What do you know about Islam?

[Caladan]

Sure later on. I meant that's where it started, so it wasn't here intention to debate that part.

Fatima has pratically told me I have no right to live where I was born, where my mother wars born, and where my grandmother was born. and that is after I gave her an honest report of my experience with Islam, perhaps too honest, and perhaps I was expecting too much. perhaps her intentions in creating this thread are not pure and not honest.

Well, what i understood of this thread, is that it's talking about the understanding that people have of the teachings of Islam.

Then why is this in the debate section? its a thread about what people know about Islam, Fatima did not specify or give categories, so that's what we are doing, debating and discussing Islam. I dont think its fair to limit us only to what Muslims want to hear, if this is the debate section its fair game to discuss about what troubles us in Islam and international politics, security, society etc.
maybe this will be the thread we can finally discuss the issues which we have been debating constructively, from the LGBT issues, to human rights, to terrorism, to dystopia, etc. and not just listen over again, that Islam considers itself final revelation of God, that Muslims pray 5 times a day, that Muslims fast on Ramadan etc. I do believe all of us here already know all that, we dont want just to discuss what Muslims believe (that too), we want to discuss Islam, to all its aspects in the world today.

I agree again, i'm just explaining that for example, as i'm sure you already know that, i'm just saying it, that what happens, is that some of the muslims who get exposed to this attack, has never participated in such arrogant behavior. I know you already said that you're in favor of discussion ahead of settling the score, so i agree. (just saying this part for those who prefer to settle the score).

Both parties are shocked by the other side, many Muslim members consider the 'Westerners' decadent, and many 'Western' members consider the Muslim members puritanical and self righteous. we are going to have to try and go beyond that, and focus on these posts that strive for constructive debate.

By the way, i read some of the old threads, and i've seen what you're talking about, and seen it in threads that are new, so i know it's pretty provocative.

*nods*

 

[A-ManESL]

these are yet to be confirmed, there exists mixed opinions about this.
The accuracy of the Buddhist texts that record Pushyamitra’s persecution of Buddhists has been debated by historians.

Contribution to Buddhism by Sungas

However to many scholars, Sunga kings were seen as more amenable to Buddhism and as having contributed to the building of the stupa at Bharhut.[24]
An inscription at Bodh Gaya at the Mahabodhi Temple records the construction of the temple as follows: "The gift of Nagadevi the wife of King Brahmamitra" So then this further means that the Sungas were in support of Buddhism. Another inscription reads: "The gift of Kurangi, the mother of living sons and the wife of King Indragnimitra, son of Kosiki. The gift also of Srima of the royal palace shrine."[25][26]

Decline of Buddhism in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




The only mention of the persecutions of Buddhists by Shashanka occurs in the memoirs of Yuan Chwang. Chwang (popular called Hieun Tsang) visited India during the latter part of the reign of Emperor Harshavardhana, who fought King Shashank to avenge the murder of his brother Rajyavardhana, so it was political and has nothing to do with religion.

It is not at all fair to say war between shashanka and rajyavardhana was religious. Shashanka waged war against the Maukhari king Grahavarman (the son-in-law of the Pusyabhuti king Prabhakaravardhana), during which time Grahavarman was killed by Devagupta. At this point Rajyavardhana, a Buddhist, and the eldest son of Prabhakarvardhana (who had become king of Sthaneshwer) proceeded against Devagupta and defeated and killed him. However Rajyavardhana himself was killed in an encounter with Shashanka.

It is also known that after being vanquished by Harshavardhana, Shashanka continued to rule parts of coastal Bengal and Orissa. If he were a pathological hater of the Buddhists, he would have tried to exterminate Buddhism in those areas as well. However, no suchindications are available.



would like to get sources for these.
When googled, only managed to get wikipedia link, and it has nothing to say about buddhist persecution, also came to know that he was chief of mugal aurangazeb, so should have done numerous miserable things.





No idea about when happened this, even if it happened, buddhists must have allowed to do so. It is well known fact that shankara was an outstanding debator. When Buddhists monk involved in debate with shankara, they accepted defeat, so stopped practicing and teaching buddhism. Yes, shankara opposed buddhism but in a peaceful manner.
The same happened to hinduism, after debating with monks belonging to various sects by pointing out mistakes, he brought them all under same umberalla.



i disagree. Why those sikhs and hindus who accepted islam were allowed to live and who reject was killed brutally?

Mata Gujri, Mati Das being sawn in half, Sati Das burnt alive, Dayala boiled alive, Subeg Singh and and Shahbaz Singh being crushed under a giant wheel thing

"According to James Scurry, a British officer, who was held captive along with Mangalorean Catholics, 30,000 of them were forcibly converted to Islam. The young women and girls were forcibly made wives of the Muslims living there"

A-ManESL, how can this be political?

I quoted sources for all my quotations. You cant dismiss them because they are not accessible to you on the internet. Every source cant be online. And certainly not all Hindu kings were against Buddhism.

And please to remember, that I did call them biased.

I am certainly not condoning the atrocities commited by Muslims, I of course condemn it, but I certainly dont think that this is the exclusive domain of Islam, but extends to Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism etc too.

Btw did you read about Dalai Lama 5th.

Regards

 

[kejos]

Both parties are shocked by the other side, many Muslim members consider the 'Westerners' decadent, and many 'Western' members consider the Muslim members puritanical and self righteous.

How puritan would Muslims be without sharia?

 

[kejos]

I am certainly not condoning the atrocities commited by Muslims, I of course condemn it, but I certainly dont think that this is the exclusive domain of Islam, but extends to Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism etc too.

It is exclusively Islamic to be commanded to be violent. Other religions condemn violence, and those who commit violence cannot be their representatives. Violence is inherent in Islam. Islam ought to be illegal.

