Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(3) which makes me ask, while there are plenty of Hindu -Buddhist monuments in central and East Java..where are they in the West? Were there none buiolt by the Hindu kings? No, they were demolished to the bases by the new religion. Say what you like about the Christian invaders when they arrived, but they denolished neither temple, stupa nor mosque.
On the other hand, there are still many Hindu temples and churches in the majority Muslim countries. Why these haven't been destroyed if you think that Muslim religion wants them destroyed?
The correct name of Pakistan is Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Protection of minority religious communities (including Christians and Hindus) is clearly stated in the Constitution of the country. Two of the most holy places of Sikhs are in Pakistan where thousands of them come from India every year. Why would it be so if you think the Muslim religion wanted them to be destroyed?
On the other hand, there are still many Hindu temples and churches in the majority Muslim countries. Why these haven't been destroyed if you think that Muslim religion wants them destroyed?
The correct name of Pakistan is Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Protection of minority religious communities (including Christians and Hindus) is clearly stated in the Constitution of the country. Two of the most holy places of Sikhs are in Pakistan where thousands of them come from India every year. Why would it be so if you think the Muslim religion wanted them to be destroyed?
I should remark that I was talking about Malaya and Java as an example of the apparent destruction of non Islamic monuments.
We could of course digress into a country -by -country analysis of religious tolerance or lack of it since the 18th century, but that would not get us very far and the motives are arguable. Pakistan (1), like Turkey, and a few other places, seems to be going through a political battle between rather secular regimes and rather religious ones, and leaving us in the West rather wondering which of the two is worst.
Anyway, old mate we have covered a lot of ground related to whether your contention that verses about peace and not attacking unless attacked first has any ameliorating effect on Muslim wars and conquest, and I'd say that you have failed to establish that it does in the slightest, and that war and conquest by muslim rulers can (in a way that makes Bush's crusade look like Stalin's Patriotic war) have a very religious flavour to them.
That whole digression was of course related back to the idea of whether your apparent contention that the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions are all the same "(Islam") looks valid, and whether the majority of muslims and their rulers seem to agree with you.
It has at least shown that, even if the motivation for Muslim expansion was political rather than religious, the spread of Islam was was never a "Don't mention the war" (2) matter. And indeed you easily lapse into an Us and Them mindset in referring to the misdeeds of Christianity, seems to show that you really think so too, not matter what you try to tell me are the precepts of this new brand of the Muslim religion that you have invented.
(1) and while the modern availability of news may account for the desire of the Pakistan government to appear tolerant, they may recall, as I do, that the Sikhs of all those who resisted Islamic expansion in India, gave the muslims a good kicking more than any other I can think of.
(2) and just don't get me started on Africa - Muslims or Christians.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-18-2017 at 05:20 AM..
I should remark that I was talking about Malaya and Java as an example of the apparent destruction of non Islamic monuments.
Destruction of monuments is another issue. Ka'aba was once a non-Islamic monument. It hasn't been destroyed. None of the Temples on the Temple Mount were destroyed by the Muslims. Instead they brought the Mount back into use for worship of One God after it was turned into a garbage dump by the Romans. When Muslims got to Jerusalem, they did not destroy the Church of Holy Sepulchre. In fact, the history goes further than that; Muslims hold the key to the most holy church in Christianity. This proves the link between Jews, Christians and Muslims through submitting to God that I have been talking about in this thread.
What happens outside the religious principles is not religion but something outside religion. I give you an example:
If a Muslim woman, who is highly qualified teacher but covers her head (but not the face), applies for a teaching job in Kuwait or UAE, she is likely to be rejected because of her hijab. But if the same woman applies for a teaching job in London she is more likely to get the job on merit.
As you can see, things are not quite what you will first think they are. The above case is not an imagined case. It is a real case. It happened to one of my family members. She was the only shortlisted teacher because of her qualification not only as a well qualified teacher but an external verifier for several colleges as well as an examiner. It was her hijab that made them refuse to give her the job in an Islamic country. This was totally against the Islamic principle. Yet, the West holds such principle dearly. This is why the West is progressive and the ME still backward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
We could of course digress into a country -by -country analysis of religious tolerance or lack of it since the 18th century, but that would not get us very far and the motives are arguable. Pakistan (1), like Turkey, and a few other places, seems to be going through a political battle between rather secular regimes and rather religious ones, and leaving us in the West rather wondering which of the two is worst.
