Forum
Filter     |   View Watchlist
[ Print Friendly ] [ Watch Thread ]

Templar895
Islam Discussion Thread(I did a quick search and couldn't find a thread.)

I'm not Islamic, nor do I claim to be an expert on one. But since this is one of the more controversial and hated religions in America, I figured it deserves a thread of its own.

Everything I know, and what should be known about Islam, can b...
#1  Posted 7 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 3 Cool
210 REPLIES Watch  |  Sort by Likes · Date
KWierso Sponsor
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8665977.stm
#181  Posted 4 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Spartan736
I have to admit, I laughed.
#182  Posted 4 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Chewey_Delt Homoerotic
In reply to KWierso, #181:

A bit of a tangent, but I actually do agree that they're a beautiful and melodic (if not, for me, spiritual) way to start the day. When I spent a couple days in Istanbul last summer I greatly enjoyed the morning call to prayer for its aural aesthetics.
#183  Posted 4 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
NaraVara Forum Mod
In reply to Chewey_Delt, #183:

One time in India, while exhausted, I tried to take a nap at my aunt's house in India. Right as I fell asleep the muezzin right outside the window starts chanting.

#184  Posted 4 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 4 Funny
moaka121
I'm Islamic, so I can answer any questions anyone might have.
#185  Posted 4 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
NaraVara Forum Mod
In reply to Chi_Mangetsu, #186:

I like how the "evidence" of Islamic ethics in warfare is always based on them being less dickish than the Crusaders.

As if that was a tough standard to beat. . .
#187  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Chi_Mangetsu EmEffin TRex
In reply to NaraVara, #187:

Yeah, well... it was kind of a big thing. Also see "borrowing" Islamic advances in science, math and technology led directly to the end of feudalism, beginning of capitalism, the renaissance, etc.
#188  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
NaraVara Forum Mod
In reply to Chi_Mangetsu, #188:

Most of those "Islamic" advances in science were things they plundered from the Greeks, Persians, and Indians previously. They just had the luxury of oppressing smarter people than the Gauls and Saxons Christendom got stuck with.
#189  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 1 Funny
Chi_Mangetsu EmEffin TRex
In reply to NaraVara, #189:

True, but they took Greek astrology, improved upon it and were masters of astronomy for hundreds of years, then there's the whole inventing Algebra thing...
#190  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Exodusv
In reply to Chi_Mangetsu, #190:
In reply to NaraVara, #189:

True, but they took Greek astrology, improved upon it and were masters of astronomy for hundreds of years, then there's the whole inventing Algebra thing...

Actually they took that from the Chinese.

EDIT: And the Babylonians.

Post edited 7/21/11 7:12AM
#191  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Chi_Mangetsu EmEffin TRex
In reply to Exodusv, #191:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_elementary_algebra#Islamic_algebra
There are three theories about the origins of Arabic Algebra. The first emphasizes Hindu influence, the second emphasizes Mesopotamian or Persian-Syriac influence and the third emphasizes Greek influence. Many scholars believe that it is the result of a combination of all three sources.[49]

...

R. Rashed and Angela Armstrong write:
"Al-Khwarizmi's text can be seen to be distinct not only from the Babylonian tablets, but also from Diophantus' Arithmetica. It no longer concerns a series of problems to be resolved, but an exposition which starts with primitive terms in which the combinations must give all possible prototypes for equations, which henceforward explicitly constitute the true object of study. On the other hand, the idea of an equation for its own sake appears from the beginning and, one could say, in a generic manner, insofar as it does not simply emerge in the course of solving a problem, but is specifically called on to define an infinite class of problems."[52]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_elementary_algebra#The_father_of_algebra
They also point to his treatment of an equation for its own sake and "in a generic manner, insofar as it does not simply emerge in the course of solving a problem, but is specifically called on to define an infinite class of problems."[52] Al-Khwarizmi's work established algebra as a mathematical discipline that is independent of geometry and arithmetic.[79]

In affect, he created Algebra as we know it, constructed piecemeal from other scholars before him like a mathematical Dr.Frankenstein.

