Churches burnt in India

[dabong1]

I disagree completely - Islam and interpreting Islam is not the "Jagir" of the Arabs. The "Scholars of the land that holds the house of Allah" have created a repressive society - lacking in creativity, free thought and respect for any but those who follow the diktats of the said "scholars".

That is not Islam - it is tyranny and hate in the guise of religion.

SPOT ON

 

[Vinod2070]

RoadRunner, I see you taking great pains to somehow differentiate Hinduism and Buddhism and trying to make some points based on that.

For us, both are Indian religions (Dharmic, Now don't bring Nepal into the picture here).

Both suffered at the hands of invaders. Buddhism was almost wiped out. When the Buddha statues were destroyed by Taliban in Bamiyan and SWAT, we in India felt the pain.

Did you feel that pain?

 

[Flintlock]

That must be the worst version of indian history i have read.
You fail to mention the hindu's wiping out the buddhist or the mass killings and brutalities done to the lower castes by the hindu leaders.
Only you and a few right wing hindus see the mughal rule as not good.

Firstly, it is not a "version of history", it is the analysis of the effects of the islamic invasion on, as Vinod says, Dharmic society.

There was no "wiping out" of the biddhists by the hindus. There were always war between hindu kings, buddhist kings, between hindu and buddhist kings, and sure, bloodshed took place. Religion has always been used for political purposes. Hinduism was no different.

Also, if you want to talk about the caste system, sure, please do so. But please don't try to imply that I am glorifying hinduism or praising the caste system.

Any historian with the right perspective will see the Mughal rule for what it was: Colonization. Brutal colonization.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It might not matter to him, but it matters to us. It matters because Brahmagupta was part of the Hindu/Buddhist culture and Hindu/Buddhist civilization.

If someone claims that his culture is superior to the culture of Brahmagupta, he cannot claim his achievements.

This argument of "Hindu/Buddhist" is akin to that nonsensical "One Ummah" (Islamic) one. And the latter argument is fallacious - even if one considers their culture to be "superior" to that of their ancestors (and I am not saying that I, or quite a few other Pakistanis do), it does not mean that they have no claim to their ancestors or their achievements. The Greek civilization used to be a polytheistic one as well, but they can still be proud of their heritage and the achievements of the ancient Greeks.

The whole point about following any belief system is that you believe it to be "better" than the other belief systems you may have to choose from, which means that the majority of the world believes that they are "superior" to their ancestors, since they do not follow those ancient ways anymore - so do all these peoples and civilizations loose the right to claim their heritage and the achievements of their ancestors? I think not. One can be proud of and strong in ones current faith, and at the same time also respect the achievements of ones ancestors.

 

[Flintlock]

RoadRunner, I see you taking great pains to somehow differentiate Hinduism and Buddhism and trying to make some points based on that.

For us, both are Indian religions (Dharmic). Both are Indian religions (Now don't bring Nepal into the picture here).

Both suffered at the hands of invaders. Buddhism was almost wiped out. When the Buddha statues were destroyed by Taliban in Bamiyan and SWAT, we in India felt the pain.

Did you feel that pain?

On a side note, did you know that the arabic word "but" for idol comes from the buddha?

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

I disagree completely - Islam and interpreting Islam is not the "Jagir" of the Arabs. The "Scholars of the land that holds the house of Allah" have created a repressive society - lacking in creativity, free thought and respect for any but those who follow the diktats of the said "scholars".

That is not Islam - it is tyranny and hate in the guise of religion, and we are reaping the harvest of its demented offspring, the Taliban.

Agonistic Muslim!

I wrote if you see only the context of the sentence then you will agree, but you saw the aftermath..

If you say that Arab think that Islam is their Jagir , then i agree with you that they are wrong in thinking like this...

But consider the history of Islam .. When all try to become scholars and know nothing of Fiqh what happens is the divide of thoughts and thus we have 72 versions of Islam. Each having the same general understanding but different explanations.

What i said was not based on thinking of todays arab but , i said it that our alligence is because the House of ALLAH is in Arabia and we have a respect and loyality towards them... We have love for them.. We respect what they say and obey what they mention in their respect. Not in the respect of people ... But in the respect of the Land of Lord ... I think you not differ that Arab is the chosen land of Lord and is the land of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH).

Arabic is the language of Allah ...

The Quran states these ideals (49:13): "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (not that you may despise (each other)). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)."

 

[Spring Onion]

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



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the days of the Taliban, those promoting Christianity in Afghanistan could be arrested and those converting from Islam could be tortured and publicly executed.