You, in the West, may be wondering but I do not wonder about it. I know one is corrupt and the other ignorant of their own religion. This is not Islam or the Qur'an's fault but those who profess to be Muslims but do not act as Muslim should. And people who do not understand the difference in their ignorance will keep wondering for years to come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Anyway, old mate we have covered a lot of ground related to whether your contention that verses about peace and not attacking unless attacked first has any ameliorating effect on Muslim wars and conquest, and I'd say that you have failed to establish that it does in the slightest, and that war and conquest by muslim rulers can (in a way that makes Bush's crusade look like Stalin's Patriotic war) have a very religious flavour to them.
My job here isn't to convince you but explain, with verses of the Qur'an, that believers are not to attack first peaceful persons regardless of their religion or of no religion. The problem is that you do not read or try to understand the point made in the verses I quote even though you were quick to copy and paste so many verses from a website hostile to Islam. In other words, I have established that the Qur'an does not prescribe attacking first but to defend against those who wage war on believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That whole digression was of course related back to the idea of whether your apparent contention that the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions are all the same "(Islam") looks valid, and whether the majority of muslims and their rulers seem to agree with you.
No. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is not my concern. My concern was to link so-called Abrahamic religions. I had of course done that. If you still insist that I haven't done that, it's not my problem. My conscience is clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
It has at least shown that, even if the motivation for Muslim expansion was political rather than religious, the spread of Islam was was never a "Don't mention the war" (2) matter. And indeed you easily lapse into an Us and Them mindset in referring to the misdeeds of Christianity, seems to show that you really think so too, not matter what you try to tell me are the precepts of this new brand of the Muslim religion that you have invented.
You are now trying to twist what I have said. You blamed Muslims for destroying non-Islamic monuments but when I pointed out Christians destroying mosques, I am doing Us v Them and not countering your one-sided accusation. The point made here is that there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims the same way as there are good Christians and bad Christians. Each of them all is going be judged by their actions/deeds rather than what they profess with their mouths only.
And my precepts are not "new" but documented in the Qur'an for the past over 1400 years. I have invented nothing new. If you don't want to understand the issue, I am not going to lose my sleep over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
(1) and while the modern availability of news may account for the desire of the Pakistan government to appear tolerant, they may recall, as I do, that the Sikhs of all those who resisted Islamic expansion in India, gave the muslims a good kicking more than any other I can think of.
I am not sure how much knowledge you have of Islamic expansion in India but you need to know that Muslims were in India long before there was Sikhism in India. The very first mosque in India was built long before anyone became Sikh in India.
The Sikhs have more in common with Muslims than Hindus. Sikhs are monotheists. In normal day to day life, Sikhs and Muslims both in India and Pakistan as well as in the West are getting on fine.
This spins off from discussion of the implications of all the Abrahamic religions being "Islam" and my arguments that mainstream Islam does Not see Judaism and Christianity as perfectly fine and not going to hell without converting, and your own interpretation, though commendable, will not be accepted by many other muslims.
" may be wondering but I do not wonder about it." Maybe you should, since what seems to replace evil dictators (when we were expecting peace and freedom) is even worse.
"My job here isn't to convince you but explain, with verses of the Qur'an, that believers are not to attack first peaceful persons regardless of their religion or of no religion"
And my job is not to convince you, but explain that your Interpretation of the Quran and your apparent founding of a new sect of Islam is neither here nor there when it comes to the sort of Islamic religion we have to deal with.
"No. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is not my concern. My concern was to link so-called Abrahamic religions. I had of course done that. If you still insist that I haven't done that, it's not my problem. My conscience is clear."
Then I don't know why you continue to keep arguing. Your line of "Not arguing -just explaining" is a very old one used by Bible apologists who wanted to be free to preach their views without anyone disagreeing with them. That only happens when these views are such irrelevant woffle that comment is pointless.
