Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news  
View Poll Results: Should mosques be allowed to have a minarette?
Yes 73 52.90%
No 43 31.16%
I don't care 18 13.04%
What a minarette? 4 2.90%
Voters: 138. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 18.07.2007, 22:16
meeow's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not there yet!
Posts: 39
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
meeow has no particular reputation at present
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

By the way, Jesus was as Arab as the rest of them..so whats the fuss about anyway?!? Bottom line is that everyone seems to think that they are the best/right/superior etc. Just let them make the minaret and be done with it!!
  #142  
Old 18.07.2007, 22:31
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
I don't agree with your statement. Muslim rulers ruled India for as long as 800 years and if they had forced Islam on India then most of the Indians would have been muslims by the time British arrived.
Absolutely false conclusion! Revisionist historian you must be? Could you please explain the following-

1- Do you know anything about mountain range Hindu Kush (Hindu slaughter)? http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_histor...indu_kush.html
Non Hindu references listed at the bottom of the above link.

2- Ever heard of Vijayanagar massacre?

3- Any idea why plenty of Hindu and Buddhist statues are defaced from that period?

4- Could you explain why temples were destroyed and mosques built on top?

5- Do you know anything about jizya?

6- Any idea on the type of torture that was handed out to Sikh religious leaders to force them to convert? Would you like to see paintings depicting these tortures?

The failure of India to becoming fully muslim has more to do with the depth/deep roots of eastern philosophies like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism rather than kindness on the part of Islamic invaders who had nothing but absolute hatred for idol worshippers.


You can start by reading "Rewriting Indian History"
By Francois Gautier
http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resour...story/gautier/
This page deals with your specific flawed argument.
Quote:
But the "pagans" were far too numerous to kill them all; and Hinduism too well entrenched in her people's soul, never really gave up, but quietly retreated in the hearts of the pious and was preserved by the Brahmins' amazing oral powers. Thus, realising that they would never be able to annihilate the entire Indian population and that they could not convert all the people, the Muslims rulers, particularly under the Hanifite law, allowed the pagans to become "zimmis" (protected ones) under 20 humiliating conditions, with the heavy "jizya", the toleration tax, collected from them. "It is because of Hanifite law, writes Mr Elst, that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide of Hindus". The last "jihad" against the Hindus was waged by the much glorified Tipu Sultan, at the end of the 18th century. Thereafter, particularly following the crushing of the 1857 rebellion by the British, Indian Muslims fell into a state of depression and increasing backwardness, due to their mollah's refusal of British education (whereas the elite Hindus gradually went for it) and their nostalgia for the "glorious past"'. It is only much later, when the British started drawing them into the political mainstream, so as to divide India, that they started regaining some predominance.
Now you might say that Francois Gautier the Le Figaro writer is biased. Ok let's look at muslim writings from that period that has seen the light of day.
Sources for the following text are muslim documents and not my opinion-


Mahmud of Gaznavi

(From the accounts of arikh-i-Yamini of Utbi the secretary of Mahmud of Gaznavi)

* At Thaneshwar.

"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously at Thanesar that the stream was discolored, not withstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise be to Allah for the honor he bestows on Islam and Muslims."

* At Somnath

"The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshipers of sun and fire.... The number of infidels killed exceeded 50,000"

* At Mathura

"The infidels...deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."


Mahmud of Ghori
(from Hasan Nizami's Taj-ul-Maasir)

* Kol (Modern Aligarh)

"Those of the horizon who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but those who stood by their ancestoral faith were slain with the sword"

* Kol (Modern Aligarh)
* 20,000 prisoners were taken and made slaves
'Three bastions were raised as high as heaven with their heads and their carcases became food for the beasts of prey

* Kalinjar
50,000 prisoners were taken as slaves

* Varnasi or Kasi (Benaras) :
Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of Ibn Asir records,

"The slaughter of Hindus (at Varanasi) was immense; none were spared except women and children,(who were taken into slavery) and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary."


Zahiru'd-Din Muhammed Babur (1526 C.E. - 1520 C.E.)

Babur's Own Words on Killing Hindus:
For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer,
I battled infidels and Hindus,
I determined to become a maryr
Thank God I became a Killer of Non-Muslims!

From Baburnama, the Memoires of Babur Himself:
In AH 934 (2538 C.E.) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours. We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had be Daru'l-Harb (nation of non-muslim) for years was made into a Daru'l-Islam (muslim nation).

Guru Nanak (Sikh guru) on Babur's atrocities:
Source:Rag Asa Guru Nanak Dev witnessed first hand the atrocities Babur committed on Hindus and recorded them in his poems. He says: Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? pg (360)

On the condition of Hindu women in Babur's monster rule:
Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion - those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust.They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces.... ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to God's Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment pg(417-18)

On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:
First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled. Source:Rag Malar, (pg.1288)

From an article by Dr. Harsh Narain on Muslim Testimony (Indian Express 2/26/90):
Since the establishment of Zahiru'd-Din Ghazi's rule, officers and religious leaders spread Islam vigorously desteroying the Hindu faith. We cleared the filth of Hinduism from Faizabad and Avadh.


Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq
(from Insha-i-Mahry by Amud Din Abdullah bin Mahru)

Delhi: -a punishment in detail (from Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi)

"A report was brought to the Sultan than there was in Delhi an old Brahman who persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house and that people of the city, both Muslims and Hindus used to resort to his house to worship the idol. The Brahman had constructed a wooden tablet which was covered within and without with paintings of demons and other objects. An order was accordingly given to the Brahman and was brought before Sultan.The true faith was declared to the Brahman and the right course pointed out. but he refused to accept it. A pile was risen on which the Kaffir with his hands and legs tied was thrown into and the wooden tablet on the top. The pile was lit at two places his head and his feet. The fire first reached him in the feet and drew from him a cry and then fire completley enveloped him. Behold Sultan for his strict adherence to law and rectitude."

