[PoideAdelereX]

I'm looking at history: Do you conquer a world empire just by accident?

[Sx1qBli0]

You've never explained to us the origins of the Hindu civilization despite repeated inquiries on the subject. Why should we listen to you?

[ballerturfali]

Originally posted by Sava
There are pieces of scripture in any religion or culture that, when not viewed in the proper historical context, can be interpreted as hateful. Fundamentalists use such scripture to incite violence and bigots use such scripture to justify their blind hatred of an entire faith. That's the entire point of bringing up the Hadith - they are complete, self-contained anecdotes, which act to illustrate a principle, or some revelation from Allah, and its application. They are also supposed to be eternal and eternally valid.

There really is no way to "misinterpret" the Hadith.

Let's take an example. Could you please give an alternate interpretation of the Hadith I posted which justifies murdering pregnant women if they "disparage the Prophet"?

[Vodonaeva]

Well if you'd only explain the origins of the Hindu civilization, people might be more willing to give your ideas a fair hearing.

[arrasleds]

The real problem, IMO, is not that these Hadith exist, but that such Hadith, and the life of such a man, is used as the source of modern Islamic law, which has caused and still causes untold suffering all over the world. If they were just stories in a book, nobody would really give a damn.


BS.

[CorpoRasion]

Not all hadiths are accepted as authentic, there are hadiths that for example say berbers are worse than dogs and of course those are not accepted as true

[HottBrorb]

According to islam dogs are bad

What I dislike most about islam is their anti-dogs anti-music anti-paintings beliefs

And also apostasy laws, without that it could be a nice religion.

[Avaindimik]

What do you call 'Islamic Law'?

Every country that is majoritarily Muslim has a different legislation.

[BqTyG9eS]

Originally posted by Sava

You are taking one piece of Islamic scripture out of context and using it to support your own bigoted viewpoint.
Again, you miss the essential point:

a) This is not scripture, and
b) This IS the goddamn context for that which is scripture

Originally posted by Sava

You are also assuming that the faith is monolithic.
Not really. The eternal validity of the example of the exemplary life of Mohammed is one of the central tenets of the faith, shared by all different sects.

Originally posted by Sava

Essentially, you are lumping every Muslim and all of Islam into one category and placing a label on it based upon your own ignorant interpretation of select pieces of scripture you have taken out of context.
Again, this worn-out "out-of-context" argument. When will you understand that the thing IS the bloody context? And that I brought it up because it needs NO goddamn interpretation, the meaning is clear as day?

Originally posted by Sava

Once you accept this fact, perhaps then we can start to have an actual discussion on the topic of Islam. Until then, your blather is not to be taken seriously.
I'm saying that I'm willing to discuss this issue. You're telling me that unless I accept that whatever I'm saying is wrong, any discussion is not possible. WTF sort of discussion is this supposed to be?






My challenge to you remains open:

Find a "good" interpretation for the Hadith which I posted.

[pennadyFeet]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Let's take an example. Could you please give an alternate interpretation of the Hadith I posted which justifies murdering pregnant women if they "disparage the Prophet"? Well, the thing is, people tend to pass on their values to their children. That woman's child would probably have disparaged the prophet as well, as would its children, its children's children, and so on through the centuries, unpunished, up till the present day. And her descendants would have multiplied exponentially by now. You can probably see where this is headed: if not for that sensible law, there would now be millions of people on 'Poly, vilifying a man from fifteen or so centuries ago to people who really do not give a rat's ass. The server would collapse under the strain. So we can plainly see the good this custom has led to. Allah u akbar!

[spaxiaroorbes]

He also hates Christianity, Drix.

[sStevenRitziI]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He also hates Christianity, Drix. I don't understand this obsession with "hate". I don't "hate". I don't even understand what the word means, never having felt it.

I consider all religions which prosletyse, or which convert others, as inherently destructive. This is not a moral judgement - that comes later. This is merely an assessment, an analysis.

[olivelappers]

Originally posted by Drixnak
I happen to support Christianity, and I believe it should remain the main religion in the US, but all religions share a common enemy and that is Islam. What's your opinion of Brahmin? Based on my limited experience with them they seem to be a whiny and insecure lot. Surely they need to be up on the enemies list as well.

