Islam's image: reformation and makeover

[Vinod2070]

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

And also a minimum common knowledge on both sides.

Everything I mentioned here should be common knowledge to any student of history from the subcontinent.

If you have specific issues with any specific part, point them.

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

You are doing what people like you typically do. You lack knowledge perhaps and you are surely in denial.

Maybe I was asking too much from a fundamentalist.

What matter is facts. I care a damn for your labels.

 

[Vinod2070]

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

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

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

For Islam, Apostasy means death in most cases.

The answer goes something like this:

Almost all Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are our apostates. They are doing fine as far as I can see.

Though 4 in 5 of them now want to kill their own apostates.

 

[Roybot]

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

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

Not true mate, you would see a lot of Christian countries in the sub continent if that was the case.

Colonialism was never about religion, it was always about money.

 

[Vinod2070]

Not true mate, you would see a lot of Christian countries in the sub continent if that was the case.

Colonialism was never about religion, it was always about money.

Well, it was about money and empire making, yes.

The missionary activities did play a part in making them feel superior about their religion and looking down on natives. The only reason India didn't fall to the missionaries is for the same reason it didn't fall completely to the Islamic invaders.

A strong Indian civilization that had the capacity to ride out the worst and come out a winner in the long term.

 

[fallstuff]

And also a minimum common knowledge on both sides.

Everything I mentioned here should be common knowledge to any student of history from the subcontinent.

If you have specific issues with any specific part, point them.



You are doing what people like you typically do. You lack knowledge perhaps and you are surely in denial.



What matter is facts. I care a damn for your labels.

No one knows about your little facts outside the bubble you call your world. When you are going to make stuff up, at least put a good effort in it.

 

[Vinod2070]

No one knows about your little facts outside the bubble you call your world. When you are going to make stuff up, at least put a good effort in it.

Point out which facts you have an issue with. And give me your alternate facts.

Do you have issues with the fact that Pakistan, Afghanistan, Persia, Egypt and many other places had continuous unchallenged Muslim rule for long and totally lost their own culture, religion and civilization?

Or that the Muslim rules in many parts of India was not that unchallenged and they needed Hindus to be on their side?

Or you want to deny that there were any Islamic atrocities in India?

What exactly is your issue?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

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

nobody is asking to change what is written..only asking to change interpretations..that's what everybody do.

 

[jayron]

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

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

Maybe I was asking too much from a fundamentalist.

What do you want source for? the temple ruins lie all around India. Hampi is one of the largest.

The only structure intact in the complex is this elephant stable because it is similar to Islamic architecture

Some of the largest existing temples in India were also demolished by the muslim rulers and rebuilt. Ex. Somnath (demolished and rebuilt 6 times), SriRangam temple, Meenakshi temple.

Somnath

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

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

i am glad that you said it..instead of saying white lies.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

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

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

yes..you are right..christian priests oppose communists..in my place they use prayer time speeches against communists in election time..they oppose school books which promote inter religious marriage and freedom of the choice of their kid.

 

[peristalsiso]

In my view, the Quran doesn't need to get changed / rewritten. You'd need a new Prophet for that.

But the Sharia could use an update, by removing the punishments for "social crimes" and "critiques of the Prophet or faith"..
Insecure xenophobes need to punish others for insulting their faith. Confident faithful just shrug and move on.
Oppressors need to punish others for "social crimes" in the name of their Lord. Confident faithful leave the punishing of social crimes to Allah.

And while the Quran does not need to be updated, like others have said here before, it's the current and future generations of Imams that determine how Quran verses get interpreted to today's situation. If they'd focus less on domination of others through violence that's (according to them) permitted by Allah, then Islam would become a "respectable faith" in the eyes of followers of other Faiths.
It would also allow the followers of Islam to get go of that notion that (militarily futile) suicidal violence serves a purpose and/or gets them to Heaven.

Islamic extremists glorify their own futile deaths and the deaths they cause among their own people. They're completely stuck, banging their heads against a wall so hard that they remove themselves from the gene pool.
If you'll allow me a metaphor: This is what i think extremist-islamic military strategy and tactics resemble at the moment;

Seperation of state and religion should also be put on the Islamic agenda. At the moment they're joined at the hip in Islam by the radicals.
"There can be no good statecraft without having Islamic principles as it's base." says the Islamic extremist; I'd say the generally more peaceful nations that have seperated church and state have proven otherwise thoroughly.

 

[sid426]

Only one thing is permanent ant that is CHANGE.

Islam and Muslims in general are stuck between the medieval Arabic Islam and the new world order where religion is a personal matter.

Sanatan Dharma itself was in a state of decline but its followers have started gathering momentum against its evils and the result is for everybody to see.

Christianity just like Islam was an integral part of politics but the continued struggle against it in the form of revolutions and renaissance has made the European nations to keep religion away from the politics,which in today's world is better known as 'secularism'.

The problem is Islam is that religion and politics are so much imbibed in each other that they have become inseparable.

That, I think, is the real issue. Until and unless religion is separated from the state,there is no solution.

 

[fallstuff]

Point out which facts you have an issue with. And give me your alternate facts.

Do you have issues with the fact that Pakistan, Afghanistan, Persia, Egypt and many other places had continuous unchallenged Muslim rule for long and totally lost their own culture, religion and civilization?

Or that the Muslim rules in many parts of India was not that unchallenged and they needed Hindus to be on their side?

Or you want to deny that there were any Islamic atrocities in India?

What exactly is your issue?

You are the one making the claim not me, its incumbant upon you that you support your claim.

 

[jayron]

You are the one making the claim not me, its incumbant upon you that you support your claim.

Why do you beat around the bush instead of arguing straight? What do you want proof for? What kind of proof will be good enough for you?

 

[Luftwaffe]

Though 4 in 5 of them now want to kill their own apostates.

How do you know that 4 out of 5 wants to kill ........? got holy dreams?

Wow the thread topped 11 pages and indians are here to reform others religion.. Members have become fanatic on Islam zaid hamid and so on topics..

It is time Moderators closed down this thread and any other thread on Islam because according to Mods religious debate is off limits on this forum..