Delhi : (after Hindus paid the toleration tax (zar-i zimmiya) and poll-tax(jizya) they were foolish enough to build their temples.so...) "Under divine guidance I (Sultan) destroyed these temples and I killed the leaders of these infedility and others I subjected to stripes and chastisement "

Gohana (Haryana):
"Some Hindus had erected a new idol-temple in the village of Kohana and the idolaters used to assemble there and perform their idolatrous rites. These people were seized and brought before me. I ordered that the perverse conduct of these leaders of this wickedness be punished by publicly abd that they should be put to deathe before the gate of the palace."

Jajnagar:
(Expedition objectives as stated by Sultan: Source:Ainn-ul-Mulk)

*massacring the unbelievers
*demolishing their temples
*hunting the elephants
*getting a glimpse of their enchanting country

Orissa:'Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi' records his expedition with the following words:
"Nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations The swordsmen of Islam turned the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers. Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier."


Aurangazeb (1658 C.E. - 1707 C.E.)

Aurangzeb considered himself "The Scourge Of The Kafirs" (non-believers) and closed Hindu schools and libraries. In his lifetime he destroyed more than 10,000 Hindu, Buddhist and Jam temples and often erected mosques in their stead.3 In 1669 in Agra he had hacked off the limbs of the recalcitrant Hindu King Gokla and in 1672 several thousand revolting Hindus were slaughtered in Mewat.

From: Maasi-i-Alamgiri

* Issued general order to destroy all centers of Hindu learnings including Varnasi and destroyed the temple at Mathura and renamed it as Islamabad
* In Khandela (rajastan) he killed 300 Hindus in one day for they resisted the destruction of their temple.
* In Udaipur all Hindus of the town were killed as they vowed to defend the temple of Udaipur from destruction.
* 172 temples were destroyed in Udaipur.
* 66 temples were pulled down in Amber. All Hindu clerks were dismissed from the office of the Imperial empire.
* In Pandhpur , Maharashtra, the Emperor ordered and executed the destruction of temple and butchering of cows within the temple.

Aurangazeb also tortured to death the disciples of Guru Tegh bahadur (Sikh guru) before his death and also killed Guru. Guru Tegh Bahadur - the pride of Hindustan was martyred for he spoke for the persecuted Hindus of Hindustan. Aurangazeb also killed Guru Gobind singh's two children aged less than ten by walling them alive for not accepting the choice of Islam. In Punjab Muslim governors killed hundreds of Sikh children and made Sikh women eat the flesh of their own killed children. Banda Bahadur another great Sikh martyr before being torturd to death was also made to eat the flesh of his own children killed before his eyes. Any Muslim bringing the head of a dead Sikh was also awarded money.


Shah Jahan (1658 C.E. - 1707 C.E.)

In 1632 Shah jahan ordered that all Hindu temples recently erected or in the course of construction should be razed to the ground. In Benares alone seventy six temples were destroyed. Christian churches at Agra and Lahore were demolished. In a manner befitting the Prophet he had ten thousand inhabitants executed by being "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire". Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were tortured to try to convert them to Islam. Only a few apostacised, the remainder were trampled to death by elephants, except for the younger women who went to harems.

Shahjahan put enormous eonomic pressure on Hindus particularly peasents to become Muslims. The criminals too were forced to become Muslims.

Source: Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama , Lahori

When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus...The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts....Most of the women (to save their honour) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars.

Source: Manucci, Storia do Mogor vol-II p.451 & Travels of Frey Sebastian Manrique

Under Shahjahan peasents were compelled to sell their women and children to meet their revenue requirements....The peasents were carried off to various Markets and fairs to be sold with their poor unhappy wives carrying their small children crying and lamenting. According to Qaznivi Shahjagan had decreed they should be sold to Muslim lords.


Quote:
There was mixture of culture due to the arrivals of persians and they also built Hindu temples alongside the mosques.
Some one has been reading too many PC books? Sure there was mixture of cultures eventually but not the picture that you are trying to paint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb_complex


The most famous monument situated in the complex is the Qutub Minar; other important constructions in the complex are the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque, the Ala-I-Darwaza, the Alai Minar and the iron pillar. Twenty-seven previous Hindu and Jain temples were destroyed and their materials reused to construct the minar and other monuments of the complex.

A primer for you-

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/temple1.html
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_histor...aurangzeb.html



Quote:
And the Hinduism itself came from outside the India. Infact the earliest hindus (called as Aryans) came from Mongolia. Would you not then say that they forced Hinduism on India :-) Just to make my point clear.
Aryan invasion theory has more to do with British/European propaganda of the time and Biblical model of human migration than actual scientific facts. The Aryan invasion theory is very shaky and has been debunked by modern DNA testing. Genetic evidence points to the fact that Indians have lived where they are today for the better part of 50,000 years and no Aryan invasion took place. Definitely not a military one like in the case of Muslim (Arab/Turk/Afghan/Persian) invasion into India. So you did not make your point

Hinduism originated from Mongolia? You really know your stuff.
  #143  
Old 19.07.2007, 01:08
meeow's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not there yet!
Posts: 39
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
meeow has no particular reputation at present
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

What can I say.....its as simple as this, at any given point in time, whoever has the might, will always invade/run over (give it any name you want!) the underdog. Recent examples can be taken of the Babari mosque demolition in 1992 in India, the age old Kashmir issue where the majority population of Muslims were ascended to India due to their ruler, a hindu rajah etc...Old examples lie in the Crusades etc, so to single out one religion is a bit much imho. I'm sure that if the Hindus had continued to be a stronger power within the Indian subcontinent, the Persians/Turks/Afghans etc wouldn't/couldn't have marched in....this is called history, and with all its bitter parts, we should be learning from it, not using it to prove how mighty we are/were or how unfairly one party was treated etc. Each community/religious group etc will have 'on top of the world ' eras and 'down in the dumps' eras. Move on, learn to live with each other, respect each other's ways and keep recycling!!
  #144  
Old 19.07.2007, 01:44
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 449
Groaned at 222 Times in 158 Posts
Thanked 1,823 Times in 1,002 Posts
Pashosh is considered a nuisancePashosh is considered a nuisancePashosh is considered a nuisance
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
By the way, Jesus was as Arab as the rest of them..so whats the fuss about anyway?!? Bottom line is that everyone seems to think that they are the best/right/superior etc. Just let them make the minaret and be done with it!!
Jesus was Saudi ?
  #145  
Old 19.07.2007, 02:25
marmoset's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ZH Oberland
Posts: 431
Groaned at 4 Times in 4 Posts
Thanked 209 Times in 125 Posts
marmoset is considered knowledgeablemarmoset is considered knowledgeablemarmoset is considered knowledgeable
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
By the way, Jesus was as Arab as the rest of them..so whats the fuss about anyway?!? Bottom line is that everyone seems to think that they are the best/right/superior etc. Just let them make the minaret and be done with it!!
Hi Meeow,

