Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
If Mohammad wanted he could have established a separate place of worship. Why did he want to impose his thought on the pagans of Mecca? It was just like Jesus going to the temple and creating a ruckus.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Unfair opinions about Islam :(
- Thread starter Deidre
- Start date
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Just trying to explain the background of the conflict. Mecca was sacred to all Arabs, pagan and Muslim.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
But still it continues.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
It does, in all religions other than Hinduism also, in Muslims, Christians and Sikhs too. It is a five thousand year old institution. One can't just wish it away.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
What was sacred was Jerusalem. Allah first ordered Muslims to face towards Jerusalem while praying.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
That's true, and all I was saying right from the beginning is that Hinduism isn't perfect, just like all religions.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Mecca was also sacred being the place where the Ka'aba was located.
And here you are, like others before, saying Pakistan. Our subject is Islam, not Pakistan, just in case you do not know the difference, which is so very obvious for anyone.
And no, I'm not justifying the murder of those Shia and Christian couple you mentioned. If it was within my power, I would have never allowed it to happen.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Lets hope so ?.
Please believe me, it really really hurts me that I cannot do anything concrete about it
People don't just forget to discriminate in a generation or two. We should be careful to learn and point out how typical the discrimination is and how accepted by the general society it is. And, most of all, what the general trend is.
Please believe me, it really really hurts me that I cannot do anything concrete about it
I do believe you. You are a reasonable, sensitive person, if your forum participation is at all an indication.
All the same, mentioning Pakistan as an example of the excesses found and even encouraged in much of the Islamic world isn't really inappropriate. The very reason why Pakistan - and for that matter also Bangladesh - exist as separate countries is because many of their people make a point of wanting to live in a Islamic society specifically, instead of one that accepts that it has a Hindu majority.
The Muslim League and others have spent a lot of very passionate effort for a very long time attempting to create such a situation - and IMO that has never been a good thing, and may never be.
Since you liked my post, Smart Guy - somewhat catching me unaware while at that, mind you - may I ask how you feel about the existence of Pakistan and Bangladesh as separate countries from India? I'm truly curious.
Oh, I liked your post because you believed me
I'm not really into politics and civil affairs. I don't even know my country well!
I need to know more about them to give a good answer. No idea why they got separated in the first place!
Let's just say, as a starter, that it was a very long, very painful, very controversial situation. And that while I acknowledge that both Hindus and Muslims did have good arguments for separation (I understand that many Hindus did and do favor it as well), I do not think it turned out to be a good thing overall.
The separation was simply because they had different religions? Hmm, I don't like that. But if it was because of complications and side effects that had no other solution but to make the separation, then I guess it would be understandable provided no rights were overtaken in the process. If further problems take place in their respective country by its own people, then I guess those problems would be an issue of those specific countries internally.
Nah, don't know man, I'm not the kinda person to make such big judgements. Every simple issue in anything worries me to death.
Nah, don't know man, I'm not the kinda person to make such big judgements. Every simple issue in anything worries me to death.
That is perhaps over-simplifying things a bit. It is my understanding that there was considerable violence at the time and that ethnical tensions were at least in part responsible for it.
On the other hand, it is less than clear to me that the separation helped solve those problems in the long run. It has certainly not ended them. To this day the Muslim presence in India is very, very considerable, even after separation, and I don't think it is at all an option to simply make a goal of resettling them all in Pakistan and/or Bangladesh.
You may want to look a bit into the history of my favorite Muslim hero, the universally well-regarded (far as I can tell) Badshah Khan. While he opposed separation (fiercely, it seems to me), he was very much involved in the controversy.
Also, while I don't know that the 1982 ''Gandhi'' movie is necessarily fair in its presentation of the Muslim perspective of the situation, it is certainly informative in the general outlines of the reasons why it was considered and ultimately done.
My best comment is that many people seem to feel very strongly about that one way or the other, but there is very little consensus.
There was a lot of conflict, that is for certain. There is still a lot of it, though. Did separation help or hurt? Were there better approaches to the matter?
Difficult questions to answer, more difficult yet to agree on even after answering them.
I beg to differ. When Indian people take the streets to demand building nuclear weapons in order to scare Pakistani, it seems obvious to me that the problems are neither settled nor truly internal.
Sometimes I feel slightly ashamed of so casually feeling entitled to say what I find best for the futures of hundreds of millions of people. To my defense, I'm hardly unusual on that regard. To my shame, I have a hard time letting go of that.
MD
qualiaphile
You mean after Pakistan adopts a first strike option? Or after Pakistan spent 50 years training terrorists to make incursions into India? Or after Pakistan started war after war?
India has always been on the defensive, your biases need a little fact checking.
Maybe they do, but does that even make a difference here? I said that separation was hardly a true solution, and you seem to be underscoring my claim while also accusing me of bias.
For the record, I don't doubt you are correct in everything else, up to and including India having always on the defensive and my biases needing fact checking.
Which is why I made no claims on either matter. Fair enough?
MD
qualiaphile
But you did! You stated that Indians ask for nuclear weapons to scare Pakistan, which is a flawed and underhanded statement, illustrating your typical liberal pro Pakistan bias. Liberals tend to defend Pakistan, since they feel that India is a 'bully'.
Jinnah attacked Kashmir right after partition. After the 71' war, India made several conscessions to Pakistan, when it easily could have decimated the country. Then there was Khalistani movement, and Kargil, and the terrorist attacks on the Taj. Not to mention all the other games ISI has played in India with the local Islamic populace. If anything India has shown tremendous restraint, tolerance and values more in line with true democracies than Pakistan ever will, no matter how much you wish to place the blame on India.
And just to keep the record straight, the whole Kashmir issue has to do with resources, aka fresh water from the Himalayan mountains and India will keep that resource till it's last blood to feed it's 1.2 billion people any day no matter how many plebiscites the UN asks for and how many liberals ask for it's 'freedom'.