You can take it that your views are considered well worth addressing (by me, at least) and demand fair discussion. Nobody
is forcing you to do so, but all the time you post, you can expect to be called on it.
" You blamed Muslims for destroying non-Islamic monuments but when I pointed out Christians destroying mosques, I am doing Us v Them and not countering your one-sided accusation."
It's a fair point (and Tuo Quoque doesn't -in my view - apply as I was, I suppose, claiming moral superiority(1) but it does strike me that in the 300 years of Muslim and then Christian expansion in Malaya and Java, Islam destroyed the Hindu monuments and Christianity didn't.
It can't be applied so easily to India (though conquest can - and I shall address that) and what is going on in Africa today hardly applies.
"And my precepts are not "new" but documented in the Qur'an for the past over 1400 years. I have invented nothing new. If you don't want to understand the issue, I am not going to lose my sleep over it."
I'm glad to hear it as I'd hate to think your refusal to see the clear fact that your Interpretations of the Quran are evidently not the Interpretation of the rest on the Muslim world was going to spoil your sleep.
"I am not sure how much knowledge you have of Islamic expansion in India but you need to know that Muslims were in India long before there was Sikhism in India. The very first mosque in India was built long before anyone became Sikh in India."
I know. I heard it from a Sikh spokesman that Sikhhism became so militaristic in ethos specifically because, after Islam became a religion with political power (notably after Babur's invasion and the setting up of the Sultanate of Dehli) and began suppressing those states which were Not Muslim (just as happened in Java and so much for "Peaceful conversion") in order to fight Islam which was trying to eradicate it.
History, religion and conquest is of course complex, but the point is that the Islamic expansion was militaristic and intolerant in nature, right from the start, and was only doing peaceful tolerance when they couldn't manage an invasion, not until they had the numbers. And 'peaceful conversion of Java" (so often used as the exception that disproves the rule" in Muslim apologetics) does not wash.
(1) I haven't seen it expressed, folks, even by the experts, but when 'Look what you people do' in an attempt to establish higher moral ground is the argument the 'you do it too!" is a valid argument and not a fallacy.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-19-2017 at 08:54 AM..
This spins off from discussion of the implications of all the Abrahamic religions being "Islam" and my arguments that mainstream Islam does Not see Judaism and Christianity as perfectly fine and not going to hell without converting, and your own interpretation, though commendable, will not be accepted by many other muslims.
If the other Muslims can't accept that Abraham and Moses were muslims then they do not understand the Qur'an. You also are not letting go of the idea that 'Islam' doesn't mean submission (to God) by obeying the commands from Him but a new religion that began only 1400 years ago.
It's obvious that we have disconnect in our respective view emphasis. You focus on what Muslims do and that is Muslim religion, and I am focusing on what Muslims are required to do through the message of the Qur'an so that they submit to God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And my job is not to convince you, but explain that your Interpretation of the Quran and your apparent founding of a new sect of Islam is neither here nor there when it comes to the sort of Islamic religion we have to deal with.
This proves my point that you are not interested in knowing what Islamic religion is but what Muslims do is Islamic religion. Terrorists kill peaceful people, including Muslims. If they shout ALLAHU AKBAR before killing anyone, you can think of only one thing; the terrorists are Muslims and complying with Islamic religion. If I say, that's not Islam, I have a sect of my own. No wonder the terrorists are "Islamic" and I am not. And then they wonder why the terrorism can't be eliminated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Then I don't know why you continue to keep arguing. Your line of "Not arguing -just explaining" is a very old one used by Bible apologists who wanted to be free to preach their views without anyone disagreeing with them. That only happens when these views are such irrelevant woffle that comment is pointless.
My line is "Not convincing but explaining". You seem to have been arguing too much with Christian apologists or perhaps it has been the other way round with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You can take it that your views are considered well worth addressing (by me, at least) and demand fair discussion. Nobody is forcing you to do so, but all the time you post, you can expect to be called on it.
You are not going to call me upon it by giving me example of what other Muslims do but countering my view by showing me that I am wrong in my views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I know. I heard it from a Sikh spokesman that Sikhhism became so militaristic in ethos specifically because, after Islam became a religion with political power (notably after Babur's invasion and the setting up of the Sultanate of Dehli) and began suppressing those states which were Not Muslim (just as happened in Java and so much for "Peaceful conversion") in order to fight Islam which was trying to eradicate it.