You've got it just slightly wrong

Jesus was a Jew, lived among the Jews and most likely died for the Jews.
Matthew 15 Chpt 22 and following
  #146  
Old 19.07.2007, 04:14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
Hi Meeow,

You've got it just slightly wrong

Jesus was a Jew, lived among the Jews and most likely died for the Jews.
Matthew 15 Chpt 22 and following
That is not the only thing Meeow got wrong.


Quote:
View Post
What can I say.....its as simple as this, at any given point in time, whoever has the might, will always invade/run over (give it any name you want!) the underdog.
Very simplistic argument but even if I buy it then I assume you have no issues with US invasion of Iraq? You know US is strong so they can do whatever they like? Just move on and stop moaning. Don't like the sound of that do you? What I am trying to say is that it has nothing to do with strong or weak but to do with right and wrong.


Quote:
Recent examples can be taken of the Babari mosque demolition in 1992 in India,
One SINGLE unused mosque destroyed that was built on Hindu holy land? (The evidence points that the mosque was built on top of Hindu temple originally).

Let's take all the thousands of Hindu temples destroyed during Islamic rule out of the equation and just concentrate on the number of temples destroyed post partition (last 50+ years) in the subcontinent (Pakistan and Bangladesh). Have you any idea how many have been destroyed? I guess you don't or you would not have bought it up.

Please also explain to me how come population of minorities in Islamic republic of Pakistan and Bangladesh have gone down drastically after partition but in India it has not? In Pakistan it has gone down from 20+% to 1%.

Difference is that eastern religious philosophies are completely opposite to Abrahamic faiths and LOT more tolerant. Proof is in the pudding. India for most of it's history has elected secular parties and has stayed democratic. Hindu fundies have been marginalized by Hindus themselves.

Now let's see what happened across the border in 1971

http://www.muktadhara.net/page35.html

Let's see what is happening currently in Bangladesh-

http://www.hrcbm.org/


Quote:
the age old Kashmir issue where the majority population of Muslims were ascended to India due to their ruler, a hindu rajah etc...
Selective memory? First let's get some facts straight. Jammu and Kashmir as the state is known had 100% Hindu/non-muslim population, then...

....surprise surprise

-Turks, under ferocious Zulkadur Khan, first invaded Kashmir.
- Central Asian ruler, Sikander invades Kashmir and brings about mass conversion to Islam. After the tyranny of Sikander was over, only few Kashmiri Hindu families survive.
- Mirz Haidar, a relative of Humayun (of the Moghul invader dynasty) conquers Kashmir. Kashmir gradually absorbed into Moghul Empire.
- Maharajah Ranjit Singh (Sikh), one of the greatest rulers of India, regains Jammu and appointed his Hindu feudatory Gulab Singh to rule the State.
- 1947 India gains independence. The ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh yet to make up his mind regarding accession.
- Pakistan violates the Standstill Agreement by preventing essential supplies to the State, then hoards of armed Pakistani tribesman entered Kashmir.
- Hari Singh signs the instrument of accession (joins India), it is no different than the one signed by over 500 other rulers who joined India or Pakistan. The accession of Kashmir was accepted by the Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten.
- The first Indian forces arrived in Kashmir to defend against Pakistani troops. Rest is history as 1/3rd J&K state stayed under Pakistani occupation and rest under India (minus the part that Pakistan gifted to China! )
- 1986: In one of the most shameful acts of religious massacre, several ancient historical Hindu temples are destroyed and scores of Hindus killed in the city of Anantnag.
- 1990-1991 onwards : In a spate of terrorist violence 400,000+ Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) the undisputed original inhabitants of Kashmir and whose presence pre dates Islamic presence are driven out (raped, butchered, looted) out of their homes by Islamic jehadis. Pakistan's involvement in this carnage of violence is beyond doubt. You won't find a more peaceful community in this world than Kashmiri Pandits.
http://www.kashmiri-pandit.org/sundry/genocide.html
- The fighting to this present day continues between Islamists and Indian Army.

So now Kashmir area is almost 100% muslim. The whole disputed state is still not 100% muslim. If you take the whole Jammu and Kashmir state then the population is probably 60+% muslim and 30+% non muslim (Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhists).

Do read the few month old EU report on Kashmir. The European Parliament has approved overwhelmingly a report on Kashmir authored by Baroness Emma Nicholson which ruled out plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir and highlighted shortcomings in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Pakistan did not like it so tried to get it diluted. Baroness Nicholson gave a firm virtual slap to a letter that she had received from Saeed Khalid, Pakistan's Ambassador to the European Union.
http://www.hindu.com/nic/baronessresponse.pdf

Quote:
Old examples lie in the Crusades etc, so to single out one religion is a bit much imho.
I am singling out any religion that is intolerant. I am calling a spade a spade.

Btw Crusades were defensive wars to try to stem Islamic onslaught. Everyone uses the term crusades as if it was one way traffic. Islamic ideology is inherently violent and political. Anyone who disagrees is clueless. I am not defending Christianity as their ideology is pretty intolerant as well. Christians have reformed a lot but I have seen no sign of Islamic reform. I doubt it will happen any time soon as their religious text is "PERFECT" and non reformable!

