The history of Muslim (Islam) as rulers

[Looncall]

It's a fair point, and for me an extremely depressing one. My best guess is that in a world full of difficulties, it's easy for people to be attracted to a system (a total ideology like Islam), that claims to have all the answers.

Yes, people like to outsource their thinking. Religions are handy for that. Whether relgious notions are actually true seems not to matter.

 

[exchemist]

To my Muslim friends on the board -

In the US there has been some outcry about Ihan Omar's comments about Israel - whether right or wrong - we can debate that in the political forum - BUT i as a somewhat biased individual wanted to ask this question and see what the answers are:

Other than Indonesia - perhaps there is no Islamic state that allows equal rights to women or allows other religions to practice openly

Remember the second largest concentration of Muslims is in India - and while you may hear (some true) accounts of Hindu nationalism - there are Muslim Universities and Mosques galore and the state of affairs would not have gotten to where it is without a modicum of tolerance from the majority population

Same towards refugees from Muslim African countries (such as Somalia) in Europe and parts of the US

But when I look back to 1300's - Mohammed Ghori, followed by Mohammed Ghazni - then Jehangir and Aurangzeb - it would appear that every time that there are Islamic leaning individuals in power - Shari'ah becomes the law and the kafirs have to pay the Jazi'yah

The middle Sikh history is replete with struggles against a regime bent on Muslim conversion and even now the ISIS while it was still in power - talked about establishing a Caliphate and applying Shari'ah law banning music and education of females etc.

I know the Qu'ran is also a politico - religious document - and indeed just the other day came the news that the largest Muslim organization in Indonesia has requested that the word kafir not be used anymore.

So - where does the truth lie? I know the Sunnis and Shia's have different viewpoints and some of the Sikh practices such as the singing of hymns is very similar to Sufi Mystic practices. Also there is the undeniable stories of Ghani Khan and Nabi Khan and Nawab Sher Khan during the trial of the Guru's younger sons - so no - in no way shape or form - condemning the religion or its people but - the question remains - should they be allowed to rule a multi cultural population?

I don't know about women's rights but there are certainly churches in muslim countries. The open air Sunday mass in Dubai in the 1980s was quite a spectacle: thousands of Goans and Filipinos, plus a sprinkling of Europeans.

 

[Pastek]

To my Muslim friends on the board -

Other than Indonesia - perhaps there is no Islamic state that allows equal rights to women or allows other religions to practice openly

Not living in a muslim country, so I don't know if some people have difficulties to practice their religion.
This is a good question and maybe someone living in a muslim country can explain to us how is the reality for a non-abrahamic religion in particular.
This is very important because there's more and more people expatriating in muslim countries (UAE, Morocco, Turkey, etc)

I just want to precise that Christianity and Judaism are allowed in muslim countries.
They have in general someone who represents them ( a rabbi, a priest ) if they have specific rules like inheritence for exemple.
They are not forced to follow the islamic rules for some matters.
Also they are allowed to eat or drink and sell things not allowed to muslims like alcohool, pork.
So they can practice.
They also have their festivals. Of course it may be difficult to practice openly in some countries more than in others.

As for women equal rights I think we can name Turkey, Tunisia, not sure about Morocco but there's have been a lot of progress those last 20 years in this country. I think Lebanon is in the same level as Morocco or a little better.

 

[Faithofchristian]

A very sweet man who "forcefully converted " most of the Arabian Peninsula to his new faith"

Muhammad and the Faith of Islam [ushistory.org]
Muhammad fought a number of battles against the people of Mecca. In 629, Muhammad returned to Mecca with an army of 1500 converts to Islam and entered the city unopposed and without bloodshed. Before his death two years later, he forcefully converted most of the Arabian Peninsula to his new faith and built a small empire.
​

How do you think that sweet man accomplished that forceful conversion?

That's right, that even in to days world, Muslims still are following Muhammad's forceful conversion on People.

 

[ecco]

That's right, that even in to days world, Muslims still are following Muhammad's forceful conversion on People.

Let's remember that Christians are not above resorting to force to promote Christianity.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Let's remember that Christians are not above resorting to force to promote Christianity.

Let's Remember that there is no where in the New Testament that Christ Jesus promotes the force of Christianity on anyone.

As Christ Jesus said himself, to go and teach all nation's.

As Christ Jesus did not say go out and forcefully people into Christianity.

 

[icehorse]

Let's remember that Christians are not above resorting to force to promote Christianity.

I hear this argument all the time, and it dumbfounds me. It seems to be a variation on the "two wrongs make it right" defense. So, while I agree that Christianity has major flaws (and I mean REALLY major), why can't we criticize a single religion on its own merits?

 

[ManSinha]

I don't know about women's rights but there are certainly churches in muslim countries. The open air Sunday mass in Dubai in the 1980s was quite a spectacle: thousands of Goans and Filipinos, plus a sprinkling of Europeans.

Actually - things seem to be changing - the self proclaimed "World's Largest Gurdwara" is in Dubai

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I hear this argument all the time, and it dumbfounds me. It seems to be a variation on the "two wrongs make it right" defense. So, while I agree that Christianity has major flaws (and I mean REALLY major), why can't we criticize a single religion on its own merits?