Post edited 7/21/11 8:01AM
#192  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
NaraVara Forum Mod
In reply to Chi_Mangetsu, #192:
In reply to Exodusv, #191:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_elementary_algebra#Islamic_algebra

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_elementary_algebra#The_father_of_algebra

In affect, he created Algebra as we know it, constructed piecemeal from other scholars before him like a mathematical Dr.Frankenstein.
Well that's just silly. That's like saying Aristotle invented philosophy just because he went through obnoxious lengths to pedantically label and categorize everything.
#193  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Chi_Mangetsu EmEffin TRex
In reply to NaraVara, #193:

Because high levels of black bile mean you're a good leader.
#194  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Exodusv
In reply to Chi_Mangetsu, #192:



Just because Samuel Johnson created the first reliable english dictionary does not make him the "inventor" of English much in the way Al-Khwarizmi's compliation of other peoples existing work doesn't qualify him as the sole inventor of Algebra.
In affect, he created Algebra as we know it, constructed piecemeal from other scholars before him like a mathematical Dr.Frankenstein.


Post edited 7/22/11 12:11AM
#195  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Chi_Mangetsu EmEffin TRex
In reply to Exodusv, #195:

And half the shit Edison is credited as inventor of he fucking stole from other people. What's your point? It's what people use now that matters to history. Hell, a colleague of Darwin's had the same information--some might argue a broader spectrum of analysis--and was supposed to present before him, but gave it to Charles and ducked out to let Darwin take the accolades and the pies.
#196  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
SgtMag1
Currently reading the Qu'ran to better my knowledge of the culture.
#197  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Chi_Mangetsu EmEffin TRex
Interpreting Shariah Law Across The Centuries
#198  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Zarreon
It's my opinion, based on personal observations, that Islam in its current form exists almost exclusively to hamper progress and stall advancement. It acts as a barrier to knowledge and learning, whilst spreading needless hate and fear.

I'm well aware not every Muslim is a crazed extremist, just like I'm aware that not every Christian wants to kill every single gay. I just see things, and based on what I've seen, have come to the conclusion that Islam is in a very bad place. It doesn't help that it's almost fundementally built on principals of intolerance.
#199  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Chi_Mangetsu EmEffin TRex
In reply to Zarreon, #199:

You can't really judge an entire community based on it's loudest and most conservative and outrageous voices which is more or less all most of the American public know (or choose to acknowledge) of Islam, unfortunately.
#200  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Zarreon
In reply to Chi_Mangetsu, #200:

I know, I know. From what I've seen though, even the quietest Muslim still goes to great lengths to deny simple facts. Moreso than any other Christian I've seen. Still, I'm aware that not even this trait that I'm attributing to them covers everyone. To me though, it seems like a majority. An overwhelming, glaring, deplorable majority.
#201  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
AdvisoryQ44
Totally agree with Zarreon that Islam is in a bad shape. The extremist sects in Islam (not necessarily having any relationship with said religion) in it almost makes it look as if violence and tyranny is the signature of Islam. From experience, any violence/explosion/riot nearby always has following "Was it a Muslim?" or worse, "Definitely a Muslim", reaction.

Can't blame people for seeing them that way. Human nature has the tendency to want to see Heroes versus Villains... And in this case, Islam (or rather the extremists) are the latter.
#202  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Wolfoo
As I read and read more on the comments people have been posting.. Most of the attention I'm seeing about Islam is mostly coming from the Radical and Extremist sects portrayed in our current media, it's good to understand that some people believe that these sects are not portraying all of the 1 billion plus Muslims in the world.

I for one am one that grew up and lived practically all my life in an Islamic country which is very tolerant of other religions and cultures, which is what Islam was like more than a 1000 years ago.
#203  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
NaraVara Forum Mod
In reply to Wolfoo, #203:
As I read and read more on the comments people have been posting.. Most of the attention I'm seeing about Islam is mostly coming from the Radical and Extremist sects portrayed in our current media, it's good to understand that some people believe that these sects are not portraying all of the 1 billion plus Muslims in the world.

I for one am one that grew up and lived practically all my life in an Islamic country which is very tolerant of other religions and cultures, which is what Islam was like more than a 1000 years ago.
Islam was raping and pillaging its way through Central and South Asia 1,000 years ago, selling non-Muslims into slavery in Arab slave markets, demolishing temples and universities and libraries, forbidding the celebration of non-Muslim holidays and imposing punitive taxes on Non-Muslims. They also had the wonderful custom of abducting young boys as prisoners to work as sex slaves.
Buddhism in India and Zoroastrianism in Persia were actually eradicated during this time. The few Zoroastrians alive today are mostly descended from the small handfuls of refugees who took shelter under the protection of Hindu kings in India as their countries were being demolished and their relatives put to the sword or forcibly converted. Hinduism survived only because various Hindu princes were too powerful to be worth going to war with, so when they bent the knee in submission the invaders didn't want to risk further fighting by insisting on conversion.