Quote:
I'm sure that if the Hindus had continued to be a stronger power within the Indian subcontinent, the Persians/Turks/Afghans etc wouldn't/couldn't have marched in....this is called history, and with all its bitter parts, we should be learning from it, not using it to prove how mighty we are/were or how unfairly one party was treated etc.
Each community/religious group etc will have 'on top of the world ' eras and 'down in the dumps' eras. Move on, learn to live with each other, respect each other's ways and keep recycling!!
Yeah I am sure if Jews were strong then holocaust would not have happened yada yada...I am dealing with facts and not "what ifs"!

When history repeats itself then it is not called history
Yes all religions have their set of fanatics but Islam has cornered the market ever since it's inception. "Jews/Americans are bad" argument does not explain the issues Islam has in eastern countries like India, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Bali (Indonesia)...

Let's be honest and admit the reality that Islamic ideology is NOT about being at peace with the non believers. It's about converting the land of impure into the land of the pure.

Swiss in my opinion are fully justified to be suspicious of Islam.

Last edited by pea; 19.07.2007 at 04:39.
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #147  
Old 19.07.2007, 09:59
Lob's Avatar
Lob Lob is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: -
Posts: 7,795
Groaned at 42 Times in 37 Posts
Thanked 1,973 Times in 1,060 Posts
Lob has a reputation beyond reputeLob has a reputation beyond reputeLob has a reputation beyond reputeLob has a reputation beyond reputeLob has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

It's all well and good reflecting upon history but our generation can (and I think must) be intelligent enough to agree that people can be different - and should be different. In the ever-shrinking world in which we live, whilst we might not grow to love our neighbour, we should be able to tolerate, understand and not be threatened by one another.

There is nothing wrong with Islam. Where the problem lies is with Man. Man manipulates (how do you think the "man" got into "manipulate"? ). And, without proof otherwise, the "Holy" books were written by Man (acknowledged with The Bible) and are being interpreted by Man.

I think I know where the problem lies
The following 3 users would like to thank Lob for this useful post:
  #148  
Old 19.07.2007, 10:42
Uncle Max's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Züri
Posts: 7,553
Groaned at 164 Times in 105 Posts
Thanked 8,424 Times in 3,486 Posts
Uncle Max has a reputation beyond reputeUncle Max has a reputation beyond reputeUncle Max has a reputation beyond reputeUncle Max has a reputation beyond reputeUncle Max has a reputation beyond reputeUncle Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Personipulate?

As me Ma says, cut out the middlemen and go straight to the supplier.
This user would like to thank Uncle Max for this useful post:
  #149  
Old 19.07.2007, 11:33
meeow's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not there yet!
Posts: 39
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
meeow has no particular reputation at present
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

what 'man' needs is a mental makeover.....as Lob Rockster put it, whats wrong with accepting history as it is? It may not always be pleasant, but thats history for you. Bottom line is: to each his own. in this thread, if you think you are right, more power to you...won't change my opinion anyway!! Cheerio!!
  #150  
Old 24.07.2007, 14:40
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Zurich, CH
Posts: 68
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 12 Times in 6 Posts
jsm66 has no particular reputation at present
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Very informative post by PEA.
But the problem is that Islam is here to stay .. it has been invited into Europe and it is demanding rights that the genrosity of the west sees fit for its lands inhabitants .. a far cry from any Islamic countries.

So how do we deal with this?

The concept of being a French, Swiss, British or European citizen is definitely to integrate into the society in which you live. This also means that you must respect the values of that society. If you seek to undermine the values of that society you must be punished under the relevant judiciary system.

So the swiss are suspicious of Islam .. can you blame them after the worst rioting, bombings etc etc in mainland Europe?
Is this experiment failing?

How can the west appease their islamic citizens to remain within the law?
Do they give them special rights and powers over say other minorities?

To say no .. one is immediately branded as being rather negative.

What will Europe do to quell the islamic thirst?
This user would like to thank jsm66 for this useful post:
  #151  
Old 24.07.2007, 20:00
Jamesk's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 156
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Jamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeable
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
1- Do you know anything about mountain range Hindu Kush (Hindu slaughter)?

2- Ever heard of Vijayanagar massacre?

Mahmud of Gaznavi
(From the accounts of arikh-i-Yamini of Utbi the secretary of Mahmud of Gaznavi)

Mahmud of Ghori
(from Hasan Nizami's Taj-ul-Maasir)

Zahiru'd-Din Muhammed Babur (1526 C.E. - 1520 C.E.)

Guru Nanak (Sikh guru) on Babur's atrocities:

Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq

Aurangazeb (1658 C.E. - 1707 C.E.)

Shah Jahan (1658 C.E. - 1707 C.E.)
Good points and a good lesson in history pea. I'd like to make a couple of points though to balance this out:

1. There have been countless other such cases in history of mans inhumanity to man where they didn't use the label 'Muslim' - like Julius Caesar, Alexander, Atila the Hun, Genghiz Khan, Hitler, etc. Also, in India the 'white' Aryans were invaders that slaughtered possibly millions of dark skinned Indian natives.

You could add some biblical characters to this list. If you read the old Testament, you will note that this intolerance and killings go all the way back to Cain and Abel.

Evil is not limited to the label 'Muslim', 'Christian' or 'Jew', though, admittedly these guys are hard to beat for sheer brutality and intolerance.

2. The Mughols you mention (Babur, Aurangzeb, Shah Jahan) have a good reputation not only in India, but all over the world. Compared with Genghis Khan, they might be considered 'Angels'. There are many other reports of life in Mughol India (including ones by non-muslim writers), that paint a totally different picture. This is not to say that the atrocities you list did not occur, or they are excusable, but that was not the only thing that the Mughols did. Similarly, the British also did the same or worse, but overall possibly the entire world agrees that the British Empire was benign, a good influence on earth.
__________________
James
This user would like to thank Jamesk for this useful post:
  #152  
Old 24.07.2007, 21:00
Jamesk's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 156
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Jamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeable
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
There is nothing wrong with Islam. Where the problem lies is with Man. Man manipulates (how do you think the "man" got into "manipulate"? ). And, without proof otherwise, the "Holy" books were written by Man (acknowledged with The Bible) and are being interpreted by Man.

