty of advocating violence as part of his revolution (though it was on a smaller scale than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc). Discussing the crimes of certain ideologies like communism is difficult because of the many "brands" of communism. When people appropriate a term and start changing the definition they often make discourse so much harder for future generations. Although I reject communism I would have to claim that Lenin's atrocities are not attributable to Marx's ideology (though at least of few opponents of Marx knew what would probably happen if Marxism were attempted). Perhaps there is a bit of irony in refering to Marx's ideology. When people say communists commited various crimes they are (if unknowingly) using a short hand for saying many types of advocates/exploiters of a communism type ideology commited various crimes. I would say that there are some political ideologies that are neither peaceful nor violent such as democracy (though certain results may statistically occur more often due to psychological, economic, and many other factors). Some ideologies are indeed violent or basically require violence.

When people take a religion that was originally peaceful and try to use it violently then their "brand" or new religious ideology can be denounced though it should be noted that they have add new aspects to the religion. Some religions start peaceful and later are used to form a violent religious ideology. This new version must be condemned (provided one accepts the proposition that violence is bad). The original and those who still practice something like the original should be noted for its peacefulness though. If a religion is peaceful or even pacifist and a person commits violence it its name then they are either being illogical, deluded, a hypocrite, make flawed interpretations (though still accepted by some) or an opportunist. Unforunately, there is a shocking amount of such people.

I am not saying a religions that have always existed are peaceful (you probably know that I argue this however I types this just for the record). Some have been pacifist or nearly so. Some perhaps do not comment on peace or violence. Violence associated with a religion rightly or wrong should be dealt with however I would argue that the founder (s) had an at least somewhat objective set of principles, rules, or mandates. I have not addressed your point about violent hypocrites or those who excuse some atrocities (whether any given event can be associated with the followers of a religion or not, how it started, or who if anyone should receive the actual blame I am not saying here) while not others however my main objective is something other than to argue on their behalf. This is mostly theoretical. I am not currently seeking to determine the cause or actual source of blame of certain historical events or whether they should be viewed as atrocities (except perhaps in the discussion about various forms of communism).

The Ori are not actualy monotheastic of course I'm just saying there are a few to many parallels to discount or haven't you noticed that Ori/Ancients are basicaly Devil/God?

The idea of the Ori/Ancient is based partly on ideas copied from real life religions. On this I agree. The producers definitely do not like beliefs being imposed by force however I question whether they completely are trying to argue against all forms of religion in their show (though it could be possible). It is true that SG-1 rarely portrays the religious ideas in the show positively however occasionally there are indications that it is not all anti-religion. The Goa'uld were often stressed as being "false gods". By the way, the Ori/their followers have not been very interesting villains so far; too predictable and repetitive (some of SG Command's allies are a bit like that too). Maybe that will change.