Iraqi Shias protest against US troops

[Michael]

Hardly, there were no wars for conversion in the biggest Muslim countries today, population wise.

And you may be surprised at the appeal of the simplicity of Islam. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Westerners converted, given some religious education.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Religion is as much about identity as it is about the message. Speaking of messages, could you get any more dumbed-down than Xiantiy? Love Jesus = go to Heaven - done. Talk about simple. It doesn't get any more simple than that!


Are you telling me Muslims did not attack and conquer Persia? Well are you? Is that your position? (That'll be news to every Iranian I have ever spoken with. If so don't be silly).

You know Indian history, Indians were repeatedly conquered and ruled by Muslims. Those that converted got a tax break. Many converted - that must be the simplicity you're talking about! Pfff LOL

Sam, I'm sure you're a Muslim for the same reason most Europeans are Christian.


Agreed?
Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Religion is as much about identity as it is about the message. Speaking of messages, could you get any more dumbed-down than Xiantiy? Love Jesus = go to Heaven - done. Talk about simple. It doesn't get any more simple than that!


Are you telling me Muslims did not attack and conquer Persia? Well are you? Is that your position? (That'll be news to every Iranian I have ever spoken with. If so don't be silly).

You know Indian history, Indians were repeatedly conquered and ruled by Muslims. Those that converted got a tax break. Many converted - that must be the simplicity you're talking about! Pfff LOL

Sam, I'm sure you're a Muslim for the same reason most Europeans are Christian.


Agreed?
Michael

Read some Asian history. Most Asians converted to Islam by choice.

And you forget, the Persians conquered and were conquered by lots of peoples (including the Greeks), but only converted when Islam came along. Much of the Golden Age of Islam was due to Persian contributions. One could say, why not adopt the Greek religion, why Islam? After all, the Indians retained their religion with 800 years of Mughal rule.

And Indians gave up on Buddhism after 1000 years of it too. Ethnically cleansed the Buddhists out of existence.

Buddhism was wiped out by the Brahmanical counter-revolution, Shashank and Pushyamitra Shung massacred monks and Buddhism was banished from the country until the rise of Dr. Ambedkar, who, through his studies, chose it as the religion of his choice and himself converted in to Buddhism. Many saints who came from low castes and were the vehicle of opposition to Brahminical system were done to death.

 

[Michael]

Read some Asian history. Most Asians converted to Islam by choice.

RE: converted.
Yeah so did most Europeans... Ooo and most Native South Americans - yeah, they really loved the Conquistadors. Lovely chaps those Conquistadors.... :bugeye:


You know I asked many of my Iranian friends the same question. Reza said (I'll quote as best I remember): "Those mother f*cking Muslims raped our culture. The Greeks never did that. Even the barbarian Mongols never did that. Why do you think Farci is 30% Persian and 70% Arabic. The only way we survived was to make up the religion Shia."


Funny that, completely two different perspectives on the same history?


[sarcasm]
Although, I suppose, those friends are not a Muslim and more. They have a different take on the whole thing. Perhaps another perspective may think Persians were so impressed with the Arabs and Hooo Hooo Hooo look here Mohammad was the Last Prophet - it says here in black in white. In this Arab Book. Gee it's filled to the brime with all this wonderfully Jewish scripture blended with Arabic tradition. Hey Hey, they even write in a variant of Syriac - hey Syria used to be our province, screw Persian, screw Farci lets speak only in Arabic! HEY HEY, sure we're a civilized nation and have been for 5000 years but O boy these Arab nomads they are the cat's-meow baby
Screw Zoroaster! Lets party like it's 1979!!!
I'm sure the natives of South America thought those exact same thoughts ( they are majority Catholic and speak either Portuguese or Spanish now). HEY HEY lets bend all the way over and *ouch* I mean Oooo la la this is fun fun fun! Lets be Catholic and forget our culture and Gee look this book that is 50% Jewish scripture looks great...!

Pffff!!!
LOL

*India polytheist" Hey Hey look here in this Jewish-ish book, it says I'm an idiot, I should pray towards Arabia and venerate an Arab. Oh, it also looks like my whole concept of afterlife, karma cycles and the supreme being, and heaven and hell and my language and my culture is all backwards and wronge. HEY HEY baby lets dance - Why it says right here in black and white polytheist is an infidel. Oh My Gods THAT'S ME!!! I'm a turning me a Muslim and learning me Arabic.

[/sarcasm]

Out of curiosity what book would you suggest as an impartial take on the specific History of the Islamic conquests in the subcontinent? That is, a book that focuses on the Wars fought in the name of Islam against the people living in the area traditionally thought of as India?

Michael


PS: So, you were saying about simplicity? Which is the more simple-minded Islam or Christianity?

 

[GeoffP]

I came back. Boo.