I think I know where the problem lies
Good points Lob - btw, I like your new Avatar, a nice change from the 'grumpy old...'

In connection with 'Holy' books, it should be remembered that:
  • The Prophet Muhammad could not read or write, so had no clue what was in any holy book or interested in reading them or had any use for them.
  • When asked by followers to 'write' the Verses, he refused. Why would a person who could not read or write want to 'write' a book, and if God wanted him to write a book, why didn't He choose someone that could write?
  • At his death the Prophet left nothing written - so, yes, this Holy book was also written by man - with plenty opportunity for MANipulation! This is a fact no mater what the 'faithful' say to the contrary.
  • After the Prophets death the 'Umah' (the Community) were left with nothing concrete, and asked the first Caliph Abu Baker to write the Verses so that they would form a permanent record. Abu Baker refused, saying that if the Prophet didn't write it, why should I?
  • Arabic at the time of the Prophet did not have a written form, the written form dates from several hundred years after his death.
  • Arabic verses in the Koran are very difficult to understand even by highly educated native speakers - the smallest change in tone or stress changes the meaning of the verse completely (eg you can go from verse to worse!). There is plenty of scope there for changing something harmless to something very nasty. For example 'the Prophet's wives should dress modestly' verse is changed to mean 'all women MUST wear bags on their heads or be stoned to death'.
Leaving dogma and 'holy' books aside, if you ask Muslims on any country of the world to recite one verse from the Prophet that they know, they will tell you one called 'Surat Al-Fateh' that is recited in namaz (prayer). What is interesting about this surat is that it is the only surat that is NOT in the holy book. Not only that, but what it says is totally opposed to what is in the holy book.

This surat is remarkably similar to the 'Lords' prayer. It does two things:
  • Defines God precisely so that there is no question of error or mistake, but without naming Him.
  • Asks for guidance from Him alone and from nothing or no one else.
As it does not name Him, it could be used by anyone, of any religion.

As the majority of muslim people don't speak Arabic or can't understand a word of it, and those that can, can't understand koranic verse, it doesn't mater what it says in the holy book.

From one perspective, the outer or academic perspective, Islam has nothing to do with the 'Prophet of peace' (only to do with the 'holy' book), but from an inner perspective, from the hearts of the people that were touched by the Prophet and still subscribe to Islam in the unwritten form that he left it in, it is exactly as he would have wished it!
__________________
James
This user would like to thank Jamesk for this useful post:
  #153  
Old 28.07.2007, 12:41
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
Good points and a good lesson in history pea. I'd like to make a couple of points though to balance this out:

1. There have been countless other such cases in history of mans inhumanity to man where they didn't use the label 'Muslim' - like Julius Caesar, Alexander, Atila the Hun, Genghiz Khan, Hitler, etc. Also, in India the 'white' Aryans were invaders that slaughtered possibly millions of dark skinned Indian natives.
First of all there is NO such thing as Aryan invasion of India where millions of dark skinned Indian natives got slaughtered. Aryan invasion theory has been DEBUNKED by science and genetic research. Please do some research. The Brits have a lot to answer for!

I never said that slaughters are committed by Muslims only. Would you call Genghiz Khan, Hitler peaceful? No you wouldn't so my point is that hatred filled intolerant ideologies like Islam should NEVER for the sake of PCness get labelled as peaceful. Islam is not a religion of PEACE and it's factually, historically and intellectually dishonest to say that.


Quote:
You could add some biblical characters to this list. If you read the old Testament, you will note that this intolerance and killings go all the way back to Cain and Abel.
I agree that is why I clearly said religion in general and Abrahamic faiths in particular are INTOLERANT! I would add though that Jesus's actions in general were 360° opposite to Mohammed's actions. Both were deluded so I guess they were similar as well

Quote:
Evil is not limited to the label 'Muslim', 'Christian' or 'Jew', though, admittedly these guys are hard to beat for sheer brutality and intolerance.
Yes it is not limited to Muslims, Jews, Christians etc but it does provide a framework for such people to flourish and do their "Godly" deeds.


Quote:
2. The Mughols you mention (Babur, Aurangzeb, Shah Jahan) have a good reputation not only in India, but all over the world. Compared with Genghis Khan, they might be considered 'Angels'. There are many other reports of life in Mughol India (including ones by non-muslim writers), that paint a totally different picture. This is not to say that the atrocities you list did not occur, or they are excusable, but that was not the only thing that the Mughols did. Similarly, the British also did the same or worse, but overall possibly the entire world agrees that the British Empire was benign, a good influence on earth.
Yes some of the Mughal rulers were not as hardcore as Babur, Aurangzeb etc but even "good" Mughal rulers like Akhbar ordered slaughter of 30,000 plus Rajputs. Still he was better than most :-?

Yes British committed lot of direct and sometimes indirect crimes in India but they were driven by £ and not religious fervour like the Islamic invaders of India. Portuguese Christians on the other hand were driven by religion and their actions in Goa(India) demonstrated that.


Quote:
In connection with 'Holy' books, it should be remembered that:
  • The Prophet Muhammad could not read or write, so had no clue what was in any holy book or interested in reading them or had any use for them.
Is that supposed to be a positive point? Talk of picking a bad messenger. That point alone proves to me that there is no God out there. Not a smart God anyway.
  • Quote:
    When asked by followers to 'write' the Verses, he refused. Why would a person who could not read or write want to 'write' a book, and if God wanted him to write a book, why didn't He choose someone that could write?
Again there is no God and he was no messenger of God but just a messenger of his own deluded messages

Islam is just plagiarized repackaged pagan religion (so is Christianity). I will leave it at that. Anyone who wants mumbo jumbo free intellectually honest historic facts can do their own research. I got better things to do with my time like eating grilled fish with some Italian wine!
This user groans at for this post:
  #154  
Old 28.07.2007, 12:59
meeow's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not there yet!
Posts: 39
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
meeow has no particular reputation at present
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Pea wrote:
I got better things to do with my time like eating grilled fish with some Italian wine!