You are totally wrong here about expansion of Islam by Babur, old son.
There were no Sikhs in India when Babur went through the Punjab region. Sikhism began much later and their relationship Muslims under Akbar (grandson of Babur) was good. And it is still good as their most holy places are in Pakistan. The only time their relationship with Mughals was not good is when the last Mughal emperor Aurangzeb had mistreated them. By then the Mughal rule was coming to an end. He had even put his own father Shah Jehan under house arrest in his time as emperor. That too had nothing to do with Islam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
History, religion and conquest is of course complex, but the point is that the Islamic expansion was militaristic and intolerant in nature, right from the start, and was only doing peaceful tolerance when they couldn't manage an invasion, not until they had the numbers. And 'peaceful conversion of Java" (so often used as the exception that disproves the rule" in Muslim apologetics) does not wash.
Once again, you are focusing on political nature of expansion much later rather than spread of Islam during the first 23 years when the Qur'an was being revealed.
Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in “Young Indiaâ€, 1924: “I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.â€
Gandhi was of course well respected peaceful Indian. He understood Indian history better than most people. He worked with Muslims in the Muslim League together to free India from the British Raj.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
(1) I haven't seen it expressed, folks, even by the experts, but when 'Look what you people do' in an attempt to establish higher moral ground is the argument the 'you do it too!" is a valid argument and not a fallacy.
That is to counter your examples and you should expect it. It is not to express anyone's higher moral ground. The moral ground that I have been explaining here is not to attack first peaceful people of any religion or of no religion. If everyone followed that principle, fights and wars won't even begin.
I see little point in the list of evasions and misrepresentations. How many times do I have to repeat that I know and get the idea that "Islam" is merely "Submission to God" (abrahamic religions) in Arabic. That does not mean that the muslim world at large shares your idea that Judaism and Christianity are perfectly og and Allah is not going to send them to hell. Your interpretation is your own, and I don't think that reflects the views of muslims, their teachers or their religion.
So, do I really need to list the non -points? I already said that Sihkism (so I was told) was a counter to Islam in India after Babur had invaded and set up Islamic rulership in India.
Every other point you make is a similar strawman or evasion. What is the point of a quote from Ghandi who wanted desperately for Hindus and Muslim in India to live together in harmony. But the Muslims would not liveinuder a Hindu government, and set up their own Islamic state. Even now Muslims and Hindus live reasonably peacefully together in India. I seem to recall more friction with Sikhs and Christians.
I don't mind what views you hold, though some Muslims might, and it doesn't matter to me how you interpret the Quran or that you think you can make a point about my refusal to be drawn into a pointless discussion of the Quran - never mind about how you interpret it. What matters is that those looking in will see that you haven't been able to made a single point stick, other than the Christian crusader -think behind the Iraq war, which we agree on.
Oh and you totally missed the point of my footnote, which was a general comment of the "You Too" fallacy, which I argue does not apply if one side (in my case me - not you) is arguing moral high ground (Muslims destroyed Shrines, Christians didn't - remember?). Your problem is that you attack points that I haven't been making. In order to make it quite clear to you, I was saying that your 'You too' point was valid, and Tuo quoque did not (in my view) invalidate it, because I was arguing moral superiority which you were quite entitled to counter.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-19-2017 at 03:09 PM..
I see little point in the list of evasions and misrepresentations. How many times do I have to repeat that I know and get the idea that "Islam" is merely "Submission to God" (abrahamic religions) in Arabic.
And did you understand that the same idea is in both Judaism and Christianity; keeping the commandments and obeying God?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That does not mean that the muslim world at large shares your idea that Judaism and Christianity are perfectly og and Allah is not going to send them to hell.
Where did I say that Judaism and Christianity (or Islam for that matter) are not going to be sent to hell by Allah?
When you mix names of religions with their adherents discussion gets messy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Your interpretation is your own, and I don't think that reflects the views of muslims, their teachers or their religion.