Nothing wrong with that but Christians are huge hypocrites when they do it. They forced more people into Christianity than Muslims ever have into Islam. They conquered entire continents through force and committed genocide against the indigenous peoples. So a Christian trying to degrade Islam for being violent makes me just want to slap them in the face for being so ridiculous.

 

[exchemist]

Actually - things seem to be changing - the self proclaimed "World's Largest Gurdwara" is in Dubai

There you are.

Jordan has churches too and so do Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey. I expect there are others. Indonesia?

 

[Pastek]

As Christianity was way before Islam of course you'll find chuches easily in north africa and middle east.
I thought it was logical and everybody would know that by now. I mean Jesus was from middle east ... that's common sens

 

[ManSinha]

As Christianity was way before Islam of course you'll find chuches easily in north africa and middle east.
I thought it was logical and everybody would know that by now. I mean Jesus was from middle east ... that's common sens

Just because something is built once - does not mean it always stands - IIRC there is mention of the Temple mount being destroyed in the OT

The history of Northern India is replete with instance of Muslim rulers destroying temples perhaps to demoralize the local population

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
Let's remember that Christians are not above resorting to force to promote Christianity.

Let's Remember that there is no where in the New Testament that Christ Jesus promotes the force of Christianity on anyone.

As Christ Jesus said himself, to go and teach all nation's.

As Christ Jesus did not say go out and forcefully people into Christianity.

But it really doesn't matter what Jesus did or did not say. What matters is what people did "In Jesus' Name"

You do know about the Crusades, don't you?
You do know about the Inquisitions, don't you?
You do know what American Christians did to Native American children, don't you?

It all started very early...

Forced conversion - Wikipedia

In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted religion into one capable of persecution and sometimes eager to persecute.

It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans.... The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative (Codex Theodosianus XVI 1.2.).[14]​

 

[icehorse]

Nothing wrong with that but Christians are huge hypocrites when they do it. They forced more people into Christianity than Muslims ever have into Islam. They conquered entire continents through force and committed genocide against the indigenous peoples. So a Christian trying to degrade Islam for being violent makes me just want to slap them in the face for being so ridiculous.

That's a great point. As an anti-theist I feel free to criticize both without feeling hypocritical.

 

[Pastek]

Just because something is built once - does not mean it always stands

The history of Northern India is replete with instance of Muslim rulers destroying temples perhaps to demoralize the local population

You're right.
Except that Islam recognizes previous Abrahamic religions not Hinduism.

But your thread is interesting because in Dubaï there's a lot of hindous and bouddhists but what about their temples ?
Building a chuch or a synaguogue for me it's nothing surprising but something else I doubt it.

 

[ManSinha]

Except that Islam recognizes previous Abrahamic religions not Hinduism.

And you find that ok?

But your thread is interesting because in Dubaï there's a lot of hindous and bouddhists but what about their temples ?

I did mention the Sikh place of worship in Dubai - in my post above #28

 

[Cooky]

No country's laws should be based on a single religion.

Ideally the laws should be accepting of all religions (and none) and make its laws based on knowledge, common sense and not dogma.

You mean: No country's laws should be based on a single religion ISLAM.

 

[Cooky]

We have groups in the all the major religions that want the country's laws to follow their scripture. This is true of the "America is a Christian Country" types in the USA, the Muslims as you've noted, the Hindus in India, The Buddhists in Burma and the Jews in Israel.

This is especially notable historically if we look back at the last 1000 years or so and consider the time when the Pope was the de factor secular ruler of Europe etc.

The theological justification seems to hardly matter to those that believe this. If they can find something in their scripture to support their beliefs, they'll of course us that. If they can't, they'll fall back on "we are the Truth and it is thus our right to rule according to what we believe is the Truth".

The question to me becomes "how do we prevent such "true believers" from trying to turn nations back into outmoded and obsolete systems?

There... I fixed your distractions from the topic. You're welcome.

We have groups in the all the major religions ISLAM that want the country's laws to follow their scripture.

The theological justification seems to hardly matter to those that believe this. If they can find something in their scripture to support their beliefs, they'll of course us that. If they can't, they'll fall back on "we are the Truth and it is thus our right to rule according to what we believe is the Truth".

The question to me becomes "how do we prevent such "true believers" from trying to turn nations back into outmoded and obsolete systems?

 

[ManSinha]

There... I fixed your distractions from the topic. You're welcome.

We have groups in the all the major religions ISLAM that want the country's laws to follow their scripture.

The theological justification seems to hardly matter to those that believe this. If they can find something in their scripture to support their beliefs, they'll of course us that. If they can't, they'll fall back on "we are the Truth and it is thus our right to rule according to what we believe is the Truth".

The question to me becomes "how do we prevent such "true believers" from trying to turn nations back into outmoded and obsolete systems?

With all due respect sir - it is not just the fringe Islamic elements - I have seen, in my all too brief time here, the same kind of posturing from others as well - I guess I have to be thankful that they live in what are considered civilized societies - and cannot use more than words to compel

 

[Altfish]

You mean: No country's laws should be based on a single religion ISLAM.

Well my statement includes Islam but also Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.