Is Islam less tolerant than Sikhism, Judaism and Christianity?

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

I didn’t bother including Hinduism because Hindus won’t accept their own scriptures as a benchmark so it’s a waste of time discussing.

But sikhs like Rani, Chanmahi and Banta Singh have been criticising islam for intolerance, and regular trouble makers like faceup/logical and aDbulmaliCk who won’t reveal their own faith have been sticking the knife in since Gupshup was online.

So I would like to test this tolerance of other religions to see if muslims can learn something from them.

We all know that when Salman Rushdie cursed the prophet (SAW) and his wives the proud muslims leaped to his defence and banished the cockroach into a miserable exile, showing the whole world how much our faith means to us.

Some would call this intolerant behaviour, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

As we already know, Isa (Jesus) has already been portrayed as a homosexual in a British play, and his mother Mary was shown as a whore in a film by Brian Depalma. I guess this is tolerance.

Now, can sikhs tell me if they would accept Guru Baba Nanak being portrayed as a child-molester, homosexual, thief, or murderer in the interests of freedom of speech or if you prefer, art. If so why? In not, why not? Please don’t duck the question and answer it seriously.

Let’s get it on Mr Xtreme

2

Intolerance is simply more than the defense of one's religion and tradition against defamation. No one wants to see people they respect and admire being laid to waste by other people who do not share the same respect.

Intolerance includes:

  • The inability to tolerate and accept other peoples beliefs. Not simply allow them to live in peace, but respect their traditions and beliefs
  • The inability to leave a religion once you're in. I have read several conflicting accounts of what Islams do with an apostate (kill him outright, kill him only if he makes his apostasy public, kill him only if he becomes a public nuisance, or let God take care of his sorry arse) - the overall impression, then, is not a positive one.
  • Inequality in a society based on that religion - Do non-Muslims enjoy the same rights as Muslims in Islamic countries?
  • How critical can academics be of a religion, while still showing respect? Hasn't Islam discouraged itjihad in the last Millenium?

If you can say that Islam defies that list, then Islam can be said to be tolerant. Otherwise, it can be said to be intolerant. Of course some people within Islam can be said to be intolerant by staying within the bounds of that list, but then, many people in many other traditions are equally intolerant.

The question is, what is the nature of the religion known as Islam, with its singular and final scripture known as the Quran, believe?

[This message has been edited by astrosfan (edited August 21, 2000).]

3

Astrofan,

Debating with a hindu is a waste of time as they can adopt different ideas according to their fancies and whims. I will answer your question in like manner that hindus did in the Hinduism v Islam thread;

So,

Is Islam tolerant? It is if you want it to be.

4

[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
**Astrofan,
So,

Is Islam tolerant? It is if you want it to be.**
[/quote]

So, Xtreme,

Do you want it to be?

[This message has been edited by astrosfan (edited August 21, 2000).]

5

Xtremely gratified to be not included in the debate Xtrem Bhai

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

Guru Baba Nanak being portrayed as a
child-molester<<
What is your definition of a child molester?
Anyway I think Sikhs are too civilized a community to react the same way Khomeini and his tribe reacted to Rushdie.

6

Is Islam tolerant? It is if you want it to be.

**So, Xtreme,

Do you want it to be?**

I do and I don’t, depending on the circumstances - which I may or may not reveal to you

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

Andhra;

Anyway I think Sikhs are too civilized a community to react the same way Khomeini and his tribe reacted to Rushdie.

How would you know? And how do we define civilised?

7

How would you know? And how do we define civilised?<<

I define civilised as not being convinced anybody who does not follow your religion is destined for hell, not try to convert other people to your religion by force or bribery or propaganda etc.,

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif

AS far as I have seen Sikhs eminently qualify for being called civilised people!

8

I define civilised as not being convinced anybody who does not follow your religion is destined for hell, not try to convert other people to your religion by force or bribery or propaganda etc.,

Thank you for your comments Andhra. By this definition then, a person who wrote a play, (hypothetically) about Baba Guru Nanak being sodomized would be civilised?

9

Now this is interesting. You laid down allegations of both caste and women oppression in Hindu India, yet all the Hindus on this board replied that none of them believe in caste or women oppression, and they remarked that there was an ongoing work to remove both from Indian culture. However, I asked you if you believed in tolerance in Islam, and you come back with this (admittedly humorous) wishy-washy answer.

You asked if protesting defamation constitutes intolerance. I said no. I then laid down some guidelines for what does constitute intolerance, and you, who constantly attacked the Hindus for not living up to their “scriptures”, do not wish to answer for your own.