Well.......Bon appetite!!
  #155  
Old 28.07.2007, 16:19
Jamesk's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 156
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Jamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeable
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
First of all there is NO such thing as Aryan invasion of India where millions of dark skinned Indian natives got slaughtered. Aryan invasion theory has been DEBUNKED by science and genetic research. Please do some research. The Brits have a lot to answer for!
I don't know, but from the evidence I've looked at, there is an overwhelming case for the Aryan invasion. This is an example.


Quote:
I never said that slaughters are committed by Muslims only. Would you call Genghiz Khan, Hitler peaceful? No you wouldn't so my point is that hatred filled intolerant ideologies like Islam should NEVER for the sake of PCness get labelled as peaceful. Islam is not a religion of PEACE and it's factually, historically and intellectually dishonest to say that.
No, Genghiz Khan and Hitler were not peaceful, neither did they claim to be, nor did their followers. But Islam/Judaism/Christainity are different, or rather the intention is different, though in practice it may look the same. When Muslims and Jews greet each other, they use the Semitic term for Peace (Shalom/Salam), and Jesus is synonymous with Peace.


Quote:
...would add though that Jesus's actions in general were 360° opposite to Mohammed's actions.
You mean 180 degrees, 360 would mean that you'd have gone the full circle and pointing in the same direction!

Yes, the actions were different, but the intention may not have been. Also, I feel that the reports about the 'Miracles' of Jesus were made in order to develop the 'Faith' - the Romans would never have converted to the words of a 'Man of Peace' (to them that would be the same as being weak, feminine) if not for the reports of him 'walking on water', 'feeding the 5000', 'turning water to wine', 'raising the dead' and so on. The actions of Muhammad and the Iron men of Muhammad speak for them self.

Quote:
Yes British committed lot of direct and sometimes indirect crimes in India but they were driven by £ and not religious fervour like the Islamic invaders of India. Portuguese Christians on the other hand were driven by religion and their actions in Goa(India) demonstrated that.
The British were not motivated by religious zeal, yes, but they were not motivated to build 'the greatest empire the world had ever seen' in which the 'sun never set' by £ alone.

Quote:
Is that supposed to be a positive point? Talk of picking a bad messenger. That point alone proves to me that there is no God out there. Not a smart God anyway.
Depends what you call positive - I'm just pointing out the facts. The 'Prophet' never said that he was a Messenger of a 'God out there'. As I explained in another post, the fundamental belief he instilled in his community was that 'God does not exist in the six directions'.

Quote:
Again there is no God and he was no messenger of God but just a messenger of his own deluded messages
There are people that might be offended by this statement you know. I don't know, but there are two aspects to this:

a) How can you say with such absolute certainty that 'there is no God'? Where did you look for Him and by what mechanism of perception did you come to this conclusion?

b) You can not deny that the Prophet Muhammad existed - it is a historic fact. He may have made his own 'deluded messages' as you term it, but that would not be 'proof' that there is no God. But how likely is it that an illiterate, unschooled man brought up by beduin foster parents could against all odds, achieve what he did? Muhammad performed no miracles, had no training, had no supporters because his 'messages' were against the interests of everyone - so how do you explain his achievements and Islam?

Quote:
Islam is just plagiarized repackaged pagan religion (so is Christianity).
In the earlier sentence you said that Muhammad made his own deluded messages, now your saying he plagiarized and repackaged pagan religions as did Jesus. Both these statements can not be true.

What would have been the point of this repackaging - surely the pagan religions weren't dying out, and why would Muhammad or Jesus or Moses or Abraham care if they were dying out? Why do you suppose that Muhammad would risk his life for this repakaging? Why would Jesus be crucified for it?
__________________
James
This user would like to thank Jamesk for this useful post:
  #156  
Old 29.07.2007, 02:06
MissChievous's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kanton Bern
Posts: 96
Groaned at 6 Times in 1 Post
Thanked 39 Times in 18 Posts
MissChievous has no particular reputation at present
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Actually, I thought about it some more, and I actually am against the minarette. It has nothing against the islamic faith, people can believe what they want and I do not mind, but I am almost positive that if they are built, that maybe in 5 or 6 years down the road there will be another discussion on why the mosques aren't allowed to blast the call to prayer 5 times a day on loudspeaker. I mean, why else would they be so adamant about building them? I think it's a matter of progression. Sure, right now there will be no prayer calls, but I'm sure in the future there would be a movement to allow it. I just don't feel it is necessary, the mosques are there and people can go and pray and do everything they want to associate with their faith, but my tolerance towards religion in general has its limits.


And on a side note, the moderation in this thread is leaning towards the overzealous side... Saying people should go read wikipedia or google...why bother coming here then? Sheesh.
  #157  
Old 29.07.2007, 02:10
MissChievous's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kanton Bern
Posts: 96
Groaned at 6 Times in 1 Post
Thanked 39 Times in 18 Posts
MissChievous has no particular reputation at present
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

dbl post sorry!
  #158  
Old 29.07.2007, 09:40
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
I don't know, but from the evidence I've looked at, there is an overwhelming case for the Aryan invasion. This is an example.
There is nothing in that link that supports INVASION theory apart from the guy's views.

There are two theories. AIT and AMT. AIT stands for "Aryan INVASION theory" and AMT stands for "Aryan MIGRATION theory". Any historian or archaeologist worth his salt DOES NOT believe in AIT anymore. AMT on the other hand is still disputed. Even if AMT in the future gets to be proven as fact it is still is a far cry from the INVASION theory that you are trying to pass out as fact.

See colonial Europeans could not fathom the thought that Indo-European languages could have originated from brown skinned folks. For them Europe had to be the fountain of everything.