Interesting points, Mike. I think there's a suppressed anger by a lot of Persians towards Arabs: these days it seems closer to the surface. The comments about the Greeks rings quite true.

Read some Asian history. Most Asians converted to Islam by choice.

No, not in India, and not in what is now Pakistan.

And you forget, the Persians conquered and were conquered by lots of peoples (including the Greeks), but only converted when Islam came along. Much of the Golden Age of Islam was due to Persian contributions. One could say, why not adopt the Greek religion, why Islam? After all, the Indians retained their religion with 800 years of Mughal rule.

Your comments smack of supremacism - "they were conquered? well, they must have loved their overlords, because they converted". Not pleasant.

And Indians gave up on Buddhism after 1000 years of it too. Ethnically cleansed the Buddhists out of existence.

Source? Did they "cleanse" it out of Afghanistan too?

 

[S.A.M.]

RE: converted.
Yeah so did most Europeans... Ooo and most Native South Americans - yeah, they really loved the Conquistadors. Lovely chaps those Conquistadors.... :bugeye:


You know I asked many of my Iranian friends the same question. Reza said (I'll quote as best I remember): "Those mother f*cking Muslims raped our culture. The Greeks never did that. Even the barbarian Mongols never did that. Why do you think Farci is 30% Persian and 70% Arabic. The only way we survived was to make up the religion Shia."


Funny that, completely two different perspectives on the same history?


[sarcasm]
Although, I suppose, those friends are not a Muslim and more. They have a different take on the whole thing. Perhaps another perspective may think Persians were so impressed with the Arabs and Hooo Hooo Hooo look here Mohammad was the Last Prophet - it says here in black in white. In this Arab Book. Gee it's filled to the brime with all this wonderfully Jewish scripture blended with Arabic tradition. Hey Hey, they even write in a variant of Syriac - hey Syria used to be our province, screw Persian, screw Farci lets speak only in Arabic! HEY HEY, sure we're a civilized nation and have been for 5000 years but O boy these Arab nomads they are the cat's-meow baby
Screw Zoroaster! Lets party like it's 1979!!!
I'm sure the natives of South America thought those exact same thoughts ( they are majority Catholic and speak either Portuguese or Spanish now). HEY HEY lets bend all the way over and *ouch* I mean Oooo la la this is fun fun fun! Lets be Catholic and forget our culture and Gee look this book that is 50% Jewish scripture looks great...!

Pffff!!!
LOL

*India polytheist" Hey Hey look here in this Jewish-ish book, it says I'm an idiot, I should pray towards Arabia and venerate an Arab. Oh, it also looks like my whole concept of afterlife, karma cycles and the supreme being, and heaven and hell and my language and my culture is all backwards and wronge. HEY HEY baby lets dance - Why it says right here in black and white polytheist is an infidel. Oh My Gods THAT'S ME!!! I'm a turning me a Muslim and learning me Arabic.

[/sarcasm]

Out of curiosity what book would you suggest as an impartial take on the specific History of the Islamic conquests in the subcontinent? That is, a book that focuses on the Wars fought in the name of Islam against the people living in the area traditionally thought of as India?

Michael


PS: So, you were saying about simplicity? Which is the more simple-minded Islam or Christianity?

I find Islam simpler because it is based on the individual.
There is individual action based on personal motivation, there are rules of social intercourse and there is scope for individualism without sacrificing thought or faith.

There is no sacrifice, no intercession and no one except yourself is responsible for you or your behaviour.

That is what I find extremely attractive about Islam. There is no wrong way to follow your faith, because behaviour is based on the individual. You alone are responsible for educating yourself and following your faith as you wish, all constraints are social, not religious.

Books:

Dr. Satu Limaye, "Islam in Asia," Asia-PacificCenter for Security Studies, April 1999.

Bruce Vaughn, "Islam in South and Southeast Asia," CRS Report for Congress, Feb. 8, 2005.

Robert Guisepi, "The Spread Of Islam To Southeast Asia," 2002.

edit2: You could also check out the link in my post to Geoff following this

 

[GeoffP]

More History by Hindutva?

Let me guess, their whirling confused everyone into conversion.

No, their bloodthirstiness. You've already seen the links I've posted on the matter.

It's surprising that you can dismiss the aggression of your coreligionists with such humour; you seem not to comprehend the possibility that the presently peaceful Sufis were not always so. Yet you seem cognisant of the notion that other people do change, with which you excuse most historical islamic aggression. Which is it then? Or shall you simply cry "BS" and refuse comment again?

 

[GeoffP]

I find Islam simpler because it is based on the individual.
There is individual action based on personal motivation, there are rules of social intercourse and there is scope for individualism without sacrificing thought or faith.

What scope? That allowed by the Quran? Islam is no more permissive in the area of personal responsibility than any other.

