Islamophobia

MarshallBudyonny said:

I would disagree with a sizeable portion of this, but unfortunately that would be a sure-fire way to get a ban on this notoriously strict forum.

Click to expand...

Most of his personalities I quoted on the post are from the traditions. You and I can agree to disagree on some of the points.

Here is a developement in Syria / Iraq quite similar to what happened in medieval India.ISIS forces Iraqi Christians to convert to Islam, pay protection tax or die | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis. I had referred to the ' Jiziya ' tax that the Hindus were required to pay, for being non-believers to the Muslim ruler, Aurangzeb , the last strong emperor of the Moghul dynasty.

rvsakhadeo said:

Here is a developement in Syria / Iraq quite similar to what happened in medieval India.ISIS forces Iraqi Christians to convert to Islam, pay protection tax or die | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis. I had referred to the ' Jiziya ' tax that the Hindus were required to pay, for being non-believers to the Muslim ruler, Aurangzeb , the last strong emperor of the Moghul dynasty.

Click to expand...

Appalling, but is anyone really surprised? These people come across as a relic of the time when Khalid Ibn al Walid's forces stampeded through the region with the same degree of civilisation and morality.

MarshallBudyonny said:

Appalling, but is anyone really surprised? These people come across as a relic of the time when Khalid Ibn al Walid's forces stampeded through the region with the same degree of civilisation and morality.

Click to expand...

The modern Muslims who are not interested in fanaticism and intolerance posing as their religion ought to care. Because, all over the world Islam is getting slowly but surely identified with fanaticism and intolerance. And hence the subject of phobia, soon turning to hate. Here is the BBC news item pertaining to what I posted above.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28381455

Dear Henrique Aguiar,

….This article is very ambiguous and provides dangerous loopholes in the Turkish judicial system, allowing the Turkish government to make arbitrary and baseless judgments, which is something very akin from that used by the Muslim dictatorships around the world. With an Islamic dictator who has been in power for over 11 long years (worse, he still wants more) and highly controversial and anti-democratic laws, Turkey is a mere Islamic dictatorship that has the audacity to call itself a democratic government.
Ataturk must be very disappointed with the recent events of his once democratic and secular nation…

Article 301 doesn’t define the guilt. The expression insulting turkish nation is open to interpratation. Everyone who talk about Turkish nation can be subject to this accusation. Because of lack of proof you arent found guilty by the court but accused. Being accused make you a target for ultra nationalist groups. This was the reason why Hırant Dink was murdered.
Likewise Hakan Taştan, Turan Topal was a target of this article. It is a problem of “state of law principle” more than freedom of speech.

…Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code is nothing but a mere excuse used by the intolerant and Islamic Turkish Government to punish all those who express opinions contrary to the Turkish government…

AKP is ironically most tolerant government in Turkish republic history. They restored, Surmena Monastry and Akdamar Monastry was open to prayal. They were first to accept faschism against to Greeks in Istanbul. Much better than those days when Ortodoxs were expelled , Alevies were massacred, just after the death of Ataturk.

….. Turkey is a mere Islamic dictatorship that has the audacity to call itself a democratic government….

I can not say Turkey is heaven in the term of religious freedom. In spite of progresses there are still problems. As to your comments, I think you should first define what is dictatorship, then what is Islamic dictatorship, for the shake of understandibility.
In Turkey there are Christian converts, atheists, they are legally everywhere, I have seen many when I attented in a protestan Church out of curiousity. I can’t denie the fact that there are conservative groups who see the Christians as a threath to their safety.

......... and gentlemen, please, look at what we have here: a Turkish Muslim defending the repulsive acts of his/her Islamic nation that claims to be a "secular" country. How "original" of you...

I felt myshelf very special indeed

Henrique Aguiar said:

I do not want these "rules"... Without a doubt.

Click to expand...

I don't think I asked you to accept It. Feel free.

Would you say ataturk was really so democratic? And doesn't article 301 predate AKP rule?

Who was "democratic" in 1930?

That's not really the point of the question.

No, that's exactly the point. If one wants to criticize Ataturk or imply he was an authoritarian leader, he should then as well realize the era Ataturk was in power.

antocya said:

Would you say ataturk was really so democratic? And doesn't article 301 predate AKP rule?

