Islam - The Untold Story.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

You might rephrase all that into a coherent comment, question or something. As it stands, I've no idea what you're getting at.

Poor, backward parts of the world have these kinds of problems and that the Hindu caste system should be implicated in some, comes as no surprise to me.

For clarity, I think Roman Catholicism, Scientology, the Hindu Caste System (Hindu might be alright without it), and Islamic sects like Wahhabism and Salafism, are as close to pure evil as it is possible for any human ideology to be.

But India is a genuine democracy (where the vote of an untouchable is the same as the vote of a Brahman) that's in transition from 3rd world poverty stricken country to modern 1st world county. Hence there's every reason to believe that some of that nonsense will be consigned to history.

...because they're a pacifistic sect with numbers under 250,000.

Rather because Islam has a well earned reputation for violence, hatred and insanity, while the Amish, justifiably don't. Like most other religions do not have these issues or at least not on the same scale.

Facts:

1. Islamic history is like that of Christianity in South America - a story of conquest, domination, steeped in blood. Including one spectacular incident where they tried to convert India to Islam, thankfully failed, but killed 90 million Hindus in the attempt.
2. Islam calls for the death penalty for homosexuals, apostates and blasphemers.
3. Islamic extremism has a real and present foothold in the United Kingdom. Primarily Wahabbism, funded and directed by Saudi Arabia and promoted via the Green Lane Mosque, King Fahad Academy etc.
4. When someone exposes these people for what they are, as Channel 4 did with it's "Undercover Mosque" series, our useless governments are more likely to accuse the programme maker of racism than deal with the violence, treason and outright sedition they revealed.
5. Non Muslims are second class citizens at best in many Islamic countries, one example being Egypt where, for some reason, the 'Arab Spring' resulted in large scale violence against Coptic Christians.

Going back to the Amish, for example, to take a photograph of them of is extremely offensive, because they consider it the sin of 'making an image.' It is of roughly equal gravity as, oh, I don't know, drawing the Prophet Mohammed, or suggesting that someone holding a sign saying "BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS VIOLENT" might be an extremist.

Yet the Amish instructions to their people are not to cooperate with the errant photographer, but if you insult Islam or even question it, like Theo Van Gogh or the Danish cartoonist, or that clown pastor in Florida, you're likely to murdered or held responsible for yet another worldwide orgy of violence, murder and destruction.

I am not aware of these kinds of issues being so widespread in other faiths and if they do not concern you, I'd be curious why.

gothictwilight

goose2005 wrote: »

*insert comment about atheist Soviet Union / Cambodia / China / North Korea*

**don't ignore comment as make valid point*

robindch

goose2005 wrote: »

*insert comment about atheist Soviet Union / Cambodia / China / North Korea*

That nonsense has been debunked so many times in this forum that it'll end up as the number two question on the forum FAQ.(*)

(*) for whenever anybody gets around to writing it.

recedite

ninja900 wrote: »

Within my lifetime, Afghanistan was a relatively peaceful relative democracy... it was on the hippy trail FFS. Its descent into the batshît insane rule of religious nutcases is a tremendous tragedy for its people. All in the name of Allah (pbuh)

To be fair, it was never a democracy, although the west might pretend the brief and unstable western style governments installed in Kabul after the ousting of the Russians and then the Taliban were "democracies".
Its a tribal society where people always carried guns or weapons. A Pashtun tribesman living in the area where the US drone attacks are occurring is only vaguely aware of what "country" he is in, or whether he is a Pakistani or an Afghan. "Nationality" in a western sense has no meaning to them. Loyalty is only to the tribe or local clan.
IMO the Taliban fanatics (themselves an import) are a temporary phenomenon resulting from, and thriving on, the horrors of war. If all the foreign troops left the area, the tribal elders would reassert control, and the Taliban fanatics would eventually be rejected by the people.

gothictwilight

goose2005 wrote: »

*insert comment about atheist Soviet Union / Cambodia / China / North Korea*

I'd say a valid argument.
You could stick revolutionary france there as well.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Poor, (.........)be consigned to history..

Well done. Thats possibly the most classic example of blinkered Islamophobia I've come across. I highlighted a number of issues to do with fundamentalist style hinduism - far more than the caste system - and you brush it off. Even more telling, you point out the lack of development as a factor, but fail to use those criteria in speaking of Islamic countries. A wonderful piece of double think.

SeanW wrote: »

Rather because Islam has a well ........curious why.

The usual out-of-context "waaah, teh muslims" nonsense which ignores the kind of incidents highlighted earlier.

