Islam's image: reformation and makeover

[CardSharp]

They are confined to certain parts of the country. They are not exactly dangerous

That's good to know. This kind of nationalist rhetoric is not healthy for a country's collective psyche.

 

[jayron]

All of the above is written in Quran- why change it if its already there- only thing that needs changing is the wrong interpretation- by incompetant so called mullahs-

This is like the default answer. "everything is in the quran"

People should be sincere and open about religion if they really want some change. If you think you are offending God by differing with your holy book, there will be no change.

 

[CardSharp]

Christians have reformed thier religion (old testament)

Sigh.... what a fail...

 

[Roybot]

This is like the default answer. "everything is in the quran"

People should be sincere and open about religion if they really want some change. If you think you are offending God by differing with your holy book, there will be no change.

I think you misinterpreted him bro. He meant that The book isn't wrong, the people who teach you about the book are wrong. The book never says don't give your woman equal rights, its the mullahs who spread this bs by wrongly quoting the book.

 

[jayron]

I think you misinterpreted him bro. He meant that The book isn't wrong, the people who teach you about the book are wrong. The book never says don't give your woman equal rights, its the mullahs who spread this bs by wrongly quoting the book.

Islam does have different rules for men and women and so does Hinduism. There is no point in arguing the religion is perfect and the followers are imperfect. But I can be politically correct ,be sensitive to other's feeling and be quite. If that is what you mean .

 

[desiman]

Why would Islam care about its 'makeover'? It's the others' problem they can't accept the way, not of the way itself. One day it could be too late for the others!

Those who dont change with time, perish, its a law of nature and God.

 

[desioptimist]

Instead of superficial cosmetic changes, you need changes deep down.
Islam 2.0 should include
1. A new Quran 2.0, purged of all reference to violence and bigotry, as self explanatory and as possible.
2. Prophet Mohammed should not be shown as paragon of virtue,whose acts should be emulated blindly.
3. Complete separation of Masjid and state.
4. Accepting that non muslims are equal.

Point number 1 is most important, because muslims take their book seriously.

 

[CardSharp]

Instead of superficial cosmetic changes, you need changes deep down.
Islam 2.0 should include
1. A new Quran 2.0, purged of all reference to violence and bigotry, as self explanatory and as possible.
2. Prophet Mohammed should not be shown as paragon of virtue,whose acts should be emulated blindly.
3. Complete separation of Masjid and state.
4. Accepting that non muslims are equal.

Point number 1 is most important, because muslims take their book seriously.

I am an atheist but even I know this is not something for you to decide.

 

[JayAtl]

^^ in case you missed it. this is a discussion forum and he ain't deciding, he is discussing his opinions. heh

 

[fallstuff]

Muslim invaders were never that strong in many parts of India. They needed Hindus to be on their side. Like Rajputs working with Mughals etc.

In the parts that were under continuous Muslim rule for long periods (like Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. leave alone Persia, Egypt, Central Asia etc.) there was little trace left of the old culture and religions.

Even now, when I visit ancient large temples in South India (North India has none left, almost all were destroyed by the barbarians), I still see broken statues that some random Islamic vandal broke at some time or the other.

There is also a city Vijayanagar (Humpi) that was so beautiful and completely destroyed by the barbarians that it is even now in ruins.

This logic has little water if you think hard enough. India had some of the worst cruelties perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. Much like Mongols in China and Central Asia and Arabia.



What has this got to do with anything here?

Spanish must have really hated the Islamic invaders to kick them out?



Good advice. Thanks.

The key to a good argument is you site your credible sources.

I thought you had a better grasp of history, perhaps I over estimated your ability.

Maybe I was asking too much from a fundamentalist.

 

[fallstuff]

Instead of superficial cosmetic changes, you need changes deep down.
Islam 2.0 should include
1. A new Quran 2.0, purged of all reference to violence and bigotry, as self explanatory and as possible.
2. Prophet Mohammed should not be shown as paragon of virtue,whose acts should be emulated blindly.
3. Complete separation of Masjid and state.
4. Accepting that non muslims are equal.

Point number 1 is most important, because muslims take their book seriously.

After reading this post, I almost fell off my couch !!

So the Quran is a book for bigots , by a bigot and full of bigotry. Is this you point ? How many in this forum agree to his views ?

 

[ephone]

The fundamental reason that they have a better image is that they are more tolerant and there are much fewer brutal killings, inhuman treatment towards women related to other religions.

Even for Judaism with more hardliners, you can convert to Judaism though it is very hard for you to get accepted. Well, you can later abandon your Judaism belief even after you converted, and you are perfectly safe and nobody will harm you either.

The same is for Christian, Buddhism. Basically, Apostasy is safe for those religions. For Hinduism, I do not know. Some india members may provide information regarding that.

For Islam, Apostasy means death in most cases.

That raises an interesting question: is the 'other' forgiving of Christianity because it has reformed, or simply because it dominates the world financially, technologically, militarily and culturally?

It's hard to hold a grudge against your banker, your teacher, your policeman or your favorite entertainer.

Judaism has also had a reformation, but Israeli politics is dominated more by hardliners, including ultra-Orthodox fundamentalists. Yet countries, including India, want to do business with them, partly because they have excellent technology and can provide benefits to their partners.

So, while I agree that Islam needs a reformation, for its own good as much as for the rest of the world, I am not sure that it will be enough to garner respect from the world.

China has always been respected, in a nebulous way, for its ancient culture but proper recognition and respect only came recently with its economic might. Same is true, to a lesser degree, about India.

 

[fallstuff]

Christians have reformed thier religion (old testament), while Muslims have not.
The reason being Quran cant be changed - its a word of God.
Is the bible not word of God?
Tell me some....

You don't have any idea about what are you talking about.

 

[Moorkh]

I do not know. Some india members may provide information regarding that.

its not illegal in india or hinduism to convert to other religions. its perfectly acceptable.

however forced conversions are illegal (as they should be)

there have also been isolated cases where the missionaries were targeted and a few fringe organizations tried to get conversions banned. they mostly oppose conversions saying that they were coerced

 

[below_freezing]

The fundamental reason that they have a better image is that they are more tolerant and there are much fewer brutal killings, inhuman treatment towards women related to other religions.

Even for Judaism with more hardliners, you can convert to Judaism though it is very hard for you to get accepted. Well, you can later abandon your Judaism belief even after you converted, and you are perfectly safe and nobody will harm you either.

The same is for Christian, Buddhism. Basically, Apostasy is safe for those religions. For Hinduism, I do not know. Some india members may provide information regarding that.

For Islam, Apostasy means death in most cases.

Until the 19th century, Christianity was brought into countries on artillery shells.

Only after WW2 did "religious tolerance" become a new buzzword, and only to oppose the Soviet Union, and not equally for all religions. What if a US president said he believed in Communism? Does he dare say that?