Islam allows raising arms in self-defence. What a great myth. History of South Asia, Indian sub continent… no one from this sub continent attacked the Arab or Muslim countries.
Muslim rulers attacked India starting from 10th century….every one of them was escorted by some Maullavi or Imam, carrying Quran in one hand and blessings for the cruel ruler in other hand.
Shall we discard the history and blindly accept the version of peaceful Islam?
no kallan we should get our history straight.. a lesson or two wouldn't hurt us..
Now come again.. do u think South Asia, or the Indian sub continent were conquered by some 'Maullavi' or imam carrying Qur'an in one hand?? Well that must be news to the opium sniffers harem keeping Mughals in their graves..
Re: Revealing Islam
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kallan: *
History of South Asia, Indian sub continent… no one from this sub continent attacked the Arab or Muslim countries.
[/QUOTE]
So are you saying that Raja Dahir of Sindh did not ally himself with the ruler of Marakan, a Persian province hostile to the Muslims? Are you denying that forces under Raja Dahir's protection raided Muslim and Arab merchant shipping off the Sindhi coast?
Also, as PA said, much of the conquest on India was done by Muslims acting out of interest in wordly gain (money, land and prestige), not religious righteousness.
Re: Re: Revealing Islam
Double post.
Re: Revealing Islam
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kallan: *
Islam allows raising arms in self-defence. What a great myth. History of South Asia, Indian sub continent… no one from this sub continent attacked the Arab or Muslim countries.
Muslim rulers attacked India starting from 10th century….every one of them was escorted by some Maullavi or Imam, carrying Quran in one hand and blessings for the cruel ruler in other hand.
Shall we discard the history and blindly accept the version of peaceful Islam?
[/QUOTE]
Does it have to do with Islam or Muslims? There is a difference.
Holocaust was not undertaken by a Muslim! Is it Christianity's fault? Obviously not.
I think we should understand religion by the original scriptures and doctrines, not by the (mis)behaviour of its adherents. There are good Muslims and bad Muslims as there are good Christians and bad Christians and good Jews and bad Jews. It is not religion's fault if its adherents misbehave.
Re: Re: Revealing Islam
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by oiqbal: *
There are good Muslims and bad Muslims as there are good Christians and bad Christians and good Jews and bad Jews. It is not religion's fault if its adherents misbehave.
[/QUOTE]
That's why it is a stretch to profess any religion as 'perfect'. If any of these religions were perfect, then surely after hundreds of years of practice things would be a little more perfect for its followers than what exists in the world today. Either the religions are imperfect or people's interpretations are incorrect (in which case points again to the imperfection of the religion if people can't interpret it correctly).
trouble with all religions is that they have to be 'interpreted' .. that's where there's a huge margin for human error.. or intentional misunderstandings.. on the whole most Religions are good.. but as we all know.. the devil is in the details..
Or there are some people who do not follow the limits prescribed on them. Religion provides a set of moral and ethical values, which its adherents may or may not practice.
Every single sole on the face of this earth belives in basic traits like justice and honesty, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Yet, many transgress the limits, not because they do not understand them well, because they excercise their option to not practice them.
This is human freedom - it is not religion's fault. Religion tells us what is right and what is wrong; it also provides us with a set of moral and ethical values amongst many other things, but if the adherents are not willing to accept them all, or they are being selective in their excercise, it is definitely not religion's fault.
If there is a loophole in that set of moral and ethical values, only then it should be criticized as religion's shortcoming. (And it often is, and then defended by those who believe in the system).