SeanW wrote: »

I am not aware of these kinds of issues being so widespread in other faiths .

I've presented incidents of couples being attacked for celebrating valentines day, people being killed for taking the 'wrong name', persecution and killing of religous minorities and violence against women, all in India, all by hindus.

Its clear you not being aware is therefore a result of willful ignorance, rather than those things not occurring - "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

mathepac

mathepac wrote: »

... That's me and that's them, I'm tapped out on the topic, sorry. ...

I forgot the most obvious place to look - the Bible itself.

Here's what I found:

Matthew 2:23 "... that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: He shall be called a Nazarene." [ESV]

Mark 14:67 "... and seeing Peter warming himself she looked at him and said, You were also with the Nazerene, Jesus." [ESV]

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Even more telling, you point out the lack of development as a factor, but fail to use those criteria in speaking of Islamic countries. A wonderful piece of double think.

I did not realise the Saudi Arabia was an impoverished 3rd world country. I also didn't know that the Netherlands (where the Theo Van Gogh was murdered for criticising Islam) or the U.K. (where Wahabbism is on the rise) were poor countries either.

You learn something new every day :rolleyes:

The usual out-of-context "waaah, teh muslims" nonsense which ignores the kind of incidents highlighted earlier.

I didn't ignore the incidents you highlighted, I dealt with them and made my view of the Hindu caste system very clear.

I also stated why I didn't feel threated by the Hindu caste system, and my optimism that may be consigned to history.

Its clear you not being aware is therefore a result of willful ignorance, rather than those things not occurring - "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

So instead of defending Wahabbism and other violent extremist Islamic ideologies - or at least giving good reasons why we need not fear them, you decide to call me a "bigot."

Lovely.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

I did not realise the Saudi Arabia was an impoverished 3rd world country. I also didn't know that the Netherlands (where the Theo Van Gogh was murdered for criticising Islam) or the U.K. (where Wahabbism is on the rise) were poor countries either.

You learn something new every day .

Ahh yes, more nonsense. You like to hop from whole societies to individual acts as suits you. Classic bigotry.

SeanW wrote: »

I didn't ignore the incidents you highlighted, I dealt with them and made my view of the Hindu caste system very clear.

I also stated why I didn't feel threated by the Hindu caste system, and my optimism that may be consigned to history.

So instead of defending Wahabbism and other violent extremist Islamic ideologies - or at least giving good reasons why we need not fear them, you decide to call me a "bigot."

Lovely.

"caste system"...dear o dear. You don't feel threatened by Hindu nationalism/fundamentalism because you don't live in India. If you feel threatened by muslims, I suggest contacting a medical proffessional.

By the way -

Is persecuting christians and muslims a result of the "caste system"?

Is attacking couples celebrating valentines day a result of the "caste system"?

Is burning effigys of a man who publicly kissed a woman a result of the "caste system"?

Is the treatment of Widows a result of the "caste system"?

Are tamil suicide bombers a result of the "caste system"?

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Ahh yes, more nonsense. You like to hop from whole societies to individual acts as suits you. Classic bigotry.

Only they're not just individuals. Even those who act alone, like the murderer of Theo Van Gogh, come from "whole societies" which is why he was murdered for criticising Islam and someone who takes a photograph of the Amish (equally offensive) is not.

Everything happens in context.

You didn't say anything about Wahabbism and Saudi Arabia ...

So again, rather than deal with the issue, you call me a bigot again :rolleyes:

"caste system"?

I only a read a few of your links and the caste system featured heavily in them.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

..............

I only a read a few of your links and the caste system featured heavily in them.

Selective reading. Dear me.

SeanW

not selective, I just didn't bother reading them all in full.

goose2005

robindch wrote: »

That nonsense has been debunked so many times in this forum that it'll end up as the number two question on the forum FAQ.(*)

(*) for whenever anybody gets around to writing it.

I wasn't being serious. Just that there were other motives for 9/11 beyond Islam being intrinsically evil.

Dark_ness

Practically everyone is biased in some way.

Dark_ness

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems to many in the field more likely that early islam was one of the many judeaochristian movements that sprang up mid first millennium. It has a lot of similarities with a couple. Then it became successful on the back of a collection of Arab groups fighting and winning local wars under a local charismatic leader until they consolidated enough to take on what was left of the Persian/GrecoRoman world. Then it started to be codified around the late 8th century into what became Islam as it came to be known.

Dear Wibbs, Islamic tradition holds that God sent messengers to every nation and each messenger preached Islam to his followers.