Let me add another item to the list - protesting defamation is not intolerant. Issuing a fatwa for a man to be killed based on his expression of free speech - that is intolerant. Under free speech guidelines, a man has a right to disrepect the beliefs of another. In response, you have the right to protest his words, disagree with him, and not associate with him. However, by actually sentencing him to death, you have infringed upon his free speech rights. That is intolerant.

10

Those not able to differentiate between fact and fiction need to get a handle and hold it tight. Those who can should hold it loose.

I have always believed that it is much easier to twinkle the nose of the Pope than to challenge the vengeance of Ayatollahs, it takes more than plain courage. It requires finesse and industry. While it is true that outlaws of both departments are schooled by the faculty of lawlessness, it is equally true that they are separated by a moral chasm as vast as the difference in syllabi which divides BA candidates from those pursuing a BSc. Only someone from Lahore with an appreciation of smell, looks, bother, threat, or bad luck, is able to understand this antilogy.

11

i'll pick the ayotollah's over christian fundamenalists anyday anytime of the year.

i mean those were christian fundamentalists who taught the jews an unforgettable lesson during holocaust. some of the christian fundos here in US didnt hesitate for a second before lynching blacks and all of this happened in this century. Whats the worst ayotollahs have done..... kidnapped a few americans for a couple of days. Give me a break ny. my "sanded niger" friend as they would call u. u need to visit georgia, alabama and other states and meet the majority of pope worshipping Americans.

[This message has been edited by mundyaa (edited August 21, 2000).]

12

There is documented history of non muslims being safer in muslim lands than christian lands even during crusades. Dont go on what people are doing or how countries are acting because Islam is not being followed.

I wonder why the religeous indoctrination of the Nazis is never discussed by media. The topic of Pope's failure to condemn the atrocities is also fairly hush hush. What about the inquisition.

I think chritianity, judaism and Islam are very similar in intent due to the roots and there relationship to each other. The interpretation has been changed by people and the practice of religion but the essnece and underlying message is the same. Sikhism is probably close to due to its roots.

13

So Mundyaa, where is your point? In case you didn’t understand what I said, it is pretty much the same as you except it is said differently. You don’t appear to be someone from Lahore. You gota have decadence and fundamentalism to take the bright and bold steps. I was trying to uncover what people want to ignore about themselves. I failed miserably. Don’t throw me a stupid reply again. Do it only if you are a Lahoria.

14

Islam is a religion based on the human nature. And who knows more about human nature than the creator himself. Rather than hiding behind the facade of "tolerance" and "humanitarianism" etc. Islam puts its command in black and white and calls a spade a spade.
For evil deeds there is punishment. You steal and are caught red-handed you loose your hand. You steal again you loose your second hand. You kill someone in cold blood you get sentenced to death. You rape some innocent girl you get stoned to death. If these rules are practiced there will not be any social evils.
In contrast look at the justice system in the West. To quote a statistical example in US alone 49% of the rapists rape after serving their sentences. Without the fear of death sentence you loose all perspective of human life.
According to the christian belief, "If someone slaps you on the face turn your other cheek to him". Where have you seen it practiced? American and England are bombarding the hell out of Iraq and with the sanctions millions of innocent children are dying. Where is the Christian tolerance? Kashmir is a living example of genocide. Where are the scriptures of hindu non-violence.
US can nuke Japan and Germans can eradicate jews but Ayatollah cannot give a Fatwa against one low life scum who for the greed of a few thousand pounds can foul mouth a religion.
The teaching again is clear in Islam. If anyone degrades your religion then give him/her a befitting response. It is because of this very fact that the sanctity of Islam is still preserved, otherwise with the perverts of Hollywood and Bollywood Islam would have suffered the same fate as Chritianity.
Tolerance for other religions is taught in Islam but Islam expects others to tolerate it as well.

15

well said rational, and the likes of ny who are stuck in being a lahoria need to wakeup and smell whats cooking. where is the tolerance among jews and rabbis, when no one can be a jew unless he/she was born a jew? Similarly i cant see tolerance among followers of popes either… they still cant let go of racism based on color something Islam got rid of centuries ago. So today likes of chanmahi still cant understand why “blacks turn to Islam” and why hindu and sikh shoodars turn to other religions… well thats one good reason isnt it.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

16

Astrofan,

the day you can accuse me of giving a wishy washy reply to any of your questions I will believe that hindu religion didn't endorse the caste system. Anyway, let me refresh your memory:

=============================================

"If a man of one birth (Sudra) hurls cruel words at one of the twice-born, his tongue should be cut out, for he was born from the rear-end*. If he mentions their name or caste maliciously, *a red-hot iron nail ten-fingerslong should be thrust into his mouth. If he is so proud as to instruct priests about their duty, the king should have hot oil poured into his mouth and ears." -- Manusmrti 8:270-272.

=============================================

Now if you can refrain from giving me a wishy washy explanation to that piece of hindu literature then I will take your questions seriously.