There is no sacrifice, no intercession and no one except yourself is responsible for you or your behaviour.

No sacrifice? Sawm, zakat, salah? You don't see even haij as a form of sacrifice?

And in what religion is someone else responsible for your behaviour?

That is what I find extremely attractive about Islam. There is no wrong way to follow your faith.

Regrettably (for everyone else), that is what is also extremely disturbing about islam.

 

[S.A.M.]

I came back. Boo.

Interesting points, Mike. I think there's a suppressed anger by a lot of Persians towards Arabs: these days it seems closer to the surface. The comments about the Greeks rings quite true.

There is?

No, not in India, and not in what is now Pakistan.

You must have a lot of alternative history at your fingertips

Your comments smack of supremacism - "they were conquered? well, they must have loved their overlords, because they converted". Not pleasant.

Like I said the major contributions to science during the Islamic golden age was from Persians

Source? Did they "cleanse" it out of Afghanistan too?

You could read Savarkars book on Hindutva.

And the Mongol kings of Afghanistan used to be patrons of Buddhism, before they converted to Islam and invaded India.

I remember only Kushana, but I'm sure there were other royal patrons.

edit: here is a link
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/e...d_histories/history_afghanistan_buddhism.html

 

[S.A.M.]

What scope? That allowed by the Quran? Islam is no more permissive in the area of personal responsibility than any other.



No sacrifice? Sawm, zakat, salah? You don't see even haij as a form of sacrifice?

And in what religion is someone else responsible for your behaviour?



Regrettably (for everyone else), that is what is also extremely disturbing about islam.

You are severely undereducated about the religion. Or biased. Whatever.

 

[Michael]

Hi Sam, you feel that Islam is easy than Xianianity?
Lets see, I believe it goes something like this: "I believe on Jesus as my Savior and accept him into my heart and that he died for my sins so that I may party hard in heaven"
Done - now you are a Xian and go to heaven!
You do not have to do anything else, don't have to go to church, bla bla bla ... simply done. you now get to go to heaven.


How much more simple-minded a religion could one ask for?

[note: A Chinese friend of mine once told me she wanted to be Xian and not Buddhist because Buddhism means you have to think and with Xianianty you don't have to think about anything - jusyt go to heaven]

Haaa! As if one could just pick a reality and be done with it!
Too funny!

Anyway, Xianity IMHO is the more simple-minded but hey maybe Islam is even more a nondescript simpleton religion???

Robert Guisepi, "The Spread Of Islam To Southeast Asia," 2002.

Robert wrties:
Islam came to Southeast Asia with traders rather than through military conquest as it did in much of South Asia and the Arab Middle East.


What I want is a book about the conquests of India in the name Islam. The wars that were fought. Sure I agree that Malay and Indonesians are Islamic by virtue of it made for good business deals back in the day. But Persia and India - those also involved war.

Which books offer a unbiased view of the Wars fought in the name of Islam?

Michael II

PS: Sam if you read that blue blurb. Now you are no longer a Muslim but a Christian! THAT is how easy Xianity is. Can't get easier than that mate

 

[Michael]

I came back. Boo.

welcome back

 

[Michael]

There is?

:bawl:

 

[S.A.M.]

Hi Sam, you feel that Islam is easy than Xianianity?
Lets see, I believe it goes something like this: "I believe on Jesus as my Savior and accept him into my heart and that he died for my sins so that I my party hard in heven"
Done - now you are a Xian and go to heaven!
You do not have to do anything else, don't have to go to church, bla bla bla ... simply done. you now get to go to heaven.


How much more simple-minded a religion could one ask for?

[note: A Chinese friend of mine once told me she wanted to be Xian and not Buddhist because Buddhism means you have to think and with Xianianty you don't have to think about anything - jusyt go to heaven]

Haaa! As if one could just pick a reality and be done with it!
Too funny!

Anyway, Xianity IMHO is the more simple-minded but hey maybe Islam is even more a nondescript simpleton religion???

Robert wrties:
Islam came to Southeast Asia with traders rather than through military conquest as it did in much of South Asia and the Arab Middle East.


What I want is a book about the conquests of India in the name Islam. The wars that were fought. Sure I agree that Malay and Indonesians are Islamic by virtue of it made for good business deals back in the day. But Persia and India - those also involved war.

Which books offer a unbiased view of the Wars fought in the name of Islam?

Michael II

PS: Sam if you read that blue blurb. Now you are no longer a Muslim but a Christian! THAT is how easy Xianity is. Can't get easier than that mate

Depends on what it is you want. I find it much easier being responsible for myself.

Oops almost forgot, look up the link on comparative religion in the post I wrote Geoff.

Here:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/e...d_histories/history_afghanistan_buddhism.html

And those books do deal with Islam coming to Asia.