Wibbs

Dark_ness wrote: »

Dear Wibbs, Islamic tradition holds that God sent messengers to every nation and each messenger preached Islam to his followers.

Of course it does. It retroactively appropriated the traditions of previous religions as a handy way of legitimising the new religion at the time(and today). Christianity did something similar but on a much reduced scale by comparison(indeed made a few efforts to distance themselves from Jewish tradition). Even the early Christian church at it's most oddball wouldn't have claimed Moses was a Christian, but Islam does just that. For quite a while in Islamic history scholars even associated one figure in the Quran as http://Alexander the Great and called him a muslim. Oh yes folks. Crrrrazy stuff.

Then again as usual the Quran isn't too clear/contradicts itself. Various passages claim Muhammed to be the first Muslim and other passages then claim eh no, Jesus Moses and others were muslims before him. Oh and while it's at it claims all babies born are Muslims too. Hence when people convert to Islam from other religions Muslims call them "reverts" returning to the "original faith".

And if Allah sent messengers to every nation, how come the traditions of monotheism vary so much and that polytheism was more the order of the day outside the middle east?

Dades

Dark_ness wrote: »

Practically everyone is biased in some way.

And I know who you are.

mathepac

Wibbs wrote: »

... Christianity did something similar but on a much reduced scale by comparison(indeed made a few efforts to distance themselves from Jewish tradition). ...

I think these days even the most right-wing of Christians would acknowledge that until about 150/200CE, groups like the Essenes etc while still avowedly Jewish in nature were the closest to a set of Christian beliefs in the Middle East at the time, a kind of transitional doctrine between Judaism and Christianity

recedite

Darkness-one is that you, returned from the dead?

Jellicoe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijj85BFtIVA

Dark_ness

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course it does. It retroactively appropriated the traditions of previous religions as a handy way of legitimising the new religion at the time(and today). Christianity did something similar but on a much reduced scale by comparison(indeed made a few efforts to distance themselves from Jewish tradition).

Dear Wibbs, Off course, beliefs of early Christians were very similar to the beliefs of Muslims as there was no trinity in their minds. This is the way how the work of previous prophet continues.

Wibbs wrote: »

Even the early Christian church at it's most oddball wouldn't have claimed Moses was a Christian, but Islam does just that.

This is because Christian church came out of the tail of the heathen mythology. That's why. Christianity is based on pure conjecture whereas Islam is based on facts. Islamic tradition holds belief that All the prophets were Muslims. Dear Wibbs, Christ didn't write his account or anything his birth or parentage or any thing else. Do you think Jesus wrote the New Testament. His history was written by the people and while writing history they did conjecture. How could christian say that Moses was Muslims when they put conjecture in everything.

Wibbs wrote: »

For quite a while in Islamic history scholars even associated one figure in the Quran as http://Alexander the Great and called him a muslim. Oh yes folks. Crrrrazy stuff.

Ignorance is bliss. Every body knows Alexander didn't worship single deity. How could he be Muslim. Dear Wibbs use your own brain while using the brain of those scholars.

Wibbs wrote: »

Then again as usual the Quran isn't too clear/contradicts itself. Various passages claim Muhammed to be the first Muslim and other passages then claim eh no, Jesus Moses and others were muslims before him. Oh and while it's at it claims all babies born are Muslims too. Hence when people convert to Islam from other religions Muslims call them "reverts" returning to the "original faith".

If you read every book with a contradictory mind then there is nothing perfect in this mortal world. Even in the books of lies you will find truth some day.

Wibbs wrote: »

And if Allah sent messengers to every nation, how come the traditions of monotheism vary so much and that polytheism was more the order of the day outside the middle east?

This is because, Man is material in his nature. He wants to see thing in form of material.

Dark_ness

Dades wrote: »

And I know who you are.

Do you think I don't know what you know. Everybody knows who I am. It seems you're quite late in knowing me as you quoted the post after the Wibbs, Otherwise, you wouldn't be claiming, nevertheless. Thanks a lot. I don't conceal things even my hypocrisy.

recedite wrote: »

returned from the dead?

Everyone has to.

Jellicoe

Dark_ness wrote: »

Everyone has to.

Nah, only thiests have to, the rest get to stay dead

Wibbs

Dark_ness wrote: »

Dear Wibbs, Off course, beliefs of early Christians were very similar to the beliefs of Muslims as there was no trinity in their minds.