Click to expand...

Regardless of what he aimed, the country he introduced wasnt a democratic country, experienced any form of antidemocracies. Massacre of Alevies, discrimination of Christians...

Article 301 wasntnot a problem of freedom of speech, It was problem of "state of law". Yet It was improved and changed during the time of AKP.

Nesimi said:

No, that's exactly the point. If one wants to criticize Ataturk or imply he was an authoritarian leader, he should then as well realize the era Ataturk was in power.

Click to expand...

No it's not. If someone is going to claim that Ataturk was a democratic leader it's fair to bring up that he was not. The same as if someone were to say Elizabeth I was a democratic leader despite most if not all nations being monarchies. Besides, I think some nations like the USA could say they had a multiparty democracy even if some citizens were often unable to vote, such as African-Americans in the South.

Aha! So when it suites our narrative we degrade democracy to the multiparty thing? Excellent. Every day I learn something new here.

Nesimi said:

Aha! So when it suites our narrative we degrade democracy to the multiparty thing? Excellent. Every day I learn something new here.

Click to expand...

You don't think having just one party is a real deficiency in a democracy?

MarshallBudyonny said:

I would disagree with a sizeable portion of this, but unfortunately that would be a sure-fire way to get a ban on this notoriously strict forum.

Click to expand...

One poster asked to compare the persons of Christ, Buddha, and Mohammed. What I wanted to show is that less is known about deified persons than about prophets, hence the comparison is useless. While Mohammed is a prophet, and since "perfectionized", like it follows from Stormcrow's post, much of his real personality still remains in history (we even know about his illness). Christ is a deity, deities are mysterious and hence nothing about the real person remains in history. Very little is known about real Buddha, either, so just because Mohammed married a young ...., it does not mean that the other two "persons" were better, we simply do not know anything about them in their human incarnations.

arkteia said:

One poster asked to compare the persons of Christ, Buddha, and Mohammed. What I wanted to show is that less is known about deified persons than about prophets, hence the comparison is useless. While Mohammed is a prophet, and since "perfectionized", like it follows from Stormcrow's post, much of his real personality still remains in history (we even know about his illness). Christ is a deity, deities are mysterious and hence nothing about the real person remains in history. Very little is known about real Buddha, either, so just because Mohammed married a young ...., it does not mean that the other two "persons" were better, we simply do not know anything about them in their human incarnations.

Click to expand...

An individuals personality can be, to a certain extent, discerned from his or her actions and teachings. The main mistake you make here is to assume that Mohammed was a deity, like Christ or Krishna when in reality he was no less mortal than you and me. The "mystery" surrounding deities does not apply to Mohammed as it would to Jesus Christ. I would like nothing more than to be entangled in a long discussion regarding the morals and policies of Mohammed, but unless this thread is revived and quickly that comes across as an exercise in futility.

Nesimi said:

You are missing a point. You cannot apply the structure of Christianity or Buddhism on Islam. Therefore you connot solve the puzzle by just a competition of prophets.

Click to expand...

Why not?
Just because Buddha, Jesus Christ, Guru Nanak, Bahá'u'lláh and Mahavira (yes, I have added up Sikhism, Bahá'í Faith and Jainism to the list) only talk about peace and love whereas Mohammed does not?
Just because Buddha, Jesus Christ, Bahá'u'lláh, Mahavira and Guru Nanak dislike war while Mohammed incite it?

I am sorry, but apparently, you seem to be desperately retreating from comparing these religious figures with Mohammed... Why?
By any chance, is it a direct demonstration that Mohammed is morally inferior when compared to them?

Nesimi said:

In Islam Muhammad is only a messenger of the God, one of many, including Jesus. Muhammad is just the most revered one.
There's nothing like teachings of Muhammad, he is the messenger, he doesn't teach or preach. He is the vessel of the divine will. He was set to be an example to Muslims (believers).

Click to expand...

Oh no... No this fanatic claptrap, please...

I would recommend you to take a look at the dictionary...

"Teaching (noun)

: something that is taught : the ideas and beliefs that are taught by a person, RELIGION, etc.
Source: Teaching - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Click to expand...