 

[S.A.M.]

:bawl:

I have Iranian friends too, and they are not atheists.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Allah does not help you Sam?

 

[GeoffP]

You must have a lot of alternative history at your fingertips

Merely sense and education.

Like I said the major contributions to science during the Islamic golden age was from Persians

Which proves what, exactly? The US collected a number of rocket scientists from Nazi Germany: that did not make Germany and the US the best of friends.

edit: here is a link
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/e...d_histories/history_afghanistan_buddhism.html

I will read your link: I hope you will take my comments in the same light.

 

[S.A.M.]

Merely sense and education.

Sorry your lack of knowledge says otherwise.

Which proves what, exactly? The US collected a number of rocket scientists from Nazi Germany: that did not make Germany and the US the best of friends.

I see you are not acquainted with the works of the Persian Muslim philosophers.

I will read your link: I hope you will take my comments in the same light.

I'm acquainted with your brand of knowledge. Sorry, I dislike speaking from a viewpoint of ignorance and bias.

 

[GeoffP]

You are severely undereducated about the religion. Or biased. Whatever.

My opinion of islam - for, as you say, everyone is free to experience islam as their conscience dictates - is based on observation and conclusion. If you cannot see at least three of the five pillars as a form of sacrifice (the fast of Ramadan is really not a sacrifice? really?) then that is your issue; if, similarly (and a point you yourself have alluded to) you cannot see that the absence of a cohesive force for actual peace and order in islam is a problem, then that regrettably becomes mine, and I must call you on it. I find it absurd that you call my position uneducated when I have no reason for any inherent bias for or against it - being, under my own admission, a secularist and not a practitioner of it, nor any other faith - and when I make my criticisms on grounds you yourself have lain.

We differ only in that some people call islamic violence unislamic; you have your interpretation and your very tiny minority of revisionists (whom, I note, you attack without hesitation if they seem too critical or too truthful), and the other side has a direct and unambiguous literal interpretation. If you want change to your religion - and I still presume you do - then your issue is with the abundant, popular and powerful latter party, and not with elements of the former or with me. So: given that my criticisms are based on things actually written in the Quran and the hadiths and the biographies and the traditions, and that yours are airy-fairy suppositions as to whether or not the injunction to "beat" your wives (Q 4: 34) actually translates into the lyrics of a 20th century pop rock song ("beat it" ), I tend to think my concerns are more realistic and worthy.

But you say the islamic faith is a matter of choice: and I have not the wherewithal to refuse your right to be blind.

 

[GeoffP]

Sorry your lack of knowledge says otherwise.

Ad hominem: a refuge.

I see you are not acquainted with the works of the Persian Muslim philosophers.

I see that you are not acquainted with the fact that Persia was invaded and forced to become islamic. Michael makes quite a good point here.

I'm acquainted with your brand of knowledge. Sorry, I dislike speaking from a viewpoint of ignorance and bias.

Then why do you do it? I have no reason for any bias: you do. I have written viewpoints on the matters of debate: you do not.

And, in the final analysis, if you will refuse to read my links or posts as I do yours, then you have refused all courtesy in debate. You do the radicals a great service; and confirm my concerns.

 

[S.A.M.]

My opinion of islam - for, as you say, everyone is free to experience islam as their conscience dictates - is based on observation and conclusion. If you cannot see at least three of the five pillars as a form of sacrifice (the fast of Ramadan is really not a sacrifice? really?) then that is your issue; if, similarly (and a point you yourself have alluded to) you cannot see that the absence of a cohesive force for actual peace and order in islam is a problem, then that regrettably becomes mine, and I must call you on it. I find it absurd that you call my position uneducated when I have no reason for any inherent bias for or against it - being, under my own admission, a secularist and not a practitioner of it, nor any other faith - and when I make my criticisms on grounds you yourself have lain.

We differ only in that some people call islamic violence unislamic; you have your interpretation and your very tiny minority of revisionists (whom, I note, you attack without hesitation if they seem too critical or too truthful), and the other side has a direct and unambiguous literal interpretation. If you want change to your religion - and I still presume you do - then your issue is with the abundant, popular and powerful latter party, and not with elements of the former or with me. So: given that my criticisms are based on things actually written in the Quran and the hadiths and the biographies and the traditions, and that yours are airy-fairy suppositions as to whether or not the injunction to "beat" your wives (Q 4: 34) actually translates into the lyrics of a 20th century pop rock song ("beat it[/i" ), I tend to think my concerns are more realistic and worthy.

But you say the islamic faith is a matter of choice: and I have not the wherewithal to refuse your right to be blind.

The history of Islam shows that when people study the religion and practice it, they are tolerant and fair. When they move away from it, they become dogmatic and extreme. That is the best argument in favor of Islam.