That was supposed to change after U.S.-led forces ousted the oppressive, fundamentalist regime, but the case of 41-year-old Abdul Rahman has many Western nations wondering if Afghanistan is regressing.

Rahman, a father of two, was arrested last week and is now awaiting trial for rejecting Islam. He told local police, whom he approached on an unrelated matter, that he had converted to Christianity. Reports say he was carrying a Bible at the time.

"They want to sentence me to death, and I accept it," Rahman told reporters last week, "but I am not a deserter and not an infidel."

The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty



Afghan Man Faces Execution After Converting to Christianity
By Benjamin Sand
Kabul
18 March 2006



An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces the death penalty under the country's strict Islamic legal system. The trial is a critical test of Afghanistan's new constitution and democratic government.

The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings.

Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity.

Under Afghanistan's new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws.

And so, officially, Muslim-born Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and not for practicing Christianity.

Appearing in court earlier this week Rahman insisted he should not be considered an infidel, but admitted he is a Christian.

He says he still believes in the almighty Allah, but cannot say for sure who God really is. "I am," he says, "a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ."

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany.

Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities.

On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam.

Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime.

He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed.
The court has ordered a delay in the proceedings to give Rahman time to hire an attorney.

Under Afghan law, once a verdict is given, the case can be appealed twice to higher courts.

This is the first case in which the defendant has admitted to converting and is refusing to back down, even while facing the death penalty.

If convicted, the case could ultimately force President Hamid Karzai's direct intervention.

The president would have to sign the papers authorizing Rahman's execution, a move that could jeopardize Mr. Karzai's standing with human rights groups and Western governments.

So far, President Karzai has not commented on the case.

But political analysts here in Kabul say he will be under significant pressure from the country's hard-line religious groups to make an example of Rahman.


Are you sure Jana?

---------------------------

Jana has rigid views.

Address this to Agnostic and Mastan.

You will get a pragmatic answer beyond the irrationality of the mind and sentiment.

Jana has not agreed on this very issue, though I will concede, I asked her obliquely so as to not hurt the Moslem sentiments!

@rrs
Yes i am sure rather dead sure there is no Law in Islam According to Quran which calls for death or execution of someone who converts to other faith from Islam. if you can Provide me ONE VERSE from Quran which says so ????



Rest the news above which you posted nowhere proves that the threats hurled by Taliban at the man were based on Quran Nor such action by Taliban
can ever be called supported by Quran or any saying of Prophet (PBUH)
And those who rejected Islam in the time of Prophet (PBUH) were only called Munafiqs and NOT executed.
If you can bring any example wherein a Muslim was killed or assassinated for converting at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) than post it.
If NOT Than i would say kindly in the name of humanity dont try to be a hypocrate.

 

[Vinod2070]

Where did you get this "news" from? Doesn't agree with this news anyway.

"Saudi Arabia is to provide jobs to more than twenty thousand Pakistani Doctors to strengthen all fields of its health sector."
Saudi Arabia to employ 20,000 Pakistani doctors - PakPositive

Well it's just a news item that I read in a Pakistani newspaper. Will try to find a link. Many Pakistani members should be able to corraborate as well.

Anyway this was not the main point. The point is, they won't let you become citizens while western countries allow everyone to become equal citizens with the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Samudra]

I disagree completely - Islam and interpreting Islam is not the "Jagir" of the Arabs. The "Scholars of the land that holds the house of Allah" have created a repressive society - lacking in creativity, free thought and respect for any but those who follow the diktats of the said "scholars".

That is not Islam - it is tyranny and hate in the guise of religion, and we are reaping the harvest of its demented offspring, the Taliban.

I have to point it out that - as much as I'd like to agree with what you have written, PPP now has his own interpretation or source of interpretation.

To him,that is his religion. There must be a few million like this individual.

A few million like you. And a few million each for every interpretation.

Differences in interpretation lead to hostility. Hostility leads to violence. For a religion like Islam it only took until the founders death for all the butchering to start. Mutual inter-sectarian butchery has not ceased until today. Lets just ignore the slaughter of those outside.

It is tyranny - not of Taliban but of organized religion. So much blood could not have been spilt but for religion. The tangible gains are negligible when compared to the bloodshed.

All moralizing goes out of the window and the truth hurts - only if one is truly able to rise above the indoctrination(which every religious person undergoes - voluntarily or involuntarily) and his attempts to rationalize the same.