Nesimi said:

You and I may consider him a person not worthy of following, yet it's the matter of belief. For a believer, Muslim believer, if he, Muhammad was a chosen one, then the God couldn't have given such role to someone sinful or not worthy. That's why Muslims base their faith on deep respect to the prophet and highly value all references to his life experiences. Yet they are doing it on their own.

Shiites and Alawites for example revere Ali, (Alawites put him even above Muhammad) and Ali wasn't even a prophet.

Click to expand...

Interesting... If so, then the Muslim "highly value" the amputations, stonings, massacres and .......... commited by their "noble" prophet, right?
This is what the Qu'ran and the Hadith - undeniably - show to us.

Sher Khan said:

You must realize there's little much about this advice that's humble.

Click to expand...

I admit that my advice was not that humble, but it is still a valorous advice since I am feeling little challenged in this monotonous and tedious debate.

Sher Khan said:

Personally I find your approach to Islamic law and history has questionable heurestics, and has more in common with radical Hanbalism and its various modern forms. And just like them, there can be no Islam but that which you preach using words and arguments not your own. Its fairly common and not as endearing after a decade of the same.

Click to expand...

Why "questionable"? Are you perchance claiming that my arguments based on the Hadith and the Qu'ran are unfounded?
What a nerve, no?!

Sher Khan said:

Much of what you found incredulous is rather mundane for both high level Islamic traditionalists and Western academic skeptics. I would recommend Fred Donner or Tom Holland if you'd like an easy to digest and current primer. Shacht and Khadduri are somewhat out outdated but still fine and informative.

Click to expand...

I recommend Winston Churchill, Voltaire, V. S. Naipaul, Benny Morris, Alexis de Tocqueville, Michel Onfray, Sam Harris, etcetera...
But before recommending them I would suggest you to read carefully the Qu'ran and the Hadith since you are erroneously categorizing my arguments as unfounded.

stormcrow said:

Google Nasakh wal Mansukh. Its part of Quranic science.

1. The surah was abolished by God not by human.
2. It was never corrupted.

Click to expand...

1 - Oh, I am sorry... I did not know that the name of the goat that ate given surah was "god"...
If this is not the case, do not confuse a "goat" with "God", please.

2 - The correct spelling is "Naskh", not "Nasakh"...
The Naskh is nothing but a crystal clear evidence that the teachings of Mohammed have gotten corrupted.

"Naskh (نس&#1582 is an Arabic language word usually translated as "abrogation"; it shares the same root as the words appearing in the phrase al-nāsikh wal-mansūkh (الناسخ والمنسوخ, "the abrogating and abrogated [verses]"). It is a term used in Islamic legal exegesis for seemingly contradictory material within or between the twin bases of Islamic holy law: the Quran and the Prophetic Sunna. (...)"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

Click to expand...

Prove that the Naskh is not an example of corruption against the teachings of Mohammed.

Dear Efendi,

Efendi said:

Article 301 doesn’t define the guilt. The expression insulting turkish nation is open to interpratation. Everyone who talk about Turkish nation can be subject to this accusation. Because of lack of proof you arent found guilty by the court but accused. Being accused make you a target for ultra nationalist groups. This was the reason why Hırant Dink was murdered.
Likewise Hakan Taştan, Turan Topal was a target of this article. It is a problem of “state of law principle” more than freedom of speech.

I can not say Turkey is heaven in the term of religious freedom. In spite of progresses there are still problems. As to your comments, I think you should first define what is dictatorship, then what is Islamic dictatorship, for the shake of understandibility.
In Turkey there are Christian converts, atheists, they are legally everywhere, I have seen many when I attented in a protestan Church out of curiousity. I can’t denie the fact that there are conservative groups who see the Christians as a threath to their safety.

Click to expand...

Thank you for reiterating what I have said.

Efendi said:

AKP is ironically most tolerant government in Turkish republic history. They restored, Surmena Monastry and Akdamar Monastry was open to prayal. They were first to accept faschism against to Greeks in Istanbul. Much better than those days when Ortodoxs were expelled , Alevies were massacred, just after the death of Ataturk.

Click to expand...

I was referring to Ataturk's times... In other words, the Turkish Golden Age. After the death of Ataturk, we have been witnessing a terrible trampling on the values once ​​preached by Ataturk, such as secularism.