 

[Badran]

Fatima has pratically told me I have no right to live where I was born, where my mother wars born, and where my grandmother was born. and that is after I gave her an honest report of my experience with Islam, perhaps too honest, and perhaps I was expecting too much. perhaps her intentions in creating this thread are not pure and not honest.

I don't think that's what she meant, of course you have a right to live were you were born. I think she was talking about Israel government and criticizing something about it.

Then why is this in the debate section? its a thread about what people know about Islam, Fatima did not specify or give categories, so that's what we are doing, debating and discussing Islam. I dont think its fair to limit us only to what Muslims want to hear, if this is the debate section its fair game to discuss about what troubles us in Islam and international politics, security, society etc.
maybe this will be the thread we can finally discuss the issues which we have been debating constructively, from the LGBT issues, to human rights, to terrorism, to dystopia, etc. and not just listen over again, that Islam considers itself final revelation of God, that Muslims pray 5 times a day, that Muslims fast on Ramadan etc. I do believe all of us here already know all that, we dont want just to discuss what Muslims believe (that too), we want to discuss Islam, to all its aspects in the world today.

Of course these issues are very important. I just think the main topic of the thread, was to clear any misconception that others have about Islam and it's teaching, although many many members here are very well aware of Islam, i think there are still a few misconceptions. I have encountered a few of those. However, i don't mind talking about the other issues too, even here in this thread if need be.

Both parties are shocked by the other side, many Muslim members consider the 'Westerners' decadent, and many 'Western' members consider the Muslim members puritanical and self righteous. we are going to have to try and go beyond that, and focus on these posts that strive for constructive debate.

I completely agree.

 

[kejos]

I completely agree.

How puritan would Muslims be without sharia?

 

[Badran]

It is exclusively Islamic to be commanded to be violent. Other religions condemn violence, and those who commit violence cannot be their representatives. Violence is inherent in Islam. Islam ought to be illegal.

Yet, here i am, a muslim, and i don't have any commands to do any violence whatsoever. I guess i'm not a very good Muslim.

So how do you suggest we outlaw Islam?

 

[Badran]

How puritan would Muslims be without sharia?

what do you mean?

 

[kejos]

Yet, here i am, a muslim, and i don't have any commands to do any violence whatsoever.

Then read more carefully.

So how do you suggest we outlaw Islam?

Islam is already outlawed. It is a matter of implementing law.

 

[kejos]

what do you mean?

Which words are incomprehensible?

 

[Badran]

Then read more carefully.

Is this a general advice?

slam is already outlawed. It is a matter of implementing law.

Outlawed where, what are you talking about? You mean it's illegal to be muslims, or do you mean some of the practices by muslims are illegal in some countries, which would mean it's only outlawed to that country.

Which words are incomprehensible?

I don't understand the whole question.

 

[Caladan]

I don't think that's what she meant, of course you have a right to live were you were born. I think she was talking about Israel government and criticizing something about it.

Fatima's words were: "I wonder how you have the right to travel where the original people of Palestine are jailed in their own territory "

'how you have the right'

Of course these issues are very important. I just think the main topic of the thread, was to clear any misconception that others have about Islam and it's teaching, although many many members here are very well aware of Islam, i think there are still a few misconceptions. I have encountered a few of those. However, i don't mind talking about the other issues too, even here in this thread if need be.

That's great. :yes:

I completely agree.

I believe we'll only clear misconceptions and create mutual respect when we honestly and critically debate the relevant issues. and it would be best if members would tone down the stereotyping, if they really are interested in being informed.

 

[kejos]

Is this a general advice?

No.

Outlawed where

Wherever there is law prohibiting incitement to violence. I have written about this already in this thread.

 

[Badran]

Fatima's words were: "I wonder how you have the right to travel where the original people of Palestine are jailed in their own territory "

'how you have the right'

I believe we'll only clear misconceptions and create mutual respect when we honestly and critically debate the relevant issues. and it would be best if members would tone down the stereotyping, if they really are interested in being informed.

I see what you're saying. I guess her sentiment was more aimed as an objection on what is happening to our palestinian brothers and sisters, more than that you shouldn't have that right neither. That wouldn't be constructive at all. I'm sure she can clarify better when she reads this what exactly did she mean.
I agree about the stereotyping, i understand what you mean. It would make things much easier and more constructive.

 

[Badran]

Wherever there is law prohibiting incitement to violence. I have written about this already in this thread.

You said, Islam "should" be illegal, which means that it's not. Then when i asked you about it, you said it already is. In other words, what is your position, do you believe Islam is already illegal, then what's the problem then?

Or do you believe it's not, and that it should be because it supposedly "incites" violence?

 

[kejos]

You said, Islam "should" be illegal, which means that it's not.

It doesn't. It is not illegal everywhere, but it should be illegal everywhere.

 

[Badran]

It doesn't. It is not illegal everywhere, but it should be illegal everywhere.

Okay. Where is it illegal, i'm not aware of such places?

 

[kejos]

Okay. Where is it illegal, i'm not aware of such places?

The places specified. How many time do things have to be posted?

 

[Badran]

The places specified. How many time do things have to be posted?

Specified where? you mean places that prohibit inciting violence? If so like which countries?

 

[Caladan]

All the talk about Islam being illegal is hardly accurate. Islam is a religion of about 1.5 billion people. several European nations have taken measures to limit some asepcts of Islam (some of these things are even debated between Muslims whether they are Islamic or not), however the reality is that the same nations still take in Muslim immigrants and provide them with welfare, so if anything the supposed nations which outlaw Islam have been providing a safe haven to these Muslims, have been taking them in where they felt their own nations rejected them.