Accounts of Islam being humane in conquest only make sense when compared to the Mongols (who later became Muslims themselves) and the Crusaders. Which is a bit like saying that a pit viper is less poisonous than a water moccasin. Sure, it's technically right but nobody in their right mind should want to fuck with either one.

The vast majority of the Muslim world saw Islam spread by the sword. Many of these societies still bear the scars of those conquests. The only places where it has actually not been quite so barbaric was in SouthEast Asia and that was mostly because the locals there adopted Islamic practices from traders in addition to their own religions. So they weren't really converted so much as slowly assimilated. But, of course, what they were practicing in the past would be called heterodoxy today and would have seen them stoned to death if they were anywhere else in the Muslim world.

Yeah you shouldn't judge individuals by the actions of the group or what happened in the past. But let's not engage in revisionist history to try and say Islam has been tolerant of other some religions and cultures. It was an imperialist religion and any pretensions of cosmopolitanism it entertained were solely for the purposes of maintaining order in their realms. If they could plausibly convert you without triggering a rebellion (which happened quite often in Persia and India) they would. Yes there were even liberal intellectuals at the time who argued against what was going on and people like to cite them as exemplars. That's all well and good and if Muslims want to adopt their Islam so much the better. But they were not representative of their times any more than Bartolomeo de las Casas should be considered evidence that the Christianization of the Indians in the Americas was anything but brutal and barbaric.

Post edited 8/21/12 10:41AM
#204  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 3 Cool
Wolfoo
In reply to NaraVara, #204:

I won't deny anything you said on the subject but it all comes down to the fact that "Empires are build on blood" throughout history. The Fact being that Islam has changed from a religious ideology into an Imperialist Ideology after the death of the Prophet Mohammed. It all comes down to the words of the Qur'an in that it teaches Muslims to spread "The word and the belief in one God" with Muslims at the time thinking that the only means to spread this message is through a form of Imperialism, with the fact that at the time they had the Byzantium Empire and the Sassanid empire (I had to look that one up because I was unsure of which Dynasty was at power at the time) to contend with and are unwilling to accept them willingly even after a few peaceful attempts and meeting aggression from them (these sources are from Traditional learnings, since most historical accounts come years after.) Also the fact that Islam teaches that oppression of any kind mainly of the weak and poor from the rich and strong is against the wishes of God and that providing assistance is required, this belief is how Early Islam in Arabia started and why the Muslims attacked the Byzantiums for oppressing the Christians and Jews in the Empire.

The Topic on Taxation of non-Muslims in the Islamic Empire was a method in which to pressure them into converting non-Muslims to Islam without forcing them. This I personally don't agree with but as i research more on this topic I read that this form of Taxation didn't apply to Muslims giving the assumption that Muslims were not taxed at all I truly find this hard to believe anyway seeing as the majority were muslims and the fact that every Muslim are obligated to paying Zakat (A form of Taxation of their total Wealth to be paid to the poor and needy). I also read that this form taxation came from the Haditiths. Haditiths weren't always from Mohammed himself (Where most people think so) so Muslims throughout Islams History always debated on the fact if these Haditiths were true or not with even some taking the most extremes believing them to be true and practicing them. This debating as well as the issues of teaches of the Qur'an primary lend to scholars to study them and lend them to the use of a method which was the beginnings of the 'Scientific Method' in which to advance in science since Islam teaches us that we have to acquire knowledge and prove it since the arabic word 'ilm' for 'knowledge' appears the second most of any other word in the Qur'an. Also the fact that most of these ancient scientists were non-muslims and non-arabs.