Under free speech guidelines, a man has a right to disrepect the beliefs of another

So you agree that a person should have the right to make a play about Guru Baba Nanak being sodomized? (hypothetically). And maybe the Guru enjoying it?

And should Ayatollah's fatwah also fall under the free speech protection act?

17

Yes, well said Rational, here's something i picked up a while ago that reveals the concept of tolerance and free speech (in the 'west')....and its subsequent ironic qualities that make it a mockery.

Strange Logic

Untrue to your nation, your country
A Quisling you are
Hated and despised, a traitor
Must be hanged, not put behind the bar.

Subvert the constitution, break the law,
Insult the flag, felonious acts,
These are serious crimes
For which society its revenge exacts.

Revile a Jew, dishonour a gentile
Call a man a nigger, polak, kike or gook.
You will rightly be condemned
A racist insult no one should overlook;

But its all right to slander Jesus
Its permissible to malign Mohammad too.
Make an ugly film, write a dirty book
Discourage art and literature? Do you?

Aren't we blessed with freedom
To abuse the freedom of expression?
We had learnt freedom is not license.
In this case no, it's not a transgression!

Emotions defending the country we live in
Are signs of laudable patriotism
Protests defending Holy Books we live by
Proofs of fundamentalist fanatic dogmatism!

Is it not a strange and obtuse logic
That traitors to the country and the flag
Are punished, masked enemies of religions
Lionized, allowed their evil tongues to wag?

The First Amendment is important
It guarantees the right of free speech.
Let us protect it from becoming a plaything

Of men who every code of decency breach.

18

[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
** Astrofan,

the day you can accuse me of giving a wishy washy reply to any of your questions I will believe that hindu religion didn't endorse the caste system. Anyway, let me refresh your memory:

Now if you can refrain from giving me a wishy washy explanation to that piece of hindu literature then I will take your questions seriously.
**
[/quote]

Fine. I did, by saying that the Manusmrti was thrust upon Hindu India by the British as a way to dispense justice since they could not find a single point source of literature for the several different traditions they found when they went there. I said that the Manusmrti was not used by Hindus as a some widespread Law, like a sunnah, but that it was one of many different literatures that somehow survived, and became a focal point of western study of Hinduism because it so jarred the thinking of the western mind, forgetting the other voluminous amounts of literature also coming from Hinduism. I said that I do not believe in the caste system, that I and other Hindus fight it vehemently.

In this thread, I asked you what you thought of your feelings on whether Islam was tolerant or not, and I did not bring Hinduism into the picture at all - you did that. Why you must discuss your own topic with me by bringing up a completely separate issue is what I consider wishy-washy, and completely against the spirit of your discussion.

[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
**
So you agree that a person should have the right to make a play about Guru Baba Nanak being sodomized? (hypothetically). And maybe the Guru enjoying it?

And should Ayatollah's fatwah also fall under the free speech protection act?
**
[/quote]

I agree that a person has a right to make a play, in the name of art. I agree that I have a right to shun him, and that I have the right to gather friends to protest his play, and to shun him as a group. I disagree that I (or anyone) have the right to order his death - or even to shut him up, since that infringes on his free speech - because it creates an environment where speech no longer becomes free, and is limited by those who are in power (or those who wield it less judiciously than others).

Slander is a dangerous byproduct of free speech, so much so that it is illegal in most countries that profess free speech. Opinions, however, are free - if you can tell me that you have a basis for considering Guru Nanak a sodomite, then you can form an opinion. If you have no basis, then you have simply lost your right to be trusted again, and can rant away till time's end, with no one listening.

[This message has been edited by astrosfan (edited August 22, 2000).]

19

Astrofan,

I think it is clear from your writing that you believe it is quite ok for someone to write a play about Guru Nanak enjoying homosexual relations. Your view is not really all that relevant as you are not a sikh. BTW,. I think this is a valid question as Prophet Mohammed(SAW) was displayed in a vulgar light in Voltaire's play 'Dante's Inferno'. Thanks for your views anyway, but I am more interested in the views of tolerant sikhs.

BTW, you didn't answer my question whether Ayatollah's fatwah falls under the protection of free speech.

20

where the Ayatolla's fatwa is

[quote]

"I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death."
[/quote]

then, yes, I think I made it clear that this is wrong, since it is a call to suppress speech by death.

Now, as to the relevance of my not being Sikh - while you picked the example of Guru Nanak, you could have easily picked the example of Krishna. In Houston this year, a Muslim on Pakistani radio called Krishna a "playboy", a man who slept around with his 16000 wives, who had no druthers. This was widely decried by many Hindus here, but I passed it off as ignorant and hate-speak. The man who said this has a right to say what he wants, and if he wants to come across as a fool, so be it.