|
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Anuradha Chepur
Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 933
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi zeh,
We can have a never-ending thread this way, so we must know where to stop. Check your facts again, and you will agree that Qasim was the first one to invade in 715 AD, and he went home with the loot, so he couldn't have brought about social reforms. Initially, the invaders did not stay back in India.
Castes are still there.
And sati, which is bride burning, can't be done secretly. There is a lot of fire and a lot of smoke. If the mughals have protested against sati, it is surely commendable. Akbar tried his best to stop it, but only Bentick could do it by way of a law. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anuradha Chepur
Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 933
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There should be nothing wrong in wanting to spread a religion. Most religions usually spread by way of discourse, and people convert by choice.
But if the goal is to wipe out all other religions and emerge as the only religion a.s.a.p., then forceful-conversion, bullying, terrorizing and pruning down the non-believers is the policy. Such a policy may not always be a cake walk all the way. Peoples are capable of resisting it. Tyrants naturally evoke a sense of revolt in the victims of tyranny, and such a revolt needn�t be taken as offence.
Actually, the meek and submissive peoples are at fault for allowing themselves to be victimized for centuries, and now it is too late to protest. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
k.m.m
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Location: Riyadh
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
asterix wrote: |
If you mean swords, k.m.m. what is your point?
Much of the Bible is history, and the sword was a weapon of those times.
There is a verse in the Koran referred to as, "The sword verse", and there are 164 verses about jihad, which is not a peaceful pastime.
I just don't think you can call Islam a peaceful religion. |
SWORD VERSE ??!!!!
where is that ?? I NEVER heard about it .
I am a fraid it is the same FAKED verses mentioned earler !!
or may be from Alqaedah dirty books/web site ,which is a gainst muslim before others.
164 a bout Jihad " CP may be can confferme " It is Ok, for your information there are many type of Jihad which are good and neccisary for the person him/here self. Jihad doesnt mean all the time fighting /killing . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
k.m.m
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Location: Riyadh
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ad-miral wrote: |
flying pig wrote: |
No, not at all.
It's one of the few, REAL, non-childish things left to argue about. |
take a look at for example asterix' post.
He said "I just don't believe Islam is a peaceful religion."
So, here is a fictive monologue:
-Terrorists made attacks on WTC and on Pentagon.
-These terrorists are also religious.
-They believe in Islam.
-Islam is not a peaceful religion.
From my very personal point of view this is childish. |
I think every body has the right to think and belive what he/she think is right ..
The Terrorist who attacked WTC " Al qaedah" if we assume it has been done by them ..Those terrorist Group was also attacked many Muslim countres ,we all remember their attacks on Riyadh ,Jeddah, Casablanca, Amman, Turkey, etc..
If they believe in Islam why they ATTACKED Muslim ??
If they believe in Islam why they "their leaders" CAN NOT COME AND VISIT MECCA and pray their ? may be they can take the mic inside the holy mosque and give some lectures about their sick thinking and who support them and where are they hiding !!!!
please see this : http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/student/viewtopic.php?t=19621
KMM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
k.m.m
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Location: Riyadh
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anuradha Chepur wrote: |
Hi zeh,
We can have a never-ending thread this way, so we must know where to stop. Check your facts again, and you will agree that Qasim was the first one to invade in 715 AD, and he went home with the loot, so he couldn't have brought about social reforms. Initially, the invaders did not stay back in India.
Castes are still there.
And sati, which is bride burning, can't be done secretly. There is a lot of fire and a lot of smoke. If the mughals have protested against sati, it is surely commendable. Akbar tried his best to stop it, but only Bentick could do it by way of a law. |
SORRY to interrupt , because above was for ZIH..
Just I want to add something that Muhammad bin qassim and others , they went "invaded as you said" to India to introduce Islam , this is their mean goal , that's why they don't want to stay and occupied the country like others do later ..
So the aim of Muhammad qassim was to introduce Islam and separate it ...why Islam was accepted very fast during that time?