Actually the notion of the trinity was a very early one in christian history. Certainly the notion of the duality of Jesus as being god and human. It's what very early on sets them apart from the Judaic theology. Some later Christian sects either ignored the issue or were set against it. The codification of the official trinity was in response to these like the Arians and Gnostics. The former while holding Jesus as god the son put him in an inferior role to god the father. There were a number of these christian splinter groups and Islam just looks like another one, rather than a Jewish sect(because of the centrality of Jesus as a prophet figure.

This is because Christian church came out of the tail of the heathen mythology. That's why.

Now please don't try to trot out the Jesus myth is based on Greek and Egyptian myths, because it's demonstrably not. Hey ironically a lot of Atheists would agree with you. I've seen it hereabouts, even as sig fodder, but they'd be equally wrong/misinformed. EG Horus was not born of a virgin, didn't have 12 apostles, wasn't crucified, didn't die and wasn't raised from the dead. Ask any Egyptologist.

Jesus was likely a historical figure. One of many itinerant apocalyptic Jewish preachers common in Palestine at the time. There are Hellenistic influences on his philosophy, but also some novel ones for the time(his dealings with women for a start. Would the the church named for him have continued in this vein).

Christianity is based on pure conjecture whereas Islam is based on facts.

Hahahhahahhahahhah no wait... hahhahahhahahahhaha. Islam is almost complete conjecture ripped off from Judaic and Christian theology. Non Muslim sources for Muhammed are very thin on the ground and those that exist paint a very different picture f the theology of the new Arab movement. EG the one regularly trotted out by pro historical Muhammed types(Doctrina Jacobi) says - in the part they leave out - that he's a preacher awaiting the coming of the messiah, oh and that he's a bloodthirsty tyrant.

In he earliest definitively Islamic texts that survive there is no mention of Muhammed, neither is their mention of the Koran. No mention of either on coins etc. Which is very odd for a religion that is supposed to be fully formed within Muhammeds lifetime. On some coins Allah is mentioned, but Muhammed is not. IT gets more interesting when some coins do show up with his name. In some from Palestine you have Muhammed on one side of the coin and a cross on the other(or a man holding a cross). Still the very earliest of these coins is 60 years after the given date for the death of Muhammed.

The earlist non Koranic description of Muhammed is a century after his death. Indeed we don't even have that original text, it's referenced in texts 1 to 200 years after that point. It would be similar to a European writing the biography of a man who died in the 17th century, with none of the written records to help him.

Muhammed likely existed, or someone with that title. IT means "praiseworthy" so may have been more a title than a name. However historical accuracy about what he believed and what he preached is not nearly so clear cut.

Islamic tradition holds belief that All the prophets were Muslims.

Yep, like I said taking on legitimacy for the new faith.

Dear Wibbs, Christ didn't write his account or anything his birth or parentage or any thing else.

Neither did Muhammed.

Do you think Jesus wrote the New Testament. His history was written by the people and while writing history they did conjecture.

His "history" and theological musings on him such as it is were written down at a time when people who had known him in life were still alive This including his actual brother who had a long running debate with Paul. Big difference. The earliest "history" of Muhammed in the Islamic texts are at least a century after he died(more like two). BIg difference.

How could christian say that Moses was Muslims when they put conjecture in everything.

They don't, Muslims claim that. IN fact Moses is mentioned most times in the Koran.

Ignorance is bliss. Every body knows Alexander didn't worship single deity. How could he be Muslim. Dear Wibbs use your own brain while using the brain of those scholars.

Well for much of Islamic history Muslim scholars believed he was.

If you read every book with a contradictory mind then there is nothing perfect in this mortal world. Even in the books of lies you will find truth some day.

Or in your book of truth you may find lies? Indeed. Certain things are pretty hard facts and contradictions regardless of the truth of them are contradictions. If on page one I read "2+2 =4" yet on page ten I read "2+2 = 5.5", with no other information I can't know which one is correct, but I can know that the book isn't doesn't know for sure either.

robindch

Dark_ness wrote: »

Everybody knows who I am. [...] I don't conceal things even my hypocrisy.

I think it would be useful if you would mention that you previously posted using an account named "dead one" while bearing in mind boards.ie site policy explicitly prohibits reregistration. If you have something to contribute, please do.

If not, you will be banned again from the forum, and probably from the site.

Beruthiel

Dark_ness wrote: »

Everybody knows who I am.

Reregging to get around a site ban is bold.

robindch

Beruthiel wrote: »

Reregging to get around a site ban is bold.

Matthew 7:16

Jellicoe

robindch wrote: »

Matthew 7:16

Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? - I like that bit

Beruthiel

Mathew knew his sh!t, it was indeed the figs and grapes!

Wibbs

Now I know I've become a fully paid up nerd B, cos I got that. :eek::D