[erepsysoulptnw]

Originally posted by Drixnak
It will be interesting to see how long Europe hides behind multiculturalism and tolerance before they finally wake up to one of the biggest threats to Europe, and western civilization, that has ever existed. Obviously, the Germanic tribes, the Huns, the black plague, the Ottoman empire are nothing compared to Malinese immigrants

[KignPeeseeamn]

Spiffor is a dirty Canadian

[actioliGalm]

When that happens, I'm sure you'll create another "Do you still like me?" thread to raise your self-esteem

[Siuchingach]

I've never understood why the scholars of Islam can't be real men and admit that sometimes, old Mohammed just screwed up.

When, for instance, we in India screwed up with the caste system, when we realised it, we pretty much universally condemn it. All intellectuals, including the Hindu nationalist ones, condemn caste and caste discrimination in the harshest possible terms.

We can admit that the casteism and stuff like that in some part of the Mahabharat, or the Ramayana, or (most prominently) in the Puranas is not right, that it is not correct. We admit that our heroes had faults (though from the point of view of the society which created them, they were complete heroes), and that we reject those faults.

For instance, when, in the interpolated last book of the Ramayana, Rama kills a Sudra for performing penance not befitting his station, we reject that entire book. The VHP and RSS have unanimously and unequivocally condemned and rejected the Manu Smriti, which is a law-book which is casteist.

Why the hell can't the Muslims do the same? Admit that they made a mistake, and get over it? It'll be better for them in the long run, too.



Note that the above are rhetorical questions - I know that the entire superstructure of Islam will come crashing down if the foundations are cut away like this. But I'm saddened nonetheless.

[ENCOSEARRALIA]

Originally posted by Spiffor
More seriously anneshm, about your point re Islamic law if "The Muslims had it their way".

I know a fair amount of Muslims here, and they don't want to live under Sharia law. The few devout ones that I know want more or less to live by the rules of their religion, but they don't want to force me living by those rules that aren't mine.

The Muslims who want to install Islamic law in the west are a very small minority. I'm no more threatened by living under Islamic law than by going back to a catholic state church: most people, most believers, simply don't want it. You don't understand.

Back in those days, among Muslims, the state, the people, the scholars, everyone were devout and almost fanatics by today's standards. If they had conquered Europe back then, it would have been bye-bye Greco-European culture, goodbye results of the Renaissance, and the end of the West as we know it. The enlightenment, the reason for these Muslims being the way you describe them, would never have happened. The cultural achievements of the past thousand years would have been ground into dust. Europe would have become a land of the most abject poverty and suffering.

Why do I say that? Because that is what happened to my own country. It is only because we were EXTREMELY strong and obscenely rich before the invasion that we could even survive. India stopped being a major cultural basin of the world around 1200 to 1400 AD - right about the time the Muslim empires consolidated.

To give you an idea of how far this goes - there is a famous Islamic "scholar", a "Dr." Zakir Naik, who is quite beloved of Indian Muslims. Whenever Hinduism and Islam are discussed by Hindus and Muslims (that happens rarely enough), his name crops up sooner or later. But he STILL believes in the old Quranic punishments for adultery (death), theft (cutting off limbs), apostasy (death, again), and he supports the imposition of Islamic law. He also says that the same way you would not trust a mathematics teacher who says 2+2=3, you cannot trust other religions other than Islam - which means that EVEN though others allow Muslims freedom of worship, Muslims should not allow it to others.

He has a massive following in the Muslim community in India. They don't see anything wrong with what he preaches. And if they do, they keep resolutely quiet about it.

If you ever study the fatwas of the more serious scholars and Islamic institutions, you will see that they are still using the Quran and Hadith, and the previous works of fatwas within their own tradition, as the base of further work. Everything these people do and preach upon and declare can be traced back to the Quran or the Hadith.





Again, my point remains - unless they fess up and admit that they screwed up, there is no movement forward possible here.

[Andoror]

[q=aneeshm]If they had conquered Europe back then, it would have been bye-bye Greco-European culture[/q]

Err... didn't the Muslims of the Middle Ages preserve a lot of Greco-Roman works and build upon them? Oh wait, I'm bringing facts into this... my bad.

[kathy]

Aneeshm, you don't understand my point.

As it happens, Europe hasn't been conquered by the Muslims. When Drixnak talks about the Muslim threat on Europe, he's not talking about 10th century invasions, but about today's migrations and demographics.

The Muslims of today, who come to Europe, overwhelmingly don't want to impose Islamic law in Europe. Same for the Muslims who are born in Europe. I expect you'll quote scripture to tell me that no, it can't be, the scripture says they have to spread Islamic law. However, and forunately, most Muslims are pretty loose about their observance.