My interpretation is based on the teachings of the Qur'an. If any Muslim thinks against the teachings of the Qur'an then he is not expressing Islam. Perhaps that's why you call their religion "Muslim religion" rather than "Islam".
As I expressed previously, there is disconnect between what I express as "Islam" and what you express as "Muslim religion". This is perhaps why you are isolating my views from the views of the other Muslims.
One thing I must let you know is that even the Muslims who say Judaism and Christianity are not the same as Islam will say that Moses and Jesus were Muslims. None of them will say that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were not Muslims.
And did you understand that the same idea is in both Judaism and Christianity; keeping the commandments and obeying God?
Where did I say that Judaism and Christianity (or Islam for that matter) are not going to be sent to hell by Allah?
When you mix names of religions with their adherents discussion gets messy.
My interpretation is based on the teachings of the Qur'an. If any Muslim thinks against the teachings of the Qur'an then he is not expressing Islam. Perhaps that's why you call their religion "Muslim religion" rather than "Islam".
As I expressed previously, there is disconnect between what I express as "Islam" and what you express as "Muslim religion". This is perhaps why you are isolating my views from the views of the other Muslims.
One thing I must let you know is that even the Muslims who say Judaism and Christianity are not the same as Islam will say that Moses and Jesus were Muslims. None of them will say that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were not Muslims.
You either have a very short memory or are trying to do a bit of semantic wriggling. Don't you recall posting the passage that Jews and Christians will not need to grieve or weep on that (last) day? Don't you recall saying that, if they did good deeds or behaved well they needn't fear being sent to hell, but muslims, if they did bad deeds, should?
Don't you recall my pointing out several observances enjoined on Muslims that Jews and Christians don't do, as a difference between Jews, Christians and Muslims? Just as Jews and Christians worship the same god (though not al accept that it is the same) but certainly don't regard the religions as the same.
It gets messy because it is messy. It gets messier if you confuse labels (i.e names of founders) with concepts.
You make it nice and simple by saying it's all the same "Submission to God'. You Interpret the Quran in a particular way, and seem to think that all the muslims who don't agree with your interpretation (I'd risk a bit of money on all of them but one) are not doing Islam. Since I don't believe in the teachings of the Quran any more than I believe in the teachings of the Bible, your Interpretation of the teachings doesn't concern me. which is why I decline to be drawn into a discussion of the text.
I'd suggest you put your views to the Imam of the local mosque (assuming you know where it is) and see what he thinks. You never know, you may make a convert
And your remark that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all Muslims in the sense that submitted to the (Abrahamic) god is exactly the point made in the OP. There is indeed a discconect between that idea and the muslim religion and its' practices and a serious disconnect between your idea that this submission to god by Jews and Christians means that they do not need to follow the practices of the Muslim religion, and please don't try to tell me there isn't one or they are all the same as Judaism and Christianity.
The only other Muslim I am currently engaging with is TT. I could ask him whether he interprets the teaching of the Quran as you do, but then I am not sure that you do yourself and your post seems to be trying to pretend that you didn't say what you did.
Where did I say that Judaism and Christianity (or Islam for that matter) are not going to be sent to hell by Allah?
When you mix names of religions with their adherents discussion gets messy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You either have a very short memory or are trying to do a bit of semantic wriggling. Don't you recall posting the passage that Jews and Christians will not need to grieve or weep on that (last) day? Don't you recall saying that, if they did good deeds or behaved well they needn't fear being sent to hell, but muslims, if they did bad deeds, should?
Brilliant! You have done it again; mixed names of religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) with their adherents (Jews, Christians and Muslims).
In hell, it won't be Judaism, Christianity or Islam but those who call themselves Jews, Christians and Muslims with the weight of their bad deeds being heavy.
And your remark that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all Muslims in the sense that submitted to the (Abrahamic) god is exactly the point made in the OP.
They are all Abrahamic religions. They are all same god. They are all, in their core, same set of beliefs.
They are all the same teaching.
What happened, a wail was created between that teaching and its adherents. That wall is rituals. Wall of rituals called religion. And that is where differences arose and built up.
Also, when I read Q'ran, I noticed a lot of hatred towards Jews. I think, it is old feud going back from offended Ischmael times. Sort of carried through centuries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