I feel like I'm going off topic now but in summary there will always be people who try anything in their power to benefit themselves even if it's considered evil throughout any religion or civilization, it's in Human nature.
#205  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
NaraVara Forum Mod
In reply to Wolfoo, #205:
it all comes down to the fact that "Empires are build on blood" throughout history
This excuses nothing and there is a difference between killing people standing in your way and committing cultural genocide. Numerous conquerors took over civilizations and assimilated themselves into the local culture rather than taking explicit long-term steps towards eradicating everyone who doesn't think and act like them. This had actually been the norm throughout ancient history. Conquest is a bloody business and we'd be better off if people didn't feel the need to engage in it, but even then there are scales of atrocity.
Early Islam in Arabia started and why the Muslims attacked the Byzantiums for oppressing the Christians and Jews in the Empire.
This is hogwash. Muslims attacked the Byzantines because the Byzantines were rich and they controlled the primary overland trade-route from Asia into Europe. Moreover, the Byzantines were Christian themselves so how are you going to say they were oppressing the Christians?
The Topic on Taxation of non-Muslims in the Islamic Empire was a method in which to pressure them into converting non-Muslims to Islam without forcing them.
Coercion is coercion man. And I'm not sure how you think "convert or starve to death" isn't forcing someone. The Jizya was not a progressive taxation scheme. They just went to the village elder and said "You have X non-Muslims living here. That means you owe us Y amount of money." Who do you think that burden is going to end up falling most heavily on? The people collecting the taxes or the dispossessed who can't do anything about it?
Haditiths weren't always from Mohammed himself (Where most people think so) so Muslims throughout Islams History always debated on the fact if these Haditiths were true or not with even some taking the most extremes believing them to be true and practicing them.
Nobody cares about the whys and the rationales. These are excuses. At the end of the day it is actions and their consequences that define us, and Islam does not have a track record of coexisting peacefully with other religions.
Yes, there is theoretical precedent for Islam to adopt a peaceful, more tolerant way but this has historically not been the path it has taken. Every time a ruler has tried they were brutally deposed. It's important to acknowledge these fact of history if we expect to learn from them. Whitewashing a gruesome past is not the way towards reform.

Post edited 8/22/12 9:20AM
#206  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Wolfoo
In reply to NaraVara, #206:

Speaking of the Muslims invading the Byzantines you have to know that their were different sects of Christianity in the Region yes the Byzantines themselves were christians from a different sect from want I know could be Orthodox Christianity maybe from the Catholic Church i'm unsure you have to clarify this for me, and these smaller sect(s) which primarily consist of tribes of Arab Christians, Arab Jews and other Jews whom were heavily taxed and oppressed by this Empire and even considered heretics to them. The Muslims at the time seeing this as injustice since they have experienced such oppression and could relate to it. I would like to add that Byzantium was a huge threat, as well as the Persians, to them since they couldn't sit in hopes to expand peacefully otherwise they would be endangered of being wiped out since the Byzantines themselves were massing their armies to attack the Islamic state.
From what I've read your saying that the conquest was primarily a strategic attempt for controlling a vital trade route. This logically is true but I have failed to have read any sources dealing with this, meaning if you have any sources please let me know so i could read up on it.
After the conquests of such areas the majority of the population didn't convert to Islam, it actually took quite sometime (hundreds of years) before the majority were Muslims from the many sources I've read, you also have to know that Muslims could only fight and kill if the person is the first to attack and cause injustice to the people and would stop if they stopped (this won't apply to all I would agree but this is what Muslims are taught by the Qur'an and certain Hadiths)

About Jizya yes it was a heavy burden on non-Muslims but really from what I know and read from many sources (not just from Muslims) that they weren't as heavy as the Muslims taxation of Zakat which had to be given to the poor (given to non Muslims as well) you haven't mentioned this into in your argument. You also have to realize that payment of any form of tax was a form in which you accepted the Authority and Protection of a Government otherwise you would be exiled from the state or imprisoned, this applies today as well, you play taxes to an Authority for the services and protection they give.



#207  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Chi_Mangetsu EmEffin TRex
In reply to Wolfoo, #207:

Yes, they can only attack if provoked... or if some excuse exists to claim provocation as long as a warning is issued or if your opponent is deemed and infidel and traitor to the Muslim cause in which they absolutely must be dealt with via the jihad of the sword and you shall declare a fatwah against them and all their kin. But other than that...
#208  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Chi_Mangetsu EmEffin TRex
#210  Posted 1 year ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
[ Previous ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] ... [ 6 ] [ 7 ]
Please sign in or sign up to post a comment.