Btw there is as much evidence in support of "Out of India" theory as there is for the "Aryan Invasion theory". Both are probably false. Bottom line is that there is no parallel between historic FACTS like Islamic invasion of India and the "Aryan invasion" theory. For arguments sake even if Aryan invasion was a fact then how does that negate Islamic invasion?

http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/indus.html
Quote:
most archaeologists now reject this invasion or migration theory, as they cannot find the slightest trace of it on the ground, and it is unthinkable that the supposed Aryans could have conquered most of India and imposed on it their Vedic culture without leaving any physical evidence of any sort. Even respected archaeologists of the old school of thought, such as Raymond and Bridget Allchin, now admit that the arrival of Indo-Aryans in Northwest India is “scarcely attested in the archaeological record, presumably because their material culture and life-style were already virtually indistinguishable from those of the existing population.”[14] We are very far from the bloody invasion and cultural war envisaged by Max Müller and other nineteenth-century scholars.
Quote:
You mean 180 degrees, 360 would mean that you'd have gone the full circle and pointing in the same direction!
Hah! I knew you would say that. Yes I meant that one was super violent and the other was peaceful but both were deluded hence the 360°.
Quote:
Yes, the actions were different, but the intention may not have been.
One was turn the other cheek kind of guy the other was a violent, paedophile, robber, murderer, slave dealing criminal. Do you dispute that?

Quote:
Also, I feel that the reports about the 'Miracles' of Jesus were made in order to develop the 'Faith' - the Romans would never have converted to the words of a 'Man of Peace' (to them that would be the same as being weak, feminine) if not for the reports of him 'walking on water', 'feeding the 5000', 'turning water to wine', 'raising the dead' and so on. The actions of Muhammad and the Iron men of Muhammad speak for them self.
Right. With logic like that you could justify everything on this planet. If he was messenger of God then why would he need to lie to "develop the faith"?
He could do real miracles and the Romans would have bowed to him. You know like laser beam from his eyes and stuff

Quote:
The British were not motivated by religious zeal, yes, but they were not motivated to build 'the greatest empire the world had ever seen' in which the 'sun never set' by £ alone.
Great Empire = Great wealth. I don't see how my point contradicts what you are saying?

Quote:
Depends what you call positive - I'm just pointing out the facts. The 'Prophet' never said that he was a Messenger of a 'God out there'. As I explained in another post, the fundamental belief he instilled in his community was that 'God does not exist in the six directions'.
So Mohammed never said that he was receiving messages from Allah? Are you by any chance follower of Mohammed? Would you class Mohammed as a gentleman? What sources are you using for Mohammed's life and message? If you are rejecting Islamic source then what is your source? You got direct access to Allah or the fly on the wall that was observing Mohammed's life?

Quote:
There are people that might be offended by this statement you know.
You mean people like MEOW? Well they should not follow religious debates then should they? I am offended by such people who get offended by my statement but freely follow ideologies that are intolerant towards non-believers, gays, women etc etc.

Quote:
a) How can you say with such absolute certainty that 'there is no God'? Where did you look for Him and by what mechanism of perception did you come to this conclusion?
With the same logic that made it pretty clear to me that there is no Santa!

Quote:
b) You can not deny that the Prophet Muhammad existed - it is a historic fact. He may have made his own 'deluded messages' as you term it, but that would not be 'proof' that there is no God. But how likely is it that an illiterate, unschooled man brought up by beduin foster parents could against all odds, achieve what he did? Muhammad performed no miracles, had no training, had no supporters because his 'messages' were against the interests of everyone - so how do you explain his achievements and Islam?
Mohammed existing is a historic fact but Allah existing or Mohammed's message being fact is NOT a historic fact! Islam has no rational basis and the whole belief-system is contradicted by science, philosophy, common sense, human decency and internal inconsistency. In fact I would say Gandhi was billion times better than Mohammed. Gandhi moved billion people with peaceful means. Still does not make him messenger of God (not that he ever claimed that).

Mohammed achieving a lot is more a sign of the time than his divine connection. You think ME back then was full of Phd folks?
Bush achieved so much but does not make him smart does it? There has never been any shortage of idiots who are willing to follow anything. Plus we are seeing consequences of his "achievements" to this day.

Quote:
In the earlier sentence you said that Muhammad made his own deluded messages, now your saying he plagiarized and repackaged pagan religions as did Jesus. Both these statements can not be true.
Deluded messages that he pulled out of his back side to suit his agenda.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/POD_Qur...he_Light.Islam

Islam’s founder routinely made up Qur'an scripture to suit his agenda. However, there was a glimmer of light in this story. Aisha knew better. That’s why she condemned Muhammad the moment he revealed the 24th surah, a "divine" revelation inspired by infidelity. It’s called "The Criterion." Qur'an 24:1

Regarding Pagan stuff. Do you know anything about the Kabah stone? Circling the Kabah stone? Moon God? Where the word "Allah" came form?

Yes lot of Christian practises are also stolen from Pagans. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking and simple research can see that Islam and Christianity are nothing more than wishful thinking.

Quote:
Why do you suppose that Muhammad would risk his life for this repakaging.
Fame, glory, personality cult and maybe even epileptic fits? Why does a thief RISK breaking into a house? Just risking something does not automatically make it the truth. I have no particular theory to promote.

Quote:
Why would Jesus be crucified for it?

God complex maybe? Strong belief in the cause? Why would any modern cult member be willing to die for the cause? No shortage of idiots in this world. I guess he died for my sins? LOL

What is with these silly questions? Got any point or just mumbo jumbo? You are not proving anything to me.

Jamesk I recommend these two book by Ibn Warraq. The pen name Ibn Warraq (Arabic ابن وراق, most literally "son of a paper maker") is used due to concerns for his personal safety and one that has been adopted by dissident authors throughout the history of Islam.

After all Mohammed did set a good example on how to control the pen of a poet by getting him murdered. Look up info on poet Kaab Ibn Al' Ashraf.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Muslim/dp/0879759844

http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-.../dp/1591020689


I will await the usual groan that I get from Meow
This user groans at for this post:
  #159  
Old 29.07.2007, 13:28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Zurich
Posts: 264
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 61 Times in 51 Posts
Greenhill has earned some respectGreenhill has earned some respect
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
Jamesk I recommend these two book by Ibn Warraq. The pen name Ibn Warraq (Arabic ابن وراق, most literally "son of a paper maker") is used due to concerns for his personal safety and one that has been adopted by dissident authors throughout the history of Islam.
Check your reference. This is what i found about Ibn Warraq.