Don�t tell me Muslim forced millions and millions people to do that!! There must be a good reason...
In my opinion,may be the culture systems including religion was not that good , or the ruling system "government" during that time was very weak.
Indonesia which has 200 millions as population ,the biggest Muslim country welcomed Islam as its religion with out any force . Islam enters those Islands in very peace full ways. Why?
Same also Malaysia and Thailand..
thats why we say all the time and others belive also that "Islam is the peace full religen "
KMM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
k.m.m
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Location: Riyadh
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
flying_pig319 wrote: |
k.m.m wrote: |
AND how many times does the word SOWERDS mentioned in Bible/Torah
In Koran : As far as I know " NEVER."
May be because Islam is the religein of PEACE ..
KMM. |
I have to disagree with you. Islam had an entire empire! Do you think they got all that land by simply asking for it? Islam has been very forceful in history- << I can agree with you that the people of Islam are in the forceful to introduce the religen but not forceing the people to enter Islam as we know there are very good relation between Jews and Muslim in Spain and Fatemiah in Eygept and we know that many ministers were Jews and running that governments side by side with Arabs and muslim. If Islam is to convert others by force why so many jews and christains in the Muslims countres?
and now! It's the Islamist extremist groups that want to destroy the Jewish race ("destroy" is NOT a peaceful word), although I know that these groups are not entirely following Islam correctly.<< And now !! those Islamist extremist groups also want to destroy the Muslim people , we all remember Alqaedh terrist group acts aginst us in Riyadh , Jeddah,Casablanca,Indonesia, etc...!! I NEVER HEARED ANY ATTACKED AGAINST ISRAEL BY Alqaedah " it doesnt mean I wish .
so those groups which they work a ginst Islam are totaly NOT MUSLIM .
I don't want to get into a "my religion is more peaceful than YOUR religion" debate, but I think the most peaceful religions would be Buddhism (finding inner peace until Enlightenment, Dharma, and all that Jazz- outward and inward peace is the complete focus of the Tripitaka) or Judaism (whose peacefulness has been taken advantage of by many groups *ehem*, and whose word for "hello" also means "peace", for crying out loud!)- not to toot my own horn or anything .
You could even argue that Hinduism or Zoroastrianism were the most peaceful religions- but not Islam.<<Hellow in both Islam and Judism are also beace ( Salam -shalom).
I don't mean any disrespect to you or your religion, of course, but I think your assessment is a little off, even though there are many great things about Islam and being totally peaceful does not always serve a religion well (*ehem* Judaism *ehem*).
And actually, swords or death are not a big player in the Torah. I think they may be in the Bible (although I'm no expert, I know Jesus gets crucified in order to save his religion).
To "fight" the Pharoah in Egypt in the exodus, the Jews used G/d plagues.
When the Maccabees "fought" the Syrians in Canaan, they didn't even have weapons, because the Syrians took them all to use against the Jews, even though the Jews were outnumbered 100-1.
Most of the stories in the Torah are related to family, or tests of being a good and moral being. (I just typed "being a being", haha). |
<<
when I mentined that, I do mean that Islam is not as many people thought only vailance and fight because the word SWORDS NEVER MENTIONED IN KORAN "
thanks flying_pig319
KMM. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anuradha Chepur
Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 933
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
KMM: "SORRY to interrupt , because above was for ZIH.."
You are welcome KMM. . .
Qasim and others came mainly to loot. Gazni went back and constructed a palace with what he seized from here. Later on they started staying back, establishing their rule and spreading the faith.
Hinduism has moved on with time, but in those days it was harsh with the outcastes, and these people were lured into converting. Yeah, some of the outcastes might have tried to seek solace in Islam.
Also, widow-remarriage system wasn�t there in those days, and the life of a widow was hell. Girls used to get married early and get widowed early because of the mortality rate. In those days, it was the extended family system and widows used to be harassed by the family members both in the husband�s house and in the parental house. This paved way for the sati system, and people felt it was better for a woman to die on the funeral of the husband than to live a miserable life. It was like mercy killing. So it�s likely that some widows saw hope of a new life and converted to Islam and got remarried. I agree it was good for them. The benefit the mulsim men had in this was, they could get conversions and then proliferate by way of begetting children. It was actually give and take.