All this when there exists only supreme book. At least I'll thank the stars that there is just one book - God knows how much violence would've occured had there been just another book.

Just my thoughts. Sorry for going off-topic.

 

[Flintlock]

This argument of "Hindu/Buddhist" is akin to that nonsensical "One Ummah" (Islamic) one. And the latter argument is fallacious - even if one considers their culture to be "superior" to that of their ancestors (and I am not saying that I, or quite a few other Pakistanis do), it does not mean that they have no claim to their ancestors or their achievements. The Greek civilization used to be a polytheistic one as well, but they can still be proud of their heritage and the achievements of the ancient Greeks.

Its not. The "Ummah" concept is based on the desire to create a pan-Islamic state.

On the other hand, the Hindu/Buddhist culture can be called a Dharmic culture, and can be clearly differentiated from the Abrahmic religions like Christianity and Islam.

Both are visual cultures, both believe in the cycle of life and death, both believe in moksha.

And both believe that there are an infinite number of paths to achieve moksha.

The whole point about following any belief system is that you believe it to be "better" than the other belief systems you may have to choose from, which means that the majority of the world believes that they are "superior" to their ancestors, since they do not follow those ancient ways anymore - so do all these peoples and civilizations loose the right to claim their heritage and the achievements of their ancestors? I think not. One can be proud of and strong in ones current faith, and at the same time also respect the achievements of ones ancestors.

As I said, there are two kinds of superiority.

One is a sense of pride in oneself.

Another is a blind belief that one's point view is the best point of view, and the only possible point of view.

The second kind of superiority, is the one that leads to the destruction of civilization, because it halts the process of change and progress.

One cannot blindly believe that one's faith is the only true faith, and at the same time acknowledge that people of "inferior" faiths could achieve great things. There is a contradiction. That is the reason why Mullah's oppose digging up pre-islamic history.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

RoadRunner, I see you taking great pains to somehow differentiate Hinduism and Buddhism and trying to make some points based on that.

For us, both are Indian religions (Dharmic). Both are Indian religions (Now don't bring Nepal into the picture here).

But isn't that the same as arguing that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are "Abrahamic religions", monotheistic religions, "Semitic religions", born in the same land. They are! The roots are the same, the fundamental commandments are the same - but beyond that it is entirely appropriate to differentiate between them as "different faiths". So why shouldn't Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism be differentiated between?

Both suffered at the hands of invaders. Buddhism was almost wiped out. When the Buddha statues were destroyed by Taliban in Bamiyan and SWAT, we in India felt the pain.

Did you feel that pain?

I know quite a few Pakistanis who felt the pain of the Buddhist heritage in Swat being attacked, it is a part of our heritage.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

Its not the shortcomings of Religion .......... But the lesser mind of People

 

[Flintlock]

But isn't that the same as arguing that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are "Abrahamic religions", monotheistic religions, "Semitic religions", born in the same land. They are! The roots are the same, the fundamental commandments are the same - but beyond that it is entirely appropriate to differentiate between them as "different faiths". So why shouldn't Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism be differentiated between?

Yes, it is exactly like grouping all the Abrahmic religions together.

Look, Abrahmic religions have certain key similarities that differenciate them from Dhramic religions, which also have certain key similarities.

Of course, there are many different faiths within Abrahmic and Dharmic religions.

However, Abrahmic religions and Dharmic religions are totally opposed to another. They have different roots.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

One cannot blindly believe that one's faith is the only true faith, and at the same time acknowledge that people of "inferior" faiths could achieve great things. There is a contradiction. That is the reason why Mullah's oppose digging up pre-islamic history.

Are modern Greeks not Christians? Are they not adherents of a faith that claims to be "the one true faith"? And do they still not believe that the ancient Greeks accomplished great things? I don't see a contradiction at all. Some Mullahs may not want to dig up pre-Islamic history in their insecurity, but they cannot be used as the template used to describe all Muslim attitudes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, it is exactly like grouping all the Abrahmic religions together.

Look, Abrahmic religions have certain key similarities that differenciate them from Dhramic religions, which also have certain key similarities.

Of course, there are many different faiths within Abrahmic and Dharmic religions.

However, Abrahmic religions and Dharmic religions are totally opposed to another. They have different roots.

I am not arguing about the differences between Abrahamic and Dharmic religions, but suggesting that your attempts to combine the Dharmic religions to present a "unified" front, and Vinod's argument against distinguishing between Buddhism and Hinduism is as flawed as refusing to differentiate between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.