Critics
Herbert Berg has labelled him as polemical and inconsistent in his writing.[5]Fred Donner, a professor in Near Eastern studies, notes Ibn Warraq's lack of specialist training in Arabic studies, citing "inconsistent handling of Arabic materials," and unoriginal arguments. Donner also criticizes Ibn Warraq for what he describes as "heavy-handed favoritism" and "the compiler’s [Ibn Warraq] agenda, which is not scholarship, but anti-Islamic polemic." [6]

Are you by any chance following Hinduism. From your posts you are very much against Christianity, Islam and Judaism. You are praising Govt of India and Gandhi. You said you don't believe in God so what are your views about many Gods.

What are your believes?

I agree with Jamesk that your extremist views about Abrahamic religions will offend lot of readers. Maybe its time we should learn about other religions and your views will be highly appreciated.

Last edited by Greenhill; 29.07.2007 at 13:38. Reason: typo
  #160  
Old 29.07.2007, 17:33
Jamesk's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 156
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Jamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeable
Re: Mosques with or without Minarette?

Quote:
View Post
For arguments sake even if Aryan invasion was a fact then how does that negate Islamic invasion?
I'm not white, and don't subscribe to the belief in 'white supremecy' - but there is evidence that this white Aryan race made mischief where ever it went, india included. I'll read about the Aryans in india when I have time, lets leave it for now.

Quote:
One was turn the other cheek kind of guy the other was a violent, paedophile, robber, murderer, slave dealing criminal. Do you dispute that?
These are labels that can be used to discredit anyone. The Prophet Muhammad was none of those things. There is no evidence that he was violent. Yes, his men robbed caravans, but he did not murder anyone, neither did he commit any crime. Yes, he accepted a child bride - she was the daughter of his longtime friend, who can be thought of as the 'second in command' and became the first Caliph on the Prophets death. This episode might be considered 'bad' from our perspective - but the Prophet lived in an open community and no one considered this 'bad' at the time. In fact it was considered an honor to marry into the Prophets household, and the Prophet died in her lap. No one in the 1billion + Islamic community today considers it 'bad' either.


Quote:
Right. With logic like that you could justify everything on this planet. If he was messenger of God then why would he need to lie to "develop the faith"?
He could do real miracles and the Romans would have bowed to him. You know like laser beam from his eyes and stuff
Jesus is not considered 'messenger of God', but the 'Son of God' - in the spiritual or mystic sense, not a physical sense. Jesus didn't tell lies - if the 'reports' of his miracles were exaggerated, it was after his crucifiction, so he would not be responsible for them.

Quote:
Great Empire = Great wealth. I don't see how my point contradicts what you are saying?
Great Empires may = Great wealth, but great empires are not built on greed - there is a slight difference here.


Quote:
I am offended by such people who get offended by my statement but freely follow ideologies that are intolerant towards non-believers, gays, women etc etc.
OK, point taken.


Quote:
With the same logic that made it pretty clear to me that there is no Santa!
There is a bit of difference between santa and the concept of divinity.


Quote:
Islam has no rational basis and the whole belief-system is contradicted by science, philosophy, common sense, human decency and internal inconsistency. In fact I would say Gandhi was billion times better than Mohammed. Gandhi moved billion people with peaceful means. Still does not make him messenger of God (not that he ever claimed that).
Depends on how you want to see things - Islam had it's golden age where it was the basis of 'science, philosophy and human decency'. Yes, Gandhi was a great man - but he didn't even manage to unite his own country. India was divided in spite of all his efforts. Muhammad has united a quarter of the world.


Quote:
Islam’s founder routinely made up Qur'an scripture to suit his agenda.
Why don't you try to 'routinely make up scripture to suit your agenda'? As I mentioned before, there was no Quran or scripture at the time of the Prophet - the Prophet was the source of the inspiration. This accusation is absurd.

The site you mention is telling nonsense - there are a lot of such sites. The incident involving Aysia (the Prophets wife) was that she had an affair with a young man. The elders in the community came to the Prophet to demand that he makes punishment for adultery on the couple - as per Judaic Law. The Prophet said, ok and pronounced a tough sentence for adultery. This pleased the elders. Then he continued and said that to prove this 'crime' there would need to be 'four eye witnesses to the sexual act'. Then he pronounced a sentence on 'false accusations', which was to be several times worse then that for the crime of adultery. In this way, he silenced the accusers.


Quote:
What is with these silly questions? Got any point or just mumbo jumbo? You are not proving anything to me.
I'm not trying to prove anything - just explain that we are all the same, and to understand all is to forgive all. It's easy to label some one 'muslim', 'jew' , 'hindu'. 'sikh', 'black' or whatever, and paint a very bad picture of him so as to generate hatred.

Quote:
After all Mohammed did set a good example on how to control the pen of a poet by getting him murdered. Look up info on poet Kaab Ibn Al' Ashraf.
The 'poet' in question was making fun of the Prophet, or below the belt attacks on the Prophet - who had him executed. This is not called murder, the Prophet did what he had to do to ensure that the 'message' goes out - as history shows, he made the right choices from that perspective.

The silly sites you mention ('why i'm not a muslim', etc) don't mean anything - for all I know they are probably paid, brainwashed or manipulated to say such things so as to generate hatred and conflict amongst men. The same as the 'mad arabs/muslims with box cutters that hate our freedoms' nonsense.

If you want to know anything about Islam, you'll need to read the works of the great Sufis.
__________________
James
Closed Thread

Tags
community, democracy, division, intolerance, minarettes, mosques, planning applications, racism, referendums, religion, religious expression, svp, swiss politics, tolerance




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mosques in Switzerland - Zurich & Baden ahswitzerland Other/general 5 29.07.2008 01:30


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0