But the beautiful rajput ladies used to commit sati after their men died in the battles, only to save themselves from being molested by Muslim men, and this is a well known fact. Some muslims in India are very beautiful, and they are, in effect, the bloodline of the forcibly converted rajput widows. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
k.m.m
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Location: Riyadh
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
CP wrote: |
Dear K.M.M.:
Thank you for the explanations. Very helpful. Let me make sure I understand,
In 8:12, the meaning is restricted to the battle in Mecca, right? No modern Muslim should use the passage to justify fighting or killing anyone who doesn�t believe in Islam, right?
9:123: It looks like most translations forget to put in �who attack you,� a critical difference in the meaning. What is wrong with these translators? Should we not write to the Web sites and point out this important omission?
And it would be only right for Muslim leaders to announce to the world that Muslims should not use this passage to justify fighting anyone, because it refers to a centuries-old battle; it is not a directive from Allah for Muslims to kill anyone who is not a believer in Islam, right?
In 2:191, if �kill them� means �fight them,� why does it say �kill them� instead of �fight them,� even in your translation? Why is there no problem in distinguishing �kill� from �fight� where it says, in your translation, �if they fight you then kill them�? They are very different words with very different meanings in both languages, aren�t they?
Where it says, �and know that persecution is worse than being killed,� does that mean �worse than being killed� or �worse than fighting�?
5:45: I don�t think it is a quibble with the idea of punishing wrongdoers. I think the idea is that some modern Muslims use this passage as justification to kill non-Muslims. The last part of your translation could be construed to mean, whoever is not a devout Muslim is wicked, but you don�t think that�s a correct interpretation, right?
2:193: If �to worship God freely� is what is meant, then the other translators have really made a huge mistake here. They left out the most important part. I think everyone should notify all translators of the Koran of this terrible mistake. And again, no one should ever use this passage as a justification to kill anyone whose religious beliefs are different, right? Only to fight people who repress religion � that is, the people who do not allow everyone to worship in any religion anywhere exactly as they wish, right?
9:29: So, again, this one is not a directive from Heaven to fight people who refuse to follow the rules laid down by Allah, or to fight them until they pay a tax that the followers of Allah do not have to pay, but rather describes the situation of a centuries-old battle in Mecca only, right?
109:1-109:6: This is a very clear and valuable announcement (from Allah, right?) that says everyone should be allowed to follow his or her own religion. I wish everyone would follow this path.
Again, thank you for the explanations. |
Sorry for late :we are fasting , it is Ramadan ..I hope I understand your comments and questions ..
In 8:12, the meaning is restricted to the battle in Mecca, right? No modern Muslim should use the passage to justify fighting or killing anyone who doesn�t believe in Islam, right?<<< 1- Most of the verses in Koran has a reason why they stated. and as far as I know there are Mecca suras "verses" eight (,examples: Congregation,spoils,Imrans Family ,The Ranks, The Women, The Table,etc.. and Medina verses"suras" , such as Thunder,Mary,The Star , The poets,Joseph...etc..
2-The answer ,YES. fighting some one or killing some one for no reason just because he or she is not believing in Islam is ACRIME ,it is prohibited as per Koran ,the one who do that shall be punished.
9:123: It looks like most translations forget to put in �who attack you,� a critical difference in the meaning. What is wrong with these translators? Should we not write to the Web sites and point out this important omission?<<<I got to know that non of the web sites are approved by any official authority like AL-Azhar in Cairo ,or any Muslim organization ..I don't know why ...
And it would be only right for Muslim leaders to announce to the world that Muslims should not use this passage to justify fighting anyone, because it refers to a centuries-old battle; it is not a directive from Allah for Muslims to kill anyone who is not a believer in Islam, right?<<<Muslim whether leaders or followers are reading Koran , most of people know that and every body knows that ,who support killing anyone because his/her believe is criminal and must be brought to justic.Fighting for no reason is also wrong and not acceptable in Koran . Those leaders and followers are target by those terrorists groups such as Alqaeda.
Q: Can any one of those terrorists group visit the holy mosques in Mecca or Medina? Can any one of them lead the Muslim in Hajj season ? why?? if they are saying we are a muslim why they can not come ?? I think every one has the answers , plus they are not Muslim and they are working for OTHERS ..." My son 8 years old knows that "
Interior Minister Prince Naif yesterday called Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden a silly intelligence agent.http://www.gulfinthemedia.com/index.php?id=245591&news_type=Top&lang=en&PHPSESSID=947dea0b34e22fb8
In 2:191, if �kill them� means �fight them,� why does it say �kill them� instead of �fight them,� even in your translation? Why is there no problem in distinguishing �kill� from �fight� where it says, in your translation, �if they fight you then kill them�? They are very different words with very different meanings in both languages, aren�t they?<<Yes , I think so ...translation some times give wrong path , because the translation understanding ..
let me try to explain something about it , please be pationt :
"KATELO" in ARABIC means" fight them" all the above verses tell that KATELO not OKTLO , the verb comes in the "order verb " oktol" it means "kill" . so the verses looks to me fight not kill , beside the word kill is for individual usually not for a group of people like fight . I hope you got my point .if not I will try to explain more.
Where it says, �and know that persecution is worse than being killed,� does that mean �worse than being killed� or �worse than fighting�?<< I think <<2:191-And kill them wherever you find them, and expel them from where they expelled you, and know that persecution is worse than being killed. And do not fight them at the Restricted Temple unless they fight you in it; if they fight you then kill them, thus is the reward of the disbelievers. It say worse than being killed means "the persecution is worse than killing " . I think HE doesn't say worse than fighting because during fighting may be no killing and the word killing is stronger and means death.
5:45: I don�t think it is a quibble with the idea of punishing wrongdoers. I think the idea is that some modern Muslims use this passage as justification to kill non-Muslims. The last part of your translation could be construed to mean, whoever is not a devout Muslim is wicked, but you don�t think that�s a correct interpretation, right?<<I think so ... it is not necessary to be a devout , it is preferable and good , but if not it doesn't mean you are wicked ..Even during the golden time of Islam , not ALL Muslims are devout , we read that people drinking wine in Baghdad even it is prohibited . We all remember the story of " one thousand night and night" I think it is a healthy phenomena to have differences in the society , good ,bad ,etc..
2:193: If �to worship God freely� is what is meant, then the other translators have really made a huge mistake here. They left out the most important part. I think everyone should notify all translators of the Koran of this terrible mistake. And again, no one should ever use this passage as a justification to kill anyone whose religious beliefs are different, right? Only to fight people who repress religion � that is, the people who do not allow everyone to worship in any religion anywhere exactly as they wish, right?<<< Yes , I think so , it say : 2:193-You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
9:29: So, again, this one is not a directive from Heaven to fight people who refuse to follow the rules laid down by Allah, or to fight them until they pay a tax that the followers of Allah do not have to pay, but rather describes the situation of a centuries-old battle in Mecca only, right?<<<9:29-Fight those who do not believe in God or the Last Day, and they do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, and they do not uphold the system of truth; from among the people who have been given the Scripture; until they pay the fine, willingly or unwillingly. Yes , it is about a battle in Mecca , because it say a among the people of the book who worked a against you and fight you , in the same time not following their book .so in that particular case others are exceptions.
109:1-109:6: This is a very clear and valuable announcement (from Allah, right?) that says everyone should be allowed to follow his or her own religion. I wish everyone would follow this path.<<< Another one also: 11:118. If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people: but they will not cease to dispute ALSO: [16:93] Had GOD willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He sends astray whoever chooses to go astray, and He guides whoever wishes to be guided. You will surely be asked about everything you have done.
thanks CP